/lit/ - Literature

>>1769164

the problem with this is that what i do for a living directly relates to the conversation. i'm sick and tired of being accused of dropping impressive facts about myself every time i talk about what i do for a living. it's not my fault or my responsibility if people are impressed, or irritated, or whatever.

i was simply making the point that my thinking is probably distorted, but not for the reasons this person said.

and i don't want to derail this thread, so we should probably stop talking about this.

>>1769155

bingo.

>>1769141

i didn't say it was common. i don't have a good sense of how common it is. it has to do with the fact that i live in los angeles and work in the entertainment industry, more than it has to do with how much time i spend online. though i spend a lot, for work.

i think these questions mark an inexperience at relating to sex workers as people. that's all.

>>1769099
>>1769097

ITT: people who have no friends that are sex workers.

>>1768564
>>1768564
>>1768564

deeeeep maaaaan

then i really AM in love with you

(i meant:)
>>1768543
>>1768556

>>1768556
>>1768555

if you're samefagging, i'm in love with you.

>>1768549

or it's just another kind of creation

>>1768535
>>1768531

how about the process of accessing dasein is a continual attempt at reinterpretation along the trajectory of the attempted real

>>1768519

let me rephrase: it may not yield particularly rich fruit to rational analysis because rationality may not have been a component in the "purpose" spoken of in the quote i was responding to. often, creative processes happen in the absence of rational thought, and rational criticism of these processes is mere autopsy.

>>1768513

sweet thnx. sounds really good.

>>1768499

the purpose, though, may not be denotative, logical, or subject to rational analysis.

>>1768452
>>1768452
>>1768452

bravo sir

>>1768475
>>1768475

haven't read it. sounds like i should. and yeah, i think people learn a lot from these boards, despite their reputation.

>>1768439

no, because

>>1768434

(second section)

>>1768422
>>1768422

no, i'm not.

intentional fallacy.

>>1768408

if they're doing that you need a new fucking teacher.

>>1768418

i know right. except that the author is inextricable from the text. i'm a little disappointed in modern theory's reluctance to go there-- just because the information is temporally or intersubjectively inaccessible doesn't mean there is no information. forces are at work that they don't understand.

this is especially problematic with modern celebrities and musicians, like Gaga, where the "personality" or "person" is a component in the work. what about performance art? etc.

>>1768380

sorry, i'll clarify.

"describe yourself"

>>1768364
>>1768364
>>1768364

you come up with new ways to think about the world that may influence your actions and shape reality.

oops, was that rhetorical?

>>1768354

yeah god forbid anybody learn anything here

>>1768348

speak for yourself

>>1768323
>>1768323
>>1768323

symbolic possibilities and social, cultural, political, and psychological implications of a text are exploded and explored apart from the author's intentions. the process or impetus of the work's creation is consciously avoided or it's, at most, an afterthought.

this is, of course, smoke and mirrors, in my opinion. author and work and audience are components in a unified system (see my name). but don't tell them that.

>>1768306
>>1768306
>>1768306

but: that doesn't mean it has no value. the multivariate paths of possible interpretation open the mind to the fact that the way you process reality is flexible, and that each sensory impression can lead to an infinite symbolic web, a la william blake ("the infinite in every thing"). this is important creative realization.

i got into lit crit because i wanted to understand better how and why art is made.

then i realized that lit crit has nothing to do with those things.

i was rather disappointed.

>>1768276
>>1768276
>>1768276

bingo babycakes