GOOSEBERIES.PART 1

Why did they vouchsafe to alight that the Sun could not contend them?When this solace like succour did him deign to meed,over this poke of jewels of the seas'ovation to pomp his obscene cheeks,the gooseberries'malevolence,maliced him beneath.Hard and fast did they swoon with their metalanguaged and hoobledygooked hardbitten mensrea of the semantics.Over this gossamered contend,though seriocomic,serpentine and malingering gorges rise.With heart to heart magniloquent semantic heave like heartthrobs heartwarming,hoax upon hoax,they kissed blarney stone off vulgarian fraction.And it was as if senescent gallivant had crept on selfwilled and selfsown hocuspocus.This gordian knot made them play gooseberry and being drowned in this seraphic jene saisquoi like nocturnal serenade,Jeremiad upon their pucker,was plunged with nebula.Mongolian gooseberries at daggers drawn with the Caucasian monkey business.And they monger harmfisted hamper and pouted chins like money bags,defying reticent cadence and moment of truth.....

PONTOON

PONTOON.Livelihood,a go bet on the ponnies.You ponnies,ponder this poof of pointificate,a pontoon'livelhood'ponytrekked by fellow gregarious birds of passage.What a pontoon that they plausibly bet on the ponnies and not infecund to rant that ponces like arrant hogswash.Livelihood,a repertoire of cribs,whose go greens about the gills,will take the gill from the gingerbread.Alas they bet on the ponnies,in vacuous sands,pony trekkers of pontoon,to poohpooh eke and ekeing,stupendous poppycock,with the porcelain of crepuscular,poor spirited pork butchers and pock eyed pop dippers.Still at the senile of the bough,staggering holoipoloi,nestling as they drew aside the kismet's nimbus,a heuristic nuances of nuisance value.Undetered not to bumb and numb the hurlyburly's spasmodic plangence,obsolescent heirloom of the queer street's obloquy.This pontoon,an  unruly oddballs,obstreperous,they play for girth,to prune into fringes,they odoriferous odds and sods of the odious livery.Play it artifice do not gawp for the genius locis,of obsolescence barely its ambiance deny.Play it like conspicuous consumption,for this pontoon,speaks grandiloquent burlesque of  the phantamagoriac chicanery.So,let the groundwork play delilah to its pundits and dilletantes,where the futurologists could abscond,to contumeliously salvage moors from the saturnalia boat.Half baked and half cock,are we incorrigible hewns pontooning and jenesaquoi with bunted flag at halfmoon to trigger hairsplitting?

CHAPTER 5 THE ART OF TRADITIONAL THINKING.PART 2

1008 × 435

CHAPTER 5,THE ART OF TRADITIONAL THINKING. PART.2.by mudslinging,could be source of operating argument. Sentiment or prejudice could form source of an argument and prejudice, can be intricately linked with the ignorance of the discussant.It implie and mere analysis can form the whole bulk of knowledge.We might not be forced to contend that ignorance itself is a stage in knowledge formation.Knowledge logical or illogical can spring from diverse sources,namely the ablution,that include,sentiment,fact, opinion and a host of other source.I classified it as illogical in contrast to fact based or logical.Generally speaking, argument sprouts from different dimensions,flows in counterclockwise direction.Sometimes,its clockwise direction can be punctured by assymetry of standpoint and ensuring safeguard of fact at hand.The mode of argument partly formed by prejudices,might not be punctured by emerging fact, but also by the nature of clarity and logic that supplants the emerging fact.When the clarity is convincing,ample evidence of the presentation distortion automatically warrants the emergence and presentation of the fact at hand, to tarnish the riddles of the haunting prejudice.Although these sources along side sentiments tends to make discussion thick,and undoubtedly,illogical discourse with high ratio of ignorance quashes and decimates the quality of discourse.Hardline knowledge punchers and consumers beyond its facial impression of argumentatives are pissed at its bathos herald

CHAPTER 5 THE ART OF TRADITIONAL THINKING.PART 1

CHAPTER 5 THE ART OF TRADITIONAL THINKING.part 1.Every spoken word is determined by spoken thoughts. Those spoken thoughts unheard in most cases,by majority refrain into  subconscious untill utterances in question s are made..Similarly every written word is dependent or determined by written thoughts, though unseen, prior to its documentation, in physical terms.So, nothing happens by itself, except if it be by a moving force.Now, we are poised to peruse the extant mode of traditional thinking and scientific thinking and more or less its mode of its argument. In this case,we examine the first mode apriori or posterior respectively.Various research into traditional mode of judgements,informed this verdict,specifically through its juxtapository process,follows its hysterical rendition.These modes of argument were unveiled by the author,based on empirical evidences evaluation of newsstands surveys,where he was fortunate and frequented periodically for two decades where he was embroiled in such intellectual wrangling exercise,with free readers and few hotbeds.Arguments and counter arguments,by discussants in all dimensions, be it social, political, economic and cultural nuances, reflects the fortitude of africana Jones'mental energy. The traditional mode of argument often follows the editorial logic of the day and argument in general comes from general sources.Apart from opinions, sentiments and statistics, assumption resulting from undue pressure, after a long diatribe, crimsoned

MARX, MARXISM AND NEOMARXISM;WHICH WAY MOVES HISTORY FORWARD.PART 3

. Life of the community including production was based on slave exploitation or slave labor, desecrated practical innovation and that is a true evidence of how materialrelation influences societal orientation. The basis of the society according to Marx, include the material, social, economic relations, while the superstructure include morals, arts, science, religion and philosophy.And by proving various interactions between these opposites, Marx,was labelled a dialectical materialist and not a mechanical materialist that could not prove their interaction, in the assymetry of history . I n the basis of the society, Marx recognises the mode, means and condition of production and the question of what was morally right was a product of his basis orientation, where the society's ruling class sets the norm of what was morally right or wrong. He concluded that who control the ownership means of production are principally, the moulders of history, moulders of people's destiny.That these interactions are not autonomous, and that the society's superstructure had no independent history of its own and no one functions in isolation. The changes in this basis had accounted for historical development, evolving from the antiquity into the industrial society of mordern age. More over, for the entire phases of history, there had been conflicts between two classes, for instance, in the antiquity's slave society, they had

250 × 188

slave and

MARX,MARXISM AND NEOMARXISM:WHICH WAY MOVES HISTORY FORWARD.2

.The father of existentialism. They both took their departure from Hegelian school of philosophy and tha put an end to the epoch of great philosophical system that was begun from Descartes in the 17th century.Hence after Hegel,philosophy took on a new course entirely,driven by Marx and Kierkegaard,and existentialism simply means the philosophy  of action, and Marx, even thou-gh he was a Marxist, became the greatest of all his existentialist colleagues.His notable words-That 'philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways,the point is to change'and that is what he had done through Marxism, though still leaves much to be desired.Marxism vs Hegelian:Marx himself became a Marxism, after the European revolution of 1848, brought Marxism to the front burner, to the frontiers of European cultural Renaissance.Contrary to Hegelian, that world spirit was driven by spiritual relation moving history forward, Marx disagreed that Hegel, the best of the Romantic scholarship, was turning things upside down and he showed otherwise.He had believed it is the ownership means of production,that material relation moves history forward. He contrast sharply that it is the material change that affect history and that spiritual relation do not affect material relation.It is the other way round, that material changes,create spiritual relation.Antiquity's philosophy and science were mere theoretical proposit

ion and the economic...

MARX,MARXISM AND NEOMARXSM;WHICH WAY MOVES HISTORY FORWARD.PART 1

MARX,MARXISM AND NEOMARXISM:WHICH WAY MOVES HISTORY FORWARD.1.The emergence of Marxism in the 1840s changes everything in the adventure of western philosophy.The blogger Ibikunle Laniyan examines the critical significance of MarXism to history and the comparison with Hegelian, to to determine the quality of Marxism.Enjoy the reading.                     

   The development of art and culture according to Marxism,including economy flourishes through the interaction of the society's substructure and superstructure.Karl Marx(1848-1883)was often fond of historical materialism and this dialectical interaction, through which history and world spirit progress that he made it the cornerstone of his philosophy.There is no doubt that Marx and Marxism had an indelible influence on the scholarship of history,historicism, philosphy,art and culture respectively.                                                                                                                                        There is no yet freeing the hassle that the cannon of Marxism,was not frozen long after him nor an ample claim after his departure, until we have learnt to change history and then the world.When in 1841, Kierkegaard went to Berlin,according to an historian he might have sat next to Marx, at Schelling's lectures.The former had written his master of arts ' thesis on Socrates, while Marx did his doctoral thesis' On the materialists of Antiquity,' specifically Democritus and Epicurus.Marx became the father of marxism

after 1840s, in the much same Soren Kierkegaard became the