Postmodernism is bull shit.
ice
James Whitehead
"ice" <icem...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:197fef6d.04010...@posting.google.com...
> Postmodernism is A bull shit, period.
Ice man - i guess glaciation took its toll.
goobs
> Postmodernism is bull shit, period.
this is begging to be deconstructed!
--
Goobs
the book of the future:
www.accanthology.com
James Whitehead
"goobs" <goobs23...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:btp7b6$laa$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > Postmodernism is bull shit, period.
>
> this is begging to be deconstructed!
>
Whats the opposite of Bull Shit?
Bull Food
Bull semen
Cow Piss
Cow Meat? -
McDonalds
........................ the genealogy of the period - or full stop - in
the UK period - in USA- period AKA menstruation which is cyclical and not
a full stop- masculine determinism - feminine indeterminacy.... and now the
full stop or period is a dot. Dotage - the childishness of old age.
Ad Absurdum
--------
Just one of the many incredible anagrams for "There's a little
McDonald's in everyone" is "Cattle roles I handsomely reinvented" or
"Cattle soiler handsomely reinvented".
"Saussure's anagrams and Mauss' gift-exchange will prove to be a more
radical hypothesis than Freud and Marx" --Baudrillard
Ted Lechman
> Postmodernism is bull shit, period.
The best definition (clearest, most accurate and predictive) of
Postmodernism I've found is by Vladimir Tasic in this book
"Mathematics and the Roots of Postmodern Thought" (Oxford Univ. Press,
2001).
In it he calls postmodernism the continuation of the "Romantic
Movement" of the early 19th cen, which was considered in its day to be
a "Counter-Enlightenment", with renewed focus on the primacy of
Language and the imagination (shades of "sola scriptura!").
The present "epoch" of postmodernism is directly related to the break
in 1968 of the French Intellectuals with Marxism. When French
postmodernists talk about rejecting "metanarratives" and their
"totalising" discourses - they are explicitly talking, not about
Metanarratives in some sweeping philosophical metaphysics, but a very
specific metanarrative that they have explicitly rejected and are
still trying to come to grips with the implications of their rejection
- their rejection of Marxist Structuralism in 1968.
That's it! That's all there REALLY is to postmodernism as understood
through misinterpretation of Derrida, Foucault, etc... Rejection of
Marxist structuralism in Literary (and cultural) theory.
Tasik's book is not openly hostile to postmodernism as is Sokols book.
But like I previously mentioned, its makes a really good presentation
of various misinterpretations of the Postmodernists - derrida,
foucault, etc - by quoting their OWN complaints about their followers
missinterpretations.
Ted Lechman
Utica, NY
James Whitehead
"Ted Lechman" <eastw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b89924f9.0402...@posting.google.com...
> icem...@yahoo.com (ice) wrote in message
news:<197fef6d.04010...@posting.google.com>...
> > Postmodernism is bull shit, period.
> The present "epoch" of postmodernism is directly related to the break
> in 1968 of the French Intellectuals with Marxism. When French
> postmodernists talk about rejecting "metanarratives" and their
> "totalising" discourses - they are explicitly talking, not about
> Metanarratives in some sweeping philosophical metaphysics, but a very
> specific metanarrative that they have explicitly rejected and are
> still trying to come to grips with the implications of their rejection
> - their rejection of Marxist Structuralism in 1968.
>
> That's it! That's all there REALLY is to postmodernism as understood
> through misinterpretation of Derrida, Foucault, etc... Rejection of
> Marxist structuralism in Literary (and cultural) theory.
>
I'm sorry Ted - and i'm probably wasting my breath here and repeating
myself - but its not *it* at all. For a start one of the other
metanarratives is the one about truth in some kind of logical/ philosophical
/ scientific way. This has also been rejected. Nobodies really bothered*,
its part of the condition of post-modernity that its possible to say
something is bullshit, or that "thats it" and not be held to account. And
what the account here is - is for the arts and society in general. I'll be
specific in fine art the narrowing down to the minimalism and conceptualism
of the 70s. The actuality of this process was blind to french
intellectualism at the time. It wasnt as much a "rejection" - but an
observed failure of all of these modernist/romantic programmes. Check out
mott the hooples All the young Dudes, or read Kosuths Art after Philosophy.
Post modernism is if you want it in simplistic terms the site of the failure
of modernity. The recognition that the utopian ideals of truth beauty and a
better society - offered by *any* narrative appear to fail. This has
occurred as far as i can see throughout all of the arts, many of the
sciences - but it doesnt seem to have dawned on technology - and i'll throw
in biology here. But i fear it will, for without any overarching morality
and hegemony the danger of the democratisation of technology is only all too
obvious. If via improved biology and technology we can "cure" cancer and
create artificial organs etc. *but* at the cost of more or less anyone being
able to make a nuclear bomb or clone some very dangerous virus then the
general feeling would be "no thanks - not at this cost". With each scenario
which offers "progress" there is an equally and opposite problematic.
*alt.postmodern marks the site of this, it fails *nearly always* to engage
in any positive discussion of po-mo.
ROBBIE ANTI-BEEB GUERILLA
>
HEY DOC!! I'M BACK!! AND I HATE POMO TOO
BANG BANG MAXWELL'S SILVER HAMMER CAME DOWN ON ALT.PO-MO'S HEAD...
>
James Whitehead
"ROBBIE ANTI-BEEB GUERILLA" <sheep_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c0vgpa$1cni9o$1...@ID-200782.news.uni-berlin.de...
A soap impression of his wife......
Ted Lechman
> news:b89924f9.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > icem...@yahoo.com (ice) wrote in message
> news:<197fef6d.04010...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Postmodernism is bull shit, period.
>
> > The present "epoch" of postmodernism is directly related to the break
> > in 1968 of the French Intellectuals with Marxism. When French
> > postmodernists talk about rejecting "metanarratives" and their
> > "totalising" discourses - they are explicitly talking, not about
> > Metanarratives in some sweeping philosophical metaphysics, but a very
> > specific metanarrative that they have explicitly rejected and are
> > still trying to come to grips with the implications of their rejection
> > - their rejection of Marxist Structuralism in 1968.
> >
> > That's it! That's all there REALLY is to postmodernism as understood
> > through misinterpretation of Derrida, Foucault, etc... Rejection of
> > Marxist structuralism in Literary (and cultural) theory.
> >
> I'm sorry Ted - and i'm probably wasting my breath here and repeating
> myself - but its not *it* at all.
By "it" I mean the birth of the present incarnation of postmodernist
era. Sort of like saying that the Episcopal/Anglican Church started
with Henry VIII and his need to get a divorce from Catherine of
Aragon. That's not to say that the Anglican Church hasn't progressed
way beyond that, but its an accurate historical statement nonetheless
- like the origins in Paris 1968 of the current Postmmodernist
movement.
Its sort of funny how religious minds aren't very comfortable focusing
on the historical details of their cults origins...
>.............. For a start one of the other
> metanarratives is the one about truth in some kind of logical/ philosophical
> / scientific way. This has also been rejected. Nobodies really bothered*,
> its part of the condition of post-modernity that its possible to say
> something is bullshit, or that "thats it" and not be held to account. And
> what the account here is - is for the arts and society in general. I'll be
> specific in fine art the narrowing down to the minimalism and conceptualism
> of the 70s.
Nothing makes me happier when you finally get down to specifics! I
presume that you're talking "new music" here - which I agree is far
afield from French Philosphy - So far, in fact that I find NO
CONNECTION between Foucault or Derrida with music (though I'm willing
to be educated).
> The actuality of this process was blind to french
> intellectualism at the time.
Absolutely, I aggree.
> It wasnt as much a "rejection" - but an
> observed failure of all of these modernist/romantic programmes.
I don't see the inherent connection between modern "new music" and
"romantic music". I see the "alt.noise" and other granular or other
synthesis stuff as direct decent from modern or "new" music. But then
what do I know.
I actually don't believe that Postmdoernism applies to music (gasp!).
Being anti-trendy isn't sufficient - its, in fact, the hallmark of
modern art - its rebellion against the revailing acedemic trend (art
politics) of the late 19th cen.
>....The recognition that the utopian ideals of truth beauty and a
> better society - offered by *any* narrative appear to fail.
Yeah, but it didn't "officially" happen until the French Philosophers
declared it so, based upon their experienced with neo-marxism of the
60's.
Utopia's are basically religious ideas, in which particular
"metanarratives" are sold based on disenchantment with other or
previous metanarratives - Marxism isn't scientific (K. Popper made
this case quite effectly - which is of course why he is so hated) -
its a religious metanarrative like Christanity or Islam or ALien
Conspiracy Theorists - using pseudo-scientific jargon doesn't count as
being scientific.
> .................This has
> occurred as far as i can see throughout all of the arts, many of the
> sciences - but it doesnt seem to have dawned on technology - and i'll throw
> in biology here.
Science isnt in the Utopia business, but the process (i.e.
construction) business. Talking "failures of science and math" is
usually an indicationof just plain not knowing what one is stalking
about. Going from a newtonian to Einsteinian physics marks the site
not of failure but of evolutionary change - from classical geomtery to
Riemannian geometry and the results of Complex (as in compex plane)
Analysis. Godels theorums doesn't mark a "failure" but an advance - to
recursive function theory and artificial intelligence. Heisenberg
doesn't mark a "failure' of physics but a major advance - from older
classical "continuum" geometry (points, lines,..) to hierchical
systems thinking (states, observability, etc). Its like saying the
Roman innovation of Concrete mmarks a "failure of the construction
trades".
Engineering and biology are considered "synthetic" because they focus
on building using tools - the engineers tools are math and science.
The Biologists tools is chemistry.
But math and physics are "construction trades" also. Math creates
logical proofs relevant to problems at hand. Their constructions are
stress tested quite vigorously, using logic. Physicists construct
physical laws using the latest math to simplify and make calculateable
basic principles of nature - usulaly focusing on the newly observable
(black holes, the very large, the very small).
Math and science aren't in the "utopia" business any more then
engineering or biology is.
> But i fear it will, for without any overarching morality
> and hegemony the danger of the democratisation of technology is only all too
> obvious. If via improved biology and technology we can "cure" cancer and
> create artificial organs etc. *but* at the cost of more or less anyone being
> able to make a nuclear bomb or clone some very dangerous virus then the
> general feeling would be "no thanks - not at this cost". With each scenario
> which offers "progress" there is an equally and opposite problematic.
You are clearly pointing to the relationship between science and
government. But you seem also to make the mistake of not making a
clear distinction between them. The chicken lays the egg, not the
farmer. The problem lies not with the "failure of science" but the
"failure of government" to make proper and correct allocation of
social resources. I object to your assumptions that it is the
scientists that are responsible for the social consquences of their
discoveries and not the governments that YOU are responsible for
electing.
Similar, if any utopias based on pseudoscientific metanarratives are
found lacking, no blame should be laid at the feet of scientists, but
the philosphers and politicans selling those utopian phantasies.
"My work is always deeply concerned with the 'other' of language. I
never cease to be suprised by critics who see my work as a declaration
that there is nothing beyond language, that we are imprisoned in
language: it is, in fact , saying the exact opposite." Jacque Derrida,
1981
>
> *alt.postmodern marks the site of this, it fails *nearly always* to engage
> in any positive discussion of po-mo.
"I have never said anything like that." Jacques Derrida
Ted Lechan
Utica, New York
p.s.
-------------------------------------------------
Maxwell's Silver Hammer
Writer, lead vocal: Paul McCartney
Joan was quizzical, studied pataphysical
Science in the home
Late nights all alone with a test-tube
Ohh-oh-oh-oh...
Maxwell Edison majoring in medicine
Calls her on the phone
"Can I take you out to the pictures
Joa-oa-oa-oan?"
But as she's getting ready to go
A knock comes on the door...
Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon her head
Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that she was dead
Back in school again Maxwell plays the fool again
Teacher gets annoyed
Wishing to avoid an unpleasant sce-e-e-ene
She tells Max to stay when the class has gone away
So he waits behind
Writing 50 times "I must not be so-o-o-oo..."
But when she turns her back on the boy
He creeps up from behind
Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon her head
Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that she was dead
B.C. Thirty-One said "we caught a dirty one"
Maxwell stands alone
Painting testimonial pictures ohh-oh-oh-oh
Rose and Valerie screaming from the gallery
Say he must go free (Maxwell must go free)
The judge does not agree and he tells them so-o-o-oo
But as the words are leaving his lips
A noise comes from behind
Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon his head
Bang, Bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that he was dead
ROBBIE ANTI-BEEB GUERILLA
MOTHER SUPERIOR JOOMPED THE GOON
>
>
>
Ted Lechman
>..... This has
> occurred as far as i can see throughout all of the arts, many of the
> sciences - but it doesnt seem to have dawned on technology - and i'll throw
> in biology here. But i fear it will, for without any overarching morality
> and hegemony the danger of the democratisation of technology is only all too
> obvious. If via improved biology and technology we can "cure" cancer and
> create artificial organs etc. *but* at the cost of more or less anyone being
Actually this is an interesting point. I hope you are comforted by the
historically proven trends that seem to indicate that:
1. people are much lazier than imaginable - up until the 17th cen,
weaponry was pretty democratic - every one had access to the exact
same weapons - swords, pikes, etc. You'd think this would somehow
de-centralize power and flatten hierarchies but in fact that was the
hay-day of empire and war lords. The British didn't rule their empire
by technologically sophisticated weapons but by social cooercion -
pitting religions and ethnicities against each other. The social
levels of control are much more powerfull then weapons. In fact
religion is the most dangerous and lethal weapon ever devised.
2. The hunger for power of the few is stronger then imaginable.
Economic imperatives are such that the most profit is gained my
monopoly of communications, not their democratic dispersion. Powerful
entities (corporations, governments, etc.) will always stive for
monopoly of technological means. The "democratization" of computer
power to the desktop has enabled spyware and Eshelon type monitoring.
James Whitehead
Well i think you are even more mistaken in that case - the development of
the Anglican Church was a little more complex - (it relates also to the
general Protestant ideas developing at the time, printing and the corruption
in the church - the rise of the nation state etc.) and demonstrates that
religions too can develop - as much the same way as science- both in
diversity and via process such as dialectics - wave /particle - atom/non
atomic - . But! Post-modernism in the plastic arts can be traced to
Duchamp -& Dada - an ironic rejection of modernity- American pop art et.al.
French "po-mo" philosophy didn't make much impression in the uk until the
70s and then in lit crit. And you might have read in this NG the term had
been around well before 68.
>
> Its sort of funny how religious minds aren't very comfortable focusing
> on the historical details of their cults origins...
Oh so you mean the Eucharist has nothing to do with the historical origins
of the cult of Christianity!, or the annual pilgrimage to Mecca ... but i
find it *funny* how athist engineers are blind to the religious
fundamentalism of Newtonian mechanics whose uniformity relies on God - or
the idea of god. All such cheques are only guaranteed by God, without which
they become monopoly money.
>
>
> >.............. For a start one of the other
> > metanarratives is the one about truth in some kind of logical/
philosophical
> > / scientific way. This has also been rejected. Nobodies really
bothered*,
> > its part of the condition of post-modernity that its possible to say
> > something is bullshit, or that "thats it" and not be held to account.
And
> > what the account here is - is for the arts and society in general. I'll
be
> > specific in fine art the narrowing down to the minimalism and
conceptualism
> > of the 70s.
>
> Nothing makes me happier when you finally get down to specifics! I
> presume that you're talking "new music" here -
no i was talking about the likes Don Judd and Kosuth - and the Art and
Language group...
which I agree is far
> afield from French Philosphy - So far, in fact that I find NO
> CONNECTION between Foucault or Derrida with music (though I'm willing
> to be educated).
Derrida specifically is interested and writes about art, and i understand
Christopher Norris was a writer on music. I certainly suspect that there are
links- and important ones at that as any artist could use Derrida as an
alternative to certain scientific and deterministic critiques of art. I'm
always amused by the announcements of "genes" for music or "genes" for art!
But there is work to be done here - in the arts esp music the french have
played an important role. its cultural investment in projects such as IRCAM
Pierre Henry ... 'Foucault/Boulez. La musique contemporaine et le
public'conversation between Foucault and Boulez, in: CNAC magazine, May-June
1983
>
> > The actuality of this process was blind to french
> > intellectualism at the time.
>
> Absolutely, I aggree.
I was referring to the statements of minimal and conceptual artists who were
more focused on the logical-positivist tradition.
>
> > It wasnt as much a "rejection" - but an
> > observed failure of all of these modernist/romantic programmes.
>
> I don't see the inherent connection between modern "new music" and
> "romantic music". I see the "alt.noise" and other granular or other
> synthesis stuff as direct decent from modern or "new" music. But then
> what do I know.
>
> I actually don't believe that Postmdoernism applies to music (gasp!).
> Being anti-trendy isn't sufficient - its, in fact, the hallmark of
> modern art - its rebellion against the revailing acedemic trend (art
> politics) of the late 19th cen.
Cage is often cited, and certainly in music the minimalism - and not just
4.33 - but the work of the minimalists collapsed and transformed itself into
of all things Opera! Nixon in China for instance. A change - minimalism and
the political marxism of Cardew ... Henze - from the 70s onwards and
concerns of looking back....or the disestablishing of the cultural form
itself.
>
> >....The recognition that the utopian ideals of truth beauty and a
> > better society - offered by *any* narrative appear to fail.
>
> Yeah, but it didn't "officially" happen until the French Philosophers
> declared it so, based upon their experienced with neo-marxism of the
> 60's.
Well that is perhaps how the history will be created - but its untrue, in
that there are other ideas around. Notably in Kosuths Art after philosophy
of 1969 - but the art and language movement also established in 1968 relates
to the analytical philosophers.
>
> Utopia's are basically religious ideas, in which particular
> "metanarratives" are sold based on disenchantment with other or
> previous metanarratives - Marxism isn't scientific (K. Popper made
> this case quite effectly - which is of course why he is so hated) -
> its a religious metanarrative like Christanity or Islam or ALien
> Conspiracy Theorists - using pseudo-scientific jargon doesn't count as
> being scientific.
what about "The American Dream"?
Have you read Tiplers The Physics of Immortality?
>
> > But i fear it will, for without any overarching morality
> > and hegemony the danger of the democratisation of technology is only all
too
> > obvious. If via improved biology and technology we can "cure" cancer
and
> > create artificial organs etc. *but* at the cost of more or less anyone
being
> > able to make a nuclear bomb or clone some very dangerous virus then the
> > general feeling would be "no thanks - not at this cost". With each
scenario
> > which offers "progress" there is an equally and opposite problematic.
>
> You are clearly pointing to the relationship between science and
> government. But you seem also to make the mistake of not making a
> clear distinction between them. The chicken lays the egg, not the
> farmer. The problem lies not with the "failure of science" but the
> "failure of government" to make proper and correct allocation of
> social resources. I object to your assumptions that it is the
> scientists that are responsible for the social consquences of their
> discoveries and not the governments that YOU are responsible for
> electing.
So the american gun debate goes.
>
> Similar, if any utopias based on pseudoscientific metanarratives are
> found lacking, no blame should be laid at the feet of scientists, but
> the philosphers and politicans selling those utopian phantasies.
>
Science sells all the time in order to get funding - quite disgracefully
distorting the facts - and says things like new anti cancer drugs can be
produced by processing them on a multi billion dollar space station. It
offers a quick fix - like DDT, anti-bionics, nuclear power, factory farming,
Prozac ..... which is at face value "cheaper" than alternatives, and how
often the real cost years later is revealed.
James Whitehead
can you dig it? CAN YOU DIG IT
i dig a pygmy
Ted Lechman
>>
> Have you read Tiplers The Physics of Immortality?
>
Yes.
Here is a brief list of his points:
Amongst the metaphysical claims which Tipler makes -- and in some
cases defends by argument -- there are the following:
(1) A human being is nothing but a finite-state information processing
device. (p.xi)
(2) A human soul is nothing but a program being run on a computer,
viz. the human brain. (p.xi)
(3) A person is nothing more than a computer program which can pass
the Turing Test. (p.124) (The essential idea of the Turing Test is
that what counts for personhood is behaviour: if it behaves in all
respects like a person, then it is a person. (p.21))
(4) A living being is just an entity which codes information, with the
information coded being preserved by natural selection. (p.124) Life
is information preserved by natural selection. (p.126)
(5) If all objects can be truly described by quantum mechanics, then
the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct.
(p.169) Hence, quantum cosmology requires the Many Worlds
Interpretation of quantum mechanics. (p.169)
(6) If the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics is false,
then it is logically impossible for us to have free will. (pp.173, )
(7) A world is indeterministic exactly if there is no proper part of
it which contains total information about the whole. (p.187)
(8) An agent acts freely just in case: (i) the agent feels that she is
making the decision freely; and (ii) the agent's decision is
undetermined at the most basic physical level. (p.202)
(9) An entity is identical to all of its emulations (i.e. precise
simulations). (p.207)
(10) To exist physically is to be part of an entity whose emulations
are sufficiently complex to contain observers as subsimulations.
(p.210) The physical universe is a concept. (p.209)
(11) Existence is a predicate, a relationship between concepts, a
property of very complex simulations. (p.210)
(12) To be is to be perceived. (p.211)
(13) If a universe contains observers all the way into the Omega
Point, then that universe exists necessarily. (p.211)
(14) A person is identical to any person who has the same ç²—ssential
personality'. (p.226)
(15) Continuity over time is not necessary for personal identity.
(p.227)
(16) Systems in the same quantum state are identical. (p.230)
(17) It is not possible to derive an imperative sentence from a
declarative sentence. (p.330)
My own personal opinion of the book is:
1. its pop-science (mis) used to make a religious/political point.
2. His point seemed to be that Judaism is, by far, the more
scientifically correct religion because it is more in tune with Omega
point cosmological pseudoscience - it was'nt corrupted by those
horrible Greeks and their false ideas (Jews vs Greeks - Jews win!).
Should appeal to the anti-greek boas in postmodernism (see also books
like - "Black Athena")
3. I've read a number of these kinds of books - I've also read one by
a Moslem physicist which "proves" that Islam is the most scientific
religion. There are also books by Buddhists, Taoists amd Hindus also
"prooving" that their religion is the most accurate - scientifically
and cosmologically.
4. I personnaly dislike cosmological metanarratives - the notion that
a particular function or mathematical curve explains the whole
universe seems childlike.
5. I personnaly take an engineering cosmological perspective (more
like Carl Sagan) who postulated that in the future, we'll posses the
technology to manipulate the values of Pi and e and all the other
"funcamental constants". Won't that be fun! Homeland security will
have to deal with mathematical threats to the homeland.
Ted Lechman
> > > > The present "epoch" of postmodernism is directly related to the break
Look - don't get me wrong - I (used to) sing in the choir of a (high
Church) Episcopal Church (If you cann't trust the choir, who can you
trust?).
The hard facts are these:
1. If Catherine or Aragon had born HVIII sons, or had not been such a
hard-assed bitch, or whatever, Henry wouldn't have needed a divorce,
there would not have been Elisabeth I as a monarch.
2. Potestantism in England INITIALLY was a top-down phenomena (just
like the Vatican II "reforms" in the RC Church) in which the religious
question was used to support political legitamacy claims to the throne
- religion was the cart being pulled by the political horse and not
vice-versa.
3. Hard Politics is ALWAYS the driving form is politics, history, the
corporate world, etc. It is ALWAYS disquised historically using
"religious", "economic" or "cultural" forces, but that is only the
propaganda, not the "reality".
4. Anglican/Episcopalism has BENEFITED from having a shady past, and
the RCC has actually suffered from having a presumed "direct and
unbroken" lineage:
much like individuals with humble or noble lineages - much decadence
can be hidden by a noble pedigree - and high performance standards are
imposed on those with humble origins.
>...But! Post-modernism in the plastic arts can be traced to
> Duchamp -& Dada - an ironic rejection of modernity- American pop art et.al.
> French "po-mo" philosophy didn't make much impression in the uk until the
> 70s and then in lit crit.
I'm starting to get confused.
Wasn't there always three groups (?) :
- the professionals who depend on "the market" and therefoe popular
tastes or at least clients tastes or sensibilities for their
livelyhood.
- the professors or rich amateurs who are protected form market
forces and are only really trying to impress each other
(one-upsmanship)
- the poor amateurs, who do as they please, but only part time
(Charles Ives,..).
How does "postmodernism" relate to these catagories? Does a
composer/author switching from catagory 2 or 3 to catagory 1 make one
automatically postmodern?
> And you might have read in this NG the term had
> been around well before 68.
Since the NG was NOT around before '68, we are at the mercy of the
honesty and accuracy of future historians to faithfully recount the
past. Not a very inspiring thought.
James Whitehead
you say-
>
> Math and science aren't in the "utopia" business any more then
> engineering or biology is.
why then would you want to posses the...
> technology to manipulate the values of Pi and e and all the other
> "funcamental constants".?
And if the ability to manipulate "fundamental constants" isnt utopian - well
what is?
James Whitehead
How can an If and a subjective judgement be "hard facts".
Henry wouldn't have needed a divorce,
> there would not have been Elisabeth I as a monarch.
> 2. Potestantism in England INITIALLY was a top-down phenomena (just
> like the Vatican II "reforms" in the RC Church) in which the religious
> question was used to support political legitamacy claims to the throne
> - religion was the cart being pulled by the political horse and not
> vice-versa.
Protestant ideas were around at the time - together with a growing
resentment of the catholic church in some of its more pernicious activities.
> 3. Hard Politics is ALWAYS the driving form is politics, history, the
> corporate world, etc. It is ALWAYS disquised historically using
> "religious", "economic" or "cultural" forces, but that is only the
> propaganda, not the "reality".
> 4. Anglican/Episcopalism has BENEFITED from having a shady past, and
> the RCC has actually suffered from having a presumed "direct and
> unbroken" lineage:
> much like individuals with humble or noble lineages - much decadence
> can be hidden by a noble pedigree - and high performance standards are
> imposed on those with humble origins.
>
>
> >...But! Post-modernism in the plastic arts can be traced to
> > Duchamp -& Dada - an ironic rejection of modernity- American pop art
et.al.
> > French "po-mo" philosophy didn't make much impression in the uk until
the
> > 70s and then in lit crit.
>
> I'm starting to get confused.
If you study post-modernism in the plastic arts the so called po-mo bunch
relate strongly to Duchamp et al.
>
> Wasn't there always three groups (?) :
> - the professionals who depend on "the market" and therefoe popular
> tastes or at least clients tastes or sensibilities for their
> livelyhood.
> - the professors or rich amateurs who are protected form market
> forces and are only really trying to impress each other
> (one-upsmanship)
> - the poor amateurs, who do as they please, but only part time
> (Charles Ives,..).
>
> How does "postmodernism" relate to these catagories? Does a
> composer/author switching from catagory 2 or 3 to catagory 1 make one
> automatically postmodern?
>
It critques the tradition of which it is part as opposed to re-afirming it.
>
> > And you might have read in this NG the term had
> > been around well before 68.
>
> Since the NG was NOT around before '68, we are at the mercy of the
> honesty and accuracy of future historians to faithfully recount the
> past. Not a very inspiring thought.
Yes you seem to have a problem with understanding. The term not the NG was
around before 68.
ROBBIE ANTI-BEEB GUERILLA
>
BY CHARLES HAWTREY AND DEAF AIDES
Tom Adams
Does that mean that modernism is either bullcrud or calfshit, question mark.