The NYT ought to revolve around considerations of 'liveliness, integrity, maturity, and talent. ; But history show Franco. Mussolini and a myriad of Dictatores were 'livlely' souls by necessity and the millions of thier followers obviousl belied they had , integrity, maturity, and talent. In regard to your new colleague her tweets are not mature but adolescent.
When ideology becomes the litmus test, we’re on the road to Pravda, be assured you are not on the road to Pravda even if you some people accuse you of liking arms with that organ from time to partisan time, most unfair in my view. . Then you drop in 'ideology' with heavy import on that word as the litmus test.
The term 'ideology' requires a little more exposition than a one word depth charge. For ideology designates a system of representations that offer the subject an imaginary, compelling, sense of reality in which crucial contradictions of self and social order appear resolved. On that account there is ideology aplenty in your argument. Further Ideology is imaginary not because it is in any sense unreal, but because it gives the subject an image that satisfies an unconscious need for coherence.
So your reader reads your stout defence (aux barricades citoyens of the left) of your new colleague. The reader reflects because it is a well written piece, your reader ponders, well I was a a bit worried s/he thinks regarding this prickly affair, it was testing my leftist credentials. But now I have coherence, ergo your ideology has worked.
As I say this is a well written piece but under the paving stones there is not grass and
under the fine words it conveys a saloon bar finality that black is white.
No comments:
Post a Comment