Tasholly: Migen Kelmendi put together the moralists, ideologists and quasi-nationalists, pouring out all of the vnerin to him

Here's a full post:

Low readings

For those who do not know the concept of Unamuno's “intra-historic”, which small stories give the big mirror, even the concept of Gasset “Historical Intervention” as a perceptive consciousness, to the Foucault that, under Nietzsche's concept, has decomposing this ideological reading of history, is good with the bars of not being confused.

Literary fragility as decomposing of one-dimensional thought

American philosopher Rory, in one of the main sections of the book “The Iron Contingency and Solidarity” (Contingency, Iron and Soridary) gives the right to a literary partisan confession, despite the provocation you carry on your shoulders. These literary stories, stripped of the essential anger, are independent to give us a polykeplui-perspective for the world.

Right in this book, Rorty gives literature more than an epistemological dimensionality, or Semantic Prison.
And as it is ruthless inconsistencies, part of this book translates Migen Kelmendi into 97, in MM magazine, which was the only platform of liberal thought, away from the contamination of daily politics.
The legend, with the unaffordable ease of literature, has invited us within his provocation.
The first, being consistent in his books and his music, which he has written and sung all his life to the city, then returns to the city where his literature speaks.
The writer does not submit to the public restaurant, which in the most perverted form is in the signal of the Cʹpoltical correctão, or as the South Park “PC Babes”.
All this writing, full of style, brought together those who live also promote a dimensional way of thinking -- that is, morals, idealologists and quasi-nationalists -- spilling the whole value to the writer.
Understandably, as history teaches, artistic provocation has always been nailed by chicheric thinking and ideological bitterness.
We must also guard against the historical monopolitical readings, as Koseleck stated, because we end up inside the ideological substract.
Second, even socio-linguistics should not be viewed dogmaticly, denying the authenticity of language.
For information, anthropology as discipline is not dogmatic. It has a umbilical attachment to structure, and especially to semiotics, it also allows for maneuvering linguistic abuses within the Semiosphere.
Others are just the shallow readings of literary creativity, which begin with language, as Arendt claims, are ending up in the gullag and in the drive of wood!