MovieChat Forums > ZeroDarkDirty > Replies
ZeroDarkDirty's Replies
With this id it is out of control [url]https://moviechat.org/user/58adfaedb6c51400115b08c4[/url] Look at it harassing everyone. JUST BAN THIS TURD OF A TROLL. LESBIAN WITCH.
[url]http://imdb2.freeforums.net/[/url] he/she owns this shithole
What did i say about stalkers? What if this Ben person is deliberately posting my threads there to confuse you?
Ignored for stalking.
No one reads that board
Interestingly, Christ is not God's only son:
When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
— Genesis 6:1-4
Sons of God (Heb: bənê hāʼĕlōhîm, בני האלהים) is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kaballah where Bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies
On Imdbarchive.com you can hide your posting history from other users. Jim should do it here.
[url]https://quran.com/55[/url]
The Most Merciful
Created man,
[And] taught him eloquence.
The sun and the moon [move] by precise calculation,
And the stars and trees prostrate.
And the heaven He raised and imposed the balance
That you not transgress within the balance.
And establish weight in justice and do not make deficient the balance.
And the earth He laid [out] for the creatures.
So which of the favors of your Lord would you deny?
Check your fb
Metaphysics: what is, is
Epistemology: reason and logic
Ethics: egoism
Politics: minarchist
Aesthetics: things Ayn likes are good
However, this idea that people used to think that creativity flowed completely free of any surrounding context or influence is a strawman of former notions of creativity. Nobody ever claimed that creativity didn't happen within (or depart from) some degree of influence. But Barthes is wrong to put all of the weight on that said influence / context.
It's this overemphasis on the social that leads to that postmodern mentality that soon starts to see only things in terms of reference or relationality. Critics who do this can only critique in terms of references: "this is JUST this combined with this combined with this."
This view is a kind of poststructuralist, relational reductionism that (I think intentionally) overlooks the distinctness and thingness / thing-in-itselfness of new works, and very real fact of mutation, and tries to reduce things to the social.
And as for the question of authorship shifting to the reader/ viewer… this is again placed too much on one side. It ignores the reality of the object as itself and its own affordances, and it also ignores that yes, the author or artist does play a part too and it was in fact their talent / genius through which that object synthesized and coagulated into itself, questions of 'meaning' aside (I think getting too much into single questions of meaning and textuality is the problem here, Barthes, like so many writers, places too much primacy in textuality).
That poststructuralist idea of all 'reality' only being made up of textual/relational constructions made by the subject is profoundly limited and anyone clinging to that stupid dead-end notion is irrelevant at this point.
American Gods - Neil Gaiman
Epigraph
One question that has always intrigued me is what happens to demonic beings when immigrants move from their homelands. Irish-Americans remember the fairies, Norwegian-Americans the nisser, Greek-Americans the vrykólakas, but only in relation to events remembered in the Old Country. When I once asked why such demons are not seen in America, my informants giggled confusedly and said “They’re scared to pass the ocean, it’s too far,” pointing out that Christ and the apostles never came to America.
—Richard Dorson, “A Theory for American Folklore,”
American Folklore and the Historian
(University of Chicago Press, 1971)
Not here to start an argument.
You missed the punchline - the reason why i posted this