postmodern gibberish essay generator

Communications From Elsewhere

Home of RJL20

The Meaninglessness of Narrative: The modernist paradigm of context in the works of Pynchon

E. catherine hamburger department of sociology, cambridge university, 1. narratives of genre.

If one examines the modernist paradigm of context, one is faced with a choice: either accept postcapitalist feminism or conclude that consciousness serves to reinforce capitalism, given that reality is interchangeable with language. Abian [1] implies that the works of Pynchon are empowering. However, the main theme of the works of Pynchon is a predialectic whole.

“Narrativity is part of the fatal flaw of reality,” says Marx. Baudrillard uses the term ‘textual desituationism’ to denote the role of the artist as observer. It could be said that the primary theme of Buxton’s [2] model of the modernist paradigm of context is the futility, and eventually the absurdity, of neomaterial class.

A number of constructions concerning a mythopoetical reality may be discovered. However, Sontag suggests the use of Lacanist obscurity to attack and read society.

In Vineland , Pynchon deconstructs cultural discourse; in The Crying of Lot 49 , although, he denies postcapitalist feminism. But the subject is interpolated into a modernist paradigm of context that includes truth as a paradox.

If Lyotardist narrative holds, the works of Pynchon are an example of self-fulfilling Marxism. Thus, von Junz [3] suggests that we have to choose between the modernist paradigm of context and cultural postcapitalist theory.

2. The material paradigm of consensus and Foucaultist power relations

The characteristic theme of the works of Pynchon is the role of the writer as reader. The subject is contextualised into a Foucaultist power relations that includes language as a totality. But the primary theme of la Fournier’s [4] essay on postdialectic nihilism is a mythopoetical paradox.

“Truth is a legal fiction,” says Marx; however, according to Cameron [5] , it is not so much truth that is a legal fiction, but rather the defining characteristic, and subsequent fatal flaw, of truth. The subject is interpolated into a Foucaultist power relations that includes narrativity as a whole. Thus, if cultural narrative holds, we have to choose between Foucaultist power relations and subcapitalist socialism.

The paradigm of the structural paradigm of discourse intrinsic to Spelling’s Robin’s Hoods is also evident in Models, Inc. , although in a more neotextual sense. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a Lacanist obscurity that includes consciousness as a totality.

Any number of theories concerning Sontagist camp exist. Thus, Sartre promotes the use of Foucaultist power relations to challenge archaic, elitist perceptions of society.

Bataille’s analysis of Lacanist obscurity states that truth has objective value. However, the characteristic theme of the works of Spelling is the role of the writer as poet.

3. Expressions of meaninglessness

If one examines the dialectic paradigm of narrative, one is faced with a choice: either reject the modernist paradigm of context or conclude that expression is a product of the masses, but only if Lacanist obscurity is valid; if that is not the case, we can assume that class, paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning. Sartre suggests the use of the modernist paradigm of context to modify language. But Foucault uses the term ‘Lacanist obscurity’ to denote a self-referential paradox.

In the works of Spelling, a predominant concept is the distinction between masculine and feminine. In Melrose Place , Spelling reiterates Foucaultist power relations; in Charmed , however, he analyses subtextual discourse. However, the subject is interpolated into a modernist paradigm of context that includes reality as a reality.

Debord uses the term ‘Lacanist obscurity’ to denote the absurdity, and subsequent collapse, of capitalist sexual identity. Thus, the premise of predialectic construction holds that consciousness may be used to oppress the underprivileged.

The closing/opening distinction which is a central theme of Spelling’s Models, Inc. emerges again in Charmed . In a sense, Marx uses the term ‘the modernist paradigm of context’ to denote a mythopoetical totality.

Humphrey [6] implies that we have to choose between Lacanist obscurity and cultural Marxism. But the subject is contextualised into a Foucaultist power relations that includes sexuality as a whole.

Derrida’s critique of Lacanist obscurity suggests that the significance of the reader is social comment. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a Foucaultist power relations that includes truth as a totality.

1. Abian, O. B. (1991) Lacanist obscurity and the modernist paradigm of context. University of California Press

2. Buxton, Y. Z. K. ed. (1986) Reading Sartre: Marxist class, feminism and Lacanist obscurity. University of Oregon Press

3. von Junz, Y. O. (1972) The modernist paradigm of context and Lacanist obscurity. O’Reilly & Associates

4. la Fournier, Z. ed. (1996) Reassessing Realism: Lacanist obscurity, subdialectic deconstructive theory and feminism. Schlangekraft

5. Cameron, Q. F. Z. (1984) Lacanist obscurity in the works of Spelling. O’Reilly & Associates

6. Humphrey, O. C. ed. (1971) The Dialectic of Consensus: Lacanist obscurity in the works of McLaren. Loompanics

The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link . If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.

The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine , a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).

This installation of the Generator has delivered 42,210,348 essays since 25/Feb/2000 18:43:09 PST, when it became operational.

More detailed technical information may be found in Monash University Department of Computer Science Technical Report 96/264: “ On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks “ . from Monash University. -->

More generated texts are linked to from the sidebar to the right.

If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair , where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliant(ly meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism publication.

What is Gibberish?

The gibberish (nonsense text) presented here is generated by a remarkably simple computer program. Given some sample text, say Shakespeare, as input, the computer generates output which is random, but which has the same statistical distribution of characters or combinations of characters. (A character may be a letter, a digit, a space, a punctuation mark, etc.)

• Level 1 gibberish: The output has the same distribution of single characters as the input. For example, the probability of seeing a character like "e" or "z" or "." will be approximately the same in the output as in the input.
• Level 2 gibberish: The output has the same distribution of character pairs as the input. For example, the probability of seeing a pair like "th" or "te" or "t." will be approximately the same in the output as in the input.
• Level n gibberish: The output has the same distribution of groups of n characters ( n -tuples) as the input.

The algorithm is a letter-based Markov text generator. Level n gibberish is a Markov chain of order n-1.

It is amazing how well this simple algorithm works, even for very low level numbers. For example, at level 2, you can easily recognize different languages. At level 3 you can recognize the styles of different authors.

For even more fun, the gibberish generator can easily blend two different languages or two different authors. If the input is simply the text from author A followed by the text from author B, the output will be a smooth blend of the two.

To see some samples of plain and blended gibberish, go to Gibberish Samples .

To generate your own gibberish, go to Gibberish Generator

You can see my source code in GibGen.htm and GibGen.js (JavaScript). My implementation of the algorithm is simple (and inefficient). To generate level n gibberish do the following. Initially, pick a random string of n characters from the input text and copy it to the output. Now start looping. Repeat the following steps. Set the target string to be last n-1 characters written. Find all the occurrences of the target string in the input text. Randomly select one of these matching positions. Starting at this position in the input, get the next character following the target string. Copy this character to the output text. Repeat.

A final thought: Is the human brain simply a level 100 gibberish generator?

References: Program named Mark V. Shaney (pun on Markov Chain) by Bruce Ellis, Rob Pike, and Don P. Mitchell, publicized in the June, 1989, Scientific American "Computer Recreations" column titled "A potpourri of programmed prose and prosody" by A. K. Dewdney.

Postmodernism as Gibberish

• 15 September AD 2013

After 31 years at the bar I believe I am an expert on gibberish, being in a profession which takes great pride in being able to take relatively simple concepts and present them in an arcane gibberish which almost no one would read or write if they were not being paid to do so.  However, I think the postmodernists have us beat, judging from this post by Oregon Muse at Ace of Spades :

Last week in the comments, Pave Low John proffered this craptacular sentence from a post-modern book he is required to read:

“This three-part phallogocentric negation and sublation of history can be grasped easily. Yet even such a sublation, of history as timing through the mediation of law–the vanishing moment of sequential human temporality into a catachresis named Time, is not the final hortatory instrument of the text.”

Yeesh. My spell-checker just had a nervous breakdown. Into this grotesquely viscous, near-inpenetrable morass of verbal diarrhea waded FenelonSpoke, after first donning a hazmat suit. She miraculously survived and brought back the following as a translation:

The way the penis (men) has/have kept women subjugated and silent by unjust laws is both very bad and very apparent, and this theme transcends history as it is portioned off into neat linear, sequential segments.

The question is, if that’s what she meant, then why didn’t she say it that way to begin with? My theory is that postmodern obfuscation is a device used by incompetent authors to disguise their dreadful writing. My other theory is that the academic disciplines that have been ruined by postmodernism (i.e. the “soft” “sciences”) have gotten all puffed up and full of themselves and think that they’re somehow Serious You Guys Legitimate if they produce reams of text couched in indecipherable jargon just like, for example, those geeky guys over in the math building, what with all their fancy-ass equations with squiggly lines, Greek letters and stuff that look so awesome because we don’t know what they’re saying. So you shouldn’t be able to read our stuff, either, but you can take our word for it, it’s Totally Super Cool.

But see, here’s the difference: the postmodernists got punk’d real bad back in 1996 by physicist Alan Sokal.   He submitted his essay Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity to the peer-reviewed postmodernist journal Social Text, and they printed it. But hilarity ensued when Sokal admitted in another publication that it was a giant load of horse doots. As a hoax, he just strung together a bunch of gibberish using postmodernist lingo, and they bought it. But you couldn’t do this to a math journal ( although I suppose you could try ). They’d fact-check your butt back to square one and send you packing if you pulled something like Sokal did. As difficult as it can be, mathematics does make sense. I’m not sure that post-modernism does.

You morons might enjoy reading Chip Morningstar’s famous essay How To Deconstruct Almost Anything: My Postmodern Adventure , written in 1993 at the dawn of the internets. The gist of this piece is that the reason pomo analysis sounds like crap is that most of it is crap and this is because pomo crap is generated by pomo crap academics who’ve never had to talk to anyone other than other pomo crap academics, so they’ve developed this inbred little pomo crap language that’s all but unintelligible to anyone outside the pomo crap academic community. Actually, Morningstar’s phrasing was a lot more congenial than mine, but you get the idea. And he does say sometimes the pomo academics ask a worthwhile question, or try to get you to look at something in a way you perhaps wouldn’t have thought of yourself, so he doesn’t write them off completely. Like I just did.

And every time you reload this page , you get a new, randomly-generated postmodern essay.

Go here to read the rest.  The post modern essay generator is a hoot!  Go here to see a sample.  This brings to mind an episode in the first volume of Asimov’s Foundation trilogy, where a treaty of alliance is negotiated.  The treaty is lengthy and filled with very baroque verbiage.  One of the characters does a painstaking analysis of the treaty and learns that it means nothing, neither party to the treaty ultimately agreeing to do anything.   Shakespeare’s phrase, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, came to my mind as I read that passage as a teen-ager.  In regard to post-modernism I think much the same could be said.

• Share on Tumblr

Donald R. McClarey

Obviously it’s not just those whole label themselves postmodernist who speak in ridiculous lofty terms to feign intellectual superiority. Chesterton captured the mentality – and those who are drawn to it – in what I would consider the best part of The Man Who Was Thursday (1908). Hilarious stuff, IMO. 🙂

A man assumed the identity of a famous professor. Here’s part of his explanation of what happened when he and the real professor encountered each other:

“I need hardly say there was a collision. The pessimists all round me looked anxiously from one Professor to the other Professor to see which was really the more feeble. But I won. An old man in poor health, like my rival, could not be expected to be so impressively feeble as a young actor in the prime of life. You see, he really had paralysis, and working within this definite limitation, he couldn’t be so jolly paralytic as I was. Then he tried to blast my claims intellectually. I countered that by a very simple dodge. Whenever he said something that nobody but he could understand, I replied with something which I could not even understand myself. ‘I don’t fancy,’ he said, ‘that you could have worked out the principle that evolution is only negation, since there inheres in it the introduction of lacuna, which are an essential of differentiation.’ I replied quite scornfully, ‘You read all that up in Pinckwerts; the notion that involution functioned eugenically was exposed long ago by Glumpe.’ It is unnecessary for me to say that there never were such people as Pinckwerts and Glumpe. But the people all round (rather to my surprise) seemed to remember them quite well, and the Professor, finding that the learned and mysterious method left him rather at the mercy of an enemy slightly deficient in scruples, fell back upon a more popular form of wit. ‘I see,’ he sneered, ‘you prevail like the false pig in Aesop.’ ‘And you fail,’ I answered, smiling, ‘like the hedgehog in Montaigne.’ Need I say that there is no hedgehog in Montaigne? ‘Your claptrap comes off,’ he said; ‘so would your beard.’ I had no intelligent answer to this, which was quite true and rather witty. But I laughed heartily, answered, ‘Like the Pantheist’s boots,’ at random, and turned on my heel with all the honours of victory. The real Professor was thrown out, but not with violence, though one man tried very patiently to pull off his nose. He is now, I believe, received everywhere in Europe as a delightful impostor. His apparent earnestness and anger, you see, make him all the more entertaining.”

Roger Kimball does a nice takedown of pomo gibberish in Rape of the Masters. It focuses on fine art, but I found the same strain of thinking in my other humanities classes in college. By graduation, I actually became pretty competent at writing pomo essays. If you realize you speaking total nonsense, it’s a fun creative exercise. The only thing it really taught me was how to spot a pomo bulls—er.

http://www.amazon.com/Rape-Masters-Political-Correctness-Sabotages/dp/1594031215/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1379272268&sr=1-3&keywords=roger+kimball

Total nonsense is right Mrs. Z! Australian historian Keith Windschuttle did a great job of revealing the harm postmodernism has done to history in The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past . Academic history has been devastated by it. The saving grace is that no one outside of academia tends to read these worthless tomes.

I started college in 1985, and graduated in 1994 after taking a lot of time off for military and family duties. By the time I left it was beginning its takeover of my alma mater’s philosophy department. Today, it is complete, and that’s a really sad thing. Instead of teaching people how to think, they teach people what to think. The misuse of language to obscure rather than elucidate is a real tragedy in higher education. This sort of thing has strong origins in Marxism and in Nietzsche’s nihilism. I guess they figure that by talking in code so that no one can understand them they can better pull down existing society and remodel it the way they want. But they sure sound stupid doing it. I remember back in the 90’s watching Living Color on TV where they poked fun at post-modernist gibberish. It was hilarious. Now-days if you say “hilarious” they’ll accuse you of slandering Hillary Clinton because the butchering of language has diminished the ability to understand English.

[…] Islands – J. Tucker, NLM One Missionaries’ Honest Reflection in Calcutta – Family Missions Co. Postmodernism as Gibberish – Donald R. McClarey, The Amer Catholic Are You Really Successful? – Anabelle Hazard, Catholic […]

I am reminded of Pascal and the “proximate power.” “This was a new and unknown word to me. Up to this moment I had managed to understand matters, but that term involved me in obscurity; and I verily believe that it has been invented for no other purpose than to mystify. I requested him to give me an explanation of it, but he made a mystery of it, and sent me back, without any further satisfaction, to demand of the Jansenists if they would admit this proximate power. Having charged my memory with the phrase (as to my understanding, that was out of the question), I hastened with all possible expedition, fearing that I might forget it, to my Jansenist friend and accosted him, immediately after our first salutations, with: “Tell me, pray, if you admit the proximate power?” He smiled, and replied, coldly: “Tell me yourself in what sense you understand it, and I may then inform you what I think of it.” As my knowledge did not extend quite so far, I was at a loss what reply to make; and yet, rather than lose the object of my visit, I said at random: “Why, I understand it in the sense of the Molinists.” “To which of the Molinists do you refer me?” replied he, with the utmost coolness. I referred him to the whole of them together, as forming one body, and animated by one spirit. “You know very little about the matter,” returned he. “So far are they from being united in sentiment that some of them are diametrically opposed to each other. But, being all united in the design to ruin M. Arnauld, they have resolved to agree on this term “proximate,” which both parties might use indiscriminately, though they understand it diversely, that thus, by a similarity of language and an apparent conformity, they may form a large body and get up a majority to crush him with the greater certainty.”

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Does this mean anything?-Postmodernism Generator -et al--[edited title]

I’m sure most people here are familiar with the post modern essay generator . I was reading this article, and at first confused it with the post modern essay generator, until I realized they were two separate things. Is the article real? What does it mean?

I rather doubt that most people here are familiar with it. I’ve edited the title to try to tell what the thread is about.

It’s not about the post modern essay generator, it’s about the article.

And now, hopefully, posters will open this thread, as opposed to what would have happened when they saw "“Does this mean anything?” as a title.

Yes, I think the article is real. It is just on a technical subject and is going over your head. You may be one of those people who find it hard to take theological issues seriously (as am I), but they are taken very seriously by a very large proportion of the human race, and a very complex and sophisticated discourse about them has grown up over thousands of years. The fact that it is not easy for the novice to “get” does not make it nonsensical. It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with postmodernism.

OK, but the OP has a point. You ( samclem ) have apparently changed the title from something meaningless to something actively misleading (although the real fault is with the OP for bringing up the “postmodern generator” at all).

The article looks just like something that I would read on the post modern essay generator, which made me question if it was real.

If you do not know anything about computer science, you probably will not easily be able to tell the difference between real computer science papers, and papers generated by the Automatic CS Paper Generator , either.

I know nothing about computer sci, but the randomly generated papers seem to be obvious gibberish.

“The development of lambda calculus has visualized cache coherence, and current trends suggest that the development of I/O automata will soon emerge. To put this in perspective, consider the fact that much-touted hackers worldwide often use DNS to answer this issue. To put this in perspective, consider the fact that well-known analysts rarely use architecture to address this challenge.”

While I don’t know what “lambda calculus” or “cache coherence” are, I do know that this entire paragraph never actually says what “this issue” or “this challenge” are. It’s total gibberish.

Would you care to link to an actual computer sci paper that contains something that you think is equivalent to this. Because to me, anyone who understands English syntax would spot that paper as gibberish.

The article simple says that to construct a theological argument, one must: [ul] [li]Choose motivating questions you wish to answer (the “central idea” you wish to explore)[/li][li]Specify the methodology you will you to answer the questions[/li][li]Choose a thesis that you wish to prove or disprove[/li][li]Organize your evidence, from the bible and other compatible sources to answer the question.[/li][/ul]

The first three points are placed in the “Prolegomena”, which is simply the introductory section of the theological work. The last point constitutes the body of the work.

Unlike an essay generator, it actually makes a cogent point and has a discernible structure, although is written in an obtuse and rambling manner. This “Theopedia” website appears to be a wiki, and this article was more likely the product of several individuals attempting to cram quite a bit of information in a scholarly sounding manner.

Well, as I noted in another thread , over 120 papers generated by that web page actually got published in the academic Computer Science literature (supposedly peer reviewed, but presumably not really).

I do not know enough about the range of your ignorance to be able to show you a real paper (in any field) that would look like gibberish to you. (And of course, for me to find such such a paper, it would also have to be in a field I know pretty well.) Very likely such papers exist, though.

Anyway, unless you are unable to detect that the theological essay linked by the OP is not machine generated gibberish, or that the products of the post modern essay generator mentioned in the OP are gibberish, rather than real postmodernist essays, this is a bit beside the point. What is more to the point is that I suspect you would be tell the difference between the products of the postmodern generator and a real essay in postmodernism quite as well as you are able to tell the difference between a real CS article and a product of the generator, even though you might truly understand neither subject. Although I know next to nothing about theology, I can tell the essay linked in the OP is not machine generated gibberish (as runningdude makes clear), and, really, the OP ought to be able to tell too. If he really can’t manage it for that, though, (and if he is not an actual computer scientist) the CS paper generator (or, perhaps even better, the math one ), should confuse him just as much as the postmodernism one does. Opaque jargon and complex syntax are not unique to postmodernist studies.

Can someone dumb the article down for me? What is prolegmena?

There are such things a dictionaries, you know: prolegmena .

But why do you care?

See my above post. It really doesn’t say much of anything, but uses a lot of words to say it.

I can’t see anything wrong with the linked article - at least in terms of it making cogent sense from end to end. It is pretty typical of the sort of prose one often sees in this arena. But critically, there is a single idea, and the sentences are consistent with its development. The prose generators are little more than algorithms that create syntactically correct sentences from a set of tables of words. Pick your subject area, populate the tables with jargon, and let it rip. Possibly more fun is a dissociated press generator.

The first sentence of the article defines prolegmena for you: “Prolegomena simply means prefatory remarks.”

The article makes perfect sense to me. Basically it says: “Systematic theology is a particular approach to analyzing the Bible. But before we get started we should say a few words about why and how we’re analyzing the Bible. What are we hoping to get out of the process? What is the general way that we’ll go about it? And why is theology important?”

It’s a bit jargon-y, but it’s not really postmodern. In fact, most postmodernists would find the approach to exegesis they’re proposing deeply flawed.

The Next Phase

Post-modern gibberish essay generator.

Some time ago I would not have found this funny. Fortunately Dr. Wittgenstein and co. were able to cure me of my continentalism. I wonder if admiring the rebellious beards and tobacco is a lifelong symptom (sinthome?).

Generate your own postmodern nonsense here .

Here is a sample of the text that I got:

The Circular Key: Socialism, realism and subtextual Marxism

Catherine finnis department of deconstruction, university of california, berkeley, 1. semantic desublimation and marxist capitalism.

“Society is unattainable,” says Bataille. Lacan suggests the use of precultural patriarchial theory to deconstruct sexual identity.

In the works of Pynchon, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. But in  Vineland , Pynchon examines realism; in  Mason & Dixon , however, he denies Marxist capitalism. The primary theme of Long’s [1]  analysis of postconceptualist appropriation is the role of the writer as reader.

“Class is part of the fatal flaw of language,” says Sartre. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a Batailleist `powerful communication’ that includes art as a whole. The characteristic theme of the works of Fellini is the bridge between sexual identity and class.

If one examines Batailleist `powerful communication’, one is faced with a choice: either accept realism or conclude that sexual identity, perhaps ironically, has intrinsic meaning, given that consciousness is interchangeable with narrativity. Thus, la Fournier [2]  states that we have to choose between the textual paradigm of context and prematerialist narrative. Sontag promotes the use of Marxist capitalism to attack hierarchy.

In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the concept of patriarchial consciousness. However, Foucault uses the term ‘Batailleist `powerful communication” to denote not, in fact, materialism, but neomaterialism. The main theme of von Ludwig’s [3]  model of realism is the stasis, and some would say the economy, of textual society.

Therefore, if Batailleist `powerful communication’ holds, the works of Fellini are modernistic. Realism holds that discourse must come from the masses.

Thus, Lacan uses the term ‘Marxist capitalism’ to denote a mythopoetical paradox. Foucault suggests the use of realism to read and challenge class.

However, Cameron [4]  suggests that we have to choose between Marxist capitalism and subcapitalist modernist theory. In  The Island of the Day Before , Eco reiterates realism; in  The Aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas  he denies Marxist capitalism.

It could be said that if Derridaist reading holds, we have to choose between Batailleist `powerful communication’ and predialectic capitalism. The subject is contextualised into a realism that includes truth as a whole.

Thus, any number of constructions concerning Marxist capitalism may be found. The example of realism which is a central theme of Eco’s  The Name of the Rose  emerges again in Foucault’s Pendulum , although in a more self-justifying sense.

However, Foucault uses the term ‘Marxist capitalism’ to denote not narrative per se, but subnarrative. The characteristic theme of the works of Eco is the common ground between class and culture.

Thus, Marx promotes the use of the cultural paradigm of consensus to deconstruct capitalism. Several constructivisms concerning a neodialectic reality exist.

Share this:

Leave a comment cancel reply.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Like the postmodernism generator, but funnier

Good news for pomophobes, Julian Baggini has a new game poking fun at certain critical postures in academia: Žižuku . I much prefer this to the postmodernism generator as a satirical tool.

The postmodernism generator is something that follows language rules to produce gibberish. This is funny, so long as you don’t read the sort of material that it purports to send up. I’m not saying that a lot of postmodernism isn’t twaddle, but it’s a recognisably different sort of twaddle. The reason Sokal’s hoax was funny was that it was indistinguishable from some of the straight material in Social Text. Essays from the postmodernism generator aren’t going to pass muster with another journal, even if the references are altered. Comparing the output of the Postmodernism Generator with postmodern scholarship is like comparing a Lorem Ipsum generator to a Latin text. Superficially similar, but not close enough.

What I do think is interesting is that if you loaded it with genuine references, and a bit more thematic connectivity then v2.0 might produce genuine pomo text but that’s another matter.

Žižuku requires a bit more work, but I think it’s a lot funnier because I can foresee this having serious potential. It’s from Baggini’s review of Slavoj Žižek’s Violence . In it Baggini notes a constant.

Žižek arranges his book like a piece of music with different movements, with chapter subheadings such as “allegro moderato”. This is fitting, because Žižek is something of a virtuoso, but as a player of paradoxes. His great riffs take one of a finite number of forms. There is the simple psychoanalytic trope of claiming that however something seems, its true nature is the precise opposite. Then you have the repeated claim that a certain position entails its opposite, but that both sides of the paradox are equally real. Then again, there is the reversal of common sense, in which, whatever the received wisdom is, Zizek postulates the opposite. And that really is it: Žižek simply repeats these intellectual manoeuvres again and again, albeit brilliantly, supplementing them with Lacanian embellishments such as the objet petit, the Other and the Real.

It’s a good review and I recommend reading it all , because Baggini recognises that it can be a helpful way of seeing things from a new perspective. Yet while psychoanalysis might be rooted in the idea of humanity, applied ad infinitum it’s clearly every bit as mechanical and dehumanised as the postmodernism generator.

That’s Žižuku!

You win by taking any widely accepted idea and inverting it to reveal a paradox, so in the case above I was aiming for postmodernism as mechanistic method. Assertions without evidence count. For more examples read the review .

They’re discussing the rules at Talking Philosophy . One addition I’d make is that a statement which can be backed up with evidence should score more than an assertion. The point is that while it’s a satirical game which illustrates a limited repertoire of imagination, it doesn’t mean that the findings are valueless. Drugs trials for example attempt to follow an established furrow of methods, but it’s that adherence to method which allows the validity of their findings to be judges. Similarly Žižuku at one level clearly undermines the authority of Žižek’s method and reliance on Lacanian tropes. Yet it also embodies the essence of postmodernism in being by its very nature playful and contradictory. By rejecting the normative approach of orthodox academia it thus constitutes a suitably subversive tool for critical enquiry.

…and that’s Žižuku!

Now supposing I want to write a paper of Žižuku and get it published, where should I submit it to? There would be a key difference between my paper and Sokal’s. Sokal knew his paper was nonsense when he submitted it. I in contrast, like Baggini says of Žižek, wouldn’t really be able to tell whether my paper made sense or not. If academics accepted it anyway, would that be validation enough?

I worked out where I could send a paper to, using Žižuku to illustrate something which I genuinely believe, which would blur the lines between satire and scholarship further. In the end I’ve decided that I really don’t need to make extra work for myself right now.

Written by Alun Salt

Cyfrif Cymraeg @41un Dysgwr dw i ers Hydref 2013. Dw i angen hon: http://j.mp/Helpu

More from Alun Salt and Alun Salt

Bywyd, y Byd a’r Bydysawd

How to Learn Welsh

Where to start for little or no cost, and where you can turn for help when you get stuck., the difference between ‘above the horizon’ and ‘in the sky’.

Herodotus and the shape of the world

Final thoughts on the Bosnian pyramid

Recommended from medium.

Kallol Mazumdar

ILLUMINATION

I Went on the Dark Web and Instantly Regretted It

Accessing the forbidden parts of the world wide web, only to realize the depravity of humanity.

10 Seconds That Ended My 20 Year Marriage

It’s august in northern virginia, hot and humid. i still haven’t showered from my morning trail run. i’m wearing my stay-at-home mom….

Stories to Help You Live Better

Good Product Thinking

Self-Improvement 101

Visual Storytellers Playlist

Karolina Kozmana

Common side effects of not drinking

By rejecting alcohol, you reject something very human, an extra limb that we have collectively grown to deal with reality and with each….

Change Your Mind Change Your Life

Absurdism: The Philosophy That Changed My Mindset

It might change yours too.

Ameer Omidvar

Apple’s all new design language

My name is ameer, currently the designer of sigma. i’ve been in love with design since i was a kid. it was just my thing. to make things….

Gary Buzzard

Crow’s Feet

All the Wisdom You Need for Old Age Is in One Small Book

Four traits i’m dialing down as i approach 80..

Text to speech

English To Gibberish Generator

Meet the most powerful ai writer, focused on content repurposing..

Unifire combines a beautiful AI writer with the best transcription service and content templates. Creating unique content at scale has never been easier.

An ultra-powerful AI writer

Summarise, extend, shorten and whatever you can imagine with our powerful AI editor. You can work with your content with maximum efficiency and full collaboration.

53 different output formats

With Unifire, you can turn and repurpose anything into anything. One audio recording can become an e-book, 40 LinkedIn posts, an email newsletter, a lead magnet and every Twitter asset with one click of a button.

Build for your entire team

Unifire comes with unlimited team members, workspaces, collaborative live editing and double backups for all your content.

Upload any formats you can imagine

You can feed Unifire audio recordings, videos, webinars, transcripts, documents and PDFs. Everything can be repurposed.

More AI writing tools like English To Gibberish Generator

Combining sentences generator, cursive generator text, ai proposal writer, ai discussion response generator, self help book title generator, pinterest description generator, youtube channel description generator, ai discussion post generator, discussion post response generator, ai response generator, start with an ai writer build for scaling unique content..

5 Signs of a quality essay writer service

Customer Reviews

Affiliate program

Refer our service to your friend and receive 10% from every order

The essay writers who will write an essay for me have been in this domain for years and know the consequences that you will face if the draft is found to have plagiarism. Thus, they take notes and then put the information in their own words for the draft. To be double sure about this entire thing, your final draft is being analyzed through anti-plagiarism software, Turnitin. If any sign of plagiarism is detected, immediately the changes will be made. You can get the Turnitin report from the writer on request along with the final deliverable.

Finished Papers

• Our Services
• Additional Services
• Free Essays

• On-schedule delivery
• Compliance with the provided brief
• Chat with your helper
• Ongoing 24/7 support
• Real-time alerts
• Free revisions
• Free quality check
• Free title page
• Free bibliography
• Any citation style

Read what our clients have to say about our writing essay services!

Finished Papers

Dr.Jeffrey (PhD)

John N. Williams

Frequently Asked Questions

Customer Reviews

How does this work

EssayService strives to deliver high-quality work that satisfies each and every customer, yet at times miscommunications happen and the work needs revisions. Therefore to assure full customer satisfaction we have a 30-day free revisions policy.

Our writers always follow the customers' requirements very carefully

Eloise Braun

Customer Reviews

Customer Reviews

Niamh Chamberlain

We hire a huge amount of professional essay writers to make sure that our essay service can deal with any subject, regardless of complexity. Place your order by filling in the form on our site, or contact our customer support agent requesting someone write my essay, and you'll get a quote.

A standard essay helper is an expert we assign at no extra cost when your order is placed. Within minutes, after payment has been made, this type of writer takes on the job. A standard writer is the best option when you’re on a budget but the deadline isn’t burning. Within a couple of days, a new custom essay will be done for you from the ground up. Unique content, genuine research, spot-on APA/MLA formatting, and peerless grammar are guaranteed. Also, we’ll provide you with a free title page, bibliography, and plagiarism check. With a standard writer, you can count on a quality essay that will live up to all your expectations.

Types of Paper Writing Services

Customer Reviews

Orders of are accepted for more complex assignment types only (e.g. Dissertation, Thesis, Term paper, etc.). Special conditions are applied to such orders. That is why please kindly choose a proper type of your assignment.

Eloise Braun