The Latest Theory Is That Theory Doesn't Matter
Tara Bulbous
tion=3D>
The New York Times. April 19, 2003
The Latest Theory Is That Theory Doesn't Matter
By EMILY EAKIN
These are uncertain times for literary scholars. The era of big theory is
over. The grand paradigms that swept through humanities departments in the
20th century -- psychoanalysis, structuralism, Marxism, deconstruction,
post-colonialism -- have lost favor or been abandoned. Money is tight. And
the leftist politics with which literary theorists have traditionally been
associated have taken a beating.
In the latest sign of mounting crisis, on April 11 the editors of Critical
Inquiry, academe's most prestigious theory journal, convened the scholarly
equivalent of an Afghan-style loya jirga. They invited more than two dozen
of America's professorial elite, including Henry Louis Gates Jr., Homi
Bhabha, Stanley Fish and Fredric Jameson, to the University of Chicago for
what they called "an unprecedented meeting of the minds," an unusual
two-hour public symposium on the future of theory.
Understandably, expectations were high. More than 500 people, mostly
students and faculty, squeezed into a lecture hall to hear what the
mandarins had to say, while latecomers made do with a live video feed set
up in the lobby.
In his opening remarks, W. J. T. Mitchell, the journal's editor and a
professor of English and art history at Chicago, set an upbeat tone for the
proceedings. "We want to be the Starship Enterprise of criticism and
theory," he told the audience.
But any thought that this would be a gleeful strategy session with an eye
toward extending theory's global reach, or an impassioned debate over the
merits of, say, Derrida and Lacan, was quickly dispelled.
When John Comaroff, a professor of anthropology and sociology at Chicago
who was serving as the event's moderator, turned the floor over to the
panelists, for several moments no one said a word.
Then a student in the audience spoke up. What good is criticism and theory,
he asked, if "we concede in fact how much more important the actions of
Noam Chomsky are in the world than all the writings of critical theorists
combined?"
After all, he said, Mr. Fish had recently published an essay in Critical
Inquiry arguing that philosophy didn't matter at all.
Behind a table at the front of the room, Mr. Fish shook his head. "I think
I'll let someone else answer the question," he said.
So Sander L. Gilman, a professor of liberal arts and sciences at the
University of Illinois at Chicago, replied instead. "I would make the
argument that most criticism -- and I would include Noam Chomsky in this --
is a poison pill," he said. "I think one must be careful in assuming that
intellectuals have some kind of insight. In fact, if the track record of
intellectuals is any indication, not only have intellectuals been wrong
almost all of the time, but they have been wrong in corrosive and
destructive ways."
Mr. Fish nodded approvingly. "I like what that man said," he said. "I wish
to deny the effectiveness of intellectual work. And especially, I always
wish to counsel people against the decision to go into the academy because
they hope to be effective beyond it."
During the remainder of the session, the only panelist to venture a defense
of theory -- or mention a literary genre -- was Mr. Bhabha. "There are a
number of people around the table here and a number of people in the
audience, in fact most of you here are evidence that intellectual work has
its place and its uses," he insisted. "Even a poem in its own oblique way
is deeply telling of the lives of the world we exist in. You can have poems
that are intimately linked with political oppositional movements, poems
that actually draw together people in acts of resistance."
But no one spoke up to endorse this claim. In fact, for a conference
officially devoted to theory, theory itself got very little airtime. For
more than an hour, the panelists bemoaned the war in Iraq, the Bush
administration, the ascendancy of the right-wing press and the impotence of
the left. Afterward, Mr. Gates, who arrived late because he had been
attending a conference in Wisconsin, said: "For a moment, I thought I was
in the wrong room. I thought we would be talking about academic jargon.
Instead, it was Al Qaeda and Iraq -- not that there's anything wrong with
that."
Finally, a young man with dreadlocks who said he was a graduate student
from Jamaica asked, "So is theory simply just a nice, simple intellectual
exercise, or something that should be transformative?"
Several speakers weighed in before Mr. Gates stood up. As far as he could
tell, he said, theory had never directly liberated anyone. "Maybe I'm too
young," he said. "I really didn't see it: the liberation of people of color
because of deconstruction or poststructuralism."
If theory's political utility is this dubious, why did the theorists spend
so much time talking about current events? Catharine R. Stimpson, a
panelist and dean of the Graduate School of Arts and Science at New York
University, offered one, well, theory. "This particular group of
intellectuals," she said, "has a terror of being politically irrelevant."
Mazzolata
><snip>
>
>
The article is dull, but I love your name !
I guess there should be an obYulBrynnerMovie here ...how about The Sound
and the Fury.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
** Save the Environment - Uproot a Bush **
Just because the world runs on oil doesn't mean oilmen should run the world
tejas
"Mazzolata" <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3EA5DD2...@hotmail.com...
> Tara Bulbous wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >
> The article is dull, but I love your name !
>
> I guess there should be an obYulBrynnerMovie here ...how about The Sound
> and the Fury.
ObSong: FURRY MURRAY GOT A YUL BRYNNER HAIRCUT (circa 1962?)
Ted
francis muir
<tbsa...@infionline.net> wrote:
ObSillySong: Tarara-boom-de-ay
Chuckman
intellectuallizing stuff? Aren't there more important things in the world?
In life?
You won't see me arguing that theory is dead, but the liberal thinkers
new a new impetus to action, not a new impetus to thought.
Theory isn't dead, but there's a such a dearth of it out there now that
even the people who are through most of it haven't put it together
concisely.
It's exciting, though! No more will we theorize for the sake of
theorizing, but for the sake of action!
And with PM, anything is up for grabs! there is no one truth to pursue.
Marko Amnell
Recall also British social columnist Tara Palmer-Tomkinson...
"Welcome to a page specially dedicated to that powerhouse
of Sunday journalists - the one and only award winning (sarcasm),
employment-generating (more sarcasm), entertaining (even
more sarcasm), shining wit (work that one out for
yourself) ................................ Tara Palmer-Tomkinson.
Authoress of the "Social Diary", which appears on page 3
in the Style supplement of the Sunday Times, there is no
end to this lady's talent (although admittedly, there's
some talent to her end!). You name it, she unashamedly
plug's it (especially herself)!"
Neddhartha
always will be irrelevant to everyone but the theorists. Call this a
theorem, if you like. To me it looks more like an axiom. Doubtless it
is entertaining and in some cases profitable to those who engage in
it, but as a way of changing the world, or even making it intelligible
to the reading public, it remains bankrupt, sterile, a dry but
lubricious sort of mental masturbation. "Not that there's anything
wrong with that," to quote Mr. Gates.
If the theorists are only just now waking up to the emptiness,
insubstantiality and laughable unimportance to the rest of the world
of their trivial pursuits, then they are far stupider than one ever
could have imagined.
No, this is just another ploy. "We know we're inconsequential, but
damn it, we're good at what we do. And we get paid a lot better for
our meaningless work than most poor schlubs for theirs."
It's the humanities' way of flipping humanity the bird.
man_mars
Wittgenstein nailed it.
On 22 Apr 2003 12:54:59 -0700, tarab...@yahoo.com (Tara Bulbous)
wrote:
Chuckman
Don't you think it's possible that literary critics enjoy what they do?
francis muir
eazpa.56094$Si4....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net, "Chuckman"
<incaseof...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I put it down to fear of the unknown. The Luddites
are quite vocal here in rec.arts.books
ObBook: Peacock's *Crotchet castle* in which Captain Swing
and his merrie men make an appearance towards the finish.
Bruce McGuffin
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/19/arts/19CRIT.html?pagewanted=3Dprint&posi=
> tion=3D>
> The New York Times. April 19, 2003
>
> The Latest Theory Is That Theory Doesn't Matter
> By EMILY EAKIN
>
(snip)
Well .... I never thought I'd write a post defending Theory (as
opposed to theory, which I'm all for), but it's a mistake to start
with the proposition that "Theory isn't everything", and conclude
that, consequently, "Theory is nothing".
Bruce
obbook: Jules Verne, Michael Strogoff
rjc2001
I still think that Literary Theory and Criticism has its place (for
example, Plato and Aristotle educated, they didn't "attack"), but not
as a "force" for political change or influence in the country or
outside world, that is nonsense and an idea that irked me when I was
getting my BA in Honors English.
If you are trying to "use" art as a political weapon then you are
doing something else, but I wouldn't call you an "artist."
"Propagandist" maybe, "cultural guerrilla," etc, but I think the term
"artist" has been
greatly abused.
- Robert.
smw
rjc2001 wrote:
Throwing out several millennia of art on that distinction doesn't bother
you? Or did your BA in Honors English not include a seminar or two on
the origin and brief history of the idea of artistic autonomy?
G*rd*n
fundamentally one of modernization. Changing times have left
them without much of a function. Once, they were supposed to
manage the intellectual world. This meant especially controlling
and directing the Left and keeping it from making too much
trouble for the Established Order by the proper application of
mumbo-jumbo in an authoritarian context. But the present regime
clearly doesn't need or want them -- it has other means --
and the street Left has largely escaped from their tutelage,
following (and paying) such pipers as anarchists, vegans,
religious pacifists, and the "Stalinists" of ANSWER. So they,
the conferees, are no longer doing anything to justify their
incomes and social status.
I think the origin of the official Left's more recent problems
is that a lot of them more or less bombed out with their
putative constituencies over one or more of the recent imperial
excursions, which so many of them sucked up to -- the thought
of being in with the big boys probably made their cheeks hot.
I do not refer only to Monkey Boy's projects but those of his
predecessors as well. Left politics is loose and flapping in
the wind, and those who let the ropes go must expect the plank.
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Neddhartha
do, also. That doesn't make the practice any more instructive for the
rest of us to watch...
There would seem to be a difference between literary critics and
practitioners of so-called "theory." The one is an honorable and
necessary profession; the other is a would-be priestly class.
Hostility to false priesthoods is obligatory, in my view.
"Chuckman" <incaseof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<eazpa.56094$Si4....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
Francis A. Miniter
Francis A. Miniter
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> I think the origin of the official Left's more recent problems
> is that a lot of them more or less bombed out with their
> putative constituencies over one or more of the recent imperial
> excursions, which so many of them sucked up to -- the thought
> of being in with the big boys probably made their cheeks hot.
Maybe most of the Left were Baby Boomers, who are aging? Crime is down, too.
A new century requires new theories. Who wants to wear last century's ideas?
G*rd*n
> > I think the origin of the official Left's more recent problems
> > is that a lot of them more or less bombed out with their
> > putative constituencies over one or more of the recent imperial
> > excursions, which so many of them sucked up to -- the thought
> > of being in with the big boys probably made their cheeks hot.
tomca...@yaNOSPAMhoo.com:
> Maybe most of the Left were Baby Boomers, who are aging? Crime is down, too.
> A new century requires new theories. Who wants to wear last century's ideas?
A good sample of what I called the "street Left" could be
found on the streets of New York City last February, protesting
the lastest war. I don't think any particular age predominated.
When someone near me observed that the police were being pretty
laid-back about it all, his companion remarked, "Well, if they
hit them, they'd be hitting their mothers."
Opposition to militarism and imperialism is an old idea, but
it's perfectly one good for the 21st century and extremely
relevant. Obviously.
smw
Francis A. Miniter wrote:
> So Picasso's Guernica is not art?
Neither is the near entirety of Western drama, apparently.
s
Jeff Inman
>
> rjc2001 wrote:
>
> > Awesome article, great conclusion.
> >
> > I still think that Literary Theory and Criticism has its place (for
> > example, Plato and Aristotle educated, they didn't "attack"), but not
> > as a "force" for political change or influence in the country or
> > outside world, that is nonsense and an idea that irked me when I was
> > getting my BA in Honors English.
> >
> > If you are trying to "use" art as a political weapon then you are
> > doing something else, but I wouldn't call you an "artist."
> > "Propagandist" maybe, "cultural guerrilla," etc, but I think the term
> > "artist" has been
> > greatly abused.
>
> you? Or did your BA in Honors English not include a seminar or two on
> the origin and brief history of the idea of artistic autonomy?
What about a (pointless but no doubt provocative)
distinction between art which has emerged in a
realm that includes political pressures (i.e. all
art), and "art" which achieves any frisson merely
from appeals to politically touchy emotions? False
dichotomy, no doubt, but if you make it a spectrum,
there *are* artless datapoints over on the "cultural
guerilla" end. How can we make a nice category for
those, so that we can despise them properly?
Jeff
francis muir
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>> So Picasso's Guernica is not art?
> Neither is the near entirety of Western drama, apparently.
There must be plenty like myself who see "Guernica" as a poor attempt at
propaganda art. I find it quite unsatisfying. Pao just tippy-toed into prop;
where's the agit? it wasn't his thing. For the real thing you have to go to
the master, Diego Rivera.
smw
Jeff Inman wrote:
I have no problem with dissing some or much of political art; I merely
think that its being political cannot be the criterium for dissing it. I
also think that bad art can do good things (and good art bad things).
I'm merely amused that the knee-jerk defenders of the canon never get it
right in this respect -- almost everything they say against the art they
dislike applies to the art they (think they) like.
smw
francis muir wrote:
Goya.
G*rd*n
> >> So Picasso's Guernica is not art?
smw wrote:
> > Neither is the near entirety of Western drama, apparently.
francis muir <francis....@balliol.org>:
> There must be plenty like myself who see "Guernica" as a poor attempt at
> propaganda art. I find it quite unsatisfying. Pao just tippy-toed into prop;
> where's the agit? it wasn't his thing. For the real thing you have to go to
> the master, Diego Rivera.
Yet they had to draw a curtain across it to protect the United
States government from it. So, while I too remained unmoved
by it, some people must see a lot it; it must have some virtue.
Jeff Inman
Well, maybe that would be the place to start. Seems
to me that much of the dissable "political art" has the
intention of producing a "good" effect; the artist seems
to be more interested in making some social change than
in producing art. The irritating thing about this, to
me, is that it presumes too much. It arrogates to the
artist more than the artist has a right to. I admit it's
a bias: my bias is that art is a collaboration between an
artist and his life/experience/muse. Artistic creation is
a mysterious process which is not to be commanded. (I
say the same thing about scientific research, but that's
a different thread.) An artist who seems to make a claim
about where this process is going -- what its effects might
be, etc -- seems to have his attention in the wrong place.
It speaks against his artistry, but it also suggests a
violation of something sacred. That is, it offends taste,
but it also offends something more personal.
Of course, artists do have to "command" in the sense of
sitting down to write even when they are not "inspired".
But if there is no mysterious communion that occurs during
those efforts, and the output is all produced by force,
then I don't think it is likely to be Art.
Jeff
smw
Jeff Inman wrote:
> smw wrote:
...
>>I have no problem with dissing some or much of political art; I merely
>>think that its being political cannot be the criterium for dissing it. I
>>also think that bad art can do good things (and good art bad things).
>>
>
> Well, maybe that would be the place to start. Seems
> to me that much of the dissable "political art" has the
> intention of producing a "good" effect; the artist seems
> to be more interested in making some social change than
> in producing art.
By what token can we discern his or her motivation? And perhaps she
would say that making social change is, in any case, more important than
producing good art (along the nebulous criteria we need to take for
granted for now)?
The irritating thing about this, to
> me, is that it presumes too much. It arrogates to the
> artist more than the artist has a right to.
According to?
If we presume that Sophocles' main intent in writing _Oedipus the King_
was political change, does that change the quality of the work? He was,
after all, an active politician.
> I admit it's
> a bias: my bias is that art is a collaboration between an
> artist and his life/experience/muse. Artistic creation is
> a mysterious process which is not to be commanded. (I
> say the same thing about scientific research, but that's
> a different thread.) An artist who seems to make a claim
> about where this process is going -- what its effects might
> be, etc -- seems to have his attention in the wrong place.
> It speaks against his artistry, but it also suggests a
> violation of something sacred. That is, it offends taste,
> but it also offends something more personal.
I absolutely agree that it would be foolish to think that whatever
effect art has can be predicted or directed. The better it is, the more
ambivalent, in any case.
> Of course, artists do have to "command" in the sense of
> sitting down to write even when they are not "inspired".
> But if there is no mysterious communion that occurs during
> those efforts, and the output is all produced by force,
> then I don't think it is likely to be Art.
I'm not sure there's any single way towards art; your model is
appealing, but is it how art's always and invariably produced? I doubt it.
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> So Picasso's Guernica is not art?
Speaking of politics v. art, I like to assume they pulled the statue of
Saddam down on purely aesthetic grounds.
David E. Latane
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, smw wrote:
> > There must be plenty like myself who see "Guernica" as a poor attempt at
> > propaganda art. I find it quite unsatisfying. Pao just tippy-toed into prop;
> > where's the agit? it wasn't his thing. For the real thing you have to go to
> > the master, Diego Rivera.
>
>
> Goya.
Which Goya are you thinking about? It's hard to see Goya's famous print
series as propaganda in the service of some particular politics, as
Rivera's were.
D. Latane
rjc2001
> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>
> > So Picasso's Guernica is not art?
>
>
> Neither is the near entirety of Western drama, apparently.
>
> s
>
-- Maybe I should elaborate on what I am thinking of because you have
brought up good responses. I can see the valid purpose of Art as
challenging the system and making a political statement, etc. My
problem is with "contemporary" exhibits for example where a life-size
mannequin of a man is automated and humping a tree out in the forest.
To me such a work is clearly meant to shock the viewer, I have a hard
time appreciating it as a work of art beyond that.
What happened to ideas of beauty? Form? Etc? Or are these now all
outdated, quaint, went out with the Victorians, etc? I guess I have a
hard time with visual art after Dadaism let's say, although I do
appreciate Dadaism and what it was doing. I guess I am of the thought
that after Picasso and the Cubists, Dada, James Joyce, etc, that the
"contemporay" standards of art greatly declined. I know there is more
than one way of looking at things and I understand Post-Modernism,
etc, I guess I am not entirely sold on the idea that Post-Moderniam
has "replaced" the validity of more traditional art. Again, maybe I
am not expressing myself clearly enough, but then again that is what
discussion is for also, right?
Thanks,
-Robert.
Sam Culotta
news:27a283bb.0304...@posting.google.com...
This is always a fun subject.
For what it's worth, I no longer concern myself with questions like "what is
art" ? "what is GOOD art"? ( is bad art "art" at all?).. "what is its
purpose?"
For me, artistic expressions either communicate and find a sympathetic
audience or they don't. Artists have various reasons for doing what they
do, most are going to do it whether we like the result or not, even if they
have to work as food servers to stay alive. Unless we judge art by the
degree of appreciation it engenders, the whole issue is an endless
intellectual sport : entertaining, stimulating, but ultimately unresolved.
Art itself remains unaffected.
The folks in my music newsgroup were taken aback by my saying that I 'm
unmoved, even bored, by much French Impressionist music. There ensued a
lively discussion as to the merits of Debussy, Ravel, and the boys.. It was
fun, but nothing was resolved..some of them still love it, I remain
untouched. Still, I can't deny the artistic reputation of that music. When
you get to John Cage you get the same response as yours to the automated
man. I'll bet John Cage doesn't give a large squat either.
I just heard Lawrence Ferlinghetti speaking in a radio interview . In
response to a question he started to say "Poetry should..." I left it
there.
Sam
P.S. If an automated man humps a tree in the forest...
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> Which Goya are you thinking about? It's hard to see Goya's famous print
> series as propaganda in the service of some particular politics, as
> Rivera's were.
Third of May?
Mazzolata
Guernica is a pretty uninteresting work compared to Demoiselles
d'Avignon, or Three Musicians, or Girl in Front of a Mirror ...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
** Save the Environment - Uproot a Bush **
Just because the world runs on oil doesn't mean oilmen should run the world
Francis A. Miniter
> francis muir wrote:
>
>> smw wrote:
>>
>>> Francis A. Miniter wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> So Picasso's Guernica is not art?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Neither is the near entirety of Western drama, apparently.
>>>
>>
>> There must be plenty like myself who see "Guernica" as a poor attempt at
>> propaganda art. I find it quite unsatisfying. Pao just tippy-toed
>> into prop;
>> where's the agit? it wasn't his thing. For the real thing you have to
>> go to
>> the master, Diego Rivera.
>>
> Guernica is a pretty uninteresting work compared to Demoiselles
> d'Avignon, or Three Musicians, or Girl in Front of a Mirror ...
>
I saw it at MOMA shortly before it was returned to Spain. It was
powerful. First, the size hits you. Then , color or lack of it, then
the horror. It was quite impressive when seen in person.
Francis A. Miniter
phil
follows if everybody agrees wih you?"
Arindam Banerjee
Hear, Hear!
I make a living by ignoring hi-falutin theory, and practising realistic
simulation instead, of large, dynamic and complex systems. Abstract
software modeling, I call it.
With great success, may I add. Looks like business people may be getting it
at last! Does take even the latest PCs to their limit.
Such results lead to better theories. In the absence of such
computing/measurement/analysis, people are stuck bickering over old
theories.
Arindam Banerjee.
G*rd*n
"Arindam Banerjee" <ad...@interphase.aust.com>:
> Hear, Hear!
>
> I make a living by ignoring hi-falutin theory, and practising realistic
> simulation instead, of large, dynamic and complex systems. Abstract
> software modeling, I call it.
>
> With great success, may I add. Looks like business people may be getting it
> at last! Does take even the latest PCs to their limit.
>
> Such results lead to better theories. In the absence of such
> computing/measurement/analysis, people are stuck bickering over old
> theories.
How would you apply that to art, cultcrit?
Dorai Sitaram
Arindam Banerjee <ad...@interphase.aust.com> wrote:
>
>I make a living by ignoring hi-falutin theory, and practising realistic
>simulation instead, of large, dynamic and complex systems. Abstract
>software modeling, I call it.
>
>With great success, may I add. Looks like business people may be getting it
>at last! Does take even the latest PCs to their limit.
>
>Such results lead to better theories. In the absence of such
>computing/measurement/analysis, people are stuck bickering over old
>theories.
This seems close to the thesis of Stephen Wolfram's
book, _A New Kind of Science_. If you have read
it, what did you think of it?
Jeff Inman
>
> Jeff Inman wrote:
>
> > smw wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>I have no problem with dissing some or much of political art; I merely
> >>think that its being political cannot be the criterium for dissing it. I
> >>also think that bad art can do good things (and good art bad things).
> >>
> >
> > Well, maybe that would be the place to start. Seems
> > to me that much of the dissable "political art" has the
> > intention of producing a "good" effect; the artist seems
> > to be more interested in making some social change than
> > in producing art.
>
> By what token can we discern his or her motivation?
I know: I said "seems" (the second one). The game
here was just to define (unscientifically) some
characteristics of bad political "art".
> And perhaps she
> would say that making social change is, in any case, more important than
> producing good art (along the nebulous criteria we need to take for
> granted for now)?
I'd say that's good for her, because she is probably producing
a lot of crap, working like that. (Thanks for the straight
line, by the way.) Again, I'm just kicking around a thought
about whether there is a way to categorize a certain kind of
sucking "art". We're not saving the world.
Of course, maybe we come back several decades later, and
we have a soft spot for the earnest naivete, or passionate
caring, that seems so glaringly obvious in retrospect, or
something else. And maybe it has a certain cultural resonance
that way. So, yeah, maybe crap can turn into art, too.
Not trying to carve anything in stone.
> > The irritating thing about this, to
> > me, is that it presumes too much. It arrogates to the
> > artist more than the artist has a right to.
>
> According to?
ObTravisBickle: "I don't see anyone else around here"
> If we presume that Sophocles' main intent in writing _Oedipus the King_
> was political change, does that change the quality of the work? He was,
> after all, an active politician.
I just wouldn't believe it. His main intent? Like he
said to himself, "how can I get this ridiculous tax-cut
passed, without letting everyone know that its main
function is to put money in the hands of the wealthy?
I know, I'll write a play!"
But, sure. I can believe that maybe Sophocles could
intend his play to develop some political theme he had
in mind. That's different.
> > I admit it's
> > a bias: my bias is that art is a collaboration between an
> > artist and his life/experience/muse. Artistic creation is
> > a mysterious process which is not to be commanded. (I
> > say the same thing about scientific research, but that's
> > a different thread.) An artist who seems to make a claim
> > about where this process is going -- what its effects might
> > be, etc -- seems to have his attention in the wrong place.
> > It speaks against his artistry, but it also suggests a
> > violation of something sacred. That is, it offends taste,
> > but it also offends something more personal.
>
> I absolutely agree that it would be foolish to think that whatever
> effect art has can be predicted or directed. The better it is, the more
> ambivalent, in any case.
Yeah! what I was trying to say. So, we're cool.
> > Of course, artists do have to "command" in the sense of
> > sitting down to write even when they are not "inspired".
> > But if there is no mysterious communion that occurs during
> > those efforts, and the output is all produced by force,
> > then I don't think it is likely to be Art.
>
> I'm not sure there's any single way towards art; your model is
> appealing, but is it how art's always and invariably produced? I doubt it.
It's not really a "way", I think, because what I've described
is esoteric. You could gather a lot of diverse ways under
its umbrella. But you could also leave some crap out in the
rain.
Jeff
Mazzolata
It's not about you, voodoo-head.
Chuckman
If it is bad, the only way to get beyond it is to let it sink by it's
own suckiness. Trying to censor or scuttle it only brings it more attention.
It's silly to think that humans cannot endure bad art or do not have the
will to look away. Censorship supposes individuals do not know what is best
for themselves.
PM is all about letting go of the social controls. Stop theorizing about
what should and should not be. Just start doing. We all have the intuition
and critical ability to sense and realize when something is not working. And
then we stop and move on. Play. We find what works and go with it.
Ned Ludd
news:lysms5h...@circe.aeaea...
>
>> this is the thing with art.
>> If it is bad, the only way to get beyond it is to let it sink by
>> it's own suckiness. Trying to censor or scuttle it only brings it
>> more attention.
>
> want to believe things are simple and safe. Don't feel threatened,
> I'm not trying to change anyone's mind.
> Anyway, sometimes censorship works as intended, sometimes it
> backfires. It's complicated.
>
>> silly to think that humans cannot endure bad art or do not have the
>> will to look away. Censorship supposes individuals do not know what
>> is best for themselves.
>
> that free choices by lots of individuals don't always lead to the best
> result for the society.
>
'Best' only works if the 'individuals' also agree that it's best.
Presumably the individuals would then exercise their free right to
vote and restrict all individuals' behavior. To my knowledge no
censorship board was EVER elected, or created by a plebiscite in
the entire history of mankind.
>> PM is all about letting go of the social controls. Stop theorizing
>> about what should and should not be. Just start doing. We all have
>> the intuition and critical ability to sense and realize when
>> something is not working. And then we stop and move on. Play. We
>> find what works and go with it.
>
> PM? That would be post-modernism? Sounds more like a Nike ad to me.
> Followup-To header set.
Marko Amnell
news:D6Aqa.362563$OV.380072@rwcrnsc54
> This is the thing:
> In Postmodernism, you can't really know what society is, and you
> definitely can't know what is good, bad or ugly for it.
> Here is a quote from Heidegger's Being and Time. "Does not 'world' thus
> become something 'subjective'? How, then, can there be a 'common' world 'in'
> which, nevertheless, we are?"
> You don't have to like it, but this is the story. It is one thing to
> have theories. It is another to live by them.
Postmodernism is just a fancy name for intellectual laziness.
John V. Omlor
laziness, it's reductivist, single line pseudo-definitions in the name of
glibness that best represent the disease of intellectual laziness.
As to the article originally cited, the names that appear, Gates, Fish,
Jameson, Gilman, etc. are of a generation ago (or more now) in the theory
world. In my opinion, the exciting new stuff is being done by other people (in
other countries often), and these guys are often still doing precisely the same
things they were doing when I was in grad school a long, long time ago. That
may be a part of the reason that they are wondering aloud how much their stuff
matters anymore. It is, after all, something you do as you get older.
But I prefer to read Derrida like I read Hegel or Kant -- as a thinker whose
work participates in an important way in the history of the debates within
Continental philosophy. Frankly, I don't think I'll be reading much of the
Fishman or Skip Gates or Fred Jameson in the same way years from now, although
I liked the afternoons and evenings I spent at conferences talking and drinking
with each of them when I was a younger man. At this point, though, I'd still
rather read the late Gilles Deleuze than any of these guys.
Also, the question "Does X matter?" is fundamentally a silly one, in my
opinion. It can always be answered yes and it can always be answered no.
Whatever "it" is, it has usually mattered to those for whom it has mattered.
It has made a difference for those who have cared about it or have used it or
shared it with others in some way. It has not made a difference or, quite
properly, mattered at all for those who haven't. So what?
Of course, I'm still not convinced that human existence itself has "mattered"
or made much a difference overall, so I'm probably the wrong person to ask.
All the best,
--John
Chuckman
It's the outgrowth of the failure of Modernism. It's intellectual
laziness to suggest that the latest theoretical movement amounts to nothing
and has nothing to offer.
No one said you had to like it.
Roll call: How many people in Alt.Postmodern consider themselves
Postmodernists?
I put myself firmly in that category.
Lewis Mammel
Chuckman wrote:
> Roll call: How many people in Alt.Postmodern consider themselves
> Postmodernists?
> I put myself firmly in that category.
That makes you a modernist.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Ned Ludd
>
>>>> silly to think that humans cannot endure bad art or do not have
>>>> the will to look away. Censorship supposes individuals do not
>>>> know what is best for themselves.
>
>>> No, it doesn't. Closer to the truth would be: Censorship supposes
>>> that free choices by lots of individuals don't always lead to the
>>> best result for the society.
>
>> 'Best' only works if the 'individuals' also agree that it's best.
>> Presumably the individuals would then exercise their free right to
>> vote and restrict all individuals' behavior.
>
> individuals don't object too strongly. This, together with the fact
> that most individuals *would* object strongly to what's best for the
> society, leads to a rather pessimistic outlook in lots of ways. For
> instance, as a Luddite, I'm pessimistic about the future, because
> there's no way to stop technical progress even when it's harmful.
> Here, as in most other areas, even the wisest philosopher-king-censor
> couldn't stop the tide from rushing in. Bummer.
>
It's even worse than that. It's hard to know the truly harmful
from the survivable. There was a joint Shiite fatwa two days ago
concerning the US, and I was amazed by the specific mention in
the fatwa of people being allowed access to satellite TV signals
(specifically advocating resisting and preventing this) because
of its impact on the morals of the Shiite populations.
So, in the great grinding machine of oil exploitation, ozone
depletion, global warming, species extinction etc., the mullahs
are most worried about satellite TV. (BTW, I am not anywhere
near as fearful of that list of things I just mentioned as my
population is.)
>> To my knowledge no censorship board was EVER elected, or created
>> by a plebiscite in the entire history of mankind.
>
> Maybe not, but censors are often appointed by elected officials,
> and censorship often has widespread popular support. There's also
> "voluntary censorship", like for instance motion picture ratings,
> where directors often censor their own movies in order to get an "R".
> This system is accepted, maybe even supported, by the hoi polloi.
>
Not as revealed by their purchasing habits and Net activity.
Censors are appointed because, imo, a minority of rich (or
religious) do-gooders pressure the mayor, governor or president
to create them.
"Doing what's good for them" is a nasty habit of rich and self-
righteous minorities throughout history: If it can't win in the
ballot box, impose it by fiat (see "Shiites" above).
The reason the rich/self-righteous get away with it more than
their numerical constituency would normally permit is because it
is politically difficult to not appear "for" those things you
advocate being protected form censorship.
A few days ago some top Bush-favored Republican senator got his
ass in a sling for grouping homosexuality with "bigamy, polygamy,
adultery and incest", in his explanation for why it should be
illegal.
That's the tactic in a nutshell: Make a basket of "bad things"
and then include anything you find personally distasteful, so
that anyone arguing against you appears "for" all those things.
That's how a censor works.
Ned
Chuckman
use a quote if possible.
perhaps, if you will accept:
i subscibe to postmodernist views
or, I am not a modernist...
Arindam Banerjee
> > > Hostility to false priesthoods is obligatory, in my view.
>
> "Arindam Banerjee" <ad...@interphase.aust.com>:
> > Hear, Hear!
> >
> > I make a living by ignoring hi-falutin theory, and practising realistic
> > simulation instead, of large, dynamic and complex systems. Abstract
> > software modeling, I call it.
> >
> > With great success, may I add. Looks like business people may be getting it
> > at last! Does take even the latest PCs to their limit.
> >
> > Such results lead to better theories. In the absence of such
> > computing/measurement/analysis, people are stuck bickering over old
> > theories.
>
> How would you apply that to art, cultcrit?
Why should an artist bother about any theory? An artist simply does
what he wants to do, as best as possible, taking into account whatever
helps him or her. Bothering about theory (that is, grasping for
crutches) is for those who do not have the talent to become an artist
of any kind.
Arindam Banerjee
I must confess I have not. My main literary inspiration for such work
is Isaac Asimov: Foundation Series, Salvor Hardin.
Arindam Banerjee
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> >>Hostility to false priesthoods is obligatory, in my view.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Hear, Hear!
> >
> >I make a living by ignoring hi-falutin theory, and practising realistic
> >simulation instead, of large, dynamic and complex systems. Abstract
> >software modeling, I call it.
> >
> >With great success, may I add. Looks like business people may be getting it
> >at last! Does take even the latest PCs to their limit.
> >
> >Such results lead to better theories. In the absence of such
> >computing/measurement/analysis, people are stuck bickering over old
> >theories.
> >
> >Arindam Banerjee.
> >
> >
> >
>
> It's not about you, voodoo-head.
Silly snarler!
Lewis Mammel
Chuckman wrote:
>
> explain.
You can divide people into two types, those that divide people
into types and those that don't, and I'm one of the latter type.
Categorizing yourself as a postmodernist is like bragging
that you're humble.
> use a quote if possible.
"The object of this study is the condition of knowledge
in the most highly developed societies. I have decided to use
the word 'postmodern' to describe that condition."
- Lyotard
"We're all DEVO." - DEVO
> perhaps, if you will accept:
> i subscibe to postmodernist views
It's not a magazine.
> or, I am not a modernist...
You don't get to pick.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Mazzolata
>>
>>
>
>Why should an artist bother about any theory? An artist simply does
>what he wants to do, as best as possible (sic)
>
LOL ! A Bushism, a veritable Bushism ..
Chuckman
believed in Postmodernism in general, or liked what one had read by people
considered to be postmodernistic, like lyotard.
G*rd*n
> >
> > "Arindam Banerjee" <ad...@interphase.aust.com>:
> > > Hear, Hear!
> > >
> > > I make a living by ignoring hi-falutin theory, and practising realistic
> > > simulation instead, of large, dynamic and complex systems. Abstract
> > > software modeling, I call it.
> > >
> > > With great success, may I add. Looks like business people may be getting it
> > > at last! Does take even the latest PCs to their limit.
> > >
> > > Such results lead to better theories. In the absence of such
> > > computing/measurement/analysis, people are stuck bickering over old
> > > theories.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > How would you apply that to art, cultcrit?
adda...@bigpond.com (Arindam Banerjee):
> Why should an artist bother about any theory? An artist simply does
> what he wants to do, as best as possible, taking into account whatever
> helps him or her. Bothering about theory (that is, grasping for
> crutches) is for those who do not have the talent to become an artist
> of any kind.
How come many bigdeal artists have done it, then? Like Van
Gogh and Michelangelo. No talent, eh?
James Whitehead
> What I'm looking for here is what you think one should say if one
> believed in Postmodernism in general, or liked what one had read by people
> considered to be postmodernistic, like lyotard.
I suspect what you like in post-modernism - or what you read in lyotard is
the remnants of modernity. A spectre of modernity.... in an age where
spirits are illusion or dellusion-
Here is a better example:
20. Int Bookshop. Day.
Mr Smith Do you have any books by Dickens?
William No, we're a travel bookshop, We only sell travel
books.
Mr Smith Oh right, how about the new John Grisham thriller?
William No, thats a novel too.
Mr Smith Oh right. Have you got a copy of 'Winnie the Pooh'?
Pause
William Martin - your customer.
Martin Can I help you?
Ned Ludd
>
>> It's even worse than that. It's hard to know the truly harmful
>> from the survivable. There was a joint Shiite fatwa two days ago
>> concerning the US, and I was amazed by the specific mention in
>> the fatwa of people being allowed access to satellite TV signals
>> (specifically advocating resisting and preventing this) because
>> of its impact on the morals of the Shiite populations.
>
> about all those un-Enlightened primitives on the other side of the
> world. (Didn't Foucault once...oops!) But I admit I'm a little taken
> aback that someone named Ned Ludd would complain about people being
> denied access to satellite TV.
>
Yeah, well, pomo you know.
> Me, I can understand how the mullahs feel. Not that I'd do the same
> in their place, but I can understand it. The idea that Western
> television might have a less than beneficial effect...well, I can
> understand it.
>
Ergo large amounts of censorship on network TV in the US.
Ned
Ned Ludd
>
>>> Maybe not, but censors are often appointed by elected officials,
>>> and censorship often has widespread popular support. There's also
>>> "voluntary censorship", like for instance motion picture ratings,
>>> where directors often censor their own movies in order to get an
>>> "R". This system is accepted, maybe even supported, by the hoi
>>> polloi.
>>
>> Not as revealed by their purchasing habits and Net activity.
>
> the motion picture rating system?
>
They vote with their dollars and their cable viewing habits.
> Even if everyone's rushing out to
> buy the director's cuts of their favorite R-rated movies, as you seem
> to imply, so what? It's a classic Free Rider situation: Even when the
> players agree to limit their choices for the common good, they may
> still try to cheat. No contradiction.
>
It creates a useless bureaucratic pig who dictates what can't be
seen on a vast spectrum of public airwaves.
>> "Doing what's good for them" is a nasty habit of rich and self-
>> righteous minorities throughout history: If it can't win in the
>> ballot box, impose it by fiat (see "Shiites" above).
>
> Well, it's a habit. Often it's a nasty one. Not always, though,
> unless you think the ballot box is sacred.
>
Not sacred. If you let the ballot box work, homosexuality would
be outlawed, and there never would have been bussing.
>> A few days ago some top Bush-favored Republican senator got his
>> ass in a sling for grouping homosexuality with "bigamy, polygamy,
>> adultery and incest", in his explanation for why it should be
>> illegal.
>> That's the tactic in a nutshell: Make a basket of "bad things"
>> and then include anything you find personally distasteful, so
>> that anyone arguing against you appears "for" all those things.
>
> The basket doesn't seem that strange to me. Bigamy, polygamy,
> adultery, incest, homosexuality. The label says "deviant sex-related
> behavior". It's not like the guy threw in "water fluoridation".
>
HA! I would LOVE to have the good senator stand on the floor
of the senate and tell his peers there that adultery is "deviant
sex-related behavior". (Especially now that Newt is back in action.)
Most of the fat cats in the senate qualify or have qualified as
adulterers, imo.
Also imo, none of the activities on his list are deviant sexual
behavior. Note that he throws 'incest' into his original basket.
The first three activities involve consenting adult sexual behavior.
The fourth (incest), in order to be relevant to the list, must
likewise apply only to consenting adult behavior. But the word
incest is extremely emotion-charged because it often refers to
child molesting.
So he has created a very poisoned basket in preparation for his
throwing 'homosexuality' into it.
He is a self-righteous pig. And a manipulator. That is to say,
a perfect censor.
Ned
G*rd*n
> The Other <ot...@no.email.pls> wrote in message
> > Me, I can understand how the mullahs feel. Not that I'd do the same
> > in their place, but I can understand it. The idea that Western
> > television might have a less than beneficial effect...well, I can
> > understand it.
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
> Ergo large amounts of censorship on network TV in the US.
I wonder if the composition of television content should
be called "censored", which implies some sort of filtering
of a possibly variegated input. In fact, it's much more
narrowly selected.
Ned Ludd
news:b8jcq0$skr$1...@panix3.panix.com...
The Other:
>> Me, I can understand how the mullahs feel. Not that I'd do the same
>> in their place, but I can understand it. The idea that Western
>> television might have a less than beneficial effect...well, I can
>> understand it.
Ned:
> Ergo large amounts of censorship on network TV in the US.
G:
> I wonder if the composition of television content should
> be called "censored", which implies some sort of filtering
> of a possibly variegated input. In fact, it's much more
> narrowly selected.
>
Narrow!? There's too damn much public service crap to call
it narrow. And too damn many ugly people. It's all your
multi-culti crap that's screwing it up, Gordon. Imo.
Ned
Richard Harter
"Rodney McFinister argues vigorously genre fiction is the true
successor to fiction as conceived in the 18'th and 19'th
centuries. He makes two main arguments. The first is that the
liberation in the 20'th century of fiction from classical
constraints was illusory, that capricious and arbitrary
constraints (from the author's point of view) are necessary, that
their removal leads not to literary freedom but to literary
death. He argues that it does not matter what the constraints
are so long as they are arbitrary and capricious - the market
constraints of genre fiction serve as will as classical literary
dicta."
Such is the value of theory.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Today is the first day of the rest of your life.
Today is the last day of the mistakes you've already made.
Richard Harter
wrote:
> He is a self-righteous pig.
So he is. But, then, so are you, bucko.
Ned Ludd
Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote in message
news:3ead3bc8....@news.sbtc.net...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 08:39:18 -0500, "Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>> He is a self-righteous pig.
>
> So he is. But, then, so are you, bucko.
>
Yeah, well, so's your mother.
Ned
Christopher J. Henrich
<c...@tiac.net> wrote:
Well, this summary sounds to me like a breath of fresh air after the
pretentious slip-slop of the "theory"-mongers. Reasons for liking it:
A. It is about literature, instead of presuming to be expert on every
subject-matter in the universe.
B. The summary, at least, is decently written.
C. I kind-of agree with it. YMMV.
--
Chris Henrich
G*rd*n
> news:b8jcq0$skr$1...@panix3.panix.com...
The Other:
> >> Me, I can understand how the mullahs feel. Not that I'd do the same
> >> in their place, but I can understand it. The idea that Western
> >> television might have a less than beneficial effect...well, I can
> >> understand it.
Ned:
> > Ergo large amounts of censorship on network TV in the US.
G:
> > I wonder if the composition of television content should
> > be called "censored", which implies some sort of filtering
> > of a possibly variegated input. In fact, it's much more
> > narrowly selected.
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
> Narrow!? There's too damn much public service crap to call
> it narrow. And too damn many ugly people. It's all your
> multi-culti crap that's screwing it up, Gordon. Imo.
You said "network TV". What's multi-culti -- fat boys
making obscene gestures on MTV?
Chuckman
Does anyone here believe postmodernism exists?
If yes, does anyone here like it?
If you don't think I've arrived at an understanding of it, please point
me in a direction, instead of telling me that I'm lost, because frankly, i
disagree. If you point me in a direction, i could then see for myself if I
was right or not.
But thanks for the antagonizing and ridicule, just the same.
Ned Ludd
The Other:
>> Me, I can understand how the mullahs feel. Not that I'd do the same
>> in their place, but I can understand it. The idea that Western
>> television might have a less than beneficial effect...well, I can
>> understand it.
Ned:
>> Ergo large amounts of censorship on network TV in the US.
G:
>> I wonder if the composition of television content should
>> be called "censored", which implies some sort of filtering
>> of a possibly variegated input. In fact, it's much more
>> narrowly selected.
Ned:
> Narrow!? There's too damn much public service crap to call
> it narrow. And too damn many ugly people. It's all your
> multi-culti crap that's screwing it up, Gordon. Imo.
G:
> You said "network TV". What's multi-culti -- fat boys
> making obscene gestures on MTV?
>
Well, yeah. So, now you're a critic?
Ned
Ned Ludd
Go rent The Matrix. (The first one - the next two are coming
out in the next few months.) Note in the first scene (or a scene
very near the beginning) when Neo sells them an illegal tape, he
keeps the tapes and his money in a stash box disguised as a book.
And the title of the book is.... Simulations!
Ned
Arindam Banerjee
Those who can, do; those who can't, theorize.
Those who can do, and are also kind enough to make notes about their
work (like Leonardo da Vinci) create theories rising from their notes.
Such theories are used by later artists to create similar work, and
held as dogma by inferior people. Thus, da Vinci showed in his notes
how to get photo realism in painting through certain scientific ways.
This was fine, till they invented photography, and photo-realism in
painting became obsolete. New theories were desired, and so we had
modern art, where photo-realistic methods were abandoned, in place of
studied exaggeration of certain dimensions, to create certain desired
effects. Van Gogh is just one example. As for Michaelangelo, he was
a great artist who wanted to sculpt and paint the best way he could,
and so, dug up dead bodies for study (according to the book, The Agony
and the Ecstasy). If M had stuck to conventional theory, he could
never have become M.
G*rd*n
> >> Me, I can understand how the mullahs feel. Not that I'd do the same
> >> in their place, but I can understand it. The idea that Western
> >> television might have a less than beneficial effect...well, I can
> >> understand it.
Ned:
> >> Ergo large amounts of censorship on network TV in the US.
G:
> >> I wonder if the composition of television content should
> >> be called "censored", which implies some sort of filtering
> >> of a possibly variegated input. In fact, it's much more
> >> narrowly selected.
Ned:
> > Narrow!? There's too damn much public service crap to call
> > it narrow. And too damn many ugly people. It's all your
> > multi-culti crap that's screwing it up, Gordon. Imo.
G:
> > You said "network TV". What's multi-culti -- fat boys
> > making obscene gestures on MTV?
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
> Well, yeah. So, now you're a critic?
You consider that to be criticism? It's just a statement of
fact. Turn on MTV, there's a fat, ugly kid holding his crotch,
sticking his lower lip out, and bumping his hips. It all
seems well outside the realm of criticism to me.
Lee Rudolph
>You consider that to be criticism? It's just a statement of
>fact. Turn on MTV, there's a fat, ugly kid holding his crotch,
>sticking his lower lip out, and bumping his hips. It all
>seems well outside the realm of criticism to me.
I read that as "the realm of eroticism". Worked better.
Lee Rudolph
Ned Ludd
Ned:
>> Narrow!? There's too damn much public service crap to call
>> it narrow. And too damn many ugly people. It's all your
>> multi-culti crap that's screwing it up, Gordon. Imo.
G:
>> You said "network TV". What's multi-culti -- fat boys
>> making obscene gestures on MTV?
Ned:
> Well, yeah. So, now you're a critic?
G:
> You consider that to be criticism? It's just a statement of
> fact. Turn on MTV, there's a fat, ugly kid holding his crotch,
> sticking his lower lip out, and bumping his hips. It all
> seems well outside the realm of criticism to me.
>
Elvis flung his crotch around. Quite a bit. It was very
revolutionary. Very multi-culti. Maybe you just don't like
fat boys.
What that did to us the mullahs fear satellite TV will do
to their Muslims.
Ned
Mazzolata
>
>"Rodney McFinister argues vigorously genre fiction is the true
>successor to fiction as conceived in the 18'th and 19'th
>centuries. He makes two main arguments. The first is that the
>liberation in the 20'th century of fiction from classical
>constraints was illusory, that capricious and arbitrary
>constraints (from the author's point of view) are necessary, that
>their removal leads not to literary freedom but to literary
>death. He argues that it does not matter what the constraints
>are so long as they are arbitrary and capricious - the market
>constraints of genre fiction serve as will as classical literary
>dicta."
>
>Such is the value of theory.
>
>
>
>
>
Every decent artist knows that you need constaints, even if only self-imposed ones.
Mazzolata
>
> Elvis flung his crotch around. Quite a bit. It was very
>revolutionary. Very multi-culti. Maybe you just don't like
>fat boys.
>
> What that did to us the mullahs fear satellite TV will do
>to their Muslims.
>
> Ned
>
>
>
>
>
Maybe they do have a point. If it's going to save them from a muslim
Celine Dion, more power to 'em.
--
Arindam Banerjee
> In article <hU7qa.22063$1s1.3...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>,
> Arindam Banerjee <ad...@interphase.aust.com> wrote:
> >
> >simulation instead, of large, dynamic and complex systems. Abstract
> >software modeling, I call it.
> >
> >With great success, may I add. Looks like business people may be getting it
> >at last! Does take even the latest PCs to their limit.
> >
> >Such results lead to better theories. In the absence of such
> >computing/measurement/analysis, people are stuck bickering over old
> >theories.
>
> book, _A New Kind of Science_. If you have read
> it, what did you think of it?
Further to what I wrote about this, earlier, I would like to say that
I meant Hari Seldon and his psychohistory (in Asimov's Foundation
series) and not Salvor Hardin. (Been quite a while since I read them,
in the earliest paperback editions.)
James Whitehead
Sorry Chuck - can i call you that? but for my part i was not intending
ridicule at all. I wasn't even intending to antagonise - though while Ned
tells you to watch matrix - i consider it to have a very modernist form &
message. I would recommend Notting hill for numerous reasons, firstly and in
no particular order the lack of any real plot- or at least the unimportance
of it. There is a story in Gilbert ryles book about an American friend
wanting to see the University of Oxford - and getting quite upset after
walking around looking at the various colleges, not finding anywhere a
building labelled "University of Oxford". To like or dislike the university
therefore seems strange- one can like or dislike colleges - but in a
concrete sense there is no University. So you are like this guy standing in
the middle of Oxford - lost and asking for directions to the University -
getting upset at the replies. Hope this helps.
Now to your first question > Does anyone here believe postmodernism
exists?
In a sense yes - but what does the "existence" do or mean here. This i think
is where folk again get upset - and perhaps they are deliberately goaded
into this. Modernity could be argued was a failed attempt to define
existence - and a recognition of this part of what is called post-modernism.
So your very question is predicated on the metaphysical idea of existence -
or ontology. To begin to answer it (in the way you wish) accepts the
underlying (failed) metaphysical structure. We should or could continue -
but i'm maybe boring you - with looking at the word "anyone" again this
presupposes a person - now superficially we accept there are "people" - but
as Ryle argues asking to see "The Mind" or "Oxford University" is a mistake.
Its not even as simple as this - as people are supposed to have rights - as
such are legal products - with numerous legal systems - which modernity saw
as being capable of definition (UN various "laws")- which the USA ignores in
the same way as Islamic Law does. However we have only begun to explore and
develop what a person is - and we could continue this... modernity (science)
generalises as this is useful - and even if you accept this - its not how
you would ever want yourself to be treated - this is a deep contradiction
within modernity. For instance you could accept as "good" (and like) a high
safety record for an airline - but would be horrified if you were on the one
in a million crashing aircraft - the "facts" of the matter would be of no
help and i suspect little comfort. This is where the modernist cries "but
surly there IS such a thing as a person". What is interesting here is the
desire behind the modernist cry - for *more* than just "use". Once you begin
exploring who you are - you change and of course explore who you are not -
what you where - will be - could be, and in the film Notting Hill - which
character do you "become" - can become. So next time you get in a lift you
see "Max 10 Persons" .... (or 5 schizophrenics) A simple mantra is -
modernity = Paranoia post-modernity = schizophrenia. Now in the trite sense
asking a schizophrenic if they like something will produce a confusing
answer. Some may well see post-modernity as a sickness - but one that
infects modernity. But in the past the mentally ill were punished - i
digress. I'd take "believe" now and argue its more simple in po-mo than in
modernity. Do you believe an electron is a particle or wave... is the corny
argument - which i dont like. I would say that a post-modern electron would
carry not only both such properties but the properties of its history - the
greek myth it was based on and how this myth changes- and now here is the
rub- as we write about the electron its definition changes - grows - the
more we see in it...
> If yes, does anyone here like it?
Do i at times like Tracy Emins bed and is it post-modernist - well yes -
Tate Modern's post modernist arrangements of art - No, but then i may warm
to it, the wobbly bridge is fun - but i dont like it. I like sometimes Mc
Donald's - though its disgusting. The Iraq war - i didn't like - but now
lots do like it - before the war the Iraqis (Shiite) wanted liberation - now
they hate the liberators. In modern politics we can identify post-modernism
as single issue groups, for instance when in theUK prior to the BSE crisis
farmers exported live calves - Clarke (first name?) a tory minister joined
extreme lefties along with conservative old ladies against the export. There
is no real difference in those elected as they fit into a machine... This is
in otherwords a set of relationships - i'm developing this now, Emins Bed is
art because its in the Tate- nothing new here. Bush is president for no
other reason (intelligence moral fibre, votes etc) in that he is in the
whitehouse. Blair also... do i like this - well i'm not sure. I dont think
it makes much difference. Lets try to be more definite - to operate as
"artist" - "Politician" or "Scientist" is no longer dependent on what one
does (this is the modernist idea) but on the network in which one is. I
should re-word this as networks are dynamic. So we have Art and politics
these days but they are not objects in the way i think you see them but the
set of relationships attached to them by groups. And the significance of
these groups is internal - not external. To this extent one can be a
modernist within post-modernity - but its an ironic modernism as it lacks
any of the Newness of modernity Mk 1. This is why irony is big in po-mo.So
in modernity feminists would destroy the artefacts of male sexual
domination - like the bra - whilst post-feminists - like Madonna use this
and other fetishist objects to... now is it expose the power structure and
take it over or is she just using this as a intellectual justification for
old fashioned prostitution? Whats happening here is if your po-moing is a
state of undeciablity, as we can keep seeing more - we cannot draw a
boundary which we call the context and so come to some conclusion. Well we
can draw a boundary but on what criteria?
Do i like it - how do i feel about myself? There is a line in 'Analyze This'
where Billy Crystal asks De Niro what his aim is to make him a well adjusted
mobster, (or such) see the irony.
One last gasp - if you are still awake - you know the joke about goldfish
and their short memory - the fish swims around the bowl and each time is
amazed at seeing the sunken castle - this is my current take on po-mo -
where i'm the fish. This is very similar to Nietzsches Demon in the Eternal
Return / Gay Science. (Michael? Moggin?) Of course if the fish gets outside
the bowl - it dies. Or "Il n'y a rien en dehors de la cuvette de goldfish"
G*rd*n
> >> Narrow!? There's too damn much public service crap to call
> >> it narrow. And too damn many ugly people. It's all your
> >> multi-culti crap that's screwing it up, Gordon. Imo.
G:
> >> You said "network TV". What's multi-culti -- fat boys
> >> making obscene gestures on MTV?
Ned:
> > Well, yeah. So, now you're a critic?
G:
> > You consider that to be criticism? It's just a statement of
> > fact. Turn on MTV, there's a fat, ugly kid holding his crotch,
> > sticking his lower lip out, and bumping his hips. It all
> > seems well outside the realm of criticism to me.
> >
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
> Elvis flung his crotch around. Quite a bit. It was very
> revolutionary. Very multi-culti. Maybe you just don't like
> fat boys.
Elvis was beautiful. And he could sing.
> What that did to us the mullahs fear satellite TV will do
> to their Muslims.
Eventually, the mullahs will get with the program and saturate
America with Islam-TV. Millions will convert. When you stare
into the abyss, the abyss stares back, and sometimes it winks.
We're talking about _Allah_ here, my good man. Better get
out your Koran and start reading.
James Whitehead
has led you to do?
"efflorescence of a disturbed mind." I guess it follows engineers always
flatline on EEGs :-)
TL
I am also new to postmodernmism. Let me show you my notes that I have so far
taken in PoMo class:
1. postmodernism doesn't exist - the notion of postmodernism "exisiting"
is a typical "modernist" mode of thinking - implying "ontological realism".
Ideas just get temporarily "pinned" to the basket of the postmodernist
mental washing machine.
2. Postmodernists will never "tell you" what postmodernism is. They will
only use signs and symbols. The reason is that their leader - derrida - has
liberated his flock from "logocentrism" - oppression by means of the word.
3. Postmodernism is not a "philosophy" or a program but a lifestyle. The
closest thing I can think of is the "coneheads" from Saturday night Live (US
TV program from the late 70's). Beldar and his wife Primaat are aliens from
another planet sent on a scouting mission as a precursor to an invasion of
earth, but instead their craft crashlands and they are forced to try to
assimilate with the "bluntheads". They tell everyone that they are
from....France! Beldar becomes a driving instructor. They never actually
"get" human culture, but wildly exxagerate it in their futile attempt to
"fit in". All the while they await a rescue ship from their home planet.
Their lifestyle is best described as "consumming mass quantities". They
particularly like to have fiberglass insulation with their beer. Famous
quote from Beldar (droned in an alien/robot voice): "Sometimes my Cone feels
like it has a mind of its own!"
4. The following is the first pragraph from Derrida "On Grammotology". I
offer it without coment:
"
However the topic is considered, the problem of language has never been
simply one problem among others. But never as much as at present has it
invaded, as such, the global horizon of the most diverse researches and the
most heterogeneous discourses, diverse and heterogeneous in their intention,
method, and ideology. The devaluation of the word "language" itself, and
how, in the very hold it has upon us, it betrays a loose vocabulary, the
temptation of a cheap seduction, the passive yielding to fashion, the
consciousness of the avant-garde, in other words-ignorance-are evidences of
this effect. This inflation of the sign "language" is the inflation of the
sign itself, absolute inflation, inflation itself. Yet, by one of its
aspects or shadows, it is itself still a sign: this crisis is also a
symptom. It indicates, as if in spite of itself, that a
historico-metaphysical epoch must finally de-termine as language the
totality of its problematic horizon. It must do so not only because all that
desire had wished to wrest from the play of language finds itself recaptured
within that play but also because, for the
same reason, language itself is menaced in its very life, helpless, adrift
in the threat of limitlessness, brought back to its own finitude at the very
moment when its limits seem to disappear, when it ceases to be self assured,
contained, and guaranteed by the infinite signified which seemed to exceed
it.
"
TL
"Chuckman" <incaseof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Gefra.658582$L1.187225@sccrnsc02...
James Whitehead
"The simplicities of natural laws arise through the complexities of the
languages we use for their expression" - Eugene Wigner
"The exact sciences start from the assumption that in the end it will always
be possible to understand nature, even in every field of experience, but
that we may make no a priori assumption as to the meaning of 'understand'. "
Werner Heisenberg
"I dont believe in mathematics" Albert Einstein
"Heavier-than-air-flying machines are impossible" Lord Kelvin
TL
I Don't Know is on third.
Costello: That's what I want to find out.
Bud Abbott, and Lou Costello, Naughty Nineties, 1943 film
"James Whitehead" <Abx4...@jjh76g7856gh.com> wrote in message
news:b8m8vc$86p$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Chuckman
your points start with Postmodernist/ism?
> 2. Postmodernists will never "tell you" what postmodernism is. They will
> only use signs and symbols. The reason is that their leader - derrida -
has
> liberated his flock from "logocentrism" - oppression by means of the word.
So PM does exist, it just refuses a definition. For me there is no better
reason that PM exists than the fact that Modernism failed, and still fails
today by people who still hope to destroy the Other(Islamic fundamentalists,
terrorists)
> 3. Postmodernism is not a "philosophy" or a program but a lifestyle. The
> closest thing I can think of is the "coneheads" from Saturday night Live
(US
> TV program from the late 70's). Beldar and his wife Primaat are aliens
from
> another planet sent on a scouting mission as a precursor to an invasion of
> earth, but instead their craft crashlands and they are forced to try to
> assimilate with the "bluntheads". They tell everyone that they are
> from....France! Beldar becomes a driving instructor. They never actually
> "get" human culture, but wildly exxagerate it in their futile attempt to
> "fit in". All the while they await a rescue ship from their home planet.
> Their lifestyle is best described as "consumming mass quantities". They
> particularly like to have fiberglass insulation with their beer. Famous
> quote from Beldar (droned in an alien/robot voice): "Sometimes my Cone
feels
> like it has a mind of its own!"
Nice analogy. I think this is right, that in any period really, you have
people who subscribe to different periods, either the current or the past
ones. But Postmodernism does expose us as aliens who try to fit into
commercialized idea of human being.
I'm not sure Derrida is saying much in the last quote. You know, that is one
of the pitfalls of any theory, in that you may wind up reveling in the
condition of things without coming to any conclusions or merely going in a
circle, which he is doing here.
What I see him talking about here is how a sign can be both closely
related to it's signified and at the same time quite far removed from it,
barely signifying it at all.
That is one of the realizations in PM, that something may possess
multiple values at the same time.
rjc2001
>
> > 2. Postmodernists will never "tell you" what postmodernism is. They will
> > only use signs and symbols. The reason is that their leader - derrida -
> has
> > liberated his flock from "logocentrism" - oppression by means of the word.
>
> So PM does exist, it just refuses a definition. For me there is no better
> reason that PM exists than the fact that Modernism failed, and still fails
> today by people who still hope to destroy the Other(Islamic fundamentalists,
> terrorists)
-- Not to nitpick, but what does this mean? How has Modernism
failed? And what did it fail to "do?" Can you clarify this for me? As
far as I understand it, Modernism is a school of art or literature,
just as Baroque is a style of music and/or architecture, or is your
definition different than this?
-- The above idea that Postmodernism is a "lifestyle" strikes me as a
bunch of nonsense. How is Postmodernism any different from humans
trying to figure out who they are in any period of time? From the
Bible, Mythology, the Classic Greek Philosophers, the Age of
Enlightenment, etc??? Postmodernism trys to set itself up as the
"liberator" from all these other ideas that are so "archaic" (or am I
missing the point?) while still trying to grasp the same questions as
humans. How does that make it any different? If you substitute
symbols for words, you are still engaging in a form of language, which
is necessary to communicate, even though it may not always be
desirable.
> That is one of the realizations in PM, that something may possess
> multiple values at the same time.
-- Didn't Modernism realize this as well??? _Finnegan's Wake_ and
much of Joyce, Stein, etc, is built upon multiple meanings and levels.
Again, if I am missing the point, please elucidate for me. Thanks.
- Robert.
Mazzolata
> -- Not to nitpick, but what does this mean? How has Modernism
>failed? And what did it fail to "do?" Can you clarify this for me? As
>far as I understand it, Modernism is a school of art or literature,
>just as Baroque is a style of music and/or architecture, or is your
>definition different than this?
>
>
>
>
>
Modernism is an anachronism. Modernism is desperately in need of a new name. How about reductivism ?
Joyce was the first post-modernist.
TL
Its purpose is not to convince anyone, but to externalize my own thoughts on
the subject in such a manner as to allow anyone who wants to add or correct,
to do so easily.
>"However the topic is considered, the problem of language has never been
>simply one problem among others. But never as much as at present has it
>invaded, as such, the global horizon of the most diverse researches and the
>most heterogeneous discourses, diverse and heterogeneous in their
intention,
>method, and ideology.
The problem of Language is "central" to philosophy (both analytical
(Anglo-phone) and phenomenology (continental)), Computer Science, as well as
literature.
>The devaluation of the word "language" itself,
Language, by being everything, becomes nothing - that is, metaphysical in
the positivist (i.e. scientific) sense.
>and how, in the very hold it has upon us,
Some see language as central to all knowledge, reality and the self itself -
that is - it is inescapable - how do you verbally escape language? (of
course some of us see math and the arts as the traditional vehicles of such
an escape, but nevermind...!)
>it betrays a loose vocabulary,
language never "feels" precise, the way math does. Its always suspect to
misinterpretation, or just plain incompleteness. I.e. feels "loose" rather
then "tight".
>the temptation of a cheap seduction,
a. just by virtue of knowing the name of something doesn't necessarily mean
that you understand it. This is true of any particular simpleminded
explaination.
b. Since PM'ista hold the doctrine that all knowledge is "true" only within
a particular human "narrative" or "frame", simply buying into a particular
frame's view of a subject is inconclusive and therefore needs to be avoided
(therefore the use of the word "cheap").
C. Therefore, they appear standoffish when appealed to for explainations.
Instead, they describe the subject at length from many different angles and
perpectives, rather then
just giving straightforward definitions. (Kind of like watching someone take
a half hour to properly chew each mouthfull of food).
D. because of this, they get a very bad reputation from non-literature types
who accuse them of being "elitist" and talking only amongth themselves and
not being able to communicate to the general public. (a very true analysis -
IMHO)
>the passive yielding to fashion, the consciousness of the avant-garde, in
>other words-ignorance-
In the PM mind, there are no truths, only beliefs associated with "frames"
or "narratives". Since each belief (frame) is incomplete, it is therefore
ultimately unsatisfying. This leads to intellectuals buying into a
particular intellectual fad (belief system), followied by the enthuusiasm of
the convert, followed by the sense of dissatisfaction at the beliefs
ultimate incompleteness and incoherence, followed by the dropping that
belief and moving on to another... This process is essentially fruitless
and can have
no end, in the PM scheme.
>are evidences of this effect.
One characteristic of PM-speak is the "pluralisation" of nouns or verbs that
are inherently plural, sort of as as a political statement against
uniqueness and singularity. They'll say "evidences" rather then "evidence",
"heterosexualities" rather then "hetersexual", "truths" rather then "truth",
"heterophenomenologies", etc.
>This inflation of the sign "language" is the inflation of the
>sign itself, absolute inflation, inflation itself.
QED
>Yet, by one of its aspects or shadows, it is itself still a sign:
>this crisis is also a symptom. It indicates, as if in spite of itself, that
>a historico-metaphysical epoch must finally determine as language the
>totality of its problematic horizon.
In other words, language IS reality and reality IS language; not just a
description of reality. There is no reality outside language (according to
PM
doctrine.)
>It must do so not only because all that desire had wished to wrest from the
>play of language finds itself recaptured within that play
Our desires are subjective, by nature. Linguistics has tried to come up with
a "science" of language - i.e come up with a objective understanding of
language, only to realize that understanding itself is linguistic and
subjective.
>but also because, for the same reason, language itself is menaced in its
>very life,
Language is challenged by both its inherent "looseness" (as discussed
previously) as well as by math and science (which I interpret Derrida and
distinguishing from natural language).
>helpless,
Since it is "closed" in the sense that language uses only "language" to
create language (I personally don't buy this) - in otherwords, there is
nothing other then language - language is "alone" and therefore has nothing
outside it to "validate statements" (PM doctrine)
>adrift in the threat of limitlessness,
Language is "open" in the sense that is includes all "reality" in its
domain, in addition to just tradition language artifacts. In other words,
everthing gets sucked into the "language game".
>brought back to its own finitude at the very moment when its limits seem to
>disappear, when it ceases to be self assured, contained, and guaranteed by
>the infinite signified which seemed to exceed it."
The fact that all of reality, including everything not yet in exisitence, is
a part of language, brings the focus of attention to language itself, which
upon examination, is quite primitive, rickety and not seemingly up to our
lofty objectives. However, any thought of a "better language" (such as math
or the arts) is complete forbidden as per PM doctrine.
>".
In a nutshell, PM discourse is patterned after "phenominological" discourse
rather then science. That is, in phenomenology, one examines reality soley
in
terms of our sensations and counsciousness. Empirical statements or even
sentiments are not allowed in PM, being "phenominological". Although there
is a "science" of phenomenology, called "psychophysics" which measures our
perceptions and learning skills, and finds their limits - empirically.
So that's my understanding of PM up to this time, in a nutshell. It has it's
strengths and weaknesses, its beauty as well as uglyness.
TL
"Chuckman" <incaseof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I_yra.669898$L1.190079@sccrnsc02...
Don Tuite
wrote:
>rjc2001 wrote:
>
>> -- Not to nitpick, but what does this mean? How has Modernism
>>failed? And what did it fail to "do?" Can you clarify this for me? As
>>far as I understand it, Modernism is a school of art or literature,
>>just as Baroque is a style of music and/or architecture, or is your
>>definition different than this?
>>
>>
>Modernism is an anachronism. Modernism is desperately in need of a new name. How about reductivism ?
>
>Joyce was the first post-modernist.
I'd have guessed Wittgenstein. Ultimately, you've got to look at FW
in the light of the rubrics at the end of PotA. Witt was the one who
gave up on language and applied Alexander's sword to Russell's
paradox.
And I think "modernism" is a nice term -- ironic, self-referential --
rather post-modern in a way. Proto-post-modern.
Don
Ned Ludd
G:
>>> You consider that to be criticism? It's just a statement of
>>> fact. Turn on MTV, there's a fat, ugly kid holding his crotch,
>>> sticking his lower lip out, and bumping his hips. It all
>>> seems well outside the realm of criticism to me.
Ned:
>> Elvis flung his crotch around. Quite a bit. It was very
>> revolutionary. Very multi-culti. Maybe you just don't like
>> fat boys.
G:
> Elvis was beautiful. And he could sing.
>
>> What that did to us the mullahs fear satellite TV will do
>> to their Muslims.
>
> Eventually, the mullahs will get with the program and saturate
> America with Islam-TV. Millions will convert. When you stare
> into the abyss, the abyss stares back, and sometimes it winks.
> We're talking about _Allah_ here, my good man. Better get
> out your Koran and start reading.
>
Yes, yes. We have our own mullahs. Clear Channel is one of
them. (And Ashcroft, Bennett, Newt, Pat, etc. are others.)
So it is possible, in America, to control all the established
media (radio, TV, newspapers) and make them all Christian, or
all Islamic, or all Hottentot.
But the Net... How would one go about controlling the
Internet, and making it all Christian or Islamic, etc.?
Ned
Mazzolata
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:17:12 -0400, Mazzolata <mazz...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>rjc2001 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>-- Not to nitpick, but what does this mean? How has Modernism
>>>failed? And what did it fail to "do?" Can you clarify this for me? As
>>>far as I understand it, Modernism is a school of art or literature,
>>>just as Baroque is a style of music and/or architecture, or is your
>>>definition different than this?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Modernism is an anachronism. Modernism is desperately in need of a new name. How about reductivism ?
>>
>>Joyce was the first post-modernist.
>>
>>
>
>I'd have guessed Wittgenstein. Ultimately, you've got to look at FW
>in the light of the rubrics at the end of PotA. Witt was the one who
>gave up on language and applied Alexander's sword to Russell's
>paradox.
>
Surely even Ulysses is pomo - whereas Beckett is single-mindedly modern.
TL
>> I'm not sure Derrida is saying much in the last quote. You know, that is
one
> of the pitfalls of any theory, in that you may wind up reveling in the
> condition of things without coming to any conclusions or merely going in a
> circle, which he is doing here.
> What I see him talking about here is how a sign can be both closely
> related to it's signified and at the same time quite far removed from it,
> barely signifying it at all.
> That is one of the realizations in PM, that something may possess
> multiple values at the same time.
Here's my take on the quote:
>"However the topic is considered, the problem of language has never been
>simply one problem among others. But never as much as at present has it
>invaded, as such, the global horizon of the most diverse researches and the
>most heterogeneous discourses, diverse and heterogeneous in their
intention,
>method, and ideology.
The problem of Language is "central" to philosophy (both analytical
(Anglo-phone) and phenomenology (continental)), Computer Science, as well as
literature.
>The devaluation of the word "language" itself,
Language, by being everything, becomes nothing - that is, metaphysical in
the positivist (i.e. scientific) sense.
>and how, in the very hold it has upon us,
Some see language as central to all knowledge, reality and the self itself -
that is - it is inescapable - how do you verbally escape language? (of
course some of us see math and the arts as the traditional vehicles of such
an escape, but nevermind...!)
>it betrays a loose vocabulary,
language never "feels" precise, the way math does. Its always suspect to
misinterpretation, or just plain incompleteness. I.e. feels "loose" rather
then "tight".
>the temptation of a cheap seduction,
a. just by virtue of knowing the name of something doesn't necessarily mean
that you understand it. This is true of any particular simpleminded
explaination. b. Since PM'ista hold the doctrine that all knowledge is
"true" only within a particular human "narrative" or "frame", simply buying
into a particular frame's view of a subject is inconclusive and therefore
needs to be avoided (therefore the use of the word "cheap"). C. Therefore,
they appear standoffish when appealed to for explainations. Instead, they
describe the subject at length from many different angles and perpectives,
rather then just giving straightforward definitions. (Kind of like watching
someone take a half hour to properly chew each mouthfull of food). D.
because of this, they get a very bad reputation from non-literature types
who accuse them of being "elitist" and talking only amongth themselves and
not being able to communicate to the general public. (a very true analysis -
IMHO)
>the passive yielding to fashion, the consciousness of the avant-garde, in
>other words-ignorance-
In the PM mind, there are no truths, only beliefs associated with "frames"
or "narratives". Since each belief (frame) is incomplete, it is therefore
ultimately unsatisfying. This leads to intellectuals buying into a
particular intellectual fad (belief system), followied by the enthuusiasm of
the convert, followed by the sense of dissatisfaction at the beliefs
ultimate incompleteness and incoherence, followed by the dropping that
belief and moving on to another... This process is essentially fruitless
and can have no end, in the PM scheme.
>are evidences of this effect.
One characteristic of PM-speak is the "pluralisation" of nouns or verbs that
are inherently plural, sort of as as a political statement against
uniqueness and singularity. They'll say "evidences" rather then "evidence",
"heterosexualities" rather then "hetersexual", "truths" rather then "truth".
"heterophenomenologies", etc.
>This inflation of the sign "language" is the inflation of the
>sign itself, absolute inflation, inflation itself.
QED
>Yet, by one of its aspects or shadows, it is itself still a sign:
>this crisis is also a symptom. It indicates, as if in spite of itself, that
>a historico-metaphysical epoch must finally determine as language the
>totality of its problematic horizon.
In other words, language IS reality and reality IS language; not just a
description of reality. There is no reality outside language (according to
PM doctrine.)
>It must do so not only because all that desire had wished to wrest from the
>play of language finds itself recaptured within that play
Our desires are subjective, by nature. Linguistics has tried to come up with
a "science" of language - i.e come up with a objective understanding of
language, only to realize that understanding itself is linguistic and
subjective.
>but also because, for the same reason, language itself is menaced in its
>very life,
Language is challenged by both its inherent "looseness" (as discussed
previously) as well as by math and science (which I interpret Derrida and
distinguishing from natural language).
>helpless,
Since it is "closed" in the sense that language uses only "language" to
create language (I personally don't buy this) - in otherwords, there is
nothing other then language - language is "alone" and therefore has nothing
outside it to "validate statements" (PM doctrine)
>adrift in the threat of limitlessness,
Language is "open" in the sense that is includes all "reality" in its
domain, in addition to just tradition language artifacts. In other words,
everthing gets sucked into the "language game".
>brought back to its own finitude at the very moment when its limits seem to
>disappear, when it ceases to be self assured, contained, and guaranteed by
>the infinite signified which seemed to exceed it."
The fact that all of reality, including everything not yet in exisitence, is
a part of language, brings the focus of attention to language itself, which
upon examination, is quite primitive, rickety and not seemingly up to our
lofty objectives. However, any thought of a "better language" (such as math
or the arts) is complete forbidden as per PM doctrine.
>".
In a nutshell, PM discourse is patterned after "phenominological" discourse
rather then science. That is, in phenomenology, one examines reality soley
in terms of our sensations and counsciousness.
So that's my understanding of PM up to this time, in a nutshell.
TL
G*rd*n
> news:b8lqai$2kj$1...@panix3.panix.com...
G:
> >>> You consider that to be criticism? It's just a statement of
> >>> fact. Turn on MTV, there's a fat, ugly kid holding his crotch,
> >>> sticking his lower lip out, and bumping his hips. It all
> >>> seems well outside the realm of criticism to me.
Ned:
> >> Elvis flung his crotch around. Quite a bit. It was very
> >> revolutionary. Very multi-culti. Maybe you just don't like
> >> fat boys.
G:
> > Elvis was beautiful. And he could sing.
> >
> >> What that did to us the mullahs fear satellite TV will do
> >> to their Muslims.
> >
> > Eventually, the mullahs will get with the program and saturate
> > America with Islam-TV. Millions will convert. When you stare
> > into the abyss, the abyss stares back, and sometimes it winks.
> > We're talking about _Allah_ here, my good man. Better get
> > out your Koran and start reading.
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
> Yes, yes. We have our own mullahs. Clear Channel is one of
> them. (And Ashcroft, Bennett, Newt, Pat, etc. are others.)
No, I mean _real_ mullahs. Islam and Christianity may look
the same to you, but they're not.
> So it is possible, in America, to control all the established
> media (radio, TV, newspapers) and make them all Christian, or
> all Islamic, or all Hottentot.
The Hottentots are an ethnic group. They're probably
liberals.
> But the Net... How would one go about controlling the
> Internet, and making it all Christian or Islamic, etc.?
1. Rescind the rest of the Bill of Rights.
2. Bust the ISPs.
rjc2001
>
> Joyce was the first post-modernist.
-- I'd regard Joyce as the "zenith" of Modernism.
Maybe it's the same thing... (?).
rjc2001
> "Rodney McFinister argues vigorously genre fiction is the true
> successor to fiction as conceived in the 18'th and 19'th
> centuries. He makes two main arguments. The first is that the
> liberation in the 20'th century of fiction from classical
> constraints was illusory, that capricious and arbitrary
> constraints (from the author's point of view) are necessary, that
> their removal leads not to literary freedom but to literary
> death. He argues that it does not matter what the constraints
> are so long as they are arbitrary and capricious - the market
> constraints of genre fiction serve as will as classical literary
> dicta."
>
> Such is the value of theory.
>
>
> http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
-- What was McFinister's second argument? Market constraints or
something left unstated?
- Robert.
Don Tuite
I sorta miss the constraint that characters and events ought to be
neatly tied up by the last page -- I get enough of the loose-end
thing in real life.
Don
Richard Harter
"He also argues an analogy from history in the style of Spengler. As
the old centers of civilization decay new centers spring up in the
barbarian periphery. Initially they are inheritors and imitators of
the old centers. With time they create new civilizations while they
believe that they are continuing the old. So it is with fiction, he
says, casting the traditional novel in the role of the old, and
species of genre fiction in the role of the new. It is an interesting
idea. It is a pity that his grasp of history is so poor."
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Today is the first day of the rest of your life.
Today is the last day of the mistakes you've already made.
Ned Ludd
G:
>>> Eventually, the mullahs will get with the program and saturate
>>> America with Islam-TV. Millions will convert. When you stare
>>> into the abyss, the abyss stares back, and sometimes it winks.
>>> We're talking about _Allah_ here, my good man. Better get
>>> out your Koran and start reading.
Ned:
>> Yes, yes. We have our own mullahs. Clear Channel is one of
>> them. (And Ashcroft, Bennett, Newt, Pat, etc. are others.)
G:
> No, I mean _real_ mullahs. Islam and Christianity may look
> the same to you, but they're not.
>
They share a common essence, and they are as different as any
manifest form. There have been many pogroms of one religion
against another. Why has there never been a general pogrom
against all religions?
>> So it is possible, in America, to control all the established
>> media (radio, TV, newspapers) and make them all Christian, or
>> all Islamic, or all Hottentot.
>
> The Hottentots are an ethnic group. They're probably
> liberals.
>
Compared to what? Was Clinton a liberal? Is there such a
thing as a Democrat? (Imo, there has only ever been one party -
the rich. All the rest occasionally get their act together.)
>> But the Net... How would one go about controlling the
>> Internet, and making it all Christian or Islamic, etc.?
>
> 1. Rescind the rest of the Bill of Rights.
> 2. Bust the ISPs.
>
Bust 'em. Bust 'em. We'll get them all for porn! Child porn.
I don't think very many of the bill of rights are working anymore.
They are at best an icon. Or better yet, a simulation. But I
don't think they have any function or meanings or utility in life,
except as a ticket to the judicial raffle. (For the game-minded.)
Ned
TL
"rjc2001" <rjc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:27a283bb.03042...@posting.google.com...
.....
> -- The above idea that Postmodernism is a "lifestyle" strikes me as a
> bunch of nonsense. How is Postmodernism any different from humans
> trying to figure out who they are in any period of time?
....
> Again, if I am missing the point, please elucidate for me. Thanks.
>
> - Robert.
OK - if you insist!
The following was lifted shamelessly and verbatim from
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~derekr/jenny.html
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
If Jenny Jones tackled important topics.
JENNY JONES: Boy, we have a show for you today! Recently, the University of
Virginia philosopher Richard Rorty made the stunning declaration that nobody
has "the foggiest idea" what postmodernism means. "It would be nice to get
rid of it," he said. "It isn't exactly an idea; it's a word that pretends to
stand for an idea."
This shocking admission that there is no such thing as postmodernism has
produced a firestorm of protest around the country. Thousands of authors,
critics and graduate students who'd considered themselves postmodernists are
outraged at the betrayal.
Today we have with us a writer-a recovering postmodernist-who believes that
his literary career and personal life have been irreparably damaged by the
theory, and who feels defrauded by the academics who promulgated it. He
wishes to remain anonymous, so we'll call him "Alex."
Alex, as an adolescent, before you began experimenting with postmodernism,
you considered yourself-what?
Close shot of ALEX. An electronic blob obscures his face. Words appear at
bottom of screen:
"Says he was traumatized by postmodernism and blames academics."
ALEX (his voice electronically altered): A high modernist. Y'know, Pound,
Eliot, Georges Braque, Wallace Stevens, Arnold Schoenberg, Mies van der
Rohe. I had all of Schoenberg's 78's.
JENNY JONES: And then you started reading people like Jean-Francois Lyotard
and Jean Baudrillard - how did that change your feelings about your
modernist heroes?
ALEX: I suddenly felt that they were, like, stifling and canonical.
JENNY JONES: Stifling and canonical? That is so sad, such a waste. How old
were you when you first read Fredric Jameson?
ALEX: Nine, I think.
The AUDIENCE gasps.
JENNY JONES: We have some pictures of young Alex. ...
We see snapshots of 14-year-old ALEX reading Gilles Deleuze and Felix
Guattari's Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
The AUDIENCE oohs and ahs.
ALEX: We used to go to a friend's house after school-y'know, his parents
were never home-and we'd read, like, Paul Virilio and Julia Kristeva.
JENNY JONES: So you're only 14, and you're already skeptical toward the
"grand narratives" of modernity, you're questioning any belief system that
claims universality or transcendence. Why?
ALEX: I guess-to be cool.
JENNY JONES: So, peer pressure?
ALEX: I guess.
JENNY JONES: And do you remember how you felt the very first time you
entertained the notion that you and your universe are constituted by
language-that reality is a cultural construct, a "text" whose meaning is
determined by infinite associations with other "texts"?
ALEX: Uh, it felt, like, good. I wanted to do it again.
The AUDIENCE groans.
JENNY JONES: You were arrested at about this time?
ALEX: For spray-painting "The Hermeneutics of Indeterminacy" on an overpass.
JENNY JONES: You're the child of a mixed marriage-is that right?
ALEX: My father was a de Stijl Wittgensteinian and my mom was a
neo-pre-Raphaelite.
JENNY JONES: Do you think that growing up in a mixed marriage made you more
vulnerable to the siren song of postmodernism?
ALEX: Absolutely. It's hard when you're a little kid not to be able to just
come right out and say (sniffles), y'know, I'm an Imagist or I'm a
phenomenologist or I'm a post-painterly abstractionist. It's really hard
especially around the holidays. (He cries.)
JENNY JONES: I hear you. Was your wife a postmodernist?
ALEX: Yes. She was raised avant-pop, which is a fundamentalist offshoot of
postmodernism.
JENNY JONES: How did she react to Rorty's admission that postmodernism was
essentially a hoax?
ALEX: She was devastated. I mean, she's got all the John Zorn albums and the
entire Semiotext(e) series. She was crushed.
We see ALEX'S WIFE in the audience, weeping softly, her hands covering her
face.
JENNY JONES: And you were raising your daughter as a postmodernist?
ALEX: Of course. That's what makes this particularly tragic. I mean, how do
you explain to a 5-year-old that self-consciously recycling cultural
detritus is suddenly no longer a valid art form when, for her entire life,
she's been taught that it is?
JENNY JONES: Tell us how you think postmodernism affected your career as a
novelist.
ALEX: I disavowed writing that contained real ideas or any real passion. My
work became disjunctive, facetious and nihilistic. It was all blank parody,
irony enveloped in more irony. It merely recapitulated the pernicious
banality of television and advertising. I found myself indiscriminately
incorporating any and all kinds of pop kitsch and shlock. (He begins to weep
again.)
JENNY JONES: And this spilled over into your personal life?
ALEX: It was impossible for me to experience life with any emotional
intensity. I couldn't control the irony anymore. I perceived my own feelings
as if they were in quotes. I italicized everything and everyone. It became
impossible for me to appraise the quality of anything. To me everything was
equivalent-the Brandenburg Concertos and the Lysol jingle had the same
value. (He breaks down, sobbing.)
JENNY JONES: Now, you're involved in a lawsuit, aren't you?
ALEX: Yes. I'm suing the Modern Language Association.
JENNY JONES: How confident are you about winning?
ALEX: We need to prove that, while they were actively propounding it,
academics knew all along that postmodernism was a specious theory. If we can
unearth some intradepartmental memos-y'know, a paper trail, any
corroboration that they knew postmodernism was worthless cant at the same
time they were teaching it, then I think we have an excellent shot at
establishing liability.
JENNY JONES wades into audience and proffers microphone to a woman.
WOMAN (with lateral head-bobbing): It's ironic that Barry Scheck is
representing the MLA in this litigation because Scheck is the postmodern
attorney par excellence. This is the guy who's made a career of volatilizing
truth in the simulacrum of exculpation!
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: You go, girl!
WOMAN: Scheck is the guy who came up with the quintessentially postmodern
re-bleed defense for O.J., which claims that O.J. merely vigorously shook
Ron and Nicole, thereby re-aggravating pre-existing knife wounds. I'd just
like to say to any client of Barry Scheck-lose that zero and get a hero!
The AUDIENCE cheers wildly.
WOMAN: Uh, I forgot my question.
Dissolve to message on screen:
If you believe that mathematician Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's last
theorem has caused
you or a member of your family to dress too provocatively, call (800)
555-9455.
Dissolve back to studio. In the audience, JENNY JONES extends the microphone
to a man in his mid-30's with a scruffy beard and a bandana around his head.
MAN WITH BANDANA: I'd like to say that this "Alex" is the single worst
example of pointless irony in American literature, and this whole heartfelt
renunciation of postmodernism is a ploy-it's just more irony.
The AUDIENCE whistles and hoots.
ALEX: You think this is a ploy?! (He tears futilely at the electronic blob.)
This is my face!
The AUDIENCE recoils in horror.
ALEX: This is what can happen to people who naively embrace postmodernism,
to people who believe that the individual-the autonomous, individualist
subject-is dead. They become a palimpsest of media pastiche - a mask of
metastatic irony.
JENNY JONES (biting lip and shaking her head): That is so sad. Alex - final
words?
ALEX: I'd just like to say that self-consciousness and irony seem like fun
at first, but they can destroy your life. I know. You gotta be earnest, be
real. Real feelings are important. Objective reality does exist.
AUDIENCE members whoop, stomp and pump fists in the air.
JENNY JONES: I'd like to thank Alex for having the courage to come on today
and share his experience with us.
Join us for tomorrow's show:
"The End of Manichean, Bipolar Geopolitics Turned My Boyfriend
Into an Insatiable Sex Freak (and I Love It!)."
TL
"rjc2001" <rjc...@aol.com> wrote in message > -- The above idea that
Postmodernism is a "lifestyle" strikes me as a
> bunch of nonsense. How is Postmodernism any different from humans
> trying to figure out who they are in any period of time?
> Again, if I am missing the point, please elucidate for me. Thanks.
>
> - Robert.
The following was lifted shamelessly and verbatim from
kanga mom
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:b8q4ig$v5m$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
[ ]
>
> They share a common essence, and they are as different as any
> manifest form. There have been many pogroms of one religion
> against another. Why has there never been a general pogrom
> against all religions?
>
Stalin's Russia (Lenin's, too, for that matter), Mao's China, or Pol Pot's
Cambodia.
The revolutionary government of France in 1792
The PLA in Albania- led by Hoxha
Turcanu's Romania
Kanga
Lewis Mammel
Chuckman wrote:
>
> What I'm looking for here is what you think one should say if one
> believed in Postmodernism in general, or liked what one had read by people
> considered to be postmodernistic, like lyotard.
Two Zen temples each had a child protege'. One child, going to obtain
vegetables each morning, would meet the other on the way.
"Where are you going?" asked the one.
"I am going whereever my feet go," the other responded.
This puzzled the first child who went to his teacher for help.
"Tomorrow morning," the teacher told him, "when you meet that
little fellow, ask him the same question. He will give you the
same answer, and then you ask him: 'Suppose you have no feet,
then where are you going' That will fix him."
The children met again the following morning.
"Where are you going?" asked the first child.
"I am going wherever the wind blows," answered the other.
This again nonplussed the youngster, who took his defeat
to his teacher.
"Ask him where he is going if there is no wind," suggested
the teacher.
The next day the children met a third time.
"Where are you going?" asked the first child.
"I am going to the market to buy vegetables," the other replied.
- Zen Flesh, Zen Bones
Lewis Mammel
TL wrote:
>
> 2. Postmodernists will never "tell you" what postmodernism is. They will
> only use signs and symbols. The reason is that their leader - derrida - has
> liberated his flock from "logocentrism" - oppression by means of the word.
MST3K did The Magic Sword starring Gary Lockwood as the young hero, George,
and Basil Rathbone as the evil and devious Lodac. The also evil Sir Branton
has infiltrated George's quest to defeat Lodac, and at some point along the
way he sneaks into a small tower, part of a mill or something, to
communicate with Lodac via magic which apparently requires line-of-sight.
They catch him up there and demand an explanation, which the facile
Sir Branton easily supplies, but they continue to eye him suspiciously.
Tom Servo interjects at this point: "Aw, he's too smart. You can't
argue with him."
> 3. Postmodernism is not a "philosophy" or a program but a lifestyle. The
> closest thing I can think of is the "coneheads" from Saturday night Live (US
> TV program from the late 70's).
I am privileged to remember the live debut of the Coneheads. The skit
opened with a curtain opening on a glittering St. Patrick's Day tableaux
featuring a shamrock, and Dan Ackroyd dressed as a largish leprechan.
Wordlessly, he descended from the display with a high-stepping Chaplinesque
gait, came to a halt, and lifted his large Dr. Seuss-ish hat vertically
from his head to reveal the now familiar conehead.
At that moment, though, it was something entirely novel to the public,
including of course myself. The audience let loose one of those paroxysmal
laughs which are reserved for such moments as this that startle and
delight to such a degree that one is transported. Why this should have
been the case here, I couldn't say, but the Coneheads were born.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Ned Ludd
news:fvisa.50705$4P1.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ned:
> They share a common essence, and they are as different as any
> manifest form. There have been many pogroms of one religion
> against another. Why has there never been a general pogrom
> against all religions?
Kanga:
> Stalin's Russia (Lenin's, too, for that matter), Mao's China,
> or Pol Pot's Cambodia.
> The revolutionary government of France in 1792
> The PLA in Albania- led by Hoxha
> Turcanu's Romania
>
OK.
Ned
(Did it work?)