Well, rather!
Kristian Kirsfeldt
oh no,
not ol' me, but it does look rather out of place when you chit-chat about
postmodernism in a newsgroup named alt.postmodernism. Would it not be
rather more doddle-doodle if you said 'provincialism' instead? Well, carry
on chaps,
cheerio!
Peter R.Spacey
postmodernism in a newsgroup named alt.postmodernism"
But the "alt." only means it's not an 'official' ng. for promoting the cause. It's a place where all and sundry can share their
thoughts - for or against. Which side are you on, then? Peter
Ned Ludd
news:memo.20010616...@searcher.compulink.co.uk...
>
> Kristian, you say: " but it does look rather out of place
> alt.postmodernism"
> But the "alt." only means it's not an 'official' ng. for
> promoting the cause. It's a place where all and sundry can
> share their thoughts - for or against. Which side are you
> on, then? Peter
>
All the postmodernists left a year ago. All that's left now are
Christian religious fanatics and people who hate postmodernism.
Ned
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
Ah! but then you also must be part of "all that's left"...
have you Flamed yourself?
--
James Whitehead
Ned Ludd
news:NIqU0AAs...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
Ned:
>> All the postmodernists left a year ago. All that's left now are
>> Christian religious fanatics and people who hate postmodernism.
James:
> i'm not sure which category you put me in - or is your *and*
> inclusive? Ah! but then you also must be part of "all that's left".
>
Yes. I'm about half each.
> have you Flamed yourself?
>
Yes. But it was worth it.
Ned
Kristian Kirsfeldt
Drove my chevy to the levee
But the levee was dry
And them good old boys were deconstructing some wine
Singin' now I've seen postmodernism die
Now I've seen postmodernism die
Treeclimbr
2 years ago hasn't quite been here in
the last few years. But I think that
this is still one of the best newsgroups
around. And you know who you are
that make it that way. Actually,
Usenet in general should be "saved"
as much as possible, huge segments
of it have nothing but five or six spam
messages.
If anything is a conspiracy it's the
death of usenet. But I don't really
believe in conspiracies.
___________________
Robert Pearson
Creative Virtue Press: http://www.rspearson.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net/
R.S. Pearson Music Page http://users.50megs.com/rspearson/
James Owens
> All the postmodernists left a year ago. All that's left now are
> Christian religious fanatics and people who hate postmodernism.
Two questions -- can't you hate postmodernism and still be a postmodernist?
And, how do you get to be a postmodernist anyway? Do you need to fill out
a form?
I thought postmodernism had something to do with the zeitgeist -- we're
postmodernist not by choice, but by acculturation or historical dialectic
or something. So everyone here is a postmodernist, just like everyone on
all the other newsgroups. The only people who aren't postmodernists are
people with no e-mail address, or VCR, or CD player, or other technology
that allows them to exist in a culture foreign to their immediate
surroundings, or in multiple cultures simultaneously, and who are
therefore unaware of the arbitrary character of their own culture.
Actually a good working definition of a non-postmodernist might be:
someone who doesn't get the cartoons in the New Yorker.
--
James Owens ad...@Freenet.carleton.ca
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Treeclimbr
>I thought postmodernism had something to do with the zeitgeist -- we're
>postmodernist not by choice, but by acculturation
Acculteration is an individual process. If I surround myself with Russian
mysticism and Stockhausen CD's, with a few Brother's Quay videos
(avant garde stuff, not mainstream) am I accultered in the same way
as someone who watched network TV?
or historical dialectic
>or something.
Well, who is chosing the lines in the dialectic? A genius having a dialectic
with a fool might come out different that a genius dialecting together with
another genius.
So everyone here is a postmodernist, just like everyone on
>all the other newsgroups. The only people who aren't postmodernists are
>people with no e-mail address, or VCR, or CD player, or other technology
>that allows them to exist in a culture foreign to their immediate
>surroundings, or in multiple cultures simultaneously, and who are
>therefore unaware of the arbitrary character of their own culture.
>Actually a good working definition of a non-postmodernist might be:
>someone who doesn't get the cartoons in the New Yorker.
Your making the mistake of confusing philosophical method and school
with a cultural process. Was the average person in Goethe's day a
Romanticist? Was the racist in Thoreau's day a Transcendentalist?
Being a Post-Modernisn is someone's choice, not some label someone
throughs on them simply by the fact they are born in a certain age.
Ned Ludd
news:9gl0rp$glq$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
Ned:
> All the postmodernists left a year ago. All that's left now are
> Christian religious fanatics and people who hate postmodernism.
James:
> Two questions -- can't you hate postmodernism and still be a
> postmodernist?
>
Can you hate capitalism and still be a Capitalist? Can you hate
Marxism and still be a Marxist? Can you hate Christianity and still
be a Christian? Or is Postmodernism special? Is it a religion/
Ideology/Philosophy that admits of adherents who despise it? Or,
is it not an elective state, but rather like a plague, or blight,
or temporal infirmity? Do most Postmodernists - as revealed through
their writings - despise Postmodernism and the postmodern state?
And if so, is this unusual?
> And, how do you get to be a postmodernist anyway? Do you need to
> fill out a form?
>
Form is emptiness, but alas emptiness is also form.
> I thought postmodernism had something to do with the zeitgeist --
> we're postmodernist not by choice, but by acculturation or
> historical dialectic or something. So everyone here is a
> postmodernist, just like everyone on all the other newsgroups.
> The only people who aren't postmodernists are people with no e-mail
> address, or VCR, or CD player, or other technology that allows them
> to exist in a culture foreign to their immediate surroundings, or
> in multiple cultures simultaneously, and who are therefore unaware
> of the arbitrary character of their own culture. Actually a good
> working definition of a non-postmodernist might be: someone who
> doesn't get the cartoons in the New Yorker.
>
So you must BE multi-culti to understand multi-culti? (Even if
it is only brought to you virtually.) OK, if it's an age, "a
zeitgeist" more than a philosophy, why does anyone call themselves
a "Postmodernist"? Existentialism had Existentialists, Nihilism
had Nihilists. It seems like a philosophy, and has a powerful
revolutionary edge, the way you just stated it - "unaware of the
arbitrary character of their own culture".
If Postmodernism removes the constraints of cultural norms, what
did Existentialism and Nihilism remove?
Ned
Ned Ludd
news:20010618130311...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
James:
>> I thought postmodernism had something to do with the zeitgeist --
>> we're postmodernist not by choice, but by acculturation
Treeclimber:
> Acculteration is an individual process. If I surround myself with
> Russian mysticism and Stockhausen CD's, with a few Brother's Quay
> videos (avant garde stuff, not mainstream) am I accultered in the
> same way as someone who watched network TV?
>
Yes, this idea's been getting some press lately, and I'm not sure
it holds up. Do the Idaho Aryan Nation groups that hole up in cabins
and take Nazi propaganda off the net, and the extremist Islamic
groups that use the net for bomb-making and spreading their religious
fervor, implicitly create the seeds of their own doom by using the
net?
Clearly they know that Television does that. They all prohibit
television from the outside world from reaching their communities,
but doesn't the net do the same thing only slower and more subtly?
They will have to keep the net hidden FOREVER from the majority of
their people, and is this really feasible?
As for the single person doing this, doesn't he really know that
the thousands of alternate and competing products that exist within
the internet marketplace where he buys his (very limited) selection
indicate that his view is merely one of very, very many?
Ned
Kristian Kirsfeldt
some mates. It is tip-top to realize that all the folk in the world are the
same, except for those bloody rural-dwelling upstarts.
James Whitehead
<treec...@aol.comnospamma> writes
>Your making the mistake of confusing philosophical method and school
>with a cultural process. Was the average person in Goethe's day a
>Romanticist? Was the racist in Thoreau's day a Transcendentalist?
>Being a Post-Modernisn is someone's choice, not some label someone
>throughs on them simply by the fact they are born in a certain age.
Isn't this just a simple mistake - was a bush man circa
1870 a Victorian - etc. The historical epoch is given a name -
Victorian, The Renaissance, The age of enlightenment, to distinguish it
in regards to history - a western history at that, so the term being
used in the sense of the western tradition is of an epoch - though to a
post modernist themselves they both realise this - like a Victorian
academic might in the 1870 living in England - but also realise how un-
true this is - the idea of an absolute historically defined epoch.
However the post modernist subjectivism arises out of the collapse of a
previous objective world view, not naivety, so is in a sense different -
err ironic?
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> Can you hate capitalism and still be a Capitalist? Can you hate
>Marxism and still be a Marxist? Can you hate Christianity and still
>be a Christian? Or is Postmodernism special? Is it a religion/
>Ideology/Philosophy that admits of adherents who despise it?
Can you hate travelling and be a commuter, can you hate washing up the
dishes and have clean dishes, hate mowing the lawn but have one, can you
hate flying but still fly, hate cars and drive, hate alarm clocks and
set them, hate work and work, hate living and live?
--
James Whitehead
James Owens
>> Two questions -- can't you hate postmodernism and still be a
>> postmodernist?
>>
Ned:
> Can you hate capitalism and still be a Capitalist? Can you hate
> Marxism and still be a Marxist? Can you hate Christianity and still
> be a Christian? Or is Postmodernism special? Is it a religion/
> Ideology/Philosophy that admits of adherents who despise it? Or,
> is it not an elective state, but rather like a plague, or blight,
> or temporal infirmity? Do most Postmodernists - as revealed through
> their writings - despise Postmodernism and the postmodern state?
> And if so, is this unusual?
Can you hate zealotry and be a zealot? Can you hate European white males
and be a European white male? Can you hate philosophy and be a
philosopher? Can you hate the bourgeoisie and be bourgeois? Can you hate
the suburbs and be a suburb-dweller? Can you hate hypocrisy and be a
hypocrite? Can you hate God and believe yourself God?
Ned:
> . . .
> OK, if it's an age, "a
> zeitgeist" more than a philosophy, why does anyone call themselves
> a "Postmodernist"? Existentialism had Existentialists, Nihilism
> had Nihilists. It seems like a philosophy, and has a powerful
> revolutionary edge, the way you just stated it - "unaware of the
> arbitrary character of their own culture".
> If Postmodernism removes the constraints of cultural norms, what
> did Existentialism and Nihilism remove?
Their clothes?
But seriously, existentialism isn't a philosophy known only to a
privileged and learned few, while the great mass of humanity carries on in
some non-existential state. Is it? Existentialism purports to describe
the condition of every individual as existential, whether they know they
are in an existential condition or not. So there is Existentialism, the
philosophy, with all its arcane flavours, and there is existentialism, the
condition, which is the common lot. Nihilism may be a bit different,
being more of a political stance. What is postmodernism? The standard
answer seems to be: whatever you want.
I've heard it's a philosophy, but that's only to say there are
philosophers of postmodernism, just as there were philosophers of
enlightenment rationalism who articulated the age without themselves
inventing or creating or exclusively defining it, or simply being it. Or
is postmodernism an art movement, principally architectural? Or is it an
attitude, quite naturally resisting anything so precise as a coherent
description, so that its philosophers are obliged to flirt with
incoherence rather than say simple and intelligible things, for fear of
undermining their own premisses? Or is postmodernism just a mood you get when
you listen to certain CDs or watch certain shows?
It's a condition, the post-post-God condition, when God is not only dead,
but also undead, I guess. It has a whole lot of cool words and memes, some
cool music and buildings and food, some cultural detritus. It is, as with
every movement of the psyche, the unexpressed seeking expression. And yes,
you can hate it while being in it.
James Owens
In ascribing to each age a view, I mean something stronger. It would be a
mistake to ascribe to persons of every other age the same world view as
our own. In other ages, people experienced the world differently --
different features were salient, different asumptions were prevalent. No
one would suggest that a bush man had an enlightenment or a postmodern
perspective, or that the outlook of an Athenian and a medieval monk were
the same (even as they both read Aristotle).
It would be reckless to say that everyone living in, say, Europe in 1200
had the same view of life, but just as reckless to say that there was
utterly no commonality to distinguish their view from that of other times.
There's also a question of the granularity -- whether the world view in
1300 differed significantly from that of 1200. Probably not, but a few
more centuries would see a significant difference.
So when Treeclimbr asks, "Was the average person in Goethe's day a
romanticist?", the answer has got to be, basically, yes -- the average
person who was part of Goethe's culture must have shared his world-view to
a considerable extent. Now, the culture may have been separated from
other contemporaneous cultures by social divisions, for example, so that a
village peasant might not be able to appreciate Goethe, or to care or even
understand what he was on about. But if you wish to define a "Romantic"
period in cultural history, you have to accept that as a culture it
permeated some section of society and defined a general attitude, or
approach, or set of problems, or aesthetic values, or intellectual
preoccupations, for that section (which such labels, by the way, assume to
be the important section).
Ned Ludd
James O:
>> Two questions -- can't you hate postmodernism and still be a
>> postmodernist?
Ned:
> Can you hate capitalism and still be a Capitalist? Can you hate
> Marxism and still be a Marxist? Can you hate Christianity and still
> be a Christian? Or is Postmodernism special? Is it a religion/
> Ideology/Philosophy that admits of adherents who despise it?
James W:
> Can you hate travelling and be a commuter, can you hate washing up
> the dishes and have clean dishes, hate mowing the lawn but have one,
> can you hate flying but still fly, hate cars and drive, hate alarm
> clocks and set them, hate work and work, hate living and live?
>
These only work and apply if you have to be a postmodernist. Do
you have to be postmodernist? I think that's silly. You can damn
will be a pre-Raphaelite if you like, in this postmodern age.
Ned
James Owens
> Ned:
>> Can you hate capitalism and still be a Capitalist? Can you hate
>> Marxism and still be a Marxist? Can you hate Christianity and still
>> be a Christian? Or is Postmodernism special? Is it a religion/
>> Ideology/Philosophy that admits of adherents who despise it?
>
> James W:
>> Can you hate travelling and be a commuter, can you hate washing up
>> the dishes and have clean dishes, hate mowing the lawn but have one,
>> can you hate flying but still fly, hate cars and drive, hate alarm
>> clocks and set them, hate work and work, hate living and live?
>>
>
> These only work and apply if you have to be a postmodernist. Do
> you have to be postmodernist? I think that's silly. You can damn
> will be a pre-Raphaelite if you like, in this postmodern age.
>
> Ned
But you can't _really_ be a pre-Raphaelite. You can only be a
postmodernist doing pre-Raphaelite . In fact, once you're a
postmodernist, it's hard to see what else you can do with perfect
sincerity and an absence of ironic distance. Zen, maybe.
Ned Ludd
Ned:
> . . .
> OK, if it's an age, "a zeitgeist" more than a philosophy, why does
> anyone call themselves a "Postmodernist"? Existentialism had
> Existentialists, Nihilism had Nihilists. It seems like a philosophy,
> and has a powerful revolutionary edge, the way you just stated it -
> "unaware of the arbitrary character of their own culture".
> If Postmodernism removes the constraints of cultural norms, what
> did Existentialism and Nihilism remove?
James O:
>...
> But seriously, existentialism isn't a philosophy known only to
> a privileged and learned few, while the great mass of humanity
> carries on in some non-existential state. Is it?
>
Yes it is. Just like Postmodernism.
> Existentialism purports to describe the condition of every
> individual as existential, whether they know they are in an
> existential condition or not.
>
Christianity purports to describe the condition of every
individual as living under the will of God, whether they know
they are or not. But that doesn't make it so.
All the 'isms' purport to describe reality. But it is a reality
that the vast bulk of humanity ignores, and continues to grind away
at a very plain, materialist existence in spite of. (While believing
a vast array of various 'isms' in the process.)
Postmodernism is a hot-house flower, just like Nihilism and
Existentialism were.
> So there is Existentialism, the philosophy, with all its arcane
> flavours, and there is existentialism, the condition, which is
> the common lot...
>
Not it's not. Not in any way the common (or average) person's lot.
It is an academic commentary at best. Most of the world is still
struggling under deism, patriarchy, nuclear families, and one form
or another of totalitarianism. (In addition the local religious
'ism' prevailing in their region.)
> Nihilism may be a bit different, being more of a political stance.
> What is postmodernism? The standard answer seems to be: whatever
> you want.
>
I doubt that anyone except you and James W. define it that way.
> I've heard it's a philosophy, but that's only to say there are
> philosophers of postmodernism, just as there were philosophers
> of enlightenment rationalism who articulated the age without
> themselves inventing or creating or exclusively defining it, or
> simply being it. Or is postmodernism an art movement, principally
> architectural? Or is it an attitude, quite naturally resisting
> anything so precise as a coherent description, so that its
> philosophers are obliged to flirt with incoherence rather than
> say simple and intelligible things, for fear of undermining their
> own premisses? Or is postmodernism just a mood you get when you
> listen to certain CDs or watch certain shows?
>
Well, keep doing that fancy dance, and maybe you can make it
disappear. All philosophies are "ways of looking". All of them
attempt to displace, or remove, some philosophy/relion that has
held sway up until that time.
In that sense, nihilism/existentialism/postmodernism are all cut
from the same cloth. All are telling pretty much the same story
and attempting to remove the same thing: the constraints of
cultural norms.
> It's a condition, the post-post-God condition, when God is not
> only dead, but also undead, I guess. It has a whole lot of cool
> words and memes, some cool music and buildings and food, some
> cultural detritus. It is, as with every movement of the psyche,
> the unexpressed seeking expression. And yes, you can hate it
> while being in it.
>
Oh goodness, the Rolong Nazarene again. Just can't get away from
vampires in this postmodern age.
Ned
Ned Ludd
Ned:
>> Can you hate capitalism and still be a Capitalist? Can you hate
>> Marxism and still be a Marxist? Can you hate Christianity and still
>> be a Christian? Or is Postmodernism special? Is it a religion/
>> Ideology/Philosophy that admits of adherents who despise it?
James W:
>> Can you hate travelling and be a commuter, can you hate washing up
>> the dishes and have clean dishes, hate mowing the lawn but have one,
>> can you hate flying but still fly, hate cars and drive, hate alarm
>> clocks and set them, hate work and work, hate living and live?
Ned:
> These only work and apply if you have to be a postmodernist. Do
> you have to be postmodernist? I think that's silly. You can damn
> well be a pre-Raphaelite if you like, in this postmodern age.
James O:
> But you can't _really_ be a pre-Raphaelite. You can only be a
> postmodernist doing pre-Raphaelite.
>
Only because you're trying to define it that way. And it's not so.
There are people that live in the time of ancient Greece living today.
There are people living in the time of ancient Roman city-states and
private armies living in the world today.
Where Postmodernism is relevant is in something like you said
earlier, something unavoidable, like television and the internet
which have the potential to destroy old ways, wipe them off the face
of the planet, and replace them with new ways.
> In fact, once you're a postmodernist, it's hard to see what else
> you can do with perfect sincerity and an absence of ironic distance.
> Zen, maybe.
>
Ha. Yes. Some Zennies and Buddhists try to claim something like
"Once you're enlightened you can't ever be unenlightened." But so
far it's just a claim, and a large percentage of people that these
same Zennies and Buddhists have claimed to be enlightened have
screwed up terribly and often been renounced by the same Zennies
and Buddhists. For all you know, the next thing coming after
Postmodernism is a Global Theocracy.
Ned
Peter R.Spacey
> Christian religious fanatics and people who hate postmodernism.
Ned
Well, well Ned! I wouldn't care to carry either label. I am christian (small "c" because I want to avoid the stigmas of all the
official stuff but lack a clear 'religious' alternative label) and _more recently_ 'postmodern' because I find a lot of possibilities
in that *philosophy* that are mentally liberating. The 'zeitgeist' thing may be relevant in part since the current movement
seems to have come to the notice of people like me in a certain circumscribed season but I would also want to accept
postmodern claims from anyone in any past era, too. Since we don't have a definition at hand how can anyone be ruled out
unless (a) not claiming postmodernity (b) provokingly anti? In some ways I see the Radical Reformers as postmodern in
their day, rejecting not only the legacy of centuries of popery but equally refusing the transfer of power to the magisterial
reformers who wanted to retain a whole load of hierarchical nonsense so keeping in with the princes of this world.
So who frightened all the postmoderns away?! Ain't it amazing tho', Ned that the "Christian religious fanatics" lurk on, as
they do in many other unlikely places in the hope of a catch? :-) Regards, Peter
Peter R.Spacey
with a fool might come out different that a genius dialecting together with
another genius.
Just wondering what you mean by "dialectic" here, especially in the first instance :-)? Regards, Peter
Peter R.Spacey
people with no e-mail address, or VCR, or CD player, or other technology
that allows them to exist in a culture foreign to their immediate
surroundings, or in multiple cultures simultaneously, and who are
therefore unaware of the arbitrary character of their own culture.
Actually a good working definition of a non-postmodernist might be:
someone who doesn't get the cartoons in the New Yorker.
Well I don't "get" yankee humour at all. Too way out for a Londoner :-) Also I have no VCR or car - oops automobile! I
do have DVD and Intel inside! Your caricature of "culture" may be a bit off the mark? Perhaps the idea of multiple cultures
(very postmodern!) is a better expression of what really gives at least in the Western world? Do you not see the potential in
postmodernism for withstanding attempts to revive a particular culture, as apparently in George Bush's mind for the yanks?
Regards, Peter
James Owens
> Regards, Peter
What I'm getting at with the e-mail/VCR/powered personal transportation
thing is the contrast between a physical community that goes to the same
shops and the same summer beach, that turns out for the same county fair,
goes to the same cinema or drive-in and watches one of the two or three
films in town that month, sees all the same shows on network TV, listens
to the local radio station, and basically is on the same wavelength -- you
get the idea -- and one where you can hang out on the Internet with some
guy from Ottawa and one from Copenhagen and one from Canberra and one from
Cincinnati, or wherever (but hardly any women!) and you can rent German
films and indy productions and 50's sci-fi flicks, and listen to music
from Lebanon or Japan, and drive to Chinatown for dinner and little Italy
for dessert, and all the while the guy in the next apartment is living on
his own planet (except when the Pink Floyd bass comes through the wall).
Now the Americans -- well, there's two ways to go here. I guess when you
talk about Bush you're thinking of the Christian fundamentalist,
anti-communist, free-enterprise, sucker-born-every-minute, all-American
freedom-loving gun-toting culture (can you tell I'm a Canadian?), and yes,
that's up against postmodern awareness, although it has very strong roots.
Besides, the backlash against postmodernism is just to stick your flag
down hard and say, "this is what I stand for!" based not on any ultimate
reality, which postmodernism can shoot down, but on sheer cussedness and
the need to be believe in something. And that's where the strength of this
American revivalism comes from, just a reflex to believe in something.
But there's the other way, which is the globalist multinational
McDonald's/Nike/blockbuster-movie-publicity-machine direction that tends,
based on the economics of mass production and sheer scale, to promote a
single popular culture that catches as many people as possible in its net.
And that's what Bush is about, don't kid yourself: economic imperialism,
the supremacy of the U.S. over all other groups on the globe for the
purpose of enjoying the fruits of power. The all-American Christian thing
is at best a convenient but otherwise arbitrary vehicle to keep this plan
cohesive.
James Whitehead
<ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
Something stronger is the idea of an absolute History - I was taught as
history in an English school the history of the English Monarchy,
Cromwell was brushed over. Likewise Napoleon was seen as a villain. A
post-modern critique would be how you distinguish events and views about
them. The Magna Charter having very little effect on the average serf -
yet alone women and non-Europeans. Even in Victorian London the poor had
little knowledge of politics.
>
>So when Treeclimbr asks, "Was the average person in Goethe's day a
>romanticist?", the answer has got to be, basically, yes -- the average
>person who was part of Goethe's culture must have shared his world-view to
>a considerable extent.
'who was part of' waters this down - on average i guess most people
never knew a jot and would guess that even today most of the worlds
population would not know who Gothe was. (Al-Khuwarazmi, Al-Saamaw'al,
Al-Karaji, Al-Battani et al have only in post-modernity been given some
credit for their part in mathematics.)
> Now, the culture may have been separated from
>other contemporaneous cultures by social divisions, for example, so that a
>village peasant might not be able to appreciate Goethe, or to care or even
>understand what he was on about.
He wouldn't even know who he was - and i think still in the main would
not. Even in a contemporary western city many i think would not know who
goth-ey was.
> But if you wish to define a "Romantic"
>period in cultural history, you have to accept that as a culture it
>permeated some section of society and defined a general attitude, or
>approach, or set of problems, or aesthetic values, or intellectual
>preoccupations, for that section (which such labels, by the way, assume to
>be the important section).
No - you see yourself as the dominant and significant culture -
therefore your history is important. The tendency today to find long
dead people of interest only if they form part of *your* genealogy.
As history was a western invention it was in the past screwed - and the
screwing still continues as we see our history in american terms...
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> Only because you're trying to define it that way. And it's not so.
>There are people that live in the time of ancient Greece living today.
>There are people living in the time of ancient Roman city-states and
>private armies living in the world today.
if they want to remain in their original state they must be unknown to
us... Well only by guess work - once you send in the cameras they are
suddenly in the modern world...
>
> Where Postmodernism is relevant is in something like you said
>earlier, something unavoidable, like television and the internet
>which have the potential to destroy old ways, wipe them off the face
>of the planet, and replace them with new ways.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> writes
>
>But seriously, existentialism isn't a philosophy known only to a
>privileged and learned few, while the great mass of humanity carries on in
>some non-existential state. Is it?
yes it is...
> Existentialism purports to describe
>the condition of every individual as existential, whether they know they
>are in an existential condition or not.
Just as Quantum Physics describes matter - or Orthodox Christianity -
they attempt to define absolute truths and deny alternatives much
significance.
> So there is Existentialism, the
>philosophy, with all its arcane flavours, and there is existentialism, the
>condition, which is the common lot.
Not the common lot - but thought to be the common lot. Existentialism
(in po-mo terms?) is underpinned by a universalism - part of that grand
narrative obsession - "if every stone behaves in a manner dictated by
its inward nature... then every stone should behave differently and
there is little motivation to search for behaviours shared by all moving
stones." What modern philosophers and physicists might have discovered
was that there are no-such Laws or even shared behaviours after all.
> Nihilism may be a bit different,
>being more of a political stance. What is postmodernism? The standard
>answer seems to be: whatever you want.
except innocence.
>
>I've heard it's a philosophy, but that's only to say there are
>philosophers of postmodernism, just as there were philosophers of
>enlightenment rationalism who articulated the age without themselves
>inventing or creating or exclusively defining it, or simply being it. Or
>is postmodernism an art movement, principally architectural? Or is it an
>attitude, quite naturally resisting anything so precise as a coherent
>description, so that its philosophers are obliged to flirt with
>incoherence rather than say simple and intelligible things, for fear of
>undermining their own premisses? Or is postmodernism just a mood you get when
>you listen to certain CDs or watch certain shows?
>
>It's a condition, the post-post-God condition, when God is not only dead,
>but also undead, I guess. It has a whole lot of cool words and memes, some
>cool music and buildings and food, some cultural detritus. It is, as with
>every movement of the psyche, the unexpressed seeking expression. And yes,
>you can hate it while being in it.
>
essentially its not new.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> All the 'isms' purport to describe reality. But it is a reality
>that the vast bulk of humanity ignores, and continues to grind away
>at a very plain, materialist existence in spite of. (While believing
>a vast array of various 'isms' in the process.)
Post-modernism as an ism describes the failure of modernism, the failure
of theory - so it is different.
>
> Postmodernism is a hot-house flower, just like Nihilism and
>Existentialism were.
The term "Post" can be seen as "after" so its not a new hot-house flower
but the dead remains of the "modern" flower(ing).
>
>> Nihilism may be a bit different, being more of a political stance.
>> What is postmodernism? The standard answer seems to be: whatever
>> you want.
>>
>
> I doubt that anyone except you and James W. define it that way.
The proviso is that it cant be (anything) 1960 again! but a retro-60s
experience. It cant be "real".
--
James Whitehead
Moggin Goldberg
> I do say, it is rather jolly to spend time at the club and have a drink
> with some mates. It is tip-top to realize that all the folk in the
> world are the same, except for those bloody rural-dwelling upstarts.
Pagans?
-- Moggin
Ned Ludd
Ned:
>> All the 'isms' purport to describe reality. But it is a reality
>> that the vast bulk of humanity ignores, and continues to grind
>> away at a very plain, materialist existence in spite of. (While
>> believing a vast array of various 'isms' in the process.)
James W:
> Post-modernism as an ism describes the failure of modernism, the
> failure of theory - so it is different.
>
Only to someone who hates it. Nihilism described the failure
of the church and religion (among other things). Existentialism
described the failure of all cultural norms, releasing man to the
despair of total freedom. Did each of these philosophies have a
positive aspect? To the extent that they release people from some
form of slavery or another, yes, they do. Does Postmodernism?
If it works like James O. says it does - exposing people to the
existence of cultures foreign to their immediate surroundings, or
placing them in multiple cultures simultaneously, thereby revealing
the arbitrary character of their own culture - then it fits quite
well with prior philosophical movements. It breaks the constraints
of culture by showing how common and un-exceptional they are.
>> Postmodernism is a hot-house flower, just like Nihilism and
>> Existentialism were.
>
> The term "Post" can be seen as "after" so its not a new hot-house
> flower but the dead remains of the "modern" flower(ing).
>
Not if it continues the revolution started by Nihilism and
continued by Existentialism. Then it acts as an engine of great
and useful destruction, as Nietzsche said: "a mighty pressure and
hammer [which] breaks and removes degenerate and decaying races
to make way for a new order of life".
>>> Nihilism may be a bit different, being more of a political stance.
>>> What is postmodernism? The standard answer seems to be: whatever
>>> you want.
>>
>> I doubt that anyone except you and James W. define it that way.
>
> The proviso is that it cant be (anything) 1960 again! but a
> retro-60s experience. It cant be "real".
>
The 50's and early 60's were the phoniest times in the whole history
of America, not 'real' in any sense of the word. 'Retro' is often
associated with Pomo, and I guess I see it. It removes the constraint
of having to live in your own time.
Ned
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:GPam1MAv...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>
>Ned:
>>> All the 'isms' purport to describe reality. But it is a reality
>>> that the vast bulk of humanity ignores, and continues to grind
>>> away at a very plain, materialist existence in spite of. (While
>>> believing a vast array of various 'isms' in the process.)
>
>James W:
>> Post-modernism as an ism describes the failure of modernism, the
>> failure of theory - so it is different.
>>
>
> Only to someone who hates it. Nihilism described the failure
>of the church and religion (among other things). Existentialism
>described the failure of all cultural norms, releasing man to the
>despair of total freedom. Did each of these philosophies have a
>positive aspect? To the extent that they release people from some
>form of slavery or another, yes, they do. Does Postmodernism?
>
> If it works like James O. says it does - exposing people to the
>existence of cultures foreign to their immediate surroundings, or
>placing them in multiple cultures simultaneously, thereby revealing
>the arbitrary character of their own culture - then it fits quite
>well with prior philosophical movements. It breaks the constraints
>of culture by showing how common and un-exceptional they are.
Multiculturalism is just one aspect of post-modernity, and in
pessimistic terms is not a liberation but a new exploitation. But if as
you say it frees one from some prior slavery then in philosophy wouldn't
this be logic, rationality, objectivity and theory - and without these
philosophy becomes difficult? In history it frees one from evidence and
truth - making history difficult, I think at least Nihilism retains
logic, or else one could simply revert back to some religious view.
>
>>> Postmodernism is a hot-house flower, just like Nihilism and
>>> Existentialism were.
>>
>> The term "Post" can be seen as "after" so its not a new hot-house
>> flower but the dead remains of the "modern" flower(ing).
>>
>
> Not if it continues the revolution started by Nihilism and
>continued by Existentialism. Then it acts as an engine of great
>and useful destruction, as Nietzsche said: "a mighty pressure and
>hammer [which] breaks and removes degenerate and decaying races
>to make way for a new order of life".
But Nietzsche is reduced to a Disney figure, Las Vegas *is*
architecturally as good as (if not better than) Venice or Florence.
What defines po-mo art? Po-mo politics - the lack of politics - the left
and right become the same - even in the po-mo riots the wearing of
images of Mao - yet what is the target - the American embassy? no
McDonalds - which the irony is that its popular... And its trashing
generates more publicity. So successful is its image that it is the
authenticity of today. And being seen burning on CNN all those third
world countries are shown what they must have in order to be a
developed *modern* country.
>
>>>> Nihilism may be a bit different, being more of a political stance.
>>>> What is postmodernism? The standard answer seems to be: whatever
>>>> you want.
>>>
>>> I doubt that anyone except you and James W. define it that way.
>>
>> The proviso is that it cant be (anything) 1960 again! but a
>> retro-60s experience. It cant be "real".
>>
>
> The 50's and early 60's were the phoniest times in the whole history
>of America, not 'real' in any sense of the word. 'Retro' is often
>associated with Pomo, and I guess I see it. It removes the constraint
>of having to live in your own time.
Not at all - its impossible to live in ones own time now because there
isn't one. There is nostalgia - for Nietzsche! - as if the rest of 20th
century philosophy isn't good enough - too modern? Like having Victorian
decoration back on our houses - only in wipe clean UVPC.
--
James Whitehead
Peter R.Spacey
the supremacy of the U.S. over all other groups on the globe for the
purpose of enjoying the fruits of power. The all-American Christian thing
is at best a convenient but otherwise arbitrary vehicle to keep this plan
cohesive.
----
Yes, I watched the inauguration and heard the speeches on Brit TV. Can well imagine that what you say is on the ball.
Pretty sad really? Otoh, how would Al Gore have done? Guess Clinton wasn't a great vote-puller for him at least in the
eyes of the 'moral majority'. Had a letter from a wife of an ex-pastor in Michigan to whom I'd expressed my doubts. She
said at last "we" have someone who will fight for christian principles (or words to that effect). Quite ignoring the plight of so
many under-privileged citizens who have no way of influencing the administration. I understand that even trying to vote was
made very difficult for blacks, in some places - not allowed to park, etc.
So to what extent is postmodernity making itself heard? In colleges, high schools? Are students being encouraged to visit
postmodern web sites? Regards, Peter
Peter R.Spacey
same Zennies and Buddhists have claimed to be enlightened have
screwed up terribly and often been renounced by the same Zennies
and Buddhists.
Oh, I thought only christians did that?! At least it shows Zennies and Buddhists are only human :-) :-) :-) Peter
Ned Ludd
news:memo.20010619...@searcher.compulink.co.uk...
The reason for the comment was an association with James W's
comment: "In fact, once you're a postmodernist, it's hard to see
what else you can do with perfect sincerity and an absence of
ironic distance. Zen, maybe."
I don't know if either the Zennies or James are correct in their
assessment of the "no-return" aspect of either postmodernism or
enlightenment.
Once you've seen the elephant, can you go back to thinking of
it as only a rope, or a tree trunk, etc?
Once a pomo-er tells you God is dead and your country is just
another economic imperialist, can you go back to thinking that
democracy and free markets are something special?
Ned
Ned Ludd
James W:
>> Post-modernism as an ism describes the failure of modernism, the
>> failure of theory - so it is different.
Ned:
> Only to someone who hates it. Nihilism described the failure
> of the church and religion (among other things). Existentialism
> described the failure of all cultural norms, releasing man to the
> despair of total freedom. Did each of these philosophies have a
> positive aspect? To the extent that they release people from some
> form of slavery or another, yes, they do. Does Postmodernism?
> If it works like James O. says it does - exposing people to the
> existence of cultures foreign to their immediate surroundings, or
> placing them in multiple cultures simultaneously, thereby revealing
> the arbitrary character of their own culture - then it fits quite
> well with prior philosophical movements. It breaks the constraints
> of culture by showing how common and un-exceptional they are.
James W:
> Multiculturalism is just one aspect of post-modernity, and in
> pessimistic terms is not a liberation but a new exploitation.
> But if as you say it frees one from some prior slavery then in
> philosophy wouldn't this be logic, rationality, objectivity and
> theory - and without these philosophy becomes difficult? In
> history it frees one from evidence and truth - making history
> difficult, I think at least Nihilism retains logic, or else one
> could simply revert back to some religious view.
>
Well that's the crux of it. Does logic, rationality, objectivity
and theory really free people? People have been pushed around
relentlessly with those things for quite some time now. If people
believed and accepted logic, rationality and objectivity, they
would probably have to accept that Asians place 105 on standard
intelligence tests that Whites place 100 on. (And Hispanics 90 and
Blacks 85.) But they don't accept it - and they have a large cadre
of academicians willing to go to the wall disputing it. (And maybe
there's some truth to their umbrage.)
You probably won't accept that rationality is the handmaiden of
emotion, but it has been that way forever, and still is.
As for Multiculturalism being "in pessimistic terms, not a
liberation but a new exploitation", that might be true too. It
boils down to whose ox is getting gored. PC, which I consider an
aspect of Postmodernism (and multi-culti), PREVENTS free speech.
How can that be liberating and freeing? Well... it depends on
who's getting knocked down with it, and who can use it to knock
them down. If WASP males are the ones getting knocked down, then
it's a VERY freeing and liberating tool for non-WASP-males.
>>>> Postmodernism is a hot-house flower, just like Nihilism and
>>>> Existentialism were.
>>>
>>> The term "Post" can be seen as "after" so its not a new hot-house
>>> flower but the dead remains of the "modern" flower(ing).
>>
>> Not if it continues the revolution started by Nihilism and
>> continued by Existentialism. Then it acts as an engine of great
>> and useful destruction, as Nietzsche said: "a mighty pressure and
>> hammer [which] breaks and removes degenerate and decaying races
>> to make way for a new order of life".
>
> But Nietzsche is reduced to a Disney figure, Las Vegas *is*
> architecturally as good as (if not better than) Venice or Florence.
> What defines po-mo art? Po-mo politics - the lack of politics - the
> left and right become the same - even in the po-mo riots the
> wearing of images of Mao - yet what is the target - the American
> embassy? no McDonalds - which the irony is that its popular... And
> its trashing generates more publicity. So successful is its image
> that it is the authenticity of today. And being seen burning on CNN
> all those third world countries are shown what they must have in
> order to be a developed *modern* country.
>
Yeah, and? Hell, it sounds like Progress! Good old fashioned
progress. The undissimilarity of political parties nowadays may be
a temporal/cyclical thing that has happened before and will again.
>>>>> Nihilism may be a bit different, being more of a political stance.
>>>>> What is postmodernism? The standard answer seems to be: whatever
>>>>> you want.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt that anyone except you and James W. define it that way.
>>>
>>> The proviso is that it cant be (anything) 1960 again! but a
>>> retro-60s experience. It cant be "real".
>>>
>> The 50's and early 60's were the phoniest times in the whole history
>> of America, not 'real' in any sense of the word. 'Retro' is often
>> associated with Pomo, and I guess I see it. It removes the constraint
>> of having to live in your own time.
>
> Not at all - its impossible to live in ones own time now because there
> isn't one. There is nostalgia - for Nietzsche! - as if the rest of 20th
> century philosophy isn't good enough - too modern? Like having Victorian
> decoration back on our houses - only in wipe clean UVPC.
>
I'm sick and tired of people dumping on plastic. Count the number of
things in your life, on your person, or contained in tools and processes
that you use and need that are plastic... and then apologize.
Ned
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
[..]
>James W:
>> Multiculturalism is just one aspect of post-modernity, and in
>> pessimistic terms is not a liberation but a new exploitation.
>> But if as you say it frees one from some prior slavery then in
>> philosophy wouldn't this be logic, rationality, objectivity and
>> theory - and without these philosophy becomes difficult? In
>> history it frees one from evidence and truth - making history
>> difficult, I think at least Nihilism retains logic, or else one
>> could simply revert back to some religious view.
>>
>
> Well that's the crux of it. Does logic, rationality, objectivity
>and theory really free people? People have been pushed around
>relentlessly with those things for quite some time now. If people
>believed and accepted logic, rationality and objectivity, they
>would probably have to accept that Asians place 105 on standard
>intelligence tests that Whites place 100 on. (And Hispanics 90 and
>Blacks 85.) But they don't accept it - and they have a large cadre
>of academicians willing to go to the wall disputing it. (And maybe
>there's some truth to their umbrage.)
>
> You probably won't accept that rationality is the handmaiden of
>emotion, but it has been that way forever, and still is.
I fully accept this - that logic is a subjective phenomenon is of
(personal) regret. Sure the intelligence tests are screwed - but if we
are agreeing that the rules are arbitrary - (subjective) then i really
cant see how we can play the all modernist games which are predicated on
a or the truth. (even to the extent of equality)
>
> As for Multiculturalism being "in pessimistic terms, not a
>liberation but a new exploitation", that might be true too. It
>boils down to whose ox is getting gored. PC, which I consider an
>aspect of Postmodernism (and multi-culti), PREVENTS free speech.
>How can that be liberating and freeing? Well... it depends on
>who's getting knocked down with it, and who can use it to knock
>them down. If WASP males are the ones getting knocked down, then
>it's a VERY freeing and liberating tool for non-WASP-males.
agreed..
>
>>>>> Postmodernism is a hot-house flower, just like Nihilism and
>>>>> Existentialism were.
>>>>
>>>> The term "Post" can be seen as "after" so its not a new hot-house
>>>> flower but the dead remains of the "modern" flower(ing).
>>>
>>> Not if it continues the revolution started by Nihilism and
>>> continued by Existentialism. Then it acts as an engine of great
>>> and useful destruction, as Nietzsche said: "a mighty pressure and
>>> hammer [which] breaks and removes degenerate and decaying races
>>> to make way for a new order of life".
>>
>> But Nietzsche is reduced to a Disney figure, Las Vegas *is*
>> architecturally as good as (if not better than) Venice or Florence.
>> What defines po-mo art? Po-mo politics - the lack of politics - the
>> left and right become the same - even in the po-mo riots the
>> wearing of images of Mao - yet what is the target - the American
>> embassy? no McDonalds - which the irony is that its popular... And
>> its trashing generates more publicity. So successful is its image
>> that it is the authenticity of today. And being seen burning on CNN
>> all those third world countries are shown what they must have in
>> order to be a developed *modern* country.
>>
>
> Yeah, and? Hell, it sounds like Progress! Good old fashioned
>progress. The undissimilarity of political parties nowadays may be
>a temporal/cyclical thing that has happened before and will again.
But the evidence is that as post-modernism develops institutions like
democracy (another modernist product) disappear - Western Capitalist
democracies are the product of 19th and 20th century exploitation of
workers, females, non whites, and two or more wars in which millions
perished. If a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan - over a KFC
franchise deal is progress in your book then its progress.
>>
>> Not at all - its impossible to live in ones own time now because there
>> isn't one. There is nostalgia - for Nietzsche! - as if the rest of 20th
>> century philosophy isn't good enough - too modern? Like having Victorian
>> decoration back on our houses - only in wipe clean UVPC.
>>
>
> I'm sick and tired of people dumping on plastic. Count the number of
>things in your life, on your person, or contained in tools and processes
>that you use and need that are plastic... and then apologize.
>
Plastic is a strange material to work with but in a *modern* aesthetic
can be very beautiful. However using it to copy Victorian decoration is
not putting it to best use. (**For me**) modernity represents a pinnacle
in aesthetics and the use of materials - both steel, glass and plastic.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> The reason for the comment was an association with James W's
>comment: "In fact, once you're a postmodernist, it's hard to see
>what else you can do with perfect sincerity and an absence of
>ironic distance. Zen, maybe."
Though i think there might be truth in this I don't think it was me - if
it was i'm going to be very afraid....
--
James Whitehead
Ned Ludd
Ned:
>> The reason for the comment was an association with James W's
>> comment: "In fact, once you're a postmodernist, it's hard to see
>> what else you can do with perfect sincerity and an absence of
>> ironic distance. Zen, maybe."
James W:
> Though i think there might be truth in this I don't think it was
> me - if it was i'm going to be very afraid....
>
I'm very sorry, and apologize for the misattribution. That was
James O. who said that.
Ned
Ned Ludd
Ned:
> You probably won't accept that rationality is the handmaiden of
> emotion, but it has been that way forever, and still is.
James:
> I fully accept this - that logic is a subjective phenomenon is of
> (personal) regret. Sure the intelligence tests are screwed - but if
> we are agreeing that the rules are arbitrary - (subjective) then i
> really cant see how we can play the all modernist games which are
> predicated on a or the truth. (even to the extent of equality)
>
Truth in the sense you are using it is a proxy for the "rationality,
objectivity and theory" that you spoke of earlier. Anything we cling
to will be used against us. If truth is keeping you down, then blow
away truth. Everything, every philosophy, every movement that has
ever been has been tactical. Ie. a tool used by someone to get
something they want.
>>> But Nietzsche is reduced to a Disney figure, Las Vegas *is*
>>> architecturally as good as (if not better than) Venice or Florence.
>>> What defines po-mo art? Po-mo politics - the lack of politics - the
>>> left and right become the same - even in the po-mo riots the
>>> wearing of images of Mao - yet what is the target - the American
>>> embassy? no McDonalds - which the irony is that its popular... And
>>> its trashing generates more publicity. So successful is its image
>>> that it is the authenticity of today. And being seen burning on CNN
>>> all those third world countries are shown what they must have in
>>> order to be a developed *modern* country.
>>
>> Yeah, and? Hell, it sounds like Progress! Good old fashioned
>> progress. The undissimilarity of political parties nowadays may be
>> a temporal/cyclical thing that has happened before and will again.
>
> But the evidence is that as post-modernism develops institutions like
> democracy (another modernist product) disappear - Western Capitalist
> democracies are the product of 19th and 20th century exploitation of
> workers, females, non whites, and two or more wars in which millions
> perished. If a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan - over a
> KFC franchise deal is progress in your book then its progress.
>
Postmodernism (in its aspects of multi-culti, television, internet)
was, imo, a factor in the collapse of the Big Red Bear. I suppose we
should make some kind of rigorous list, to evaluate your proposition
that postmodernism destroys democracy. Because I don't necessarily
see it. As the technology increases, the invasiveness of governments
becomes easy and inexpensive, no matter who or where you are.
Yeah, and I guess nuclear war is an example of progress. World War
I (and II) certainly were stellar examples of it. We've been living
off the fruits of those periods for many decades now.
>> I'm sick and tired of people dumping on plastic. Count the number
>> of things in your life, on your person, or contained in tools and
>> processes that you use and need that are plastic... and then
>> apologize.
>
> Plastic is a strange material to work with but in a *modern*
> aesthetic can be very beautiful. However using it to copy Victorian
> decoration is not putting it to best use. (**For me**) modernity
> represents a pinnacle in aesthetics and the use of materials - both
> steel, glass and plastic.
>
You just want plastic to stop pretending. To be real. To be 'true'.
Get with the program, William! Shake off the shakles that have bound
humanity since language. True and real are bludgeons that have been
used to keep people down for 5,000 years.
Truth is not beautiful;
beauty is not true.
The sage does not hoard:
The more that is given,
the more gets received.
- Tao Teh Ching, #81
Ned
G*rd*n
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| You just want plastic to stop pretending. To be real. To be 'true'.
| Get with the program, William! Shake off the shakles that have bound
| humanity since language. True and real are bludgeons that have been
| used to keep people down for 5,000 years.
Cats know
that behind the wall of appearances
there is a world of mice
available to persistent study
and devoted meditation.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/19/01 <-adv't
Ned Ludd
news:9gqg0n$is5$1...@panix6.panix.com...
Ned:
| You just want plastic to stop pretending. To be real. To be 'true'.
| Get with the program, William! Shake off the shackles that have
| bound humanity since language. True and real are bludgeons that
| have been used to keep people down for 5,000 years.
G*rd*n:
> Cats know
> that behind the wall of appearances
> there is a world of mice
> available to persistent study
> and devoted meditation.
>
Shhhhh... everybody... I think it's a postmodernist.
Ned
(don't spook him!)
Treeclimbr
___________________
Robert Pearson
Creative Virtue Press: http://www.rspearson.com
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net/
R.S. Pearson Music Page http://users.50megs.com/rspearson/
Treeclimbr
>
>So when Treeclimbr asks, "Was the average person in Goethe's day a
>romanticist?", the answer has got to be, basically, yes -- the average
>person who was part of Goethe's culture must have shared his world-view to
>a considerable extent.
That's not to say they were Romanticist. That's like saying all people
in France in the 1920's were Surrealists. Being a part of an aesthetic
movement is a very specific phenomena that only happens to the
educated or "intellectuals."
Now, the culture may have been separated from
>other contemporaneous cultures by social divisions, for example, so that a
>village peasant might not be able to appreciate Goethe, or to care or even
>understand what he was on about. But if you wish to define a "Romantic"
>period in cultural history, you have to accept that as a culture it
>permeated some section of society and defined a general attitude, or
>approach, or set of problems, or aesthetic values, or intellectual
>preoccupations, for that section (which such labels, by the way, assume to
>be the important section).
I really don't agree. These movements are about specific ideas in art
and philosophy.
>
>--
>
> James Owens ad...@Freenet.carleton.ca
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
Moggin Goldberg
> There is nostalgia - for Nietzsche! - as if the rest of 20th
> century philosophy isn't good enough
If it's good enough for you, give thanks for the happiness
you found. But when did N become 20th c.?
-- Moggin
Kristian Kirsfeldt
>| You just want plastic to stop pretending. To be real. To be 'true'.
>G*rd*n:
>> Cats know /---/
> Shhhhh... everybody... I think it's a postmodernist.
>(don't spook him!)
Well, I do rather like some good old-fashioned recursion in the 3rd rank.
Craig McFarlane
> If it's good enough for you, give thanks for the happiness
> you found. But when did N become 20th c.?
When Kaufmann translated him.
cm.
James Whitehead
Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net> writes
century philosophy - the Anglo American stuff - to make the charts
anymore. Why one asks the growth of interest in the woolly continental
stuff post 70s (previously thought of as nonsense?)
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:UL+i0FAg...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>
>Ned:
>> You probably won't accept that rationality is the handmaiden of
>> emotion, but it has been that way forever, and still is.
>
>James:
>> I fully accept this - that logic is a subjective phenomenon is of
>> (personal) regret. Sure the intelligence tests are screwed - but if
>> we are agreeing that the rules are arbitrary - (subjective) then i
>> really cant see how we can play the all modernist games which are
>> predicated on a or the truth. (even to the extent of equality)
>>
>
> Truth in the sense you are using it is a proxy for the "rationality,
>objectivity and theory" that you spoke of earlier. Anything we cling
>to will be used against us. If truth is keeping you down, then blow
>away truth. Everything, every philosophy, every movement that has
>ever been has been tactical. Ie. a tool used by someone to get
>something they want.
There's that Eurithmics song... but yes your right i think...
the collapse of soviet Russia - and end of democracy are not a result of
post modernity but are sets of events described by the term.
> Yeah, and I guess nuclear war is an example of progress. World War
>I (and II) certainly were stellar examples of it. We've been living
>off the fruits of those periods for many decades now.
and what made the third world third... first off colonialisation and the
industrial revolution - e.g. the slave trade: Destroys African cultural
systems - Destroys the natives of America - pulls the working class of
Lancashire into making Cotton which destroys the Indian native spinning
and industry, creates a manufacturing factory system in the midlands and
coal mining on a vast scale - in which Marxism is formulated - which
challenges and threatens European stability which eventually leads to
major conflicts and ethnic cleansing...
>
>>> I'm sick and tired of people dumping on plastic. Count the number
>>> of things in your life, on your person, or contained in tools and
>>> processes that you use and need that are plastic... and then
>>> apologize.
>>
>> Plastic is a strange material to work with but in a *modern*
>> aesthetic can be very beautiful. However using it to copy Victorian
>> decoration is not putting it to best use. (**For me**) modernity
>> represents a pinnacle in aesthetics and the use of materials - both
>> steel, glass and plastic.
>>
>
> You just want plastic to stop pretending. To be real. To be 'true'.
>Get with the program, William! Shake off the shakles that have bound
>humanity since language. True and real are bludgeons that have been
>used to keep people down for 5,000 years.
>
> Truth is not beautiful;
> beauty is not true.
> The sage does not hoard:
> The more that is given,
> the more gets received.
>
> - Tao Teh Ching, #81
>
> Ned
I'm not down...
A sage who does not hoard presumably is empty of knowledge?
So clearly the writer above was no sage?
--
James Whitehead
G*rd*n
| /---/
G*rd*n:
| >> Cats know /---/
Ned:
| > Shhhhh... everybody... I think it's a postmodernist.
| >(don't spook him!)
"Kristian Kirsfeldt" <noo...@netexpress.ee>:
| Well, I do rather like some good old-fashioned recursion in the 3rd rank.
This led to www-ks.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/people/schulz/fmusic/recursion.html
"Recursion: A Paradigm For Future Music?" By Nicholas Mucherino.
Moggin Goldberg
>> If it's good enough for you, give thanks for the happiness
>> you found. But when did N become 20th c.?
cmcf...@chat.carleton.ca (Craig McFarlane):
> When Kaufmann translated him.
In that case, it must've been about forty-five years
before when Oscar Levy brought out his _Complete Works_ of N in
English.
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
> Its an oblique and grammatically flawed comment on the failure of 20th
> century philosophy - the Anglo American stuff - to make the charts
> anymore.
[...]
Never charted. Even back in its heyday it didn't get much
airplay, except on college stations. Never came close to
breaking into the top-40. The Europeans were the big hitmakers.
Everybody danced to existentialism. Analytic philosophy
routinely emptied the dance floor. Heidegger, Sartre and Camus
were the hipshakers -- not Austin and Quine.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net> writes
Then you never heard Wittgenstein and Russell's "Bridge over Troubled
Water"
--
James Whitehead
Ned Ludd
James W:
>> Plastic is a strange material to work with but in a *modern*
>> aesthetic can be very beautiful. However using it to copy Victorian
>> decoration is not putting it to best use. (**For me**) modernity
>> represents a pinnacle in aesthetics and the use of materials - both
>> steel, glass and plastic.
Ned:
> You just want plastic to stop pretending. To be real. To be 'true'.
> Get with the program, William! Shake off the shackles that have bound
> humanity since language. True and real are bludgeons that have been
> used to keep people down for 5,000 years.
>
> Truth is not beautiful;
> beauty is not true.
> The sage does not hoard:
> The more that is given,
> the more gets received.
> - Tao Teh Ching, #81
James W:
> I'm not down...
> A sage who does not hoard presumably is empty of knowledge?
> So clearly the writer above was no sage?
>
That's very clever. And so correct. He (if Lao was a he) also
wrote:
Abandon learning, and grief ends.
How much difference between yes and no?
How much difference between good and evil?
Why must I fear what others fear?
The multitude is merry, as if on a holiday, or watching a parade.
I alone am inert, like an infant not yet a child.
Drifting, belonging nowhere.
Others have more than they need; I alone seem to have lost all.
I am a fool, yes, and confused.
Others are clear and bright; I am dull and dark.
Others are clever and assured; I am blunt and obscure,
Patient as the sea, drifting like the waves.
Everyone is busy, I alone am aimless and uncouth.
I am different; I take nourishment only from my mother.
- Tao Teh Ching, #20
Kristian Kirsfeldt
G*rd*n wrote in message <9gu909$p2v$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
>| >| You just want plastic to stop pretending. To be real. To be 'true'.
>| /---/
>
>G*rd*n:
>| >> Cats know /---/
>
>Ned:
>| > Shhhhh... everybody... I think it's a postmodernist.
>| >(don't spook him!)
>
>"Kristian Kirsfeldt" <noo...@netexpress.ee>:
>| Well, I do rather like some good old-fashioned recursion in the 3rd rank.
>
>This led to www-ks.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/people/schulz/fmusic/recursion.html
>"Recursion: A Paradigm For Future Music?" By Nicholas Mucherino.
During the 1920s we had those formalists over at the club playing chummily
some pool with us. Those matches were rather... interesting, while
everything those fellows wanted to do was argue about the rules; they
constantly stole the cue-ball and tried to play with the large end of the
cue. Only later did we realize that all the time the chaps tried to impress
us with their skills at cricket.
Craig McFarlane
> > When Kaufmann translated him.
> In that case, it must've been about forty-five years
> before when Oscar Levy brought out his _Complete Works_ of N in
> English.
Never underestimate the drawing power of singles in easy to use paperback
form.
cm.
G*rd*n
| >| /---/
G*rd*n:
| >| >> Cats know /---/
Ned:
| >| > Shhhhh... everybody... I think it's a postmodernist.
| >| >(don't spook him!)
"Kristian Kirsfeldt" <noo...@netexpress.ee>:
| >| Well, I do rather like some good old-fashioned recursion in the 3rd rank.
G*rd*n wrote in message <9gu909$p2v$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
| >This led to www-ks.rus.uni-stuttgart.de/people/schulz/fmusic/recursion.html
| >"Recursion: A Paradigm For Future Music?" By Nicholas Mucherino.
"Kristian Kirsfeldt" <noo...@netexpress.ee>:
| During the 1920s we had those formalists over at the club playing chummily
| some pool with us. Those matches were rather... interesting, while
| everything those fellows wanted to do was argue about the rules; they
| constantly stole the cue-ball and tried to play with the large end of the
| cue. Only later did we realize that all the time the chaps tried to impress
| us with their skills at cricket.
By then you had learned the metagame. But there were not
many metagamers to play with, back in the '20s.
Moggin Goldberg
>>> Its an oblique and grammatically flawed comment on the failure of 20th
>>> century philosophy - the Anglo American stuff - to make the charts
>>> anymore.
Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net>
>> Never charted. Even back in its heyday it didn't get much
>> airplay, except on college stations. Never came close to
>> breaking into the top-40. The Europeans were the big hitmakers.
>> Everybody danced to existentialism. Analytic philosophy
>> routinely emptied the dance floor. Heidegger, Sartre and Camus
>> were the hipshakers -- not Austin and Quine.
James:
> Then you never heard Wittgenstein and Russell's "Bridge over Troubled
> Water"
Wittgenstein and Russell never recorded together. Russell
partnered with Whitehead: they spent literally decades on
their magnum opus. Eventually it was released as a
three-record set, but by then nobody was waiting. Russell went
on to achieve mainstream success, but his popular numbers
inevitably lost him fans among the cognoscenti. Wittgenstein's
case was very different. He always had a small but loyal
following. Unfortunately, he hated his listeners, since he was
convinced they weren't hearing properly. Sometimes he would
stop in the middle of a set, berate the audience, then leave to
walk the streets. Twice as many people would come the next
time, which would get him twice as mad. Eventually he was sent
to an up-state sanitarium where the federal government
experimented on him with LSD. Rumor has it he's in Ken Kesey's
unpublished notes.
-- Moggin
Moggin Goldberg
cmcf...@chat.carleton.ca (Craig McFarlane) wrote:
I can't argue about paperbacks (although I'm not too happy
with the way mine are falling apart), but if singles means
single volumes, then Levy had that covered. The Complete Works
appeared in however-many books over a span of time. Took
about four years for the whole set to appear, I think, starting
in 1909, although I may be wrong there.
-- Moggin
James Whitehead
Moggin Goldberg <mog...@mediaone.net> writes
> Wittgenstein and Russell never recorded together.
version of blue sued shoes if i remember...
--
James Whitehead
Kristian Kirsfeldt
>| During the 1920s we had those formalists over at the club playing
chummily
>| some pool with us. Those matches were rather... interesting, while
>| everything those fellows wanted to do was argue about the rules; they
>| constantly stole the cue-ball and tried to play with the large end of the
>| cue. Only later did we realize that all the time the chaps tried to
impress
>| us with their skills at cricket.
>
>By then you had learned the metagame. But there were not
>many metagamers to play with, back in the '20s.
Oh yes, I remember those lively arguments rather vividly. They used to start
like this:
“So, you are really joking?”
“What on earth would make you think a silly thing like that?”
“Well, to me it seems that you are not talking seriously.”
“Oh puh-lease!”
“Ha, I /know/ you are joking!”
The opponent would then pause for a moment and confess that he was really
joking all the time. It would then dawn on the first person that maybe the
second person was joking when he was saying that actually he wan’t.
“You can’t fool me there,” he would go, “I know your kind – you’re joking
again!”
“You are actually quite correct there – I was joking the first time but I’m
not joking this time when I say that I was joking the first time and not
this time.”
This would usually continue and after some levels of joking it would usually
end with the first person smacking the other one’s head. Usually this knock
at the head was rather powerful and succeeded in ending the row.
Only later was this knocking one’s silly head off referred by the
journalistic labellist as “metalanguage”.
G*rd*n
| ...
| This would usually continue and after some levels of joking it would usually
| end with the first person smacking the other one’s head. Usually this knock
| at the head was rather powerful and succeeded in ending the row.
| Only later was this knocking one’s silly head off referred by the
| journalistic labellist as “metalanguage”.
A lot of Usenet is based on the fact that you can't usually
attack your interlocutors physically.
Ned Ludd
Kristian:
> This would usually continue and after some levels of joking
> it would usually end with the first person smacking the other
> one's head. Usually this knock at the head was rather powerful
> and succeeded in ending the row. Only later was this knocking
> one's silly head off referred by the journalistic labellist
> as "metalanguage".
>
Yes, James Joyce called it "a feast of pure reason".
> A lot of Usenet is based on the fact that you can't usually
> attack your interlocutors physically.
>
They're working on it. (A little hammer comes out from behind
the monitor and clobbers you over the head.)
Ned
G*rd*n
| > This would usually continue and after some levels of joking
| > it would usually end with the first person smacking the other
| > one's head. Usually this knock at the head was rather powerful
| > and succeeded in ending the row. Only later was this knocking
| > one's silly head off referred by the journalistic labellist
| > as "metalanguage".
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| Yes, James Joyce called it "a feast of pure reason".
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
| > A lot of Usenet is based on the fact that you can't usually
| > attack your interlocutors physically.
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| They're working on it. (A little hammer comes out from behind
| the monitor and clobbers you over the head.)
I told you not to smoke the cheap stuff.
Ned Ludd
Kristian:
|> This would usually continue and after some levels of joking
|> it would usually end with the first person smacking the other
|> one's head. Usually this knock at the head was rather powerful
|> and succeeded in ending the row. Only later was this knocking
|> one's silly head off referred by the journalistic labellist
|> as "metalanguage".
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| Yes, James Joyce called it "a feast of pure reason".
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
|> A lot of Usenet is based on the fact that you can't usually
|> attack your interlocutors physically.
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| They're working on it. (A little hammer comes out from behind
| the monitor and clobbers you over the head.)
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
> I told you not to smoke the cheap stuff.
>
It was either that or the hammer.
Ned
Moggin Goldberg
> A lot of Usenet is based on the fact that you can't usually
> attack your interlocutors physically.
While in RL many physical attacks stem from the difficulty
of thinking up a snappy comeback.
-- Moggin
Kristian Kirsfeldt
>Kristian:
>> This would usually continue and after some levels of joking
>> it would usually end with the first person smacking the other
>> one's head. Usually this knock at the head was rather powerful
>> and succeeded in ending the row. Only later was this knocking
>> one's silly head off referred by the journalistic labellist
>> as "metalanguage".
>>
>
> Yes, James Joyce called it "a feast of pure reason".
Yes, he was that young eager man who was quite obsessed with the game the
club used to play during those times; and also was pondering on the idea of
writing a novel composed entirely of bookmarks. Ah, but the game was quite a
popular thing during that time. As I recall, it was named Mensur for some
obvious reasons, but was at certain events even bloodier that it’s namesake.
It was usually held out as a duel, played perpetually just about anywhere.
The process was rather simple – one of the duellist called out an ‘element’
to which the other duellist had to match something in order to call it an
equal or to beat it with anything with some ‘more punch’. For example, one
of the duellists pronounced ‘ten times’ the the other might have called
‘Casanova’ to beat his call or to match it with an equal. This might sound a
simple game enough, but that is not the case here, becouse (a) often there
would be rows with a violent conclusion, becouse the duellists didn’t
usually agree with the ‘value’ one set for his call – ‘an elephant’ and ‘a
mouse’ is an opposition simple enough to resolve but with ‘a bloody hell’
and ‘a silly ass’ it is a bit trickier to decide which one beats the other;
and (b) the calls had to be made only out of a pre-defined set of elements,
so in order to beat the other chap’s ‘strict aunt’ with a ‘park’ one had to
connect some ideas: ‘park’, ‘spazieren’ and ‘Kant’ for example. Sometimes
there would be a set of ‘elements’ defined before the beginning of game,
e.g. the belongings of each of the players or the words in a book; sometimes
they didn’t define any elements, sometimes they even stopped playing the
game and were then usually escorted to their homes (if they happened to have
a proprietorship of one) by more sober club-members.
Ned Ludd
news:9h879l$cum$1...@kadri.ut.ee...
Kristian:
>> This would usually continue and after some levels of joking
>> it would usually end with the first person smacking the other
>> one's head. Usually this knock at the head was rather powerful
>> and succeeded in ending the row. Only later was this knocking
>> one's silly head off referred by the journalistic labellist
>> as "metalanguage".
Ned:
> Yes, James Joyce called it "a feast of pure reason".
Kristian:
> Yes, he was that young eager man who was quite obsessed with the
> game the club used to play during those times; and also was
> pondering on the idea of writing a novel composed entirely of
> bookmarks. Ah, but the game was quite a popular thing during that
> time. As I recall, it was named Mensur for some obvious reasons,
> but was at certain events even bloodier that it's namesake. It was
> usually held out as a duel, played perpetually just about anywhere.
> The process was rather simple - one of the duellist called out an
> 'element' to which the other duellist had to match something in
> order to call it an equal or to beat it with anything with some
> 'more punch'. For example, one of the duellists pronounced 'ten
> times' the the other might have called 'Casanova' to beat his call
> or to match it with an equal. This might sound a simple game enough,
> but that is not the case here, becouse (a) often there would be
> rows with a violent conclusion, becouse the duellists didn't
> usually agree with the 'value' one set for his call - 'an elephant'
> and 'a mouse' is an opposition simple enough to resolve but with
> 'a bloody hell' and 'a silly ass' it is a bit trickier to decide
> which one beats the other; and (b) the calls had to be made only
> out of a pre-defined set of elements, so in order to beat the
> other chap's 'strict aunt' with a 'park' one had to connect some
> ideas: 'park', 'spazieren' and 'Kant' for example. Sometimes there
> would be a set of 'elements' defined before the beginning of game,
> e.g. the belongings of each of the players or the words in a book;
> sometimes they didn't define any elements, sometimes they even
> stopped playing the game and were then usually escorted to their
> homes (if they happened to have a proprietorship of one) by more
> sober club-members.
>
Well it sounds like a game designed to cause violent interaction.
And if it has rules like: "in order to beat the other chap's 'strict
aunt' with a 'park' one had to connect some ideas: 'park', 'spazieren'
and 'Kant' for example", that sounds like some psychotic mutation
of Cockney rhyming slang, which is cause enough by itself for violent
physical action.
Ned