Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


A.S.U.R.A. last won the day on September 27 2008

A.S.U.R.A. had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

49 Good

About A.S.U.R.A.

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 02/26/1992

Profile Information

  • Name
  • School
    James E. Taylor HS
  • Location
    Houston, TX
  1. Hay guize, I need help :<. Reading this for a research assignment and mind=blown. First I should probably provide a link to this, so here: http://www.westga.edu/~pburgey/XIDS/NoApocalypseDerrida.pdf if for some reason this link stops working or you can't access it post ur email and i'll send you a copy. I've been reading, and re-reading and re-reading, this article for quite some time now, and though I have made some headway in understanding it, there are several parts in particular that are completely beyond my reach as far as I can tell, these include: -"Fourth Missile, Fourth Missive": He seems to posit two scenarios here in terms of the 'archive'. Either everyone is dead following a nuclear war and nobody exists to consult the archive or 'remember' our humanity (mourning, etc.), or, even if humanity isn't destroyed as he says, nuclear war will amount to the destruction of the 'juridico-literary archive', or any other archive that has no referent outside itself. My question is: why would nuclear war amount to the total destruction of the literary archive, or all that is literature? Moreover, why does he say that the ultimate referent of literature, as it has always been since Kafka and Joyce and all that shit, is nuclear war? I'm not much of a phenomenology expert, which probably explains my inability to get some of this, but any explanation would help -ontico-ontological difference: I'm assuming that this has to do with a distinction between Heidegger and Husserl, between intentionality and Dasein, but I'm in such a state of confusion by the time i get to sixth missile, sixth missive, that I don't really know why this matters. Like I said, any sort of explanation or help understanding the point he's trying to make here would be greatly appreciated. thanks in advance
  2. sup guise, to preface this, i can understand why this thread might probably be better fit in the articles section, but i figured that it would be nice if it i started it here. i'm guessing the mods will move it anyways at their discretion if they see fit. at any rate, i was loitering around the interwebz and stumbled across what appears to be a goldmine of information: a private tracker dedicated solely to books, scholarly articles, and the like: http://bibliotik.org/ they even have books in other languages and whatnot. a simple search for "foucault" returned like over 30 something results in french and english. *EDIT*: after searching around, holy shit these guys have a lot of stuff, including derivative literature. this is a project thats just now getting off the ground, and i figure a lot of the people around here would be interested in either contributing the scans that have been facilitated/encouraged from this site and/or acquiring texts we may not have already. they have open registration right now, and i just registered, but i don't know how long theyre gonna keep it open so i would recommend getting onboard quick. *EDIT 2*: aaand the site is structured a lot like what.cd, with collections, requests, a badass search engine. HELLA AWESOME!!! THEY EVEN HAVE TEXTBOOKS TOO, YEE. cheers, api
  3. ohhhh ok i get it now. but i think i see another problem here: i can understand how this argument can be strategic in a debate round (if the aff can win a net benefit of their normative claims as their harms, and they can indict the alternative, they're probably winning the impact framework debate), but what kind of normative claims are good ones? its easy, if i'm understanding bryant correctly, to look for potential links to my derrida k in literally everything, but what are we supposed to do otherwise? how are we suppose to understand to and interpret surprise? it seems to me the only other alternative is to understand all surprise within a framework of Truth, which probably isn't the most strategic way of approaching reality, but i don't get how raising this dichotomy isn't at least just as paralyzing.
  4. i understand how this would be effective against a lacanian psychoanalytic criticism, or even a derivative such as zizek, but could you elaborate on how this debate/articulation would play out in a derrida debate? i guess i just have a limited understanding of how the "derrida K" would be deployed in the first place, and although i've heard of his ties with psychoanalytic schools of thought, i'm assuming you mean something more specific in this context. my understanding of the typical derrida based K, honestly, is that file UT put out 4 or so years ago as an addendum to a levinas K--this thing if i remember correctly had to do with ethics and first philosophy and metaphysics and whatnot. how would this card interact with that kind of derrida K?
  5. A.S.U.R.A.


    fair enough. i'll give you credit...bastard.
  6. A.S.U.R.A.


    fucking lobster god. i called murray out on that shit before the octs round cause i didnt believe him lol
  7. this. i haven't looked at the actual 1ac from the mental health topic, but i seriously doubt it was a literal defense of fight clubs. at any rate, has anyone seen the 1ac i'm referring to? link plz?
  8. the usfg should set up fight clubs around america. should qualify as a social service, and if im not mistaken wasnt some zizek aff along these lines ran on the mental health topic? thoughts?
  9. how would this be a social service? agreed, though; sweeps was such a boss aff on the detention topic.
  10. the panoptican this is it. sidenote/place where i reveal sarcasm: i would hope that A) you're trolling or you fully realize that there are in fact probably more things severely wrong with this affirmative aside from it being the panoptican.
  11. critical pedagogy is wsup.
  12. "Poor Schools threaten Global Primacy" http://www.oxan.com/display.aspx?StoryDate=20080422&ProductCode=OADB&StoryType=DB&StoryNumber=1 other random hege stuff. expansion of domestic tech could somehow be converted into social service...iuno lol http://www.cfr.org/project/402/roundtable_on_technology_innovation_and_american_primacy.html
  13. figured. then again, thats probably why i dont debate hege too often.
  14. A.S.U.R.A.

    Daycare Aff

    one might run edelman against this...
  • Create New...