I have entered the marketplace, and she is there. She has been there, a tracing projection, prior to her presence. Vanity mirrors, scissors, pencil cases and notebooks—she (or rather, what she would become) pre-identifies my conscious needs and wants. From those needs and wants the course of her being emerged, to follow an outré-course, by way of this manifestation, to this place—this 99 Cents Only store—where she had long ago perhaps joined the cumulative instance of many other disentangled goods. Only among these goods already, could she have ever been, or could she have become, aligned, with the volition of my act of acquiring her representation, thereby realizing this pre-conception entirely. The meta-engagement of the marketplace—for me but an obscure reference to an image, or to the idea of an image—now allows me to perceive her embodiment in a way that could only now become by necessity evident to me.
What is this? The Allegory of the Disney Channel?
Cool story bro
Such objection is akin to others. By Hannah’s own words, she has failed to “present” a like illustration. This indexes the fullness of created life, and yes, even allegory, and we can see that the common problem is that of representation–or rather, that “art” of representation, which is so dear to Hannah.
So, you’re saying it’s your fault?
WildassramblinOPsaywhat?
OP, could you make it plain?
You forgot to add a linky
Interestingly, running this through Google Translate by the way of English -> Norwegian -> Bulgarian -> English also yields absolutely no sense.
If this were Family Feud I think the number one answer to “Why did guizot start this thread?” would be “drunk”.
Above and beyond the end of plainness, or simplicity, there is the question of reducibility: “How can one—bound within the aisle of multi-functional reality—empirically know the sub-textual episteme that infuses Hannah, as bracelet, as notepad, as scrunchie?
You got the hots for her too?
in vino veritas
He had to buy pencils or something and the most appealing option at the 99 cents store was Hannah Montana. And now he knows what she looks like.
Psychic veracity–or, as you will have it, veritas–has been replaced by the imagination of the secret pop star (an inverted imagination), and as such becomes personification of exchange–we exchange the utility of the narrative.
guizot would have gotten an A in my Linguistic Anthropology final on postmodernism*. I can see it now – Derrida and the Heuristics of Hanna Montana: A Discourse on Epistimological BFF’s.
*This is not a compliment.
Back in the day, I dropped blotters that had R2D2 on them. I’m guessing these days, they have Hannah Montana on them.
It’s part of N. Korea’s denial of sinking the Cheonan.
Be honest, you’ve stolen William Gibson’s latest manuscript haven’t you?
My ex has a Ph.D. in Performance Studies from Northwestern University. I mention this only because it may explain why this OP actually makes perfect sense to me. At least…as much sense as anything in my marriage ever did.