Wednesday, October 17, 2001
JOHO - August 15, 2001 Content is so Enlightenment, dude! Then you pick on a trivial word that shows through a series of puns (excuse, me semantic archaeology) that the writer has been blinded by his own language, reinforcing whatever patriarchal, sexual oppression you choose to attribute to him. For example, Werbach's use of "mining" betrays that he is "mine-ing" (possessing, capitalism) the underground explosives (mining) that are hidden by their own hiddenness until they rapidly deconstruct whatever has the misfortune of tripping (a rapid exposure of the nihil (pluribus) of the unum and an hallucinogenic delusion, de-lude, de-play) them. Werbach is clearly "mining" his own business (private self self-referentially or self-reverentially defining itself by its own otherness) when he "minds" (mines) what is known (no one) to no one (known) and what no one (gnome, Gnostic) knows (no's, negates, B. Gates, billingsgate, nonsense, non-scents, bodily excrescence known gnomically only through the non-sense of knowing garden gnome). In short, Werbach's own sexual knowing is mined (mind, mynah) and, therefore, we are led ineluctably (luce, light, lux, deluxe, bourgeois) to the conclusion (conk loose shun, words of release and bondage) that Werbach is an acid-head pomosexual who wants to have sex with mynahs and � the real point of POMO criticism � I am smarter than he. QED.
at 8:55 am