Philosophy?
Simon Best
Hello!
Erm, I was wondering... What is postmodernism philosophically? I'm
pretty sure my current understanding of philosophical postmodernism
isn't very good and is very limited. Well, I barely know anything about
it at all!
So, I wish to ask a few questions, if I may, as I'm curious to know what
answers people have...
What's the fundamental basis of postmodern philosophy?
What's its relationship to modernism?
Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
philosophy is or should be?
What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
truth'?
What does postmodernism make of Socrates and Socratic approaches to
philosophy?
What are the standard misconceptions that tend to be held about
postmodernism?
What other questions should I be asking?
I look forward to learning!
Simon
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Personal: bars...@earthling.net
Yellow Skies: si...@yellowskies.com http://www.yellowskies.com
Everyone does their own signature to be different. How does that work?
James Whitehead
<bars...@earthling.net> writes
>
>Hello!
>
>Erm, I was wondering... What is postmodernism philosophically? I'm
>pretty sure my current understanding of philosophical postmodernism
>isn't very good and is very limited. Well, I barely know anything about
>it at all!
>
>So, I wish to ask a few questions, if I may, as I'm curious to know what
>answers people have...
>
>What's the fundamental basis of postmodern philosophy?
collapse of modernity - completion of the modern programme, failure of
modernity - end of the novel/art/history/science/philosophy/time - break
up of the Beatles, successes of American capitalism, failure of
communism. Alternatively its cultural studies and philosophy departments
self preservation - by adopting more and more obscure philosophies to
avoid redundancy... generally continental Europeans Nietzsche,
Heidegger, Derrida Foucault Baudrillard...
>
>What's its relationship to modernism?
its an opposite - cooler - a binary opposite.
>
>Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
>philosophy is or should be?
i doubt it, as long as its diverse your probably on safe ground,
preferably avoiding rationalism. Hence the vogue for continental
philosophy.
>
>What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
>truth'?
Its been proved with certainty that certain knowledge is impossible -
this was the success / failure of modernity - so the position of po-mo
is standing with hand in pockets shuffling feet and whistling? Or
sitting on a Habitat chair typing into an IBM computer (made in
Communist china) - (not some Korean Lucky chicken brand)
>
>What does postmodernism make of Socrates and Socratic approaches to
>philosophy?
pass - over to others... I would guess you can make whatever- is this an
essay or college assignment?
>
>What are the standard misconceptions that tend to be held about
>postmodernism?
That you can apply critical techniques of modernity to it - like asking
for the standard misconceptions?
>
>What other questions should I be asking?
It might be better to make statements. But keep these open ended and try
to use different punctuation characters - and long sentences - even
better (sub texts nested within these) use brackets - others prefer *the
asterisk* which i find unpleasant but do like _the under-score_ I also
use lower case _i_ but sometimes let the spell checker capitalize -
because lower case subsumes my individuality into the text - but then to
deny the computers spell checker would raise my individuality again -
_what should i do_ ?
>
>I look forward to learning!
Oh - your a modernist then... using _..._ means that the sentence is
incomplete .... maybe incompleteable?
>Simon
>
--
James Whitehead
Ned Ludd
news:39AA0E68...@earthling.net...
>
> Hello!
> Erm, I was wondering... What is postmodernism philosophically? I'm
> pretty sure my current understanding of philosophical postmodernism
> isn't very good and is very limited. Well, I barely know anything
> about it at all!
>
Me too - everything I learned about Postmodernism I learned from
this newsgroup.
> So, I wish to ask a few questions, if I may, as I'm curious to know
> what answers people have...
>
> What's the fundamental basis of postmodern philosophy?
>
That there is no basis for ANYTHING.
> What's its relationship to modernism?
>
It came after it. (But - and this is just my opinion - Time as we
know it, stopped in the year 1956.)
> Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
> philosophy is or should be?
>
It knows exactly what it is. When it needs something, it usually
goes out and borrows it from some other era or culture.
> What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
> truth'?
>
Objective Reality (tm) - which is a patented trade-marked Postmodern
word - does not exist. (Or, to be unnecessarily complete: Any attempt
to identify it distorts it and changes it to the perceiver's intention
of what it should be.) Does this answer your question about knowledge
and truth?
> What does postmodernism make of Socrates and Socratic approaches to
> philosophy?
>
It loves dialectic! It revels in dialectic. It bathes and showers
and snuggles and squirms lovingly in the folds of dialectic. (But it's
not big on logic.)
> What are the standard misconceptions that tend to be held about
> postmodernism?
>
That it is a stage in the evolution of philosophy.
> What other questions should I be asking?
>
What is the difference between Modern, Modernity and Modernism?
When did Art begin? If a man speaks in a forest and there is no
woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?
> I look forward to learning!
>
Ooo... Bad sign!
Ned
Simon Best
>
> In article <39AA0E68...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
> >So, I wish to ask a few questions, if I may, as I'm curious to know what
> >answers people have...
> >
> >What's the fundamental basis of postmodern philosophy?
> collapse of modernity - completion of the modern programme, failure of
> modernity - end of the novel/art/history/science/philosophy/time - break
> up of the Beatles, successes of American capitalism, failure of
> communism. Alternatively its cultural studies and philosophy departments
> self preservation - by adopting more and more obscure philosophies to
> avoid redundancy... generally continental Europeans Nietzsche,
> Heidegger, Derrida Foucault Baudrillard...
Thanks, you have confirmed that I don't know what postmodernism is!
> >What's its relationship to modernism?
> its an opposite - cooler - a binary opposite.
A binary opposite? Surely not as in 'every "yes" becomes "no" and vice
versa'? I must've got that wrong.
> >Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
> >philosophy is or should be?
> i doubt it, as long as its diverse your probably on safe ground,
> preferably avoiding rationalism. Hence the vogue for continental
> philosophy.
Ah, I've observed that there's this thing of diversity in postmodernism
(in contrast with simplistic uniformity and homogeneity in modernism?).
And rationalism's frowned upon? As in 'you only need to think it
through, nothing more' type rationalism?
> >What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
> >truth'?
> Its been proved with certainty that certain knowledge is impossible
A contradiction, surely? Is this something to do with rationalism?
Two, fictional characters...
---
Sam: It is certain that there is no certain knowledge.
Alex: Hang on, Sam, your assertion implies that you _know_ that there
is no certain knowledge. That's clearly a contradiction.
Sam: So?
Alex: Well, while you're explicitly denying the existence of certain
knowledge, you're implying that you have certain knowledge yourself,
implying that it does exist! No one can claim that there's no certain
knowledge without contradicting themselves.
Sam: That's somewhat rational, but that's the thing. Rationality
cannot be rationally proved reliable, as you have to assume that it's
reliable in order to rely on any such rational 'proof'. It's circular
reasoning. If rationality is somehow flawed, a rational proof of its
reliability may well be wrong.
Alex: Yeah, so what's that got to do with your contradiction not being
a problem?
Sam: Well, if you rely on rationality, you must accept that rationality
cannot be relied upon, and therefore must accept that there can be no
certain knowledge. Rationally, this is a certainty, and therefore
rationality is now in contradiction with itself! The rational
conclusion to draw is that rationality must be flawed.
Alex: Bummer! But yet, as you've yourself relied on rationality to
'prove' that there's no such thing as certain knowledge, you can't
surely know for certain that there's no such thing as certain knowledge.
Sam: Yet, strangely, rationally or irrationally, the nonexistence of
certain knowledge is now certain...
---
Is this the sort of thing? Is this a start of a route from modernism to
postmodernism?
Back to your post...
> -
> this was the success / failure of modernity - so the position of po-mo
> is standing with hand in pockets shuffling feet and whistling? Or
> sitting on a Habitat chair typing into an IBM computer (made in
> Communist china) - (not some Korean Lucky chicken brand)
So, postmodernists don't have a position on 'certain knowledge' or
'absolute truth', but accept it's unattainability?
> >What does postmodernism make of Socrates and Socratic approaches to
> >philosophy?
> pass - over to others... I would guess you can make whatever- is this an
> essay or college assignment?
No, I'm just getting round to trying to bring myself up to date on the
current state of philosophy.
> >What are the standard misconceptions that tend to be held about
> >postmodernism?
> That you can apply critical techniques of modernity to it - like asking
> for the standard misconceptions?
Perhaps I should have asked 'What isn't postmodernism?', or would that
have been just as useless a question? Seems to me that postmodernism
can't be properly understood in a nonpostmodern way, that it is properly
understood in its own context. That sort of makes sense to me, though
I'm not able to agree or disagree (or not yet).
> >What other questions should I be asking?
> It might be better to make statements. But keep these open ended and try
> to use different punctuation characters - and long sentences - even
> better (sub texts nested within these) use brackets - others prefer *the
> asterisk* which i find unpleasant but do like _the under-score_ I also
> use lower case _i_ but sometimes let the spell checker capitalize -
> because lower case subsumes my individuality into the text - but then to
> deny the computers spell checker would raise my individuality again -
> _what should i do_ ?
Seems to me that postmodernism regards context as essential. Aeroplanes
don't themselves have the property of being able to fly. Aeroplanes
with fuel and pilots can't fly. Aeroplanes with fuel and pilots, a
runway, and air to fly through can't fly, 'cause pilots can't fly
aeroplanes themselves. Pilots without instructors having taught them
can't fly... and so on and so on. Taking something in isolation,
ignoring its real context, is talking about something else instead, not
the things that's supposedly being talked about. Is that postmodern?
> >I look forward to learning!
> Oh - your a modernist then... using _..._ means that the sentence is
> incomplete .... maybe incompleteable?
Postmodernists don't look forward to learning? Or don't learn? Or have
already learned enough (enough according to postmodernism, I would
assume)?
> James Whitehead
Thank you James! I am more intrigued than ever.
Ned Ludd
news:8of3nm$mvt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> ...Problem with trying to pin down pomos is that it has become such
> a broad, interdisciplinary thinking and practice, a good book is
> _Postmodern Theory_ by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner. Written in
> the early 90's though, you might find it outdated in some aspects...
>
> ...The concept of learning is a modernist "thing", that sort of
> progressive, teleological process whereby one "advances" oneself
> through knowledge and truth and wearing socks during cold weather.
>
How does a pomo book become 'dated' in 10 years without there
being "a concept of learning... a progressive, teleological process
whereby one 'advances' oneself through knowledge and truth and
wearing socks during cold weather."?
Ned
aleesa...@yahoo.com
bars...@earthling.net wrote:
> James Whitehead wrote:
> >
> > In article <39AA0E68...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> > <bars...@earthling.net> writes
>
> > >So, I wish to ask a few questions, if I may, as I'm curious to know what
> > >answers people have...
> > >
> > >What's the fundamental basis of postmodern philosophy?
> > collapse of modernity - completion of the modern programme, failure of
> > modernity - end of the novel/art/history/science/philosophy/time - break
> > up of the Beatles, successes of American capitalism, failure of
> > communism. Alternatively its cultural studies and philosophy departments
> > self preservation - by adopting more and more obscure philosophies to
> > avoid redundancy... generally continental Europeans Nietzsche,
> > Heidegger, Derrida Foucault Baudrillard...
>
> Thanks, you have confirmed that I don't know what postmodernism is!
Excellent explanation, James. May I add that postmodernism is also about
the multiplicity and plurality of differences, whether cultural, social,
political aspirations. Postmodernism is about the critique of the
Enlightenment epistemologies as well as the recovery of the previously
subjugated knowledges.
>
> > >What's its relationship to modernism?
> > its an opposite - cooler - a binary opposite.
>
> A binary opposite? Surely not as in 'every "yes" becomes "no" and vice
> versa'? I must've got that wrong.
In one respect, binarism is about identity construction through the
creation of the demonised "other". For example, light/dark, civilised/
primitive, science/superstitution, white/black, man/woman, Pokemon/
Digimon (ok, just kidding about the last one). But always with the
discourse of binarism is that you have a "good" thing set in opposition
with a "bad" one so as to define by contrast.
>
> > >Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
> > >philosophy is or should be?
> > i doubt it, as long as its diverse your probably on safe ground,
> > preferably avoiding rationalism. Hence the vogue for continental
> > philosophy.
>
> Ah, I've observed that there's this thing of diversity in postmodernism
> (in contrast with simplistic uniformity and homogeneity in modernism?).
> And rationalism's frowned upon? As in 'you only need to think it
> through, nothing more' type rationalism?
Rationalism can be a form of appropriation. Rationalisation is only held
valid if you have irrationality as point of reference. Hence you get
these old arguments about men as rational thinking beings, women as
irrational bleeding things, so on and so forth. Hmm, did I mention that
I'm a feminist? Well, feminism and postmodernism happens to work quite
well together....
>
> > >What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
> > >truth'?
> > Its been proved with certainty that certain knowledge is impossible
>
> A contradiction, surely? Is this something to do with rationalism?
> Two, fictional characters...
>
There are no truth, only versions of them.
>
> > -
> > this was the success / failure of modernity - so the position of po-mo
> > is standing with hand in pockets shuffling feet and whistling? Or
> > sitting on a Habitat chair typing into an IBM computer (made in
> > Communist china) - (not some Korean Lucky chicken brand)
>
> So, postmodernists don't have a position on 'certain knowledge' or
> 'absolute truth', but accept it's unattainability?
postmodernists accept that "knowledge" or "truth" are subject to the
context from which it emerges from. Simple example: West: cow = MacDonald
burger; Hindu: cow = holy object. A matter of perspectives.
>
> > >What does postmodernism make of Socrates and Socratic approaches to
> > >philosophy?
> > pass - over to others... I would guess you can make whatever- is this an
> > essay or college assignment?
>
> No, I'm just getting round to trying to bring myself up to date on the
> current state of philosophy.
Good on you.
>
> > >What are the standard misconceptions that tend to be held about
> > >postmodernism?
> > That you can apply critical techniques of modernity to it - like asking
> > for the standard misconceptions?
>
> Perhaps I should have asked 'What isn't postmodernism?', or would that
> have been just as useless a question? Seems to me that postmodernism
> can't be properly understood in a nonpostmodern way, that it is properly
> understood in its own context. That sort of makes sense to me, though
> I'm not able to agree or disagree (or not yet).
Problem with trying to pin down pomos is that it has become such a broad,
interdisciplinary thinking and practice, a good book is _Postmodern
Theory_ by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner. Written in the early 90's
though, you might find it outdated in some aspects....
>
> > >What other questions should I be asking?
> > It might be better to make statements. But keep these open ended and try
> > to use different punctuation characters - and long sentences - even
> > better (sub texts nested within these) use brackets - others prefer *the
> > asterisk* which i find unpleasant but do like _the under-score_ I also
> > use lower case _i_ but sometimes let the spell checker capitalize -
> > because lower case subsumes my individuality into the text - but then to
> > deny the computers spell checker would raise my individuality again -
> > _what should i do_ ?
>
> Seems to me that postmodernism regards context as essential. Aeroplanes
> don't themselves have the property of being able to fly. Aeroplanes
> with fuel and pilots can't fly. Aeroplanes with fuel and pilots, a
> runway, and air to fly through can't fly, 'cause pilots can't fly
> aeroplanes themselves. Pilots without instructors having taught them
> can't fly... and so on and so on. Taking something in isolation,
> ignoring its real context, is talking about something else instead, not
> the things that's supposedly being talked about. Is that postmodern?
>
> > >I look forward to learning!
> > Oh - your a modernist then... using _..._ means that the sentence is
> > incomplete .... maybe incompleteable?
>
> Postmodernists don't look forward to learning? Or don't learn? Or have
> already learned enough (enough according to postmodernism, I would
> assume)?
>
The concept of learning is a modernist "thing", that sort of progressive,
teleological process whereby one "advances" oneself through knowledge and
truth and wearing socks during cold weather. But you might want to ask
yourself just what knowledge is that, are you taking the dominant
thoughts and ideologies at the expense of silencing the marginalised
voices? And by what legitimation or justification is one "learned"? It
seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Joyce
> > James Whitehead
>
> Thank you James! I am more intrigued than ever.
>
> Simon
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Personal: bars...@earthling.net
> Yellow Skies: si...@yellowskies.com http://www.yellowskies.com
> Everyone does their own signature to be different. How does that work?
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ale...@my-deja.com
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Simon Best <bars...@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:39AA0E68...@earthling.net...
> >
> > Hello!
> > Erm, I was wondering... What is postmodernism philosophically? I'm
> > pretty sure my current understanding of philosophical postmodernism
> > isn't very good and is very limited. Well, I barely know anything
> > about it at all!
> >
>
> Me too - everything I learned about Postmodernism I learned from
> this newsgroup.
>
oracles of delphi - elusive, subjective, and depends on the poster's mood
during the day (as in pre-caffeine and post-caffeine :)
Joyce
James Whitehead
<bars...@earthling.net> writes
>Thanks, you have confirmed that I don't know what postmodernism is!
in three sentences on the back of a corn-flake -packet.
>
>> >What's its relationship to modernism?
>> its an opposite - cooler - a binary opposite.
>
>A binary opposite? Surely not as in 'every "yes" becomes "no" and vice
>versa'? I must've got that wrong.
in literature departments.
>(in contrast with simplistic uniformity and homogeneity in modernism?).
>And rationalism's frowned upon? As in 'you only need to think it
>through, nothing more' type rationalism?
>
>> >What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
>> >truth'?
>> Its been proved with certainty that certain knowledge is impossible
>
>A contradiction, surely?
much of modernity - including rationalism is based - Godel proved it
incomplete - Turning re-phrased this as the halting problem - and
Chaitin used similar ideas for formulating physical laws - its
impossible to prove that a string of characters is not further
compressible - these strings could be laws of physics... Russell (who
like Hilbert) wanted to put logic on a firm foundation was unable to
avoid inherent un- resolvable contradictions within a given logical
system. This is logical proof - but logic itself also at
microscopic/macroscopic sizes empirically seems to fail....
dialogue - think of modernity as the Titanic just after it sank - now as
a modernist floats by we here him asking "So what boat is this then and
how does it compare to the Titanic - and who is the Captain ..."
>So, postmodernists don't have a position on 'certain knowledge' or
>'absolute truth', but accept it's unattainability?
rejected spiritual knowledge during that paradigm shift, po-mo see
another paradigm shift has taken place. Modernist questions within po-mo
are like asking to see where god fits in the Calculus.
>have been just as useless a question? Seems to me that postmodernism
>can't be properly understood in a nonpostmodern way, that it is properly
>understood in its own context. That sort of makes sense to me, though
>I'm not able to agree or disagree (or not yet).
becoming ...) as playing in some game - and in the game the rules are
dynamic. I mean by game children's games - my ray gun - your ray gun
proof shield, my shield destroyer - your shield destroyer - destroyer...
not the formal modernist games with a referee and rule book. Watching
the children's game and asking for rules is simply inappropriate, you
either ignore it, or you can join in. So now ask yourself which is more
real - football - or the child's space game?
>don't themselves have the property of being able to fly. Aeroplanes
>with fuel and pilots can't fly. Aeroplanes with fuel and pilots, a
>runway, and air to fly through can't fly, 'cause pilots can't fly
>aeroplanes themselves. Pilots without instructors having taught them
>can't fly... and so on and so on. Taking something in isolation,
>ignoring its real context, is talking about something else instead, not
>the things that's supposedly being talked about.
> Is that postmodern?
no ... because then aeroplanes fly because tourists want to visit
Florida and see Disney .... .... and Disney is attractive because it
creates an unreality, so in Disney you go on simulated rides - like
flying ...
>already learned enough (enough according to postmodernism, I would
>assume)?
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
>May I add that postmodernism is also about
>the multiplicity and plurality of differences, whether cultural, social,
>political aspirations. Postmodernism is about the critique of the
>Enlightenment epistemologies as well as the recovery of the previously
>subjugated knowledges.
>> Ah, I've observed that there's this thing of diversity in postmodernism
>> (in contrast with simplistic uniformity and homogeneity in modernism?).
>> And rationalism's frowned upon? As in 'you only need to think it
>> through, nothing more' type rationalism?
>
>Rationalism can be a form of appropriation. Rationalisation is only held
>valid if you have irrationality as point of reference. Hence you get
>these old arguments about men as rational thinking beings, women as
>irrational bleeding things, so on and so forth. Hmm, did I mention that
>I'm a feminist? Well, feminism and postmodernism happens to work quite
>well together....
>>
>> > >What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
>> > >truth'?
>> > Its been proved with certainty that certain knowledge is impossible
>>
>> A contradiction, surely? Is this something to do with rationalism?
>> Two, fictional characters...
>>
>There are no truth, only versions of them.
account - its possible now to create your own truths - (this really
gets the modernists goat!)
>postmodernists accept that "knowledge" or "truth" are subject to the
>context from which it emerges from. Simple example: West: cow = MacDonald
>burger; Hindu: cow = holy object. A matter of perspectives.
And the modernist thinks there can be one perspective which sees all the
others correctly... which of course is the one that HE has.
>The concept of learning is a modernist "thing", that sort of progressive,
>teleological process whereby one "advances" oneself through knowledge and
>truth and wearing socks during cold weather. But you might want to ask
>yourself just what knowledge is that, are you taking the dominant
>thoughts and ideologies at the expense of silencing the marginalised
>voices? And by what legitimation or justification is one "learned"? It
>seems pretty arbitrary to me.
i like this!
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> How does a pomo book become 'dated' in 10 years without there
>whereby one 'advances' oneself through knowledge
become dated - but certainly no progress architecturally had been made.
A library of books on shelves is like the accretion of dead animals in
layering the sediments in no way marking advancement or retreat - just a
process of dying organisms.
--
James Whitehead
Ned Ludd
news:sY3cgTAe...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
Joyce:
> ...Problem with trying to pin down pomos is that it has become such
> a broad, interdisciplinary thinking and practice, a good book is
> _Postmodern Theory_ by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner. Written in
> the early 90's though, you might find it outdated in some aspects...
>
> ...The concept of learning is a modernist "thing", that sort of
> progressive, teleological process whereby one "advances" oneself
> through knowledge and truth and wearing socks during cold weather.
Ned:
> How does a pomo book become 'dated' in 10 years without there
> being "a concept of learning... a progressive, teleological process
> whereby one 'advances' oneself through knowledge and truth and
> wearing socks during cold weather."?
James:
> Someone could say in the second century that Roman Architecture
> had become dated - but certainly no progress architecturally
> had been made.
> A library of books on shelves is like the accretion of dead animals
> in layering the sediments in no way marking advancement or retreat -
> just a process of dying organisms.
>
So pomo does not evolve? The pomo of the 1960's is the same as
the pomo of today? Who are you trying to kid? When pomo is passé
(read: exhausted) it will be added to the shelf like another dead
animal, and you will dance with someone else. But to me, pomo is
the third great echo of east hammering west. We've screwed it up
three times now, and I doubt that three times is a charm.
Ned
G*rd*n
| <ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
| > How does a pomo book become 'dated' in 10 years without there
| >whereby one 'advances' oneself through knowledge
| become dated - but certainly no progress architecturally had been made.
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
| A library of books on shelves is like the accretion of dead animals in
| layering the sediments in no way marking advancement or retreat - just a
| process of dying organisms.
You mean a process of living organisms.
A pathway through a forest of bones could be construed as a
battlefield, a desert, a marketplace, a cathedral, or a
festival. The bones might whisper disagreement as you made
them take their places, but you could shout them down.
Ned Ludd
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
| >How does a pomo book become 'dated' in 10 years without there
| >being "a concept of learning... a progressive, teleological process
| >whereby one 'advances' oneself through knowledge"?
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
| Someone could say in the second century that Roman Architecture had
| become dated - but certainly no progress architecturally had been made.
| A library of books on shelves is like the accretion of dead animals in
| layering the sediments in no way marking advancement or retreat - just
| a process of dying organisms.
G*rd*n:
> You mean a process of living organisms.
> A pathway through a forest of bones could be construed as a
> battlefield, a desert, a marketplace, a cathedral, or a
> festival. The bones might whisper disagreement as you made
> them take their places, but you could shout them down.
>
Pomo is just re-arranging the bones?
Ned
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> So pomo does not evolve? The pomo of the 1960's is the same as
>the pomo of today?
metaphor is useful here) - i don't see my changing my socks regularly
an evolutionary process - or do today's socks mark an improvement on
yesterdays - today's might have bigger holes - is that evolution?
> Who are you trying to kid? When pomo is passé
>(read: exhausted)
>animal,
whipping.
--
James Whitehead
Ned Ludd
>
>>So pomo does not evolve? The pomo of the 1960's is the same as
>>the pomo of today?
>
> I think its possible to change without evolving - as in socks
> (Joyce's metaphor is useful here) - i don't see my changing
> my socks regularly an evolutionary process - or do today's
> socks mark an improvement on yesterdays - today's might have
> bigger holes - is that evolution?
>
So, pomo is just rearranging the bones? (And the pomo of late
has not altered any significant aspects in 40 years? - other than
a 'change-of-socks' kind of thing?)
>> Who are you trying to kid? When pomo is passé (read: exhausted)...
> It already is passé -
>> it will be added to the shelf like another dead animal,...
> Po-Mo arrives as a dead horse which the modernist's seem to enjoy
> whipping.
>
Pomo has been the whipper all along, it appears. Questioning all
the assumptions, deconstructing all the edifices of thought that
have been built through the centuries. Pomo wasn't the dead horse -
it was the plague (the black death) in the gut of the flea on the
dead horse.
Ned
Simon Best
>
> Simon Best <bars...@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:39AA0E68...@earthling.net...
> > What's the fundamental basis of postmodern philosophy?
> >
>
> That there is no basis for ANYTHING.
Sort of every thing is context dependent, such that everything's
interdependent somehow? It's all relative?
> > What's its relationship to modernism?
> >
>
> It came after it. (But - and this is just my opinion - Time as we
> know it, stopped in the year 1956.)
1956... Isn't that the year that the word 'teenager' was first used, or
something?
> > Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
> > philosophy is or should be?
> >
>
> It knows exactly what it is. When it needs something, it usually
> goes out and borrows it from some other era or culture.
Like Perl, the programming language, created by Larry Wall, and claimed
by him to be the world's first postmodern programming language, it
seems.
So, postmodernism doesn't try to do it all itself, which is in contrast
with modernist stuff, I think.
> > What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
> > truth'?
> >
>
> Objective Reality (tm) - which is a patented trade-marked Postmodern
> word - does not exist. (Or, to be unnecessarily complete: Any attempt
> to identify it distorts it and changes it to the perceiver's intention
> of what it should be.) Does this answer your question about knowledge
> and truth?
Thanks, your 'unnecessarily complete' answer is most helpful! I can
think of it in two ways at least...
Before I tried to find out what postmodernism is, postmodernism was,
amongst other things, something that I, Simon Best, was not trying to
find out about. It's no longer that, as it's now something that I'm
trying to find out about. If I stop trying to find out about it, it'll
go back to being something that I'm not trying to find out about, but it
won't go back to being something that I've never tried to find out
about. (Doesn't sound terribly good at all now that I've typed it out!)
The other way I can think of it is to do with all attempts to identify
something involving interaction with that something, and any interation
with that something affects what it is, or potentially affects what it
is. If it doesn't actually cause any change, there's still the problem
of determining whether or not there's been any change as a result of
trying to identify it, rendering all attempts to be objective futile.
(Perhaps the first way I was thinking about this is just a limited
case?)
> > What does postmodernism make of Socrates and Socratic approaches to
> > philosophy?
> >
>
> It loves dialectic! It revels in dialectic. It bathes and showers
> and snuggles and squirms lovingly in the folds of dialectic. (But it's
> not big on logic.)
So Usenet was a good place for me to come in pursuit of postmodernism?
> > What are the standard misconceptions that tend to be held about
> > postmodernism?
> >
>
> That it is a stage in the evolution of philosophy.
I get the impression that postmodernism somewhat regards philosophy as
ultimately futile? Something to do with the impossibility of gaining
certain knowledge?
> > What other questions should I be asking?
> >
>
> What is the difference between Modern, Modernity and Modernism?
> When did Art begin? If a man speaks in a forest and there is no
> woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?
Thanks!
> > I look forward to learning!
> >
>
> Ooo... Bad sign!
>
> Ned
A bad sign? Would this be because the term 'learning' suggests certain
knowledge, absolute truth, that kind of thing? Or because it suggests
'progress', which itself suggests all sorts of modernist presumptions?
Thanks, Ned!
Simon
--
G*rd*n
||> How does a pomo book become 'dated' in 10 years without there
||> being "a concept of learning... a progressive, teleological process
||> whereby one 'advances' oneself through knowledge"?
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
| | Someone could say in the second century that Roman Architecture had
| | become dated - but certainly no progress architecturally had been made.
| | A library of books on shelves is like the accretion of dead animals in
| | layering the sediments in no way marking advancement or retreat - just
| | a process of dying organisms.
G*rd*n:
| > You mean a process of living organisms.
| > A pathway through a forest of bones could be construed as a
| > battlefield, a desert, a marketplace, a cathedral, or a
| > festival. The bones might whisper disagreement as you made
| > them take their places, but you could shout them down.
| >
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| Pomo is just re-arranging the bones?
There's nothing particularly "pomo" about that! It's been a
popular form of entertainment since -- well, since they had
bones, I guess. You must have heard the old definition of a
doctorate -- "Digging up the bones in one graveyard and
burying them in another."
But bones can be beautiful. Ask Ezekiel. And as our buddy
William Blake noted, they form a capital pathway for your
cart and your plow. Indeed, where else can you go?
Simon Best
>
> In article <39AAB2AF...@earthling.net>,
> bars...@earthling.net wrote:
> > James Whitehead wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <39AA0E68...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> > > <bars...@earthling.net> writes
> >
> > > >So, I wish to ask a few questions, if I may, as I'm curious to know what
> > > >answers people have...
> > > >
> > > >What's the fundamental basis of postmodern philosophy?
> > > collapse of modernity - completion of the modern programme, failure of
> > > modernity - end of the novel/art/history/science/philosophy/time - break
> > > up of the Beatles, successes of American capitalism, failure of
> > > communism. Alternatively its cultural studies and philosophy departments
> > > self preservation - by adopting more and more obscure philosophies to
> > > avoid redundancy... generally continental Europeans Nietzsche,
> > > Heidegger, Derrida Foucault Baudrillard...
> >
> > Thanks, you have confirmed that I don't know what postmodernism is!
>
> Excellent explanation, James. May I add that postmodernism is also about
> the multiplicity and plurality of differences, whether cultural, social,
> political aspirations. Postmodernism is about the critique of the
> Enlightenment epistemologies as well as the recovery of the previously
> subjugated knowledges.
I'm curious, what are these 'previously subjugated knowledges'?
Sounds like postmodernism questions everything from the end of the
middle ages.
> In one respect, binarism is about identity construction through the
> creation of the demonised "other". For example, light/dark, civilised/
> primitive, science/superstitution, white/black, man/woman, Pokemon/
> Digimon (ok, just kidding about the last one). But always with the
> discourse of binarism is that you have a "good" thing set in opposition
> with a "bad" one so as to define by contrast.
So, modernism is the 'other', and (as the name suggests) is something
that postmodernism is 'defined' in contrast with.
> Rationalism can be a form of appropriation. Rationalisation is only held
> valid if you have irrationality as point of reference. Hence you get
> these old arguments about men as rational thinking beings, women as
> irrational bleeding things, so on and so forth. Hmm, did I mention that
> I'm a feminist? Well, feminism and postmodernism happens to work quite
> well together....
Sorry, I failed to follow that. I got lost on the distinction between
'rationalism' and 'rationalisation'.
> There are no truth, only versions of them.
Well, I'm in no doubt now that this is a key thing in postmodernism. Am
I right in understanding that thruth here is understood to be about the
correspondence between language and reality (language in a broad sense,
not just languages like spoken and written languages), and also that
truth is understood to be about objective reality (as in a reality that
doesn't change despite being observed, thought about, discussed, etc)?
> postmodernists accept that "knowledge" or "truth" are subject to the
> context from which it emerges from. Simple example: West: cow = MacDonald
> burger; Hindu: cow = holy object. A matter of perspectives.
This suggests to me some 'higher order' or 'deeper level' or something
of truth... 'It is true that in the west a cow is taken to be a pile
Maccy-D burgers just waiting to happen, and it is true that a Hindu
holds it to be true that a cow is holy.' Both seem to be true without
contradiction when stated like this, but I get the impression that I'm
'making the mistake' of trying to distance myself somehow to gain
objectivity?
> > No, I'm just getting round to trying to bring myself up to date on the
> > current state of philosophy.
>
> Good on you.
Thank you!
> Problem with trying to pin down pomos is that it has become such a broad,
> interdisciplinary thinking and practice, a good book is _Postmodern
> Theory_ by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner. Written in the early 90's
> though, you might find it outdated in some aspects....
Thanks! I was somewhat anticipating diversity in the answers given by
various people to the question 'What is postmodernism?', and it seems
that that diversity is part of the answer.
> > Postmodernists don't look forward to learning? Or don't learn? Or have
> > already learned enough (enough according to postmodernism, I would
> > assume)?
> >
> The concept of learning is a modernist "thing", that sort of progressive,
> teleological process whereby one "advances" oneself through knowledge and
> truth and wearing socks during cold weather. But you might want to ask
> yourself just what knowledge is that, are you taking the dominant
> thoughts and ideologies at the expense of silencing the marginalised
> voices? And by what legitimation or justification is one "learned"? It
> seems pretty arbitrary to me.
>
> Joyce
Questioning what knowledge is is something that's preceeded my arrival
at this group. I'm not content to assume, or even risk assuming, that
knowledge is just something that I can rely on for things of
consequence. Of course, determining what things are things of
consequence is then a mighty daunting task for me, let alone determining
what the consequences could be!
Anyway, thank you Joyce!
Simon
--
Simon Best
>
> In article <39AAB2AF...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
> >Thanks, you have confirmed that I don't know what postmodernism is!
> I think you have a choice - its either un-knowable - or can be expressed
> in three sentences on the back of a corn-flake -packet.
I only eat cornflakes when I'm somewhere else. When I'm not somewhere
else, I eat Rice Crispies. I'll therefore go for postmodernism being
unknowable.
Seems to me that, as postmodernism involves the idea that there's no
objective reality, it's also impossible to determine what postmodernism
really is... I can see postmodernism inevitably changing with time (I'd
have said 'evolving', but I gather that suggests 'progress') as a
consequence of its own existence.
> >> >What's its relationship to modernism?
> >> its an opposite - cooler - a binary opposite.
> >
> >A binary opposite? Surely not as in 'every "yes" becomes "no" and vice
> >versa'? I must've got that wrong.
> I was joking here - finding the binary opposites is a po-mo game played
> in literature departments.
Ah! Sorry, I'm a bit lost...
> >Ah, I've observed that there's this thing of diversity in postmodernism
> >(in contrast with simplistic uniformity and homogeneity in modernism?).
> >And rationalism's frowned upon? As in 'you only need to think it
> >through, nothing more' type rationalism?
> but more - whose rationalism is it anyway, i.e. American Rationalism...
Yep, I think I'm beginning to get the hang of this issue now...
> >> >What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
> >> >truth'?
> >> Its been proved with certainty that certain knowledge is impossible
> >
> >A contradiction, surely?
> Not so fast - within modernity take a look at mathematics - upon which
> much of modernity - including rationalism is based - Godel proved it
> incomplete - Turning re-phrased this as the halting problem - and
> Chaitin used similar ideas for formulating physical laws - its
> impossible to prove that a string of characters is not further
> compressible - these strings could be laws of physics... Russell (who
> like Hilbert) wanted to put logic on a firm foundation was unable to
> avoid inherent un- resolvable contradictions within a given logical
> system. This is logical proof - but logic itself also at
> microscopic/macroscopic sizes empirically seems to fail....
Ah, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem! The one where he says
mathematically to mathematics that it'll never prove this assertion to
be true, and then goes on to mathematically prove that the fundamental
basis of mathematics would have to be infinitely large in order for
mathematics to be complete...
> >Is this the sort of thing? Is this a start of a route from modernism to
> >postmodernism?
> probably i think that's a good dialogue- but strikes me as a modernist
> dialogue - think of modernity as the Titanic just after it sank - now as
> a modernist floats by we here him asking "So what boat is this then and
> how does it compare to the Titanic - and who is the Captain ..."
Thanks, I was pretty much expecting my little dialogue would be found to
be modernist.
> >So, postmodernists don't have a position on 'certain knowledge' or
> >'absolute truth', but accept it's unattainability?
> More like - reject it as a myth - as superstition, as the modernists
> rejected spiritual knowledge during that paradigm shift, po-mo see
> another paradigm shift has taken place. Modernist questions within po-mo
> are like asking to see where god fits in the Calculus.
I think I see...
> >Perhaps I should have asked 'What isn't postmodernism?', or would that
> >have been just as useless a question? Seems to me that postmodernism
> >can't be properly understood in a nonpostmodern way, that it is properly
> >understood in its own context. That sort of makes sense to me, though
> >I'm not able to agree or disagree (or not yet).
> Fine - one thing particular to po-mo is the idea of process (being -
> becoming ...) as playing in some game - and in the game the rules are
> dynamic. I mean by game children's games - my ray gun - your ray gun
> proof shield, my shield destroyer - your shield destroyer - destroyer...
> not the formal modernist games with a referee and rule book. Watching
> the children's game and asking for rules is simply inappropriate, you
> either ignore it, or you can join in. So now ask yourself which is more
> real - football - or the child's space game?
Well, obviously football and a child's space game are as real as each
other. Also, space games don't count for anything in football, and the
rules of football don't apply to space games (usually).
But this idea that the rules are dynamic... Is that not some kind of a
rule itself? Can that rule not be changed? Could a 'neomodernist' not
change that rule, and others, to add modernism to the diversity of
postmodernism, in opposition to postmodernists opposition to modernism?
One thing that strikes me is the question: 'Does postmodernism apply
itself to itself?'. For example, it seems that postmodernism involves
the idea that everything is relative, it's all context dependent, and
all parts of context are also, one way or another, in contexts that also
depend on the first thing... Interdependence and mutual self reference
all round?
I s'pose what I'm wondering is: is there a sort of 'false' postmodernism
which is some sort of modernism in disguise? Sort of a 'postmodernism'
in which it is believed, unwittingly, that it's the 'real, true'
objective viewpoint.
> >Seems to me that postmodernism regards context as essential. Aeroplanes
> >don't themselves have the property of being able to fly. Aeroplanes
> >with fuel and pilots can't fly. Aeroplanes with fuel and pilots, a
> >runway, and air to fly through can't fly, 'cause pilots can't fly
> >aeroplanes themselves. Pilots without instructors having taught them
> >can't fly... and so on and so on. Taking something in isolation,
> >ignoring its real context, is talking about something else instead, not
> >the things that's supposedly being talked about.
> Absolutely on the right track i think...
> > Is that postmodern?
> no ... because then aeroplanes fly because tourists want to visit
> Florida and see Disney .... .... and Disney is attractive because it
> creates an unreality, so in Disney you go on simulated rides - like
> flying ...
Okay, perhaps I shouldn't have left it with 'and so on and so on'. The
aeroplane thing came from something I read somewhere about someone who
was considering everything to be some sort of network of things (sorry,
can't remember who it was, but I think it was some French philosopher
who's working on such stuff now?). From what I remember, it was
something to do with this whole context and relativity stuff, where the
search for objective reality turns out to be parts of the network trying
to find out about the whole network (then the network's changing, so
it's like a dog trying to catch it's own tail). It's sort of where the
network is the full context of each and every thing in that network, and
this whole idea is a part or parts of the network, too... I was
wondering if that was a postmodern idea, but it seems not.
> >Postmodernists don't look forward to learning? Or don't learn? Or have
> >already learned enough (enough according to postmodernism, I would
> >assume)?
> I think swimming is more appropriate than counting the portholes...
Sorry, you've lost me there...
Ned Ludd
>
>>> What's its relationship to modernism?
>>
>> know it, stopped in the year 1956.)
>
> 1956... Isn't that the year that the word 'teenager' was first used,
> or something?
>
Yes. It was also the year (approximately) that the grand piano
stopped its evolution (though the 'Upright' piano [not to be confused
with the 'Spinet'] has continued evolving since then). Also it is
the year that Rock'nRoll broke loose and spread through the general
population. And while the automobile engine has continued evolving,
the basic shape, contents, and usage of the car (and transportation
in general) is essentially unchanged since then.
>>> Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
>>> philosophy is or should be?
>>
>> It knows exactly what it is. When it needs something, it usually
>> goes out and borrows it from some other era or culture.
>
> Like Perl, the programming language, created by Larry Wall, and
> claimed by him to be the world's first postmodern programming
> language, it seems.
>
I checked out the site you mentioned. Nothing jumped out. Perhaps
you could post a few appropriate passages from Mr. Wall's work, which
might indicate its postmodern flavor.
> So, postmodernism doesn't try to do it all itself, which is in
> contrast with modernist stuff, I think.
>
I'm not sure what Postmodernism ever DOES, except Deconstruct.
>>> What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
>>> truth'?
>>
>> Objective Reality (tm) - which is a patented trade-marked Postmodern
>> word - does not exist. (Or, to be unnecessarily complete: Any attempt
>> to identify it distorts it and changes it to the perceiver's intention
>> of what it should be.) Does this answer your question about knowledge
>> and truth?
>
> Thanks, your 'unnecessarily complete' answer is most helpful! I can
> think of it in two ways at least...
> Before I tried to find out what postmodernism is, postmodernism was,
> amongst other things, something that I, Simon Best, was not trying
> to find out about. It's no longer that, as it's now something that
> I'm trying to find out about. If I stop trying to find out about
> it, it'll go back to being something that I'm not trying to find out
> about, but it won't go back to being something that I've never tried
> to find out about. (Doesn't sound terribly good at all now that I've
> typed it out!)
>
Well, perhaps you were being unnecessarily straightforward. At
a minimum, could we agree that you have now "raised up the idea"
of Postmodernism in your mind? And any attempt to 're-virginate'
your psyche with respect to this concept would be impossible (short
of a pre-frontal lobotomy)?
> The other way I can think of it is to do with all attempts to
> identify something involving interaction with that something,
> and any interation with that something affects what it is, or
> potentially affects what it is. If it doesn't actually cause
> any change, there's still the problem of determining whether
> or not there's been any change as a result of trying to identify
> it, rendering all attempts to be objective futile. (Perhaps the
> first way I was thinking about this is just a limited case?)
>
Yes, I think we agree. The mere 'naming' of it sets in motion
the wheels of intellection and discrimination which isolate
Postmodernism from the whole of which it is a part. Whether you
view it personally vis-à-vis your own situation, or attempt to
regard it globally, from some disinterested, impartial viewpoint,
you will still be imputing qualities specific to that situation,
whatever it is, and however you conceive it.
>>> What does postmodernism make of Socrates and Socratic approaches
>>> to philosophy?
>>
>> It loves dialectic! It revels in dialectic. It bathes and showers
>> and snuggles and squirms lovingly in the folds of dialectic. (But
>> it's not big on logic.)
>
> So Usenet was a good place for me to come in pursuit of postmodernism?
>
Well, you could always go see "The Matrix".
>>> What are the standard misconceptions that tend to be held about
>>> postmodernism?
>>
>> That it is a stage in the evolution of philosophy.
>
> I get the impression that postmodernism somewhat regards philosophy
> as ultimately futile? Something to do with the impossibility of
> gaining certain knowledge?
>
I'm not sure what Postmodernism 'wants'. How does it differ from
Existentialism and Nihilism?
Ned
Ned Ludd
Ned:
> Pomo has been the whipper all along, it appears. Questioning all
> the assumptions, deconstructing all the edifices of thought that
> have been built through the centuries. Pomo wasn't the dead horse -
> it was the plague (the black death) in the gut of the flea on the
> dead horse.
Joyce:
> Ned, go read Carole Pateman's _The Sexual Contract_ (1988). And see
> for yourself just how repulsively oppressive and discriminating the
> social contract drawn up by the three stodges are. Then you might
> get the drift as to why feminism is still alive and well today.
>
Well, I'd love to hear about the Sexual Contract and three 'stodges',
but feminism died the day the Supreme Court ruled that women didn't
have to serve in the Army, and all the great 'feminist' groups of
the country just yawned, and stretched, and said, "Well, we didn't
want to fight in any WARS, anyway..."
That was when Feminism ended for this cycle. (It was back in the
70's, Joyce.) It is an ancient tradition, and it will have a true
resurgence sometime in the future, I'm sure.
But none of that has anything to do with pomo being the plague in
the gut of the flea on the dead horse. Unless you want the plague
to wipe out all the male chauvinist pigs. And plagues aren't so
picky.
I'd love to hear how pomo is different than all the other 'negative'
philosophies of the past, eras in which women survived and thrived in
supposedly male-dominated societies: How has pomo improved and
fostered the feminist position in this era as opposed to prior ones
which "undid" the rules and structures constraining women?
Ned
James Owens
> What's the fundamental basis of postmodern philosophy?
Funny you should mention it. From something I posted elsewhere not long
ago:
. . . The post-modern critique of "fact" is premissed. . . on an
argument that the human world is constructed, and may legitimately be
constructed in more than one way. The seminal position was laid out by
W.V.O Quine in 1950 in a short but classic paper called "Two Dogmas of
Empiricism." Quine attacked the distinction between analytic (logically
true) and synthetic (factually true) propositions, arguing that all
propositions depend for their truth on linguistic convention, and are
therefore synthetic; and he went further to challenge the idea that truth
is independent of linguistic convention. In the concluding section he writes.
"The totality of our so-called knowledge or beliefs, from the most casual
matters of geography and history to the profoundest laws of atomic physics
or even of pure mathematics and logic, is a man-made fabric which impinges
on experience only along the edges. . . there is much latitude of choice
as to what statements to re-evaluate in the light of of any single
contrary experience. . .
"As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science
as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of
past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the
situation as convenient intermediaries -- not by definition in terms of
experience, but simply as irreducible posits comparable, epistemologicaly,
to the gods of Homer. For my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in
physical objects and not in Homer's gods; and I consider it a scientific
error to believe otherwise. But in point of epistemological footing the
physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both
sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth
of physical objects is epistemologicaly superior to most in that it has
proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a
manageable structure into the flux of experience."
>
> What's its relationship to modernism?
Dunno. Effectively it's a repudiation of logical positivism, if that has
anything to do with modernism. (If modernism is based on an enthusiasm for
extreme rationalism and its practical application, I could see a link.)
> Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
> philosophy is or should be?
My brain hurts. . .
> What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
> truth'?
I'd say the position is that all "knowledge" or "truth" has a limiting
context. Outside of that context it is most likely inapplicable.
> What does postmodernism make of Socrates and Socratic approaches to
> philosophy?
I don't know. Probably it would be more interested in the biographical
context of Socrates' ideas than in the ideas themselves.
(Is _The Trial of Socrates_ by I.F. Stone an example?)
> What are the standard misconceptions that tend to be
held about > postmodernism?
That anyone knows what it is. That it's some sort of deep systematic
philosophy. That it's a vast academic hoax.
> What other questions should I be asking?
Is postmodernism a psychological response to disenchantment?
> I look forward to learning!
>
> Simon
>
> --
--
James Owens ad...@Freenet.carleton.ca
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
ale...@my-deja.com
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In
>
> A library of books on shelves is like the accretion of dead animals in
> layering the sediments in no way marking advancement or retreat - just a
> process of dying organisms.
> James Whitehead
>
YES! And pomos came along, looked at the liquifying goo of soup and said,
"Geez, why not turn them into fertilisers instead?"
Borg: "Resistance is futile"
Joyce: "Resistance is fertiliser"
Joyce
ale...@my-deja.com
>
> I'm curious, what are these 'previously subjugated knowledges'?
[getting misty eyed] It's those knowledges which are deemed as invalid
when judged by standards and criterias which the grandnarratives of
western modernity imposes upon all other cultures. Colonisation is a good
example. You have these "civilising missions" to tame the "savages", to
indoctrinate western ways of thinking, doing, behaving and living at the
expense of cultural genocide. Patriarchal oppression against women's
histories, memories, cultural texts and so on, is another example.
> So, modernism is the 'other', and (as the name suggests) is something
> that postmodernism is 'defined' in contrast with.
Weeeeell, it's kinda tricky with postmodernism. In some respects, it is a
movement in reaction to and against modernity, yet it is not a complete
break from modernity as much as Lyotard or other early pomo theorists
thought in the 80's.
>
> Sorry, I failed to follow that. I got lost on the distinction between
> 'rationalism' and 'rationalisation'.
Sorry, I got lost on what I'm on about either ;) I was thinking about
the social contract and the creation of the political body (the ethical,
thinking, rational masculine subject) which is defined against the
gendered construct of "womanly". Anyone care to elaborate on rationalism
and rationalisation? Please?
>
> > There are no truth, only versions of them.
>
> Well, I'm in no doubt now that this is a key thing in postmodernism. Am
> I right in understanding that thruth here is understood to be about the
> correspondence between language and reality (language in a broad sense,
> not just languages like spoken and written languages), and also that
> truth is understood to be about objective reality (as in a reality that
> doesn't change despite being observed, thought about, discussed, etc)?
I think the key word here is "representation". There may be an objective
truth, but what's more important (for me atleast) is how things/texts/
people/indigo octopus you saw in the sky gets remembered and represented.
Now, regarding that octopus....
>
> This suggests to me some 'higher order' or 'deeper level' or something
> of truth... 'It is true that in the west a cow is taken to be a pile
> Maccy-D burgers just waiting to happen, and it is true that a Hindu
> holds it to be true that a cow is holy.' Both seem to be true without
> contradiction when stated like this, but I get the impression that I'm
> 'making the mistake' of trying to distance myself somehow to gain
> objectivity?
No, no levels. Postmodernists shrink and fade if you mention words like
"linear", "hierarchical", "depth", and measuring tapes. In other words,
if modernity is about categorisation, value setting and giving,
postmodernism is about a resistance to that arbitrary sort of scaling
project.
>
> Thank you!
You're welcome ;)
>
> Thanks! I was somewhat anticipating diversity in the answers given by
> various people to the question 'What is postmodernism?', and it seems
> that that diversity is part of the answer.
Yup, you might also want to read Lyotard's _Postmodern Condition_; Michel
Foucault's _Power/Knowledge_; Linda Nicholson(ed) _Feminism/
Postmodernism_.
>
> Questioning what knowledge is is something that's preceeded my arrival
> at this group. I'm not content to assume, or even risk assuming, that
> knowledge is just something that I can rely on for things of
> consequence. Of course, determining what things are things of
> consequence is then a mighty daunting task for me, let alone determining
> what the consequences could be!
>
> Anyway, thank you Joyce!
>
> Simon
>
That's ok, it was fun.
Joyce
ale...@my-deja.com
> Pomo has been the whipper all along, it appears. Questioning all
> the assumptions, deconstructing all the edifices of thought that
> have been built through the centuries. Pomo wasn't the dead horse -
> it was the plague (the black death) in the gut of the flea on the
> dead horse.
>
Ned, go read Carole Pateman's _The Sexual Contract_ (1988). And see for
yourself just how repulsively oppressive and discriminating the social
contract drawn up by the three stodges are. Then you might get the drift
as to why feminism is still alive and well today.
Joyce
Simon Best
>
> <ale...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ohmsg$ouh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Ned:
> > the assumptions, deconstructing all the edifices of thought that
> > have been built through the centuries. Pomo wasn't the dead horse -
> > it was the plague (the black death) in the gut of the flea on the
> > dead horse.
Um, would the pomo plague be what killed the horse, then? I'm suffering
a bout of density here, and feel I'm somewhat failing to grasp this
metaphor properly...
> Joyce:
> > Ned, go read Carole Pateman's _The Sexual Contract_ (1988). And see
> > for yourself just how repulsively oppressive and discriminating the
> > social contract drawn up by the three stodges are. Then you might
> > get the drift as to why feminism is still alive and well today.
'the three stodges'? A typo that suggests incomplete castration,
somehow...
> Well, I'd love to hear about the Sexual Contract and three 'stodges',
> but feminism died the day the Supreme Court ruled that women didn't
> have to serve in the Army, and all the great 'feminist' groups of
> the country just yawned, and stretched, and said, "Well, we didn't
> want to fight in any WARS, anyway..."
Hang on, how does that leave feminism dead?
> That was when Feminism ended for this cycle. (It was back in the
> 70's, Joyce.) It is an ancient tradition, and it will have a true
> resurgence sometime in the future, I'm sure.
But there's more than one kind of feminism (well, here in the UK
anyway). Maybe some kinds of feminism from a few decades ago are pretty
much gone, but it seems to me that feminism in general is alive and
well, and continuing to diversify. The difficulty I often have
identifying feminism seems, to me, to be symptomatic of the success of
feminism.
> But none of that has anything to do with pomo being the plague in
> the gut of the flea on the dead horse. Unless you want the plague
> to wipe out all the male chauvinist pigs. And plagues aren't so
> picky.
>
> I'd love to hear how pomo is different than all the other 'negative'
> philosophies of the past, eras in which women survived and thrived in
> supposedly male-dominated societies: How has pomo improved and
> fostered the feminist position in this era as opposed to prior ones
> which "undid" the rules and structures constraining women?
>
> Ned
I'm looking forward to seeing how this thread continues...
Simon
--
Simon Best
>
> >
> > I'm curious, what are these 'previously subjugated knowledges'?
>
> [getting misty eyed] It's those knowledges which are deemed as invalid
> when judged by standards and criterias which the grandnarratives of
> western modernity imposes upon all other cultures. Colonisation is a good
> example. You have these "civilising missions" to tame the "savages", to
> indoctrinate western ways of thinking, doing, behaving and living at the
> expense of cultural genocide. Patriarchal oppression against women's
> histories, memories, cultural texts and so on, is another example.
Ah! I see. Thanks!
> > So, modernism is the 'other', and (as the name suggests) is something
> > that postmodernism is 'defined' in contrast with.
>
> Weeeeell, it's kinda tricky with postmodernism. In some respects, it is a
> movement in reaction to and against modernity, yet it is not a complete
> break from modernity as much as Lyotard or other early pomo theorists
> thought in the 80's.
I guess a sort of inclusion of modernity, somehow, would be consistent
with postmodernism's inclusiveness? (Which reminds me, I must ask about
deconstruction...)
> > Sorry, I failed to follow that. I got lost on the distinction between
> > 'rationalism' and 'rationalisation'.
>
> Sorry, I got lost on what I'm on about either ;) I was thinking about
> the social contract and the creation of the political body (the ethical,
> thinking, rational masculine subject) which is defined against the
> gendered construct of "womanly". Anyone care to elaborate on rationalism
> and rationalisation? Please?
Oh, hang on! I think I _do_ know the difference between rationalism and
rationalisation after all! What was I thinking?... Anyway, from what I
can remember from Sophie's World (by Jostein Gaarder), is that
rationalism is the idea that we can rely on reason (logic takes
precedence to experience (ever seen the philosophy football match sketch
in Monty Python?)), while rationalisation is what Freud observed people
doing when they were coming up with explanations for things they did, or
thought, or believed, or felt, etc. It didn't matter whether or not
these rationalisations were correct, just as long as they seemed
rational, it seems.
... Or have I got it horribly wrong?
> I think the key word here is "representation". There may be an objective
> truth, but what's more important (for me atleast) is how things/texts/
> people/indigo octopus you saw in the sky gets remembered and represented.
Okay, I think I'm following...
> Now, regarding that octopus....
> >
> > This suggests to me some 'higher order' or 'deeper level' or something
> > of truth... 'It is true that in the west a cow is taken to be a pile
> > Maccy-D burgers just waiting to happen, and it is true that a Hindu
> > holds it to be true that a cow is holy.' Both seem to be true without
> > contradiction when stated like this, but I get the impression that I'm
> > 'making the mistake' of trying to distance myself somehow to gain
> > objectivity?
>
> No, no levels. Postmodernists shrink and fade if you mention words like
> "linear", "hierarchical", "depth", and measuring tapes. In other words,
> if modernity is about categorisation, value setting and giving,
> postmodernism is about a resistance to that arbitrary sort of scaling
> project.
I suspected my 'resolution' of the cows was not postmodern, thanks for
confirming it!
> Yup, you might also want to read Lyotard's _Postmodern Condition_; Michel
> Foucault's _Power/Knowledge_; Linda Nicholson(ed) _Feminism/
> Postmodernism_.
Yep, I think a trip to Charring Cross Road is called for...
Simon Best
>
> Simon Best <bars...@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:39ABEE95...@earthling.net...
> > Like Perl, the programming language, created by Larry Wall, and
> > claimed by him to be the world's first postmodern programming
> > language, it seems.
> >
>
> I checked out the site you mentioned. Nothing jumped out. Perhaps
> you could post a few appropriate passages from Mr. Wall's work, which
> might indicate its postmodern flavor.
Okay, I'll see what I can find...
> > So, postmodernism doesn't try to do it all itself, which is in
> > contrast with modernist stuff, I think.
> >
>
> I'm not sure what Postmodernism ever DOES, except Deconstruct.
Ah! Deconstruction! That's something I'm still far from clear on.
Erm, what is it? Am I along roughly the right lines in thinking that
it's something like taking something apart to see how it works when it's
put together?
> > Thanks, your 'unnecessarily complete' answer is most helpful! I can
> > think of it in two ways at least...
> > Before I tried to find out what postmodernism is, postmodernism was,
> > amongst other things, something that I, Simon Best, was not trying
> > to find out about. It's no longer that, as it's now something that
> > I'm trying to find out about. If I stop trying to find out about
> > it, it'll go back to being something that I'm not trying to find out
> > about, but it won't go back to being something that I've never tried
> > to find out about. (Doesn't sound terribly good at all now that I've
> > typed it out!)
> >
>
> Well, perhaps you were being unnecessarily straightforward. At
> a minimum, could we agree that you have now "raised up the idea"
> of Postmodernism in your mind? And any attempt to 're-virginate'
> your psyche with respect to this concept would be impossible (short
> of a pre-frontal lobotomy)?
Hmmm... Yes, I think I did make a hash of it. I was thinking more of
postmodernism as having changed, going from being something that I'd
never looked into into something that I had looked into. But anyway...
> > The other way I can think of it is to do with all attempts to
> > identify something involving interaction with that something,
> > and any interation with that something affects what it is, or
> > potentially affects what it is. If it doesn't actually cause
> > any change, there's still the problem of determining whether
> > or not there's been any change as a result of trying to identify
> > it, rendering all attempts to be objective futile. (Perhaps the
> > first way I was thinking about this is just a limited case?)
> >
>
> Yes, I think we agree. The mere 'naming' of it sets in motion
> the wheels of intellection and discrimination which isolate
> Postmodernism from the whole of which it is a part. Whether you
> view it personally vis-à-vis your own situation, or attempt to
> regard it globally, from some disinterested, impartial viewpoint,
> you will still be imputing qualities specific to that situation,
> whatever it is, and however you conceive it.
Okay, I think I follow... Though I get the impression that, while I was
thinking about the actual thing itself being affected (that I'm not
necessarily truly referencing), while you're on about affecting the
knowledge of the thing... Though now I'm thinking that we are on about
the same thing anyway, just putting it in different ways, using words
differently...
Anyway...
> Well, you could always go see "The Matrix".
I've already seen it. It wasn't quite what I was anticipating. All the
concepts in it (well, all the concepts I spotted) seemed quite familiar,
and I really couldn't see what was so special about that film. It was a
dissappointment. Perhaps I missed the things I wasn't already familiar
with?
> I'm not sure what Postmodernism 'wants'. How does it differ from
> Existentialism and Nihilism?
>
> Ned
Err, dunno. I'm also reminded of sophism. I don't know much about
sophism, except it's something to do with accepting that there's no
certain knowledge, and that there's no absolute morality, but that
morality always depends on social context, on cultural context, and that
sort of thing. And that philosophy's only good for practicing argument
for political purposes. And that the sophists claimed to know various
useful things, and usually charged tuition fees to people wishing to
learn from them. Oh, and that Socrates really wound the sophists up.
So, Ned, do you reckon postmodernism's a bit duff?
Simon Best
>
> Simon Best (bars...@earthling.net) writes:
>
> > What's the fundamental basis of postmodern philosophy?
>
> Funny you should mention it. From something I posted elsewhere not long
> ago:
Ooh, thanks! (I snipped it from here, as it was a bit lengthy, but it
was useful.)
> > What's its relationship to modernism?
>
> Dunno. Effectively it's a repudiation of logical positivism, if that has
> anything to do with modernism. (If modernism is based on an enthusiasm for
> extreme rationalism and its practical application, I could see a link.)
I never really got the hang of logical positivism, either. Some sort of
positive view of the usefulness of rationalism on a rational basis?
> > Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
> > philosophy is or should be?
>
> My brain hurts. . .
My thinking was... If modernism, when taken to conclusion, leads to the
inevitability of something to follow it, there's the question of what
that thing would be. So, it seemed to me to be a good place for
postmodern philosophy to start (and seemed to fit the term 'postmodern',
too!).
> > What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
> > truth'?
>
> I'd say the position is that all "knowledge" or "truth" has a limiting
> context. Outside of that context it is most likely inapplicable.
Hmm, yes, I think I'm pretty much clear on this now. At least in a
basic sense!
> > What does postmodernism make of Socrates and Socratic approaches to
> > philosophy?
>
> I don't know. Probably it would be more interested in the biographical
> context of Socrates' ideas than in the ideas themselves.
> (Is _The Trial of Socrates_ by I.F. Stone an example?)
Ah. I was wondering if a Socratic approach to postmodernism, as in
seeking to show that there are certain, universal truths, that there is
such a thing as certain knowledge, by questioning postmodernism to draw
such things out into the open, would be futile with postmodernism. I
see my question was ambiguous!
> > What are the standard misconceptions that tend to be
> held about > postmodernism?
>
> That anyone knows what it is. That it's some sort of deep systematic
> philosophy. That it's a vast academic hoax.
Okay...
> > What other questions should I be asking?
>
> Is postmodernism a psychological response to disenchantment?
Now that's an interesting one! What'd'you reckon? I get the feeling
that it could be something like that, at least with some people, but I
just don't know yet.
> --
>
> James Owens ad...@Freenet.carleton.ca
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Anyway, thanks James!
James Whitehead
<bars...@earthling.net> writes
>but I get the impression that I'm
>'making the mistake' of trying to distance myself somehow to gain
>objectivity?
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> So, pomo is just rearranging the bones? (And the pomo of late
>has not altered any significant aspects in 40 years? - other than
>a 'change-of-socks' kind of thing?)
Brontosaurus and re-named it! So a rose is no longer a rose?
--
James Whitehead
Simon Best
>
> In article <39ABF65E...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
> >but I get the impression that I'm
> >'making the mistake' of trying to distance myself somehow to gain
> >objectivity?
> --
> James Whitehead
Eh? Einstein proved (modernistically) that it's a mistake to try to
gain objectivity by distancing oneself? You're not misunderstanding
Einstein's theories of relativity, are you?
ca314159
It's amazing how slow we are going.
"Resistance is futile",
but resistors keep the circuit from frying itself out
in a split second,
of a short circuit,
of pure lightning freedom.
What a waste, so much is missed.
Resistance is good: Ohmmmm, Ohmmmm.
Keeps you from sliding off the deep ends.
Too much of anything is an addiction:
Logic --> addiction to prediction --> gambling/paranoia
Analogic --> addiction to correlation --> hallucination/psychosis
Logic and Analogic should be prescription drugs.
Take only when use is indicated by the appropriate symptoms
under the guidance of a qualified metaphysicist or physician
Beware of side effects:
logical paradoxes,
Moebius strips and Klein bottles
quantum tunneling and teleportation
optical illusions,
synethesia,
astrologies and numerologies
cryptozoological beasties
etc.
Ned Ludd
Ned:
>> Pomo has been the whipper all along, it appears. Questioning all
>> the assumptions, deconstructing all the edifices of thought that
>> have been built through the centuries. Pomo wasn't the dead horse -
>> it was the plague (the black death) in the gut of the flea on the
>> dead horse.
Simon:
> Um, would the pomo plague be what killed the horse, then? I'm
> suffering a bout of density here, and feel I'm somewhat failing
> to grasp this metaphor properly...
>
OK, I'll do this once, but only once: The plague is postmodernism,
the flea is existentialism, and the dead horse is nihilism. But damn
I hate to do this, and it never does any good. So this is the last
time, for sure.
> Joyce:
> > Ned, go read Carole Pateman's _The Sexual Contract_ (1988). And see
> > for yourself just how repulsively oppressive and discriminating the
> > social contract drawn up by the three stodges are. Then you might
> > get the drift as to why feminism is still alive and well today.
>
Simon:
> 'the three stodges'? A typo that suggests incomplete castration,
> somehow...
>
Ned:
> Well, I'd love to hear about the Sexual Contract and three 'stodges',
> but feminism died the day the Supreme Court ruled that women didn't
> have to serve in the Army, and all the great 'feminist' groups of
> the country just yawned, and stretched, and said, "Well, we didn't
> want to fight in any WARS, anyway..."
Simon:
> Hang on, how does that leave feminism dead?
>
It leaves it a mockery of its tradition and a complete hypocrisy.
Since then it has, imo, factionalized into very specialized interest
groups, without any unity or common purpose. But it will rise again.
>> That was when Feminism ended for this cycle. (It was back in the
>> 70's, Joyce.) It is an ancient tradition, and it will have a true
>> resurgence sometime in the future, I'm sure.
>
> But there's more than one kind of feminism (well, here in the UK
> anyway). Maybe some kinds of feminism from a few decades ago are
> pretty much gone, but it seems to me that feminism in general is
> alive and well, and continuing to diversify. The difficulty I
> often have identifying feminism seems, to me, to be symptomatic
> of the success of feminism.
>
I think a lot of special interest groups fighting for their own
individual causes have had success in the courts with litigation, but
in general don't see themselves linked in any way to 'feminist'
organizations or feminism in any unified way.
Ned
Ned Ludd
>
>>> So, postmodernism doesn't try to do it all itself, which is in
>>> contrast with modernist stuff, I think.
>>
>> I'm not sure what Postmodernism ever DOES, except Deconstruct.
>
> Ah! Deconstruction! That's something I'm still far from clear on.
> Erm, what is it? Am I along roughly the right lines in thinking
> that it's something like taking something apart to see how it works
> when it's put together?
>
Sure. Taking something apart to see what it's made of. What does
it depend on that gives it sense and meaning as an organic whole?
...
>> Well, you could always go see "The Matrix".
>
> I've already seen it. It wasn't quite what I was anticipating.
> All the concepts in it (well, all the concepts I spotted) seemed
> quite familiar, and I really couldn't see what was so special
> about that film. It was a dissappointment. Perhaps I missed
> the things I wasn't already familiar with?
>
I have no idea. Maybe 1956 was 200 years ago.
...
> So, Ned, do you reckon postmodernism's a bit duff?
>
Do you mean like the beer? Or do you mean 'useless'? I don't
know. Is cyanide useless? Was the Black Death useless?
Ned
Ned Ludd
Ned:
> So, pomo is just rearranging the bones? (And the pomo of late
> has not altered any significant aspects in 40 years? - other
> than a 'change-of-socks' kind of thing?)
James:
> Its what some are doing - haven't they re-arranged the bones of
> the Brontosaurus and re-named it! So a rose is no longer a rose?
>
They only rename it when they can prove that the prior named
entity was a fraud. What prior aspects of postmodernism have
been proven fraudulent?
Ned
James Owens
> James Owens wrote:
>> Simon Best wrote:
>> > What's [philosophical pomo's] relationship to modernism?
>> Dunno. Effectively it's a repudiation of logical positivism, if that has
>> anything to do with modernism. (If modernism is based on an enthusiasm for
>> extreme rationalism and its practical application, I could see a link.)
> I never really got the hang of logical positivism, either. Some sort of
> positive view of the usefulness of rationalism on a rational basis?
Logical positivism held that statements are not meaningful unless they are
verifiable. This was supposed to eliminate cryptic dialectics about
things like "world spirit" and "the relation of the self to its own self,"
which had come to dominate the European tradition. The net was cast too
wide, though, because some meaningful statements, such as "There are no
unicorns" are not verifiable. You can never be satisfied that such a
statement has been exhaustively proven, so it is not technically
verifiable, even in principle. Accordingly the criterion was refined to
falsifiability -- that a statement is meaningful if _in principle_ it can
be falsified. However, some statements remained problematic: for example,
"The king of France is bald." Since there is no king of France, it's not
clear how you would prove this claim true _or_ false, yet it seems to be
meaningful.
What all this highlights is that the logical positivists were engaged in a
modernist enterprise to shine the new, bright light of rationality on old
supersitious ways -- to streamline the human world for rational
efficiency.
Quine's influential paper suggested that the "meaningfulness" of
statements depended on the constructs within which they made sense.
Statements held to be "meaningless," such as ones involving the Homeric
gods, might well be "meaningful" and even "true" within the appropriate
construct. (Deconstructionism, by the way, is the process of emptying
statements or views of universal validity, by identifying the constructs
on which their meaning and truth rely.)
>>> Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
>>> philosophy is or should be?
>>
>> My brain hurts. . .
> My thinking was... If modernism, when taken to conclusion, leads to the
> inevitability of something to follow it, there's the question of what
> that thing would be. So, it seemed to me to be a good place for
> postmodern philosophy to start (and seemed to fit the term 'postmodern',
> too!).
I see postmodernism as the collapse of modernism, rather than a
continuation of thought beyond modernism but in the same direction.
Modernism sought to shake out the nonsense from life and leave only the
rational, but instead (or perhaps precisely there) it shook out the
meaning. A part of postmodern behaviour seems to involve nostalgia for
real, absolute meaning. This explains the frequent references to things
that once did have meaning. Postmodern irony recognizes that these
references are only play -- that that the idea of meaning has suffered
permanent damage -- and in this sense is a forced continuation of
modernism in a direction it never intended.
>>> What does postmodernism make of Socrates and Socratic approaches to
>>> philosophy?
>>
>> I don't know. Probably it would be more interested in the biographical
>> context of Socrates' ideas than in the ideas themselves.
>> (Is _The Trial of Socrates_ by I.F. Stone an example?)
> Ah. I was wondering if a Socratic approach to postmodernism, as in
> seeking to show that there are certain, universal truths, that there is
> such a thing as certain knowledge, by questioning postmodernism to draw
> such things out into the open, would be futile with postmodernism. I
> see my question was ambiguous!
It would be delightful to see a dialogue, in the style of Plato, between
Socrates and a postmodernist. In fact I wonder if Plato has already
written one -- the Dialogues are amazing in their anticipation of possible
philosophical positions. In this regard, it might be rewarding to look up
his thoughts on Heraclitus, whose idea that the world is flux hints at the
postmodern approach to fact. I may do that when I get home.
>>> What other questions should I be asking?
>>
>> Is postmodernism a psychological response to disenchantment?
> Now that's an interesting one! What'd'you reckon? I get the feeling
> that it could be something like that, at least with some people, but I
> just don't know yet.
As I said above, my understanding is that modernism shook out meaning from
the world, and that postmodernism misses it, but doesn't know what to do.
Some postmodernists pretend to glue it back on -- but necessarily with an
ironic smirk. Others retreat into the arbitrariness of a particular
construct, declaring it "home" and living in terms of whatever meaning it
provides.
James Whitehead
<bars...@earthling.net> writes
>James Whitehead wrote:
>>
>> In article <39ABF65E...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
>> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
>> >but I get the impression that I'm
>> >'making the mistake' of trying to distance myself somehow to gain
>> >objectivity?
>> --
>> James Whitehead
>
>Eh? Einstein proved (modernistically) that it's a mistake to try to
>gain objectivity by distancing oneself? You're not misunderstanding
>Einstein's theories of relativity, are you?
system is special - so where's the objectivity. (AE gave an example
where two events could be interpreted as occurring in different
sequences to two observers - )
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
--
James Whitehead
Ned Ludd
>
Ned:
>> So, pomo is just rearranging the bones? (And the pomo of late
>> has not altered any significant aspects in 40 years? - other
>> than a 'change-of-socks' kind of thing?)
>
>James:
>> Its what some are doing - haven't they re-arranged the bones of
>> the Brontosaurus and re-named it! So a rose is no longer a rose?
>>
> They only rename it when they can prove that the prior named
> entity was a fraud. What prior aspects of postmodernism have
> been proven fraudulent?
>
> I thought you thought it all was...
>
Not at all. When I mentioned "screwing up" I was referring to
all the stress and disbelief and gnashing of teeth created by
negative philosophies that have sprung up in the last couple of
hundred years. Their prognosis has generally been to madness and
paralysis in the west, and this didn't necessarily happen in the
east, where they have been around for much longer.
I'm sure it's just like new shoes, and we'll have to wear them
for a while before they seem comfortable.
Ned
G*rd*n
| >> >'making the mistake' of trying to distance myself somehow to gain
| >> >objectivity?
James Whitehead wrote:
| >> yes you are - in modernist terms Einstein proved this just so!
Simon Best:
| >Eh? Einstein proved (modernistically) that it's a mistake to try to
| >gain objectivity by distancing oneself? You're not misunderstanding
| >Einstein's theories of relativity, are you?
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
| I could be - but each system has its own frame of reference - and no
| system is special - so where's the objectivity. (AE gave an example
| where two events could be interpreted as occurring in different
| sequences to two observers - )
Part of Einstein's work was to show that measurements of one
frame of reference could be translated reliably into another
frame of reference. In other words, the two frames of reference
could be said to co-exist in some higher frame of reference
(with more dimensions). In effect, Einstein took a step away
-- distanced himself -- from the Newtonian system and was
thereby able to preserve a model of the universe which, in
spite of containing different frames of reference, was still
coherent and possibly deterministic.
Giles
> ale...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> Yup, you might also want to read Lyotard's _Postmodern Condition_; Michel
>> Foucault's _Power/Knowledge_; Linda Nicholson(ed) _Feminism/
>> Postmodernism_.
>
> Yep, I think a trip to Charring Cross Road is called for...
>
> Simon
While you are there, you might also try two very different books with
similar titles.
Christopher Norris, What's Wrong with Postmodernism. (No question mark)
Terry Eagleton, The Illusions of Postmodernism.
I suggest these with strictly pluralist motives, of course.
Giles
Simon Best
> Simon:
> > Um, would the pomo plague be what killed the horse, then? I'm
> > suffering a bout of density here, and feel I'm somewhat failing
> > to grasp this metaphor properly...
> >
>
> OK, I'll do this once, but only once: The plague is postmodernism,
> the flea is existentialism, and the dead horse is nihilism. But damn
> I hate to do this, and it never does any good. So this is the last
> time, for sure.
Thanks (I'll think about it later...).
> > Joyce:
> > > Ned, go read Carole Pateman's _The Sexual Contract_ (1988). And see
> > > for yourself just how repulsively oppressive and discriminating the
> > > social contract drawn up by the three stodges are. Then you might
> > > get the drift as to why feminism is still alive and well today.
> >
> Simon:
> > 'the three stodges'? A typo that suggests incomplete castration,
> > somehow...
> >
> Ned:
> > Well, I'd love to hear about the Sexual Contract and three 'stodges',
> > but feminism died the day the Supreme Court ruled that women didn't
> > have to serve in the Army, and all the great 'feminist' groups of
> > the country just yawned, and stretched, and said, "Well, we didn't
> > want to fight in any WARS, anyway..."
>
> Simon:
> > Hang on, how does that leave feminism dead?
> >
>
> It leaves it a mockery of its tradition and a complete hypocrisy.
> Since then it has, imo, factionalized into very specialized interest
> groups, without any unity or common purpose. But it will rise again.
I see 'very specialized interest groups' as well, but the apparent
factionalisation could be taken as symptomatic of the success of
feminism. Would it be any other way if feminism had not been so
successful in bringing an end to so many gender barriers? It's as if
feminism has divided the enemy that is sexism, and the factions of
feminist special interest groups are merely reflective of the factions
of sexism that remain. (I'm being a bit simplistic here, 'cause I don't
know a great deal about feminism, I'm just reporting part of how it
seems to me at the time.)
Consider this: Where feminism has succeeded, and nonsexism is the norm,
and sexism is the aberration, will feminism be prominent in such areas,
or will it be sexism be what stands out like a sore thumb? Does it mean
that feminism is dead in such places, or living comfortably and quite at
home?
I s'pose what I'm suggesting is that it's easy for us to see the things
that are different to the surroundings, but not easy for us to see
things that have become a part of the surroundings.
> >> That was when Feminism ended for this cycle. (It was back in the
> >> 70's, Joyce.) It is an ancient tradition, and it will have a true
> >> resurgence sometime in the future, I'm sure.
> >
> > But there's more than one kind of feminism (well, here in the UK
> > anyway). Maybe some kinds of feminism from a few decades ago are
> > pretty much gone, but it seems to me that feminism in general is
> > alive and well, and continuing to diversify. The difficulty I
> > often have identifying feminism seems, to me, to be symptomatic
> > of the success of feminism.
> >
>
> I think a lot of special interest groups fighting for their own
> individual causes have had success in the courts with litigation, but
> in general don't see themselves linked in any way to 'feminist'
> organizations or feminism in any unified way.
>
> Ned
Do you mean pseudofeminist groups, or quasifeminist groups? Or feminist
groups that no longer need to explicate feminism due to the success of
feminism so far? I guess it's likely to be a mixture, as I don't really
have any reason to believe that all such groups would be either all one
or the other...
Maybe we mean different things by feminism? I suspect so, as feminism
does seem to have become rather diverse.
Simon Best
> > Ah! Deconstruction! That's something I'm still far from clear on.
> > Erm, what is it? Am I along roughly the right lines in thinking
> > that it's something like taking something apart to see how it works
> > when it's put together?
> >
>
> Sure. Taking something apart to see what it's made of. What does
> it depend on that gives it sense and meaning as an organic whole?
Thanks!
> > So, Ned, do you reckon postmodernism's a bit duff?
> >
>
> Do you mean like the beer? Or do you mean 'useless'? I don't
> know. Is cyanide useless? Was the Black Death useless?
>
> Ned
I was reminded of Homer's usual when I thought of the word... Sometimes
I gain the impression that you're not a postmodernist, but then I don't
know again. Am I confusing you being a postmodernist with your
postmodernist views of the postmodern state?
Simon Best
Well done G*rd*n! Yep, Einstein's theories of relativity do involve an
objective reality with all frames of reference being relative. It was
that objectivity that gave his theories such great significance (well,
there were other aspects, too).
In Newtonian relativity, all velocities (constant speed, constant
direction) were relative, as well as all positions. Acceleration was
absolute, and so was time. In other words, the velocity and position of
something were only relative to some frame of reference, where that
frame of reference had a constant velocity (and particular position in
space at a particular time).
Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, however, had electromagnetic waves
(including visible light) travelling at a constant speed. This
suggested, in a Newtonian context, that velocity was absolute all along,
with this constant speed of light being an absolute.
So, Michaelson and Morley did an experiment to measure the speed of the
earth relative to this constant speed of light, and found that the earth
was moving too slow for its motion to be detected (the experiment
involved measuring the apparent differences between times taken for
light to travel in different directions). They thought it must have
been bad luck, that they'd carried out their experiment when the earth's
motion around the sun pretty much cancelled out the solar system's
motion through space. They did the experiment about half a year later,
and found the earth was still roughly stationary!
Their experiment was sensitive enough to detect the earth's motion
around a stationary sun no problem, so their results were something of a
puzzle. Different ideas were put forward by different people, but it
was looking like physics was about to lose its prized objectivity.
Physicists really didn't like the idea of physics being inevitably
subjective.
Einstein came along, and showed that, by regarding space and time as
being two aspects of the same 'thing', spacetime, according to some
fairly simple bits of maths, the Michaelson-Morley experiment could be
explained without any loss of objectivity. Hooray!
What's more, this special theory of relativity resolved the untidy issue
of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory having absolute velocity while
Newtonian mechanics had relative velocity. Physicists generally didn't
like 'special' frames of reference, 'select' velocities that all other
velocities were somehow 'inferior' to. Physicists liked relativity.
So, Einstein's special theory of relativity had something of a bonus
when it turned out that Maxwell's electromagnetic theory was
relativistic all along, and that it was just being interpreted in the
wrong context when placed in a Newtonian framework!
(Well, there was some controversy over special relativity for a while,
'cause it can seem to absurd to begin with, what with clocks running
slower than each other, passing trains being shorter than each other,
two events happening before each other, etc...)
Anyway, something that strikes me as interesting here is that, according
to Einstein, you most certainly can have objectivity and relativity
together!
If you like, I can resolve some classic paradoxes of special relativity
before your very eyes (or ears, or fingertips (I don't know that you're
not using a Braille browser, after all)).
Simon Best
>
> Simon Best (bars...@earthling.net) writes:
> > I never really got the hang of logical positivism, either. Some sort of
> > positive view of the usefulness of rationalism on a rational basis?
>
> Logical positivism held that statements are not meaningful unless they are
> verifiable. This was supposed to eliminate cryptic dialectics about
> things like "world spirit" and "the relation of the self to its own self,"
> which had come to dominate the European tradition. The net was cast too
> wide, though, because some meaningful statements, such as "There are no
> unicorns" are not verifiable. You can never be satisfied that such a
> statement has been exhaustively proven, so it is not technically
> verifiable, even in principle. Accordingly the criterion was refined to
> falsifiability -- that a statement is meaningful if _in principle_ it can
> be falsified. However, some statements remained problematic: for example,
> "The king of France is bald." Since there is no king of France, it's not
> clear how you would prove this claim true _or_ false, yet it seems to be
> meaningful.
Ah, thanks! Sounds like Logical Positivism wasn't properly tested by
the Logical Positivists who came up with it (the Vienna Circle?).
> It would be delightful to see a dialogue, in the style of Plato, between
> Socrates and a postmodernist. In fact I wonder if Plato has already
> written one -- the Dialogues are amazing in their anticipation of possible
> philosophical positions. In this regard, it might be rewarding to look up
> his thoughts on Heraclitus, whose idea that the world is flux hints at the
> postmodern approach to fact. I may do that when I get home.
Hmm, yes... I think a trip up to the High Street is in order (I suspect
the main bookshop there will probably have a copy...). When flicking
through some book on philosophers (I think it was some accessory for
Sophie's World (by Jostein Gaarder)), which gave a bit of introduction
to various philosophers, one of the Sophists was mentioned. Can't
remember if it was Heraclitus (was he a Sophist?), but I do recall the
author commenting that Heraclitus's position on things seemed
surprisingly postmodern! (This is how I became interested in finding
out about postmodernism.)
> >>> What other questions should I be asking?
> >>
> >> Is postmodernism a psychological response to disenchantment?
>
> > Now that's an interesting one! What'd'you reckon? I get the feeling
> > that it could be something like that, at least with some people, but I
> > just don't know yet.
>
> As I said above, my understanding is that modernism shook out meaning from
> the world, and that postmodernism misses it, but doesn't know what to do.
> Some postmodernists pretend to glue it back on -- but necessarily with an
> ironic smirk. Others retreat into the arbitrariness of a particular
> construct, declaring it "home" and living in terms of whatever meaning it
> provides.
>
> --
>
> James Owens ad...@Freenet.carleton.ca
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Hmm, I think I'm getting fairly clear on postmodernism now...
Thank you James!
Simon
Giles
> Ned Ludd wrote:
>>
[...]
>>
>> I'm not sure what Postmodernism ever DOES, except Deconstruct.
>
> Ah! Deconstruction! That's something I'm still far from clear on.
> Erm, what is it? Am I along roughly the right lines in thinking that
> it's something like taking something apart to see how it works when it's
> put together?
No, not really. And, naturally, things depend on whom you are talking about.
Derrida or de Man would be the prime suspects when deconstruction is
mentioned, but those two aren't the same. 'Deconstructionism' is usually, if
not always, a significantly different kettle of fish from both of these two.
But I'm not going to offer a potted guide, because 'deconstruction' is not a
formula (or not supposed to be). Generally, on these occasions, Moggin has
appeared with a suggested reading list. As we are apparently Mogginless,
I'll repost the suggestions for Derrida and de Man readings that he made
last time round.
Moggin:
My advice is avoid the idiot's guides and start with a few
well-chosen essays. In specific, I'd suggest de Man's
"Semiology and Rhetoric" (collected in _Allegories of Reading_),
Derrida's "Force and Signification" (in _Writing and
Difference_), and Barthes' "From Work to Text" (in _Image Music
Text_). (Barthes' work isn't usually classed as
deconstruction, but he still counts as a post-structuralist and
"From Work to Text" is a good place to begin.)
That should get you started. From there I'd go on to more
essays, like de Man's "Resistance to Theory" (in _The
Resistance to Theory_) and Derrida's "Differance" (collected in
_Margins of Philosophy_). Alternatively, you can read in
areas you're already acquainted with. If you know Artaud, then
you can look at Derrida's essay on the theatre of cruelty.
Maybe you read Wordsworth: de Man has a couple of essays about
him. Etc.
[...] Derrida has a slim volume
of interviews called _Positions_ that would be some help --
it's also a good accompaniment to the above. And if you insist
on an overview, then try the chapter on Derrida in Vincent
Descombes' _Modern French Philosophy_ or Gayatri Spivak's intro
to _Of Grammatology_.
/Moggin
As a point of entry, I thoroughly agree with these suggestions, with a
personal preference, as regards Derrida, for 'Structure, Sign and Play' in
the 'Writing and Difference' collection, the 'Differance' essay and the de
Saussure section of 'Of Grammatology'. I hope this is of use.
[...]
> Simon
Giles
Simon Best
>
> Simon Best wrote:
>
> > Ned Ludd wrote:
> >>
> [...]
> >>
> >
> > Ah! Deconstruction! That's something I'm still far from clear on.
> > Erm, what is it? Am I along roughly the right lines in thinking that
> > it's something like taking something apart to see how it works when it's
> > put together?
>
> Derrida or de Man would be the prime suspects when deconstruction is
> mentioned, but those two aren't the same. 'Deconstructionism' is usually, if
> not always, a significantly different kettle of fish from both of these two.
> But I'm not going to offer a potted guide, because 'deconstruction' is not a
> formula (or not supposed to be). Generally, on these occasions, Moggin has
> appeared with a suggested reading list. As we are apparently Mogginless,
> I'll repost the suggestions for Derrida and de Man readings that he made
> last time round.
Thanks, Giles!
Ned Ludd
>
>>> So, Ned, do you reckon postmodernism's a bit duff?
>>
>> know. Is cyanide useless? Was the Black Death useless?
>
> Sometimes I gain the impression that you're not a postmodernist,
> but then I don't know again. Am I confusing you being a
> postmodernist with your postmodernist views of the postmodern
> state?
>
I think the latter. Nobody's ever accused me of postmodernism.
For my first three or four years on the net, people called me a
'curmudgeon'. Then for the last couple of years they called me
a 'nihilist'. I don't think anyone would ever use a descriptor
for me that contained any form of the word 'modern'.
So, what were you before this?
Ned
Simon Best
> > I was reminded of Homer's usual when I thought of the word...
> > Sometimes I gain the impression that you're not a postmodernist,
> > but then I don't know again. Am I confusing you being a
> > postmodernist with your postmodernist views of the postmodern
> > state?
> >
>
> I think the latter. Nobody's ever accused me of postmodernism.
> For my first three or four years on the net, people called me a
> 'curmudgeon'. Then for the last couple of years they called me
> a 'nihilist'. I don't think anyone would ever use a descriptor
> for me that contained any form of the word 'modern'.
And are you a nihilist? What's the point of that? (Boom Tish!)
> So, what were you before this?
>
> Ned
What was I before?...
Rationalist and Christian (Church of England)...
Rationalist and Nominal Christian...
Rationalist and Christian (Post Brethren (sort of like softcore
Evangelical with reservations) and nondenominational)...
Rationalist and Struggling, Doubting Christian (journey to
becoming...)...
Rationalist Agnostic...
Then, sometime last year, I read Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder, and
was stimulated by it. Following that, I've come to reconsider my
rationalism, and other things, and, um, here I am finding out about
postmodernism!
(Well, that's a bit of an incomplete summary, but I assumed you weren't
asking for my life story!)
Ned Ludd
Simon:
>> ...Am I confusing you being a postmodernist with your
>> postmodernist views of the postmodern state?
Ned:
> I think the latter. Nobody's ever accused me of postmodernism.
> For my first three or four years on the net, people called me a
> 'curmudgeon'. Then for the last couple of years they called me
> a 'nihilist'. I don't think anyone would ever use a descriptor
> for me that contained any form of the word 'modern'.
Simon:
> And are you a nihilist?...
>
I don't know, I've never met one.
>> So, what were you before this?
>
> What was I before?...
> Rationalist and Christian (Church of England)...
> Rationalist and Nominal Christian...
> Rationalist and Christian (Post Brethren (sort of like softcore
> Evangelical with reservations) and nondenominational)...
> Rationalist and Struggling, Doubting Christian (journey to
> becoming...)...
> Rationalist Agnostic...
> Then, sometime last year, I read Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder,
> and was stimulated by it. Following that, I've come to reconsider
> my rationalism, and other things, and, um, here I am finding out
> about postmodernism!
> (Well, that's a bit of an incomplete summary, but I assumed you
> weren't asking for my life story!)
>
So I suppose it's possible to have too much rationalism? Is it a
lure of postmodernism that it might have a paucity of rationalism?
Ned
Ned Ludd
Ned:
> But none of that has anything to do with pomo being the plague in
> the gut of the flea on the dead horse. Unless you want the plague
> to wipe out all the male chauvinist pigs. And plagues aren't so
> picky.
Joyce:
> "male chauvinist pigs" are much too mild a term ;-) And as for
> plague, I see modernity as one massive White Death swooping up the
> globe with its imperialism, colonisation, religious indoctrination,
> economic neoimperialism, WTO, World Bank, and what not.
>
And pomo is the Black Death to counter the White Death of modernity?
Ned:
> I'd love to hear how pomo is different than all the other 'negative'
> philosophies of the past, eras in which women survived and thrived
> in supposedly male-dominated societies: How has pomo improved and
> fostered the feminist position in this era as opposed to prior ones
> which "undid" the rules and structures constraining women?
Joyce:
> Go read Linda Nicholson's _Feminism/Postmodernism_. Talk to some
> contemporary feminists (they don't have to be women to be one,
> you know). And we'll resume this conversation.
> ps. by the way, is Ned short of Neville????
>
Oh, man, you could have really run with that one, Joyce. You could
have been a CONTENDER! And what do you do? - you throw a book at
somebody!
Well, obviously, SOME THINGS never change, even in pomo.
Ned
Giles
> James Owens wrote:
>>
>> Simon Best (bars...@earthling.net) writes:
>
>
> Ah, thanks! Sounds like Logical Positivism wasn't properly tested by
> the Logical Positivists who came up with it (the Vienna Circle?).
>
>> It would be delightful to see a dialogue, in the style of Plato, between
>> Socrates and a postmodernist. In fact I wonder if Plato has already
>> written one -- the Dialogues are amazing in their anticipation of possible
>> philosophical positions. In this regard, it might be rewarding to look up
>> his thoughts on Heraclitus, whose idea that the world is flux hints at the
>> postmodern approach to fact. I may do that when I get home.
>
> Hmm, yes... I think a trip up to the High Street is in order (I suspect
> the main bookshop there will probably have a copy...). When flicking
> through some book on philosophers (I think it was some accessory for
> Sophie's World (by Jostein Gaarder)), which gave a bit of introduction
> to various philosophers, one of the Sophists was mentioned. Can't
> remember if it was Heraclitus (was he a Sophist?), but I do recall the
> author commenting that Heraclitus's position on things seemed
> surprisingly postmodern! (This is how I became interested in finding
> out about postmodernism.)
Heraclitus wasn't a sophist. Just a century or so earlier. I would be
surprised if any author claimed him as postmodern, as he is often taken as
an anticipation of Hegel. But Hegel takes Heraclitus as a stage to be worked
past. For Hegel on Heraclitus, try sections 88 of Hegel's 'Logic':
section 88
"Glancing at the principle of the Eleatics, Heraclitus then goes on to say:
Being no more is than not-Being; a statement expressing the negativity of
abstract being, and its identity with not-Being, as made explicit in
Becoming; both abstractions alike being untenable".
So, no. Heraclitus' vision of flux and of things turning into their opposite
is not only not 'postmodern' but involves a version of the 'Nous' as the
untity of opposites which is pre Hegelian in its constancy and fixed balance
of abstract opposites. If Heraclitus is postmodern, then it just adds to
Adorno's claim that those who do not face Hegel simply regress behind him.
Heraclitus' vision of flux, Hegel thoroughly approves, as far as it goes,
but it certainly doesn't do far enough. Then for the opposing Parmenideian
or Zenoist view, section 89.
Hegel on Zeno, from section 89:
"Whenever such contradiction, then, is discovered in any object or notion,
the usual inference is, *Hence* this object is *nothing*. Thus Zeno, who
first showed the contradiction native to motion, concluded that there is no
motion".
I.e. One of Zeno's paradoxes. The arrow which always has to travel half the
distance left to the target and thus can never arrive.
But do read Heraclitus, and for a different version of Nous, Parmenides and
Zeno, assuming you haven't already.
> Simon
Giles
ale...@my-deja.com
> Well, I'd love to hear about the Sexual Contract and three 'stodges',
> but feminism died the day the Supreme Court ruled that women didn't
> have to serve in the Army, and all the great 'feminist' groups of
> the country just yawned, and stretched, and said, "Well, we didn't
> want to fight in any WARS, anyway..."
Okay, breakdown anaylysis of the pros and cons of women in the military:
Pros - destroys the notion of women's body as invalid and not up to a
masculinist bias of standard; military career orientation becomes more of
a matter of individual interests rather than based on socially determined
gender roles; the increased ability for women to advance themselves in
the military (and thus public) sphere; more women in the military =
higher proportion of women in the military hierarchy = a more
proportioned representation of the two sexes.
Cons - predominantly, it is people of lower social classes enrolled into
the military, so logically, it'd mean that women of lower income/social
status will have more incentive to join - so it's a choice based on the
lack of one (choice, that is); political institutions and higher military
ranks are still male-dominated, so women, even if they are in the
military, will be in a minoritised position (if not more so).
But like what Simon said, there are many different groups of feminisms -
some are pacifists, some are for gender equality, some challenges the
notion of gender roles, and some sees war as necessary means to an end.
You cannot conflate feminism into one group which says "no" to women in
militarism.
>
> That was when Feminism ended for this cycle. (It was back in the
> 70's, Joyce.) It is an ancient tradition, and it will have a true
> resurgence sometime in the future, I'm sure.
Ever heard of the third wave feminism?
>
> But none of that has anything to do with pomo being the plague in
> the gut of the flea on the dead horse. Unless you want the plague
> to wipe out all the male chauvinist pigs. And plagues aren't so
> picky.
"male chauvinist pigs" are much too mild a term ;-) And as for plague, I
see modernity as one massive White Death swooping up the globe with its
imperialism, colonisation, religious indoctrination, economic
neoimperialism, WTO, World Bank, and what not.
>
> I'd love to hear how pomo is different than all the other 'negative'
> philosophies of the past, eras in which women survived and thrived in
> supposedly male-dominated societies: How has pomo improved and
> fostered the feminist position in this era as opposed to prior ones
> which "undid" the rules and structures constraining women?
>
> Ned
>
Go read Linda Nicholson's _Feminism/Postmodernism_. Talk to some
contemporary feminists (they don't have to be women to be one, you know).
And we'll resume this conversation.
ps. by the way, is Ned short of Neville????
Joyce
ale...@my-deja.com
machine! quick, where's the pomo squad with their trusty laser guns?
James Owens
>> Simon Best (bars...@earthling.net) writes:
>> It would be delightful to see a dialogue, in the style of Plato, between
>> Socrates and a postmodernist. In fact I wonder if Plato has already
>> written one -- the Dialogues are amazing in their anticipation of possible
>> philosophical positions. In this regard, it might be rewarding to look up
>> his thoughts on Heraclitus, whose idea that the world is flux hints at the
>> postmodern approach to fact. I may do that when I get home.
> Hmm, yes... I think a trip up to the High Street is in order (I suspect
> the main bookshop there will probably have a copy...). When flicking
> through some book on philosophers (I think it was some accessory for
> Sophie's World (by Jostein Gaarder)), which gave a bit of introduction
> to various philosophers, one of the Sophists was mentioned. Can't
> remember if it was Heraclitus (was he a Sophist?), but I do recall the
> author commenting that Heraclitus's position on things seemed
> surprisingly postmodern! (This is how I became interested in finding
> out about postmodernism.)
Now that I look into it, Protagoras seems more of a candidate.
Heraclitus, with his doctrine of a universal Law of the tension of
opposites, is indeed more of a precursor to Hegel. But Protagoras (who by
the way was a Sophist) comes under direct fire from Plato's Socractes for
ideas similar to the postmodern one that "truth" is a matter of one's
perspective. From the Cratylus, 385e:
SOCRATES: But would you say, Hermogenes, that the things differ as their
names differ? And are they relative to individuals, as Protagoras tells
us? For he says that man is the measure of all things, and that things
are to me as they appear to me, and that they are to you as they appear to
you. Do you agree with him, or would you say that things have a permanent
essence of their own?
From the (more readable) Theaetetus, 161c:
SOCRATES: . . . In general, I am delighted with his statement that what
seems to anyone also is, but I am surprised that he did not begin his
_Truth_ with the words, The measure of all things is the pig, or the
baboon, or some sentient creature still more uncouth. There would have
been something magnificent in so disdainful an opening, telling us that
all the time, while we were admiring him for a wisdom more than mortal, he
was in fact no wiser than a tadpole, to say nothing of any other human
being. What else can we say, Theodorus? If what every man believes as a
result of perception is indeed to be true for him; if, just as no one is
to be a better judge of what another experiences, so no one is better
entitled to consider whether what another thinks is true or false, and, as
we have said more than once, every man is to have his own beliefs for
himself alone and they are all right and true -- then, my friend, where is
the wisdom of Protagoras. . .?
This is not strictly the same as postmodernism, for the latter does not
claim that an individual's perception is truth for that individual. But
if it claims truth to be relative to the discourse of an individual or
group, it seems open to the same lines of Socratic enquiry.
James Owens
> James Owens wrote:
>> It would be delightful to see a dialogue, in the style of Plato, between
>> Socrates and a postmodernist. In fact I wonder if Plato has already
>> written one -- the Dialogues are amazing in their anticipation of possible
>> philosophical positions. In this regard, it might be rewarding to look up
>> his thoughts on Heraclitus, whose idea that the world is flux hints at the
>> postmodern approach to fact. I may do that when I get home.
> Hmm, yes... I think a trip up to the High Street is in order (I suspect
> the main bookshop there will probably have a copy...). When flicking
> through some book on philosophers (I think it was some accessory for
> Sophie's World (by Jostein Gaarder)), which gave a bit of introduction
> to various philosophers, one of the Sophists was mentioned. Can't
> remember if it was Heraclitus (was he a Sophist?), but I do recall the
> author commenting that Heraclitus's position on things seemed
> surprisingly postmodern! (This is how I became interested in finding
> out about postmodernism.)
Now that I look into it, Protagoras seems more of a candidate.
Heraclitus, with his doctrine of a universal Law of the tension of
opposites, is indeed more of a precursor to Hegel. But Protagoras (who by
the way was a Sophist) comes under direct fire from Plato's Socrates for
ideas similar to the postmodern one that "truth" is a matter of one's
perspective. From the Cratylus, 385e:
SOCRATES: But would you say, Hermogenes, that the things differ as their
names differ? And are they relative to individuals, as Protagoras tells
us? For he says that man is the measure of all things, and that things
are to me as they appear to me, and that they are to you as they appear to
you. Do you agree with him, or would you say that things have a permanent
essence of their own?
From the (generally more readable) Theaetetus, 161c:
SOCRATES: . . . In general, I am delighted with his statement that what
seems to anyone also is, but I am surprised that he did not begin his
_Truth_ with the words, The measure of all things is the pig, or the
baboon, or some sentient creature still more uncouth. There would have
been something magnificent in so disdainful an opening, telling us that
all the time, while we were admiring him for a wisdom more than mortal, he
was in fact no wiser than a tadpole, to say nothing of any other human
being. What else can we say, Theodorus? If what every man believes as a
result of perception is indeed to be true for him; if, just as no one is
to be a better judge of what another experiences, so no one is better
entitled to consider whether what another thinks is true or false, and, as
we have said more than once, every man is to have his own beliefs for
himself alone and they are all right and true -- then, my friend, where is
the wisdom of Protagoras. . .?
This is not strictly the same as postmodernism, for the latter does not
claim that an individual's perception is truth for that individual. But
if it claims truth to be relative to the discourse of an individual or
group, it seems open to the same lines of Socratic enquiry.
ale...@my-deja.com
> And pomo is the Black Death to counter the White Death of modernity?
>
End of English metaphor lessons. Repeat after me: there are no plague,
horses, fleas and whatnot. It's all in your head!
> Oh, man, you could have really run with that one, Joyce. You could
> have been a CONTENDER! And what do you do? - you throw a book at
> somebody!
>
Ned, I've tried dialogues with you, but they've always fade out into
some corners of oblivion.... Now, with books, you might start to de-
programme some of those systems of thinking which has been clogging for
goddess knows how long.... Or maybe just a good bang on the head with
something hard.... Want me to help???
> Well, obviously, SOME THINGS never change, even in pomo.
>
> Ned
>
And some people are always the same, go figure ;-)
ale...@my-deja.com
> I guess a sort of inclusion of modernity, somehow, would be consistent
> with postmodernism's inclusiveness? (Which reminds me, I must ask
about
> deconstruction...)
>
What do you want to know about? It first sprang out of structuralism,
coined by Derrida (who is quite prominent in the development of decon),
is a "sort of" methodology to destablise the structures of meaning,
thus reveals the premises which they're built on, as well as the
concept of objectivity as constructs. There are some critiques about
decon as apolitical due to its rejection of distinction between text
and context, but crtitics like Gayatri Spivak and Barbara Johnson made
political commitments as primary concerns to their works. Simply put,
decon is about identification of power relations.
>
> Oh, hang on! I think I _do_ know the difference between rationalism
and
> rationalisation after all! What was I thinking?... Anyway, from
what I
> can remember from Sophie's World (by Jostein Gaarder), is that
> rationalism is the idea that we can rely on reason (logic takes
> precedence to experience (ever seen the philosophy football match
sketch
> in Monty Python?)), while rationalisation is what Freud observed
people
> doing when they were coming up with explanations for things they did,
or
> thought, or believed, or felt, etc. It didn't matter whether or not
> these rationalisations were correct, just as long as they seemed
> rational, it seems.
>
> ... Or have I got it horribly wrong?
>
Or maybe it's me, but I thought rationalisation is about capitalism and
its rise to international dominance, while rationality is about the
possession of reason, a backbone theme to the discussion of the self,
society and culture within western tradition. This is confusing....
> I suspected my 'resolution' of the cows was not postmodern, thanks for
> confirming it!
>
Moo moo!
> > Yup, you might also want to read Lyotard's _Postmodern Condition_;
Michel
> > Foucault's _Power/Knowledge_; Linda Nicholson(ed) _Feminism/
> > Postmodernism_.
>
> Yep, I think a trip to Charring Cross Road is called for...
>
> Simon
>
Pray excuse my ignorance, but is that a bookshop of some sort?
Joyce
>
________________________________________________________________________
_______
> Personal: bars...@earthling.net
> Yellow Skies: si...@yellowskies.com http://www.yellowskies.com
> Everyone does their own signature to be different. How does that
work?
>
Zeus Katachthonios
>
> I'm not sure what Postmodernism ever DOES, except Deconstruct.
>
Is deconstruction, doing?
Is deconstruction A Doing?
Is deconstruction something which is done?
I'm not sure exactly how to phrase the question/objection but the
previous three questions might give an idea of what the question really
is.
-Z.K.
To go along with this, does using deconstruct in this manner ascribe it
a sense of methodology, or make it feel like a methodology?
Ned Ludd
Joyce:
> "male chauvinist pigs" are much too mild a term ;-) And as for
> plague, I see modernity as one massive White Death swooping up the
> globe with its imperialism, colonisation, religious indoctrination,
> economic neoimperialism, WTO, World Bank, and what not.
Ned:
> And pomo is the Black Death to counter the White Death of modernity?
Joyce:
> End of English metaphor lessons. Repeat after me: there are no
> plague, horses, fleas and whatnot. It's all in your head!
>
If it's all in my head, why do I have to repeat it to you?
Ned:
> Oh, man, you could have really run with that one, Joyce. You could
> have been a CONTENDER! And what do you do? - you throw a book at
> somebody!
Joyce:
> Ned, I've tried dialogues with you, but they've always fade out into
> some corners of oblivion.... Now, with books, you might start to de-
> programme some of those systems of thinking which has been clogging
> for goddess knows how long.... Or maybe just a good bang on the head
> with something hard.... Want me to help???
>
Why can't pomo produce a person (a NEW person - a NEW kind of
philosopher) who can discuss pomo without throwing books at other
people and just answer the questions and discuss the topic?
It's all well and good to give a reading list (and appropriate for
an exchange on the net), but when someone says a sentence about, say,
deconstructionism, and another person says, "No that's not right"
and shoves a reading list at them without even offering one SENTENCE
of why the first person's idea of deconstruction was incorrect,
then, in my opinion, that second person is full of beans, and has
wasted the bandwidth they used for their message.
>> Well, obviously, SOME THINGS never change, even in pomo.
>
> And some people are always the same, go figure ;-)
>
Yes, nothing changes. Nothing ever changes.
Ned
Simon Best
>
> Why can't pomo produce a person (a NEW person - a NEW kind of
> philosopher) who can discuss pomo without throwing books at other
> people and just answer the questions and discuss the topic?
Why not become that philosopher? You don't even have to be a pomo
philosopher (though I suspect you'd need to give a take on pomo).
> It's all well and good to give a reading list (and appropriate for
> an exchange on the net), but when someone says a sentence about, say,
> deconstructionism, and another person says, "No that's not right"
> and shoves a reading list at them without even offering one SENTENCE
> of why the first person's idea of deconstruction was incorrect,
> then, in my opinion, that second person is full of beans, and has
> wasted the bandwidth they used for their message.
I think it's this thing of pomo books that gave me the impression that
postmodernism was, among other things, current philosophy.
What I'm wondering now is if postmodernism is a sort of antithesis to
the thesis of modernism... I know there was some philosopher who
observed a pattern in the history of philosophy, something along the
lines of 'thesis - antithesis - ???????' (can't remember what the third
thing is called, but it's something to do with resolving the thesis and
antithesis). The ??????? then goes on to become the new thesis... and
so on. Can't remember which philosopher it was who made this
observation or gave this description of philosophy...
Anyway, what do you reckon, Ned?
Simon
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Simon Best
>
> Heraclitus wasn't a sophist. Just a century or so earlier. I would be
> surprised if any author claimed him as postmodern, as he is often taken as
> an anticipation of Hegel. But Hegel takes Heraclitus as a stage to be worked
> past. For Hegel on Heraclitus, try sections 88 of Hegel's 'Logic'
Thanks! I was thinking of Protagoras, but the following has intrigued
me...
> Hegel on Zeno, from section 89:
> "Whenever such contradiction, then, is discovered in any object or notion,
> the usual inference is, *Hence* this object is *nothing*. Thus Zeno, who
> first showed the contradiction native to motion, concluded that there is no
> motion".
>
> I.e. One of Zeno's paradoxes. The arrow which always has to travel half the
> distance left to the target and thus can never arrive.
I'm familiar with Zeno when it comes to the notion of countable
infinities, but I'd never thought about this being a demonstration of
how a rational contradiction doesn't necessarily prove nonexistence of
something... Perhaps that's not what you meant, but it just struck me.
Simon Best
>
> > I guess a sort of inclusion of modernity, somehow, would be consistent
> > with postmodernism's inclusiveness? (Which reminds me, I must ask
> about
> > deconstruction...)
> >
> What do you want to know about? It first sprang out of structuralism,
> coined by Derrida (who is quite prominent in the development of decon),
> is a "sort of" methodology to destablise the structures of meaning,
> thus reveals the premises which they're built on, as well as the
> concept of objectivity as constructs. There are some critiques about
> decon as apolitical due to its rejection of distinction between text
> and context, but crtitics like Gayatri Spivak and Barbara Johnson made
> political commitments as primary concerns to their works. Simply put,
> decon is about identification of power relations.
Thanks! Deconstruction sounds a little bit like what Socrates did when
getting people wound up, except that Socrates was in pursuit of certain
knowledge, while deconstruction seeks to demonstrate lack of
objectivity. Another distinction seems to be that Socrates was taking
language to be transparent, seeking to address the things that language
was supposed to be referring to, while deconstruction deals with the
language and meaning...
I'm a bit lost on it being about the identification of power relations.
> Or maybe it's me, but I thought rationalisation is about capitalism and
> its rise to international dominance, while rationality is about the
> possession of reason, a backbone theme to the discussion of the self,
> society and culture within western tradition. This is confusing....
Maybe Freud just drew people's attention to rationalisation, or gave
some sort of psychological explanation for it, or something...
I can see rationalisation being a significant thing behind capitalism.
For example, a capitalist mantra that irks me is 'A business is there to
make money.', usually with the point being that it's not there for
anything else (unless such things are merely subservient to the pursuit
of money). Yet there are rationalisations of this apparent greed, like
'it creates jobs', 'it raises the standard of living', 'it is the
application of greed to the pursuit of betterment for all', etc. (I'm
not much of a capitalist!)
> > > Yup, you might also want to read Lyotard's _Postmodern Condition_;
> Michel
> > > Foucault's _Power/Knowledge_; Linda Nicholson(ed) _Feminism/
> > > Postmodernism_.
> >
> > Yep, I think a trip to Charring Cross Road is called for...
> >
> > Simon
> >
> Pray excuse my ignorance, but is that a bookshop of some sort?
>
> Joyce
I was being a bit obscure! There are a few bookshops there, the one I'm
thinking of being Foyle's. I've no idea how well known Foyle's is
outside of the UK, so I'll just say that it's a nice, big bookshop with
all sorts of books on all sorts of subjects, at all sorts of levels.
It's in London.
Simon
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Simon Best
>
> So I suppose it's possible to have too much rationalism? Is it a
> lure of postmodernism that it might have a paucity of rationalism?
>
> Ned
What does 'paucity' mean? (Sorry, I've just discovered a gap in my
knowledge of English.)
I don't think I'm particularly lured by postmodernism, the lure is more
of an angst, and I think postmodernists may say that my angst is
symptomatic of me being in the postmodern state?
Ned Ludd
news:8okrc5$e9r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Ned:
>> I'm not sure what Postmodernism ever DOES, except Deconstruct.
Z.K.:
> Is deconstruction, doing?
>
Serious doing. Attacking from the ground up.
> Is deconstruction A Doing?
>
No, it is an Un-Doing.
> Is deconstruction something which is done?
>
It's work is never done. Ultimately it must undo itself.
> I'm not sure exactly how to phrase the question/objection but
> the previous three questions might give an idea of what the
> question really is.
>
To see with clear eyes is a most difficult task. Refusing
to see is not the same as seeing with clear eyes.
> To go along with this, does using deconstruct in this manner
> ascribe it a sense of methodology, or make it feel like a
> methodology?
>
It looks like method to me. Would it look like method to a
Martian? I mean, can you only do deconstruction when you are
totally immersed and soaked in the culture you are deconstructing?
And would someone unfamiliar with the nuances of your culture
think you were just "playing with mud", i.e. just playing word
games and engaging in conceptual gymnastics.
Ned
Simon Best
> > Hmm, yes... I think a trip up to the High Street is in order (I suspect
> > the main bookshop there will probably have a copy...). When flicking
> > through some book on philosophers (I think it was some accessory for
> > Sophie's World (by Jostein Gaarder)), which gave a bit of introduction
> > to various philosophers, one of the Sophists was mentioned. Can't
> > remember if it was Heraclitus (was he a Sophist?), but I do recall the
> > author commenting that Heraclitus's position on things seemed
> > surprisingly postmodern! (This is how I became interested in finding
> > out about postmodernism.)
>
> Now that I look into it, Protagoras seems more of a candidate.
> Heraclitus, with his doctrine of a universal Law of the tension of
> opposites, is indeed more of a precursor to Hegel. But Protagoras (who by
> the way was a Sophist) comes under direct fire from Plato's Socrates for
> ideas similar to the postmodern one that "truth" is a matter of one's
> perspective.
D'Oh! Yes, it was Protagoras I was thinking of, not Heraclitus.
Thanks!
> This is not strictly the same as postmodernism, for the latter does not
> claim that an individual's perception is truth for that individual. But
> if it claims truth to be relative to the discourse of an individual or
> group, it seems open to the same lines of Socratic enquiry.
I have heard it said that philosophers are going back to a sort of
Socratic approach... But I don't know if this is true...
Ned Ludd
Ned:
> It's all well and good to give a reading list (and appropriate for
> an exchange on the net), but when someone says a sentence about, say,
> deconstructionism, and another person says, "No that's not right"
> and shoves a reading list at them without even offering one SENTENCE
> of why the first person's idea of deconstruction was incorrect,
> then, in my opinion, that second person is full of beans, and has
> wasted the bandwidth they used for their message.
Simon:
> I think it's this thing of pomo books that gave me the impression
> that postmodernism was, among other things, current philosophy.
> What I'm wondering now is if postmodernism is a sort of antithesis
> to the thesis of modernism... I know there was some philosopher
> who observed a pattern in the history of philosophy, something
> along the lines of 'thesis - antithesis - ???????' (can't remember
> what the third thing is called, but it's something to do with
> resolving the thesis and antithesis). The ??????? then goes on
> to become the new thesis... and so on. Can't remember which
> philosopher it was who made this observation or gave this
> description of philosophy...
>
Synthesis. Hegel. Some people have been talking about that.
The 'breakout' usually occurs by creating another dimension to
the problem, and traveling along that new route, which is
independent of either the thesis or antithesis.
> Anyway, what do you reckon, Ned?
>
Beats me. I'm just waiting for all the pomos to get bored
and do something weird.
Ned
Ned Ludd
>
> I don't think I'm particularly lured by postmodernism, the lure
> is more of an angst, and I think postmodernists may say that my
> angst is symptomatic of me being in the postmodern state?
>
I'd hang angst, anxiety, anomie, alienation, ALL on modernism.
I don't know what psychoses have been added to the pot specifically
by postmodernism.
Ned
James Whitehead
>Simon Best:
>| >Eh? Einstein proved (modernistically) that it's a mistake to try to
>| >gain objectivity by distancing oneself? You're not misunderstanding
>| >Einstein's theories of relativity, are you?
>
>James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
>| I could be - but each system has its own frame of reference - and no
>| system is special - so where's the objectivity. (AE gave an example
>| where two events could be interpreted as occurring in different
>| sequences to two observers - )
>
>Part of Einstein's work was to show that measurements of one
>frame of reference could be translated reliably into another
>frame of reference. In other words, the two frames of reference
>could be said to co-exist in some higher frame of reference
>(with more dimensions). In effect, Einstein took a step away
>-- distanced himself -- from the Newtonian system and was
>thereby able to preserve a model of the universe which, in
>spite of containing different frames of reference, was still
>coherent and possibly deterministic.
>
is wrong? "The temporal order of two events may seem different to
different observers according to their state of motion"?
confused?
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<bars...@earthling.net> writes
>I don't think I'm particularly lured by postmodernism, the lure is more
>of an angst, and I think postmodernists may say that my angst is
>symptomatic of me being in the postmodern state?
will see post-modernity all around you- maybe you could move to Siberia
but i suspect even there you will find an Internet cafe. (There is an
irony in writing Synthesis as ??????? which makes me wonder ... Baa Baa
Baa ? )
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> I'm sure it's just like new shoes, and we'll have to wear them
>for a while before they seem comfortable.
The Emperor's new shoes that is...
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
<ned...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>
> Why can't pomo produce a person (a NEW person - a NEW kind of
>philosopher) who can discuss pomo without throwing books at other
>people and just answer the questions and discuss the topic?
--
James Whitehead
Zeus Katachthonios
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Zeus Katachthonios <ze...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8okrc5$e9r$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Ned:
> >> I'm not sure what Postmodernism ever DOES, except Deconstruct.
>
> Z.K.:
> > Is deconstruction, doing?
> >
>
> Serious doing. Attacking from the ground up.
>
> > Is deconstruction A Doing?
> >
>
> No, it is an Un-Doing.
Is it destructive? Or does it redo what is undone?
>
> > Is deconstruction something which is done?
> >
>
> It's work is never done. Ultimately it must undo itself.
Is deconstruction something which entities (people. et. al.) do?
Is it something that happens (by itself, spontaneously, or with urging)?
>
> > I'm not sure exactly how to phrase the question/objection but
> > the previous three questions might give an idea of what the
> > question really is.
> >
>
> To see with clear eyes is a most difficult task. Refusing
> to see is not the same as seeing with clear eyes.
>
Trying or straining to see also doesn't pre-suppose that all filters or
un-clearing has been removed. It doesn't even mean that one is looking
in the right direction.
> > To go along with this, does using deconstruct in this manner
> > ascribe it a sense of methodology, or make it feel like a
> > methodology?
> >
>
> It looks like method to me. Would it look like method to a
> Martian? I mean, can you only do deconstruction when you are
> totally immersed and soaked in the culture you are deconstructing?
>
> And would someone unfamiliar with the nuances of your culture
> think you were just "playing with mud", i.e. just playing word
> games and engaging in conceptual gymnastics.
>
> Ned
In being a method does that make it procedural? Is there a "way to
deconstruct" or a series of steps to be taken? It seems that this
delineating of methodology has distinct rationalist, or logical
positivist overtones. (I.e., to deconstruct a text [thing, concept,
idea, word, etc.] we first remove tab A from slot B and ...)
Is there, instead, a general idea of what happens during deconstruction;
and it is only subsequent to its start, according to, or in line with
this this general prejudice or pre-disposition of what happens, that
one might determine where the next step or point through which one might
move is? Is this what you mean by there being method? (I acknowledge
that I, of course, might also be held accountable for the definition of
'method' since it is I who introduced the term into discussion.)
So it might only be a method if one starts with the same (roughly
similar, contained in the same universe) prejudices about how this
methodology is to proceed. As in your example with the Martians, they
might not have the necessary groundwork to even being to deconstruct
with us?
Marcin Tustin
> Well, I'd love to hear about the Sexual Contract and three 'stodges',
> but feminism died the day the Supreme Court ruled that women didn't
> have to serve in the Army, and all the great 'feminist' groups of
> the country just yawned, and stretched, and said, "Well, we didn't
> want to fight in any WARS, anyway..."
>
> 70's, Joyce.) It is an ancient tradition, and it will have a true
> resurgence sometime in the future, I'm sure.
I think you're mistaking "feminism" "wanting to be
oppressed on equal terms". Plus feminism doesn't deny that men and
women are different. For instance, in a battle situation:
Man: Why the hell did this seem a good idea 6 months ago. Oh, well
best go and attempt a suicidal assault.
Woman (paraphrased): Bugger this for a lark. Come and share our
constipative biscuits and libido-suppressing tea. Shut up you
bitch, I'm not going to fight just because it's your time of the
month.
OR
Woman: come here you bitch, I'm not going to give until every last
one of you are dead.
Plus, NATO can't even issue mosquito repellant doesn't
attract insects. How the hell are they going to issue bras that
prevent breast from bouncing. In fact, the NATO issue bra would
probably alter the resoant frequency of the breast to the modal
frequency of bodily movement when running, and damp so that there
would be significant reponse across a 1MHz band.
> But none of that has anything to do with pomo being the plague in
> the gut of the flea on the dead horse. Unless you want the plague
> to wipe out all the male chauvinist pigs. And plagues aren't so
> picky.
>
> I'd love to hear how pomo is different than all the other 'negative'
> philosophies of the past, eras in which women survived and thrived in
> supposedly male-dominated societies: How has pomo improved and
> fostered the feminist position in this era as opposed to prior ones
> which "undid" the rules and structures constraining women?
>
> Ned
It's a fair cop guv.
--
Humanity will not be happy until the day when the
last bureaucrat has been hanged with the guts of
the last capitalist.
Marcin Tustin
PGP Key at http://www.anarchist99.freeserve.co.uk/marcintustin.txt
Mar...@mindless.REMOVEGOATS&OATS.com
Marcint@^^refreshmagazine.com.nomail
KeyID 0x86D72550
Fingerprint DDD9 FB07 4C2F 9A79 C860 C391 D672 364C 86D7 2550
Marcin Tustin
says...
>
>
> > And pomo is the Black Death to counter the White Death of modernity?
> >
> End of English metaphor lessons. Repeat after me: there are no plague,
> horses, fleas and whatnot. It's all in your head!
>
> > Oh, man, you could have really run with that one, Joyce. You could
> > have been a CONTENDER! And what do you do? - you throw a book at
> > somebody!
> >
> Ned, I've tried dialogues with you, but they've always fade out into
> some corners of oblivion.... Now, with books, you might start to de-
> programme some of those systems of thinking which has been clogging for
> goddess knows how long.... Or maybe just a good bang on the head with
> something hard.... Want me to help???
Which goddess are we talking about here? are we talking
Goddess, in which case I'll have to throw assorted vegetable
matter over your green-freak primitive-ass ritual-to-make-the-sun-
rise playing field, or Eris, in which case maybe we can grab a
hotdog (and maybe catch a movie (i'll bring nets for both of us))?
Marcin Tustin
Actually, I've just thought of this. Most of the girls I know who
want to join the army are like "does this dress make my bum look
big? You know the Glosters have got some of those new rifles -
they're really cushdy, they can like put a hole in a man's chest
at 2Km". And they tend to do well. None of this squaddy crap -
they get to the top of their contingents (in youth organisations)
and places at sandhurst, and so forth.
Marcin Tustin
says...
Buying cocktail dresses.
> Joyce
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Marcin Tustin
bars...@earthling.net says...
> I don't think I'm particularly lured by postmodernism, the lure is more
> of an angst, and I think postmodernists may say that my angst is
> symptomatic of me being in the postmodern state?
No it's symptomatic of the fact that you have only been
running since february. Incidentally, who is responsible for you,
and how did they manage it? Very nice, I must say, I've had some
thoughts along these lines.
Marcin Tustin
ad...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA says...> >> Simon Best wrote:
>
> >> > What's [philosophical pomo's] relationship to modernism?
>
> >> Dunno. Effectively it's a repudiation of logical positivism, if that has
> >> anything to do with modernism. (If modernism is based on an enthusiasm for
> >> extreme rationalism and its practical application, I could see a link.)
>
> > I never really got the hang of logical positivism, either. Some sort of
> > positive view of the usefulness of rationalism on a rational basis?
>
> Logical positivism held that statements are not meaningful unless they are
> verifiable. This was supposed to eliminate cryptic dialectics about
> things like "world spirit" and "the relation of the self to its own self,"
> which had come to dominate the European tradition. The net was cast too
> wide, though, because some meaningful statements, such as "There are no
> unicorns" are not verifiable. You can never be satisfied that such a
> statement has been exhaustively proven, so it is not technically
> verifiable, even in principle. Accordingly the criterion was refined to
> falsifiability -- that a statement is meaningful if _in principle_ it can
> be falsified. However, some statements remained problematic: for example,
> "The king of France is bald." Since there is no king of France, it's not
> clear how you would prove this claim true _or_ false, yet it seems to be
> meaningful.
I think you are making the mistake of casting the term
Logical Positivism onto a small subset of the Wiener Kreis. And to
address the king of france, the "problem" is the same as "ppipy
the ziphead is purple". As Ayer noted from the 2nd edition of
Language, Truth, and Logic, the LP's offfered only a definition
submitted for your approval. "The king of France is bald" is not
literally meaningful according to the definition, because it is
not a proposition, ie there is no test for it's truth. However, we
could admit it if we admit statements for which there might be
tests of truth, were things other than they are, although we end
up mixing literary and literal statements.
> What all this highlights is that the logical positivists were engaged in a
> modernist enterprise to shine the new, bright light of rationality on old
> supersitious ways -- to streamline the human world for rational
> efficiency.
>
> Quine's influential paper suggested that the "meaningfulness" of
> statements depended on the constructs within which they made sense.
> Statements held to be "meaningless," such as ones involving the Homeric
> gods, might well be "meaningful" and even "true" within the appropriate
> construct. (Deconstructionism, by the way, is the process of emptying
> statements or views of universal validity, by identifying the constructs
> on which their meaning and truth rely.)
Although it was Wittgenstein who first advanced the idea of
the "language game". Hence, asking if an ethical position is
literally true is like declaring a try conversion offside.
> >>> Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
> >>> philosophy is or should be?
> >>
> >> My brain hurts. . .
>
> > My thinking was... If modernism, when taken to conclusion, leads to the
> > inevitability of something to follow it, there's the question of what
> > that thing would be. So, it seemed to me to be a good place for
> > postmodern philosophy to start (and seemed to fit the term 'postmodern',
> > too!).
>
> I see postmodernism as the collapse of modernism, rather than a
> continuation of thought beyond modernism but in the same direction.
> Modernism sought to shake out the nonsense from life and leave only the
> rational, but instead (or perhaps precisely there) it shook out the
> meaning. A part of postmodern behaviour seems to involve nostalgia for
> real, absolute meaning. This explains the frequent references to things
> that once did have meaning. Postmodern irony recognizes that these
> references are only play -- that that the idea of meaning has suffered
> permanent damage -- and in this sense is a forced continuation of
> modernism in a direction it never intended.
>
> >>> What does postmodernism make of Socrates and Socratic approaches to
> >>> philosophy?
> >>
> >> I don't know. Probably it would be more interested in the biographical
> >> context of Socrates' ideas than in the ideas themselves.
> >> (Is _The Trial of Socrates_ by I.F. Stone an example?)
>
> > Ah. I was wondering if a Socratic approach to postmodernism, as in
> > seeking to show that there are certain, universal truths, that there is
> > such a thing as certain knowledge, by questioning postmodernism to draw
> > such things out into the open, would be futile with postmodernism. I
> > see my question was ambiguous!
>
> It would be delightful to see a dialogue, in the style of Plato, between
> Socrates and a postmodernist. In fact I wonder if Plato has already
> written one -- the Dialogues are amazing in their anticipation of possible
> philosophical positions. In this regard, it might be rewarding to look up
> his thoughts on Heraclitus, whose idea that the world is flux hints at the
> postmodern approach to fact. I may do that when I get home.
>
> >>> What other questions should I be asking?
> >>
> >> Is postmodernism a psychological response to disenchantment?
>
> > Now that's an interesting one! What'd'you reckon? I get the feeling
> > that it could be something like that, at least with some people, but I
> > just don't know yet.
>
> As I said above, my understanding is that modernism shook out meaning from
> the world, and that postmodernism misses it, but doesn't know what to do.
> Some postmodernists pretend to glue it back on -- but necessarily with an
> ironic smirk. Others retreat into the arbitrariness of a particular
> construct, declaring it "home" and living in terms of whatever meaning it
> provides.
>
> --
>
> James Owens ad...@Freenet.carleton.ca
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
--
Marcin Tustin
bars...@earthling.net says...
> James Whitehead wrote:
> >
> > In article <39AA0E68...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> > <bars...@earthling.net> writes
[bzzzzzzz..oh f***]
> > >What's its relationship to modernism?
> > its an opposite - cooler - a binary opposite.
>
> A binary opposite? Surely not as in 'every "yes" becomes "no" and vice
> versa'? I must've got that wrong.
Consider rather a bitwise complement performed on korean
hardware designed by the brightest stars of an international
generation to be cheaper and less cheerful than anything ever
before, built in Northeast England, or perhaps declined industrial
Spain.
> > >Does postmodern philosophy involve seeking to find what postmodern
> > >philosophy is or should be?
> > i doubt it, as long as its diverse your probably on safe ground,
> > preferably avoiding rationalism. Hence the vogue for continental
> > philosophy.
>
> Bah, I've nobserved that there's this thing of diversity in postmodernism
> (in contrast with simplistic uniformity and homogeneity in modernism?).
> And rationalism's frowned upon? As in 'you only need to think it
> through, nothing more' type rationalismus?!?!?!
> > >What's the postmodern position on 'certain knowledge' and 'absolute
> > >truth'?
> > Its been proved with certainty that certain knowledge is impossible
>
> A contradiction, surely? Is this something to do with rationalism?
> Two, fictional characters...
[swooosh]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> Sam Spade: That's somewhat rational, but that's the
> thing. Rationality cannot be rationally proved reliable,
> as you have to assume that it's reliable in order to rely
> on any such rational 'proof'. It's circular reasoning.
> If rationality is somehow flawed, a rational proof of its
> reliability may well be wrong.
>
> Alex Salmond: Yeah, so what's that got to do with your
> contradiction not being a problem?
[moooooooo!]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 Int. for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgpinternational.com>
iQA/AwUBOa6eWNZyNkyG1yVQEQJDfgCfZ5ot9IQhZfZelYy7NsLZ1TU7UdAAnjaD
e3FxhSsbmPK7uVL09fZvUDfk
=4WUn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ah, so young and so talented....Hey, this is my real beard,
he must have your fake beard. This glue is because I'm so old it
falls out, and doesn't grow back. But the secret of my youthful
complexion? I use ass-in-halls-of-academia.
> Is this the sort of thing? Is this a start of a route from modernism to
> postmodernism?
>
> Back to your post...
> > >I look forward to learning!
> > Oh - your a modernist then... using _..._ means that the sentence is
> > incomplete .... maybe incompleteable?
>
> Postmodernists don't look forward to learning? Or don't learn? Or have
> already learned enough (enough according to postmodernism, I would
> assume)?
Read it again, perhaps when you're insane in your membrane.
> > James Whitehead
>
> Thank you James! I am more intrigued than ever.
>
> Simon
Giles
> In article <8okar5$rp7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ale...@my-deja.com
> says...
>> In article <B5D315C3.F3AB%u...@removethisredhotant.com>,
>> Giles <u...@removethisredhotant.com> wrote:
>>> Simon Best wrote:
>>>
>>>> ale...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> Yup, you might also want to read Lyotard's _Postmodern Condition_; Michel
>>>>> Foucault's _Power/Knowledge_; Linda Nicholson(ed) _Feminism/
>>>>> Postmodernism_.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, I think a trip to Charring Cross Road is called for...
>>>>
>>>> Simon
>>>
>>> While you are there, you might also try two very different books with
>>> similar titles.
>>>
>>> Christopher Norris, What's Wrong with Postmodernism. (No question mark)
>>> Terry Eagleton, The Illusions of Postmodernism.
>>>
>>> I suggest these with strictly pluralist motives, of course.
>>>
>>> Giles
>>>
>> [mock alarm] a heretic! a saboteur of the great postmodern thinking
>> machine! quick, where's the pomo squad with their trusty laser guns?
>
> Buying cocktail dresses.
Damn, and there I was all ready to be excommunicated at the very least.
Still, at least the crowd will look good around my stake. Is there a free
bar?
Giles
Marcin Tustin
> What I'm wondering now is if postmodernism is a sort of antithesis to
> the thesis of modernism... I know there was some philosopher who
> observed a pattern in the history of philosophy, something along the
> lines of 'thesis - antithesis - ???????' (can't remember what the third
> thing is called, but it's something to do with resolving the thesis and
> antithesis). The ??????? then goes on to become the new thesis... and
> so on. Can't remember which philosopher it was who made this
> observation or gave this description of philosophy...
Hegel-synthesis. Please go back to school and learn why I
don't care if God exists.
Giles
> Giles wrote:
>>
>> Heraclitus wasn't a sophist. Just a century or so earlier. I would be
>> surprised if any author claimed him as postmodern, as he is often taken as
>> an anticipation of Hegel. But Hegel takes Heraclitus as a stage to be worked
>> past. For Hegel on Heraclitus, try sections 88 of Hegel's 'Logic'
>
> Thanks! I was thinking of Protagoras, but the following has intrigued
> me...
>
>> Hegel on Zeno, from section 89:
>> "Whenever such contradiction, then, is discovered in any object or notion,
>> the usual inference is, *Hence* this object is *nothing*. Thus Zeno, who
>> first showed the contradiction native to motion, concluded that there is no
>> motion".
>>
>> I.e. One of Zeno's paradoxes. The arrow which always has to travel half the
>> distance left to the target and thus can never arrive.
>
> I'm familiar with Zeno when it comes to the notion of countable
> infinities, but I'd never thought about this being a demonstration of
> how a rational contradiction doesn't necessarily prove nonexistence of
> something... Perhaps that's not what you meant, but it just struck me.
>
> Simon
That is more or less what was meant in that bit, although it is also
possible that the something is contradictory, so that rational contradiction
might approximate the actual condition of the thing.
My prescription... read Hegel, 'Phenomology of Spirit' wouldn't be bad, and
Marx - make a start on Capital. Oh and Theodor Adorno, for the absolute
importance of rational contradiction for apprehending the contradiction in
rationality - 'Dialectic of Enlightenment' would be my recommendation.
Sorry, my last couple of posts have been reading lists, but if you will ask
these questions...
Giles
ale...@my-deja.com
> If it's all in my head, why do I have to repeat it to you?
>
That's because you've been talking aloud to yourself. Again. ;-)
>
Ned:
> Why can't pomo produce a person (a NEW person - a NEW kind of
> philosopher) who can discuss pomo without throwing books at other
> people and just answer the questions and discuss the topic?
Joyce:
Because the pomo who was talking has this thing called a conscious
position of self-reflexivity going on which constantly reminds him/her
that s/he is not the absolute authority on anything, therefore a wider
range of references is needed. Anyway, it'd be pretty fluffy to give out
a whole spiel of soap suds without acknowledging the soap brand(s),
right?
Ned:
> It's all well and good to give a reading list (and appropriate for
> an exchange on the net), but when someone says a sentence about, say,
> deconstructionism, and another person says, "No that's not right"
> and shoves a reading list at them without even offering one SENTENCE
> of why the first person's idea of deconstruction was incorrect,
> then, in my opinion, that second person is full of beans, and has
> wasted the bandwidth they used for their message.
Joyce:
Oh I see. It's all about being "nice", eh? Alright, next time some
hardcore modernists pop up, I'll just smile sweetly as say: "Geez, you
have some really _interesting_ ideas. What happened in your childhood
which made you think like that?" and offer them choc chip cookies? Nah.
In the usenet, like anywhere else, it's all about the contestation for
the dominaion of ideologies. So why pretend? [resume nail sharpening]
>
Ned:
> Yes, nothing changes. Nothing ever changes.
>
> Ned
Joyce:
It depends on the subjective interpretation of the definition of the word
"change", which is influenced by culture, politics, religion, society,
and faeries.
Giles
> <ale...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8okprd$cns$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
[...]
> Ned:
>> Oh, man, you could have really run with that one, Joyce. You could
>> have been a CONTENDER! And what do you do? - you throw a book at
>> somebody!
>
> Joyce:
>> Ned, I've tried dialogues with you, but they've always fade out into
>> some corners of oblivion.... Now, with books, you might start to de-
>> programme some of those systems of thinking which has been clogging
>> for goddess knows how long.... Or maybe just a good bang on the head
>> with something hard.... Want me to help???
>>
>
> Why can't pomo produce a person (a NEW person - a NEW kind of
> philosopher) who can discuss pomo without throwing books at other
> people and just answer the questions and discuss the topic?
>
> It's all well and good to give a reading list (and appropriate for
> an exchange on the net), but when someone says a sentence about, say,
> deconstructionism, and another person says, "No that's not right"
> and shoves a reading list at them without even offering one SENTENCE
> of why the first person's idea of deconstruction was incorrect,
> then, in my opinion, that second person is full of beans, and has
> wasted the bandwidth they used for their message.
What, even if the first person then reads the books? Even if reading the
books is going to give the person a far far better idea of why they were
wrong, if indeed they were, than any soundbite could?
I agree with you that such a response is pretty crap if it happens in an
argument about what the books might mean, or discussion between two people
about their own ideas, arguments or values, or in a discussion about such
and such an argument of X's if one person has espoused and supported it. But
if the first person asks something like, say, 'what is deconstruction? Is
it...?', what kind of reply are you looking for? Say deconstruction is
found in the writings of X and Y. Should the second person spend ages
producing an inadequate reduction of a process of reading to a few glib
conclusions? Does that help the first person? For example, perhaps the one
sentence could go 'Deconstruction involves paying very close attention to
the text, not to what it is presumed to say'. There, did that help? In that
case, I think person two saying 'No, but here is where you can find out' is
of more use. Not that any of this necessarily has anything to do with your
argument with Joyce, but you'd got a bit broader in aim. And then, as Joyce
has pointed out, I'm a heretic.
Oh and by the way, 'full of beans' where I come from means full of life and
energy. Odd, but true.
>>> Well, obviously, SOME THINGS never change, even in pomo.
>>
>> And some people are always the same, go figure ;-)
>>
>
> Yes, nothing changes. Nothing ever changes.
On that I'm with you, right down to the fury.
> Ned
Giles
ale...@my-deja.com
> Which goddess are we talking about here? are we talking
> Goddess,
No one in particular. I was invoking any who's available at the time.
Devotion must give way to practical convenience.
in which case I'll have to throw assorted vegetable
> matter over your green-freak primitive-ass ritual-to-make-the-sun-
> rise playing field,
Or frolicking in the bushes crooning to the light of the moon....
or Eris, in which case maybe we can grab a
> hotdog (and maybe catch a movie (i'll bring nets for both of us))?
Cool. And I'll bring my boomerang!
> --
> Humanity will not be happy until the day when the
> last bureaucrat has been hanged with the guts of
> the last capitalist.
>
> Marcin Tustin
> PGP Key at http://www.anarchist99.freeserve.co.uk/marcintustin.txt
> Mar...@mindless.REMOVEGOATS&OATS.com
> Marcint@^^refreshmagazine.com.nomail
>
> KeyID 0x86D72550
> Fingerprint DDD9 FB07 4C2F 9A79 C860 C391 D672 364C 86D7 2550
>
ale...@my-deja.com
> Thanks! Deconstruction sounds a little bit like what Socrates did when
> getting people wound up, except that Socrates was in pursuit of certain
> knowledge, while deconstruction seeks to demonstrate lack of
> objectivity. Another distinction seems to be that Socrates was taking
> language to be transparent, seeking to address the things that language
> was supposed to be referring to, while deconstruction deals with the
> language and meaning...
yeah, I think Socrates was a little early for decon....
>
Simon:
> Maybe Freud just drew people's attention to rationalisation, or gave
> some sort of psychological explanation for it, or something...
>
> I can see rationalisation being a significant thing behind capitalism.
> For example, a capitalist mantra that irks me is 'A business is there to
> make money.', usually with the point being that it's not there for
> anything else (unless such things are merely subservient to the pursuit
> of money). Yet there are rationalisations of this apparent greed, like
> 'it creates jobs', 'it raises the standard of living', 'it is the
> application of greed to the pursuit of betterment for all', etc. (I'm
> not much of a capitalist!)
Well, it's also has to do with the notion of institutions within western
tradition and society as based and founded on rationality... sort of a
closed ciruit reasoning.
>
Simon:
> I was being a bit obscure! There are a few bookshops there, the one I'm
> thinking of being Foyle's. I've no idea how well known Foyle's is
> outside of the UK, so I'll just say that it's a nice, big bookshop with
> all sorts of books on all sorts of subjects, at all sorts of levels.
> It's in London.
>
> Simon
>
> --
Bookshops with multilevels??? I feel deprived....
Joyce
_________________________________________________________________________
______
> Personal: bars...@earthling.net
> Yellow Skies: si...@yellowskies.com http://www.yellowskies.com
> Everyone does their own signature to be different. How does that work?
>
ale...@my-deja.com
objectivists/anti-pomos/whatnots are still entrapped in....
Joyce
G*rd*n
| >| >Eh? Einstein proved (modernistically) that it's a mistake to try to
| >| >gain objectivity by distancing oneself? You're not misunderstanding
| >| >Einstein's theories of relativity, are you?
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
| >| I could be - but each system has its own frame of reference - and no
| >| system is special - so where's the objectivity. (AE gave an example
| >| where two events could be interpreted as occurring in different
| >| sequences to two observers - )
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> writes
| >Part of Einstein's work was to show that measurements of one
| >frame of reference could be translated reliably into another
| >frame of reference. In other words, the two frames of reference
| >could be said to co-exist in some higher frame of reference
| >(with more dimensions). In effect, Einstein took a step away
| >-- distanced himself -- from the Newtonian system and was
| >thereby able to preserve a model of the universe which, in
| >spite of containing different frames of reference, was still
| >coherent and possibly deterministic.
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
| so how come I read this paradox of the two observers - your saying one
| is wrong? "The temporal order of two events may seem different to
| different observers according to their state of motion"?
It's not a paradox. Einstein showed that the measurements
made by one observer could be translated into the
measurements made by the other observer in a logical and
orderly manner. The mathematics (tensor analysis) is
difficult, but the difficulty may be a feature of the way
human beings deal with such problems. In effect, Einstein
salvaged Newtonian physics using classical methods.
Simon Best
>
> Simon Best <bars...@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:39AE6232...@earthling.net...
> Simon:
> > I think it's this thing of pomo books that gave me the impression
> > that postmodernism was, among other things, current philosophy.
> > What I'm wondering now is if postmodernism is a sort of antithesis
> > to the thesis of modernism... I know there was some philosopher
> > who observed a pattern in the history of philosophy, something
> > along the lines of 'thesis - antithesis - ???????' (can't remember
> > what the third thing is called, but it's something to do with
> > resolving the thesis and antithesis). The ??????? then goes on
> > to become the new thesis... and so on. Can't remember which
> > philosopher it was who made this observation or gave this
> > description of philosophy...
> >
>
> Synthesis. Hegel. Some people have been talking about that.
> The 'breakout' usually occurs by creating another dimension to
> the problem, and traveling along that new route, which is
> independent of either the thesis or antithesis.
Ahhh! Thanks! Synthesis, yes, that's it!
> > Anyway, what do you reckon, Ned?
> >
>
> Beats me. I'm just waiting for all the pomos to get bored
> and do something weird.
>
> Ned
So you won't be synthesising anytime soon, then.
Simon
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Simon Best
>
> > What I'm wondering now is if postmodernism is a sort of antithesis to
> > the thesis of modernism... I know there was some philosopher who
> > observed a pattern in the history of philosophy, something along the
> > lines of 'thesis - antithesis - ???????' (can't remember what the third
> > thing is called, but it's something to do with resolving the thesis and
> > antithesis). The ??????? then goes on to become the new thesis... and
> > so on. Can't remember which philosopher it was who made this
> > observation or gave this description of philosophy...
>
> Hegel-synthesis.
Thanks...
> Please go back to school and learn why I
> don't care if God exists.
Eh?
Simon Best
How is that activity dead, complete, finished? Don't tell me, if I read
the books given in the reading lists I'll find out...
Is postmodernism exclusive of local philosophy (local as in not
universal)? Or is 'local philosophy' taken to be a contradiction in
terms, given the usual notion that philosophy is the search for certain
knowledge?
Simon Best
>
> Ned:
> > Why can't pomo produce a person (a NEW person - a NEW kind of
> > philosopher) who can discuss pomo without throwing books at other
> > people and just answer the questions and discuss the topic?
>
> Joyce:
> Because the pomo who was talking has this thing called a conscious
> position of self-reflexivity going on which constantly reminds him/her
> that s/he is not the absolute authority on anything, therefore a wider
> range of references is needed. Anyway, it'd be pretty fluffy to give out
> a whole spiel of soap suds without acknowledging the soap brand(s),
> right?
Sounds sensible. Not a bad thing that I'm seeking to find out more
about postmodernism from more than one source?
> Ned:
> > It's all well and good to give a reading list (and appropriate for
> > an exchange on the net), but when someone says a sentence about, say,
> > deconstructionism, and another person says, "No that's not right"
> > and shoves a reading list at them without even offering one SENTENCE
> > of why the first person's idea of deconstruction was incorrect,
> > then, in my opinion, that second person is full of beans, and has
> > wasted the bandwidth they used for their message.
>
> Joyce:
> Oh I see. It's all about being "nice", eh? Alright, next time some
> hardcore modernists pop up, I'll just smile sweetly as say: "Geez, you
> have some really _interesting_ ideas. What happened in your childhood
> which made you think like that?" and offer them choc chip cookies? Nah.
> In the usenet, like anywhere else, it's all about the contestation for
> the dominaion of ideologies. So why pretend? [resume nail sharpening]
It seems to me that it would be a bit silly to expect someone to present
their views according to others' standards where they already oppose
those standards...
Just my thought!
Simon Best
>
> Simon:
> > Maybe Freud just drew people's attention to rationalisation, or gave
> > some sort of psychological explanation for it, or something...
> >
> > I can see rationalisation being a significant thing behind capitalism.
> > For example, a capitalist mantra that irks me is 'A business is there to
> > make money.', usually with the point being that it's not there for
> > anything else (unless such things are merely subservient to the pursuit
> > of money). Yet there are rationalisations of this apparent greed, like
> > 'it creates jobs', 'it raises the standard of living', 'it is the
> > application of greed to the pursuit of betterment for all', etc. (I'm
> > not much of a capitalist!)
>
> Well, it's also has to do with the notion of institutions within western
> tradition and society as based and founded on rationality... sort of a
> closed ciruit reasoning.
Ah! I think I see... Tautology abounds? During the course of my life
so far, I've noticed people rationalising tautologically. I've become
aware of grand tautologies, where taking things in a particular
rationalist context is justified according to that particular
rationalism (hence rendering it a magnificent rationalisation). It
seems, to me, most apparent in bigotry (a bit like a conservative right
wing politician insisting that homosexuality is wrong, that this is
obvious because it's disgusting, that what is disgusting is obviously
morally wrong, that this is obvious because disgust tells us that things
are morally wrong...). But I can see it on far grander scales (like the
value of money?)...
> Bookshops with multilevels??? I feel deprived....
>
> Joyce
Multilevels in more than one way! It's got several floors (not a very
interesting thing, I suppose, except it means plenty of room for lots of
different books), and it's got all kinds of books, like school books,
popular fiction, silly books, academic books, specialist books,
reference books, books about books...
Simon
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Simon Best
>
> so how come I read this paradox of the two observers - your saying one
> is wrong? "The temporal order of two events may seem different to
> different observers according to their state of motion"?
>
> --
> James Whitehead
Each observer's observations are subjective. The 'incompatibility'
between their observations is really some kind of reflection of their
motions relative to each other, their different frames of reference.
Using Einstein's framework, objectivity is restored. Taking one
observer's observation in that observer's frame of reference, and taking
the other observer's observation in that other frame of reference, you
end up with both observers observing the same thing in equivalent ways.
The paradoxes only stay as paradoxes if you try to convert relativity
back into something Newtonian, such as trying to work out which observed
event 'really' happened first.
For example, an extremely fast train passes a station, where the
platform is the same length as the train when the train's stationary.
As the train's moving at a large fraction of the speed of light relative
to the platform, a trainspotter (with fantastic trainspotting abilities)
notices that the train is shorter than the station. So, the back end of
the train passes its end of the platform before the front end of the
train passes the other end of the platform.
To someone on the train, the platform's passing by at great speed, and
is shorter than the train (the opposite of what the trainspotter
observed). To this passenger, the front of the train passes its end of
the platform first instead.
Most people have great difficulty that both observers are correct, even
with this idea of their observations needing to be taken in the contexts
of their own frames of reference. This is the difficulty you seem to be
experiencing? If you like, I'll do some diagrams to illustrate how
Special Relativity deals with such things (as it's so much easier with
some simple graphs!)...
Simon Best
> > A binary opposite? Surely not as in 'every "yes" becomes "no" and vice
> > versa'? I must've got that wrong.
>
> Consider rather a bitwise complement performed on korean
> hardware designed by the brightest stars of an international
> generation to be cheaper and less cheerful than anything ever
> before, built in Northeast England, or perhaps declined industrial
> Spain.
Eh?
> Ah, so young and so talented....Hey, this is my real beard,
> he must have your fake beard. This glue is because I'm so old it
> falls out, and doesn't grow back. But the secret of my youthful
> complexion? I use ass-in-halls-of-academia.
Eh?
> Read it again, perhaps when you're insane in your membrane.
Eh?...
Simon Best
> >
> > I don't think I'm particularly lured by postmodernism, the lure
> > is more of an angst, and I think postmodernists may say that my
> > angst is symptomatic of me being in the postmodern state?
> >
>
> I don't know what psychoses have been added to the pot specifically
> by postmodernism.
>
> Ned
Euh, sorry, I worded it really badly. I meant 'symptomatic of me being
in the postmodern state' as 'as a consequence of modernism' (postmodern
in that sense) rather than 'as a consequence of postmodernism'. Seems
I've misunderstood what's usually meant by 'postmodern state'?
Simon Best
>
> In article <39AE6A14...@earthling.net>, Simon Best
> <bars...@earthling.net> writes
> >I don't think I'm particularly lured by postmodernism, the lure is more
> >of an angst, and I think postmodernists may say that my angst is
> >symptomatic of me being in the postmodern state?
> will see post-modernity all around you- maybe you could move to Siberia
> but i suspect even there you will find an Internet cafe.
No, I never meant it like that. The idea that I could choose whether or
not the world has postmodernism is absurd! I meant I wasn't
particularly lured towards taking postmodernist views on things, but
that my seeking to find out about postmodernism was driven by an angst.
> (There is an
> irony in writing Synthesis as ??????? which makes me wonder ... Baa Baa
> Baa ? )
> --
> James Whitehead
I can see a trivial irony there, too, but I wouldn't be surprised if
we're seeing different ironies... The 'Baa Baa Baa' suggests sheep...
Are you trying to tell me something?...
Simon Best
>
> In article <39AE6A14...@earthling.net>,
> bars...@earthling.net says...
>
> > I don't think I'm particularly lured by postmodernism, the lure is more
> > of an angst, and I think postmodernists may say that my angst is
> > symptomatic of me being in the postmodern state?
>
> No it's symptomatic of the fact that you have only been
> running since february. Incidentally, who is responsible for you,
> and how did they manage it? Very nice, I must say, I've had some
> thoughts along these lines.
Eh? You've completely lost me...