This would be President refers us to the common,yet complex, subtle ways in which one has to embrace love for it to be efficacious—he sells it as a mystery, an ability, a knack,
like good tennis, good poetry, good philosophy,
He points put that our past failures to embrace his all healing 'luv' has been a sort of folly
indeed there has been short-circuit of two different regimes of enunciation (ours and his) colliding with one another. The confusion between the two mysteries is what makes the voice of Spartacus quiver when he evokes the all healing balm of 'love' as if only he knew of the encrypted messages of 'love' and he has to decode it for us through the use of some special and esoteric grid only initiates like him know how to use
But there is nothing hidden, nothing encrypted, nothing esoteric, nothing odd in this pseudo we must 'love' talk,. Spartacus makes it out as if it might save those who utter it.
To confuse talk that transforms messengers with talk that transports messages—cryptic or not—is not a proof of rationality, it is simply an idiocy doubled by an impiety.
It is as idiotic as if a lover, asked to repeat whether she loves her partner or not, simply pushed the “play” button of a tape recorder to prove that five years ago she had indeed said “I love you, darling.” It might prove something, but certainly not that she has renewed her pledge to love presently—it is a valid proof, to be sure, a proof that she is an absentminded and probably lunatic woman
It is amazing that most speakers, when they want to show generosity toward love, they have to couch it in terms of its necessary irrationality, i.e you have to follow the road less travelled of Spartacus who will explain away, not by highlighting the brain loci and the survival value of some of its most barbarous oddities.of 'luv' bu by giving purely naturalistic accounts so as you the listener
will accommodate his sort of hypocritical tolerance that ghettoizes if you disagree with his form of love nonsense as if he Spartacus ha specialized in transcendence and “feel good” inner sentiment and the deep and charming “supplement of soul” provided by quaint religious feelings
Yes follow Booker and he will lead you
through the concatenations of layered meanings of 'love' those long referential chains to which only he has the key,
Yes Spartacus leads us to the love garden that immutable mobile of 'love'
Don't you just love Politicians and their pathological ambitions?
He points put that our past failures to embrace his all healing 'luv' has been a sort of folly
indeed there has been short-circuit of two different regimes of enunciation (ours and his) colliding with one another. The confusion between the two mysteries is what makes the voice of Spartacus quiver when he evokes the all healing balm of 'love' as if only he knew of the encrypted messages of 'love' and he has to decode it for us through the use of some special and esoteric grid only initiates like him know how to use
But there is nothing hidden, nothing encrypted, nothing esoteric, nothing odd in this pseudo we must 'love' talk,. Spartacus makes it out as if it might save those who utter it.
To confuse talk that transforms messengers with talk that transports messages—cryptic or not—is not a proof of rationality, it is simply an idiocy doubled by an impiety.
It is as idiotic as if a lover, asked to repeat whether she loves her partner or not, simply pushed the “play” button of a tape recorder to prove that five years ago she had indeed said “I love you, darling.” It might prove something, but certainly not that she has renewed her pledge to love presently—it is a valid proof, to be sure, a proof that she is an absentminded and probably lunatic woman
It is amazing that most speakers, when they want to show generosity toward love, they have to couch it in terms of its necessary irrationality, i.e you have to follow the road less travelled of Spartacus who will explain away, not by highlighting the brain loci and the survival value of some of its most barbarous oddities.of 'luv' bu by giving purely naturalistic accounts so as you the listener
will accommodate his sort of hypocritical tolerance that ghettoizes if you disagree with his form of love nonsense as if he Spartacus ha specialized in transcendence and “feel good” inner sentiment and the deep and charming “supplement of soul” provided by quaint religious feelings
Yes follow Booker and he will lead you
through the concatenations of layered meanings of 'love' those long referential chains to which only he has the key,
Yes Spartacus leads us to the love garden that immutable mobile of 'love'
Don't you just love Politicians and their pathological ambitions?
No comments:
Post a Comment