Profound or Not? A Deconstuctionist Writes

Notions of the return to the place of origin abound in our literature and philosophy - the quest for an omphalos. So it is not surprising that our journey begins here. Although the choice of Shredded Wheat may anger fans of Cheerios.

"There are many who proclaim that this subject is too racy to get into,"

(Racy? Weren't they some crappy English early 80s pop band?) More seriously, the inclusion of the mysterious "many who proclaim" serves to set limits of authority - the implication being that anyone who is not of the "many who proclaim" must perforce find themselves distanced from the essence of the perceived objects (Proclaimers? Weren't they some Scottish late 80s pop band?).

"but they are fornicators and blasphemers and pornographers and whoremongers and pimps and debauchers and molesters and sodomites and their opinion really doesn’t matter."

The usual marginalisation of the deviant which has been remarked upon in Foucault, De Selby et. al.

"So inasmuch as Shredded Wheat is racy to these perverts,"

The inability to tell between English pop groups and breakfast cereal is usually termed a category error

"we must also prolong the fact that there are daisies growing in the proverbial meadow - which in truth is merely our own perception of the gradual dysfunction that reverberates so abundantly there."

Pretty straightforward, this bit.

"Therefore, the paradoxical equation we encounter is a diverging metamorphosis of our own transformation from what we are to what we will be."

That is, an eternal becoming as opposed to an eternal being - Hegel's counter-argument to the Platonic realm of the Ideal.

"But will that effect what we were?"

The central tenet of postmodernism - that the present can effect the past and that causality itself is a human construct. So too is Stretch Armstrong (although why I'm telling you that now, I've no idea).

"Philosophers are still debating this point even as we sit here touching ourselves inappropriately."

But what is "inappropriate?" As our writer toys with the idea we realise that contextuality is all - for example blessing yourself by making the sign of the Cross in a synagogue or a mosque can be viewed as very inappropriate.

"And there are even those who say; ‘But what of the tartar sauce? For what is a fish finger without the tartar sauce? Yea verily.’"

We note the attempted displacement of the writer; the inclusion of the distancing inverted comma, the introduction of the other voice ("those who say"), the use of irony ("yea, verily" indeed!).

"Well to them I say, “#@!* you ! You @#%ing sons of mother ! @#&ing !@#%$ I’ll #%@ your !@#$ so hard you’ll be !@#$ing out your !@#$ for a week! For, in truth, what is the tartar sauce without the fish finger? And that’s where you get them every time."

He ain't happy, this dude!

"Shredded Wheat, fish fingers, tartar sauce...none of it really matters in the end."

By a process of deconstruction and differance we find ourselves arriving at the opposite viewpoint from our starting position.

"For in the end we must all face the floating purple monkeys."

Sh*t! I'd forgotten about them!

"And it is there we must truly strive to obtain the full spectrum of colors inside the box."

Too right! Those monkeys won't be happy if we don't attain a full spectrum!

"While the colors outside the box are merely an afterthought of our own magnitude of trans-fatty acids in butter."

I can do no more than quote Wittgenstein: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain voiceless.

1. Profundity is established - on with the trip, dude!
2. Profundity is disproved - reality suddenly lands on Fred with a BANG!

Go Back

View Forward Story Tree
View Back Story Tree