Post-modernism for beginers
Hadi Kashef
Would it be possible to tell me how I can start studying about Postmodernism (philosophy)
best regards
Hadi
James Whitehead
<era...@era.ericsson.se> writes
"a site for sore 'i's" (t.m.)
--
James Whitehead
ale...@my-deja.com
That's such a cool way to introduce postmodernism! Is it your "voice"???
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
James Whitehead
- its a computer program - (is it then a voice?)
--
James Whitehead
ale...@my-deja.com
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <94rhtc$b22$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ale...@my-deja.com writes
> >In article <YGwxXCAY...@jliat.demon.co.uk>,
> > James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <3A70187F...@era.ericsson.se>, Hadi Kashef
> >> <era...@era.ericsson.se> writes
> >> >Hello folks!
> >> >
> >> >Would it be possible to tell me how I can start studying about
> >Postmodernism
> >> >(philosophy)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >best regards
> >> >Hadi
> >> >
> >> If you have MP3 then try www.jameswhitehead.org
> >> "a site for sore 'i's" (t.m.)
> >> --
> >> James Whitehead
> >
> >That's such a cool way to introduce postmodernism! Is it
your "voice"???
> >>
>
> - its a computer program - (is it then a voice?)
> --
> James Whitehead
It's a cyborg!
MrGoodSalt
> Hello folks!
> Would it be possible to tell me how I can start studying about Postmodernism
(philosophy)
The following books may be of interest:
"The Universe Next Door" by Sire - Overviews major world views based on how
they answer 7 ultimate questions. Includes postmodernism.
"A Primer On Postmodernism" by Grenz - Overviews postmodernism itself.
"The Death of Truth" by McCallum - Describes what is wrong with postmodernism
from a Christian perspective.
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." JOHN 8:32
Good Christian books listed and described at:
http://www.hometown.aol.com/mrgoodsalt/index.htm
nasrudin
hadi kashef
<hadi....@era.ericsson.se> writes
>Hi James!
>Thanks a lot. I found it very usefull.
>I was wondering if there is some aritcel which describe the postmodernism
>for beginners.
>
>Regards
>Hadi
The mp3s are an attempt at a post-modern opera - and should be seen as
ironic, the real problem you face is that post-modernism avoids simple
descriptions, and meanings - these being more "modern". I would suggest
you try the "For Beginners Books" Postmodernism for Beginners ISBN
0-86316-188-x and "Introducing Postmodernism" This will give you an
overview and provide bibliographies for further reading.
For me however the newsgroup itself is perhaps the most authentic place
to witness post-modernity occurring.
In you question - a wish for a description- is the modernist idea of
category, which PO-MO rejects, descriptions of people can provide ideas
such as "woman" "worker" "Negro" in which individuals are categorized
and exploited. Also the idea of a "beginner" - can you think about what
that entails, and why we use the term.... (are we implicitly accepting a
modernist hierarchical model of knowledge?)
best wishes
--
James Whitehead
ale...@my-deja.com
"hadi kashef" <hadi....@era.ericsson.se> wrote:
> In message <004e01c087f2$6fbf0940$9a15fea9@e00d059160502>, Hadi Kashef
> <hadi....@era.ericsson.se> writes
> >Hi James!
> >Thanks a lot. I found it very usefull.
> >I was wondering if there is some aritcel which describe the
postmodernism
> >for beginners.
> >
> >Regards
> >Hadi
> The mp3s are an attempt at a post-modern opera - and should be seen as
> ironic, the real problem you face is that post-modernism avoids simple
> descriptions, and meanings - these being more "modern".
I think that the reluctance by postmodernism to give 123 explantion is
precisely the sort of foundation laying, The Grounding Principles
exercise which modernity is so fond of (eg. dictionaries and
encyclopedias). The "meaning" of postmodernism depends on which quarter
of resource you seek to.
Though, if you really want, here's a list:
_Postmodernism: A Reader_. ed. Patricia Waugh, London: Edward Arnold,
1992. [focuses mainly on literary postmodernism, including a list
of "big guns" such as Jameson, Foucault, Lyotard, Sontag, Rorty,
Hutcheon, with Habermas as the gatecrasher of this pomo tea party]
Lyotard's _The Postmodern Condition_ (1985) is also pretty cool once
you get used to his style of writing.
There was a way-cool picture book about postmodernism I'd read years
ago but fail to recall. I'll keep you updated.
k.i.s.s [keep it simple, stupid] of the panoptican is an excellent
website for those tricky pomo terminologies and bios for theorists
http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/panop/home.htm
And just for fun, Don de Lillo's novel, _White Noise_, as an example
of "postmodern fiction". Donna Tartt's _The Secret History_ is also
highly enjoyable.
For a more "scientific" bend, look up Paul K. Feyerabend's _Against
Method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge_ (1975). He's a
bit confusing when talking about "anything goes", yet advocates for
progress and humanity, but pretty cool stuff anyway.
And ofcourse, it wouldn't do to leave out the postmodern feminists.
_Feminist Literary Theory: A Reader_, (1996) ed by Mary Eagleton (make
sure you get the 2nd edition) has a great section of articles by
postmodern feminist theorists.
Ofcourse, this is by no means definitive. The Internet has swarms of
sites devoted to postmodern theories, and often you'll find books on
the subject in the cultural studies/philosophy section of the
bookshops. If not, harass them ;)
best regards,
Joyce
I would suggest
> you try the "For Beginners Books" Postmodernism for Beginners ISBN
> 0-86316-188-x and "Introducing Postmodernism" This will give you an
> overview and provide bibliographies for further reading.
>
> For me however the newsgroup itself is perhaps the most authentic
place
> to witness post-modernity occurring.
>
Great, now you've bestowed upon the ng the burden of authenticity ;)
> In you question - a wish for a description- is the modernist idea of
> category, which PO-MO rejects, descriptions of people can provide
ideas
> such as "woman" "worker" "Negro" in which individuals are categorized
> and exploited. Also the idea of a "beginner" - can you think about
what
> that entails, and why we use the term.... (are we implicitly
accepting a
> modernist hierarchical model of knowledge?)
>
> best wishes
> --
> James Whitehead
>
>
James Whitehead
the approach to post-modernity should be the same as the approach to
modernity, that is the idea of depth - the depth of questioning in
modernism - could we contrast that which the lack of depth in post-
modernity, remember Steven Hawkings appearing on the Simpsons?
I've said this before - but isnt *the book* as mass produced printed
object suspect, why is it that all truths come in at between 200 and
1000 pages - with a mean at about 300?
Of course Joyce the one thing we lack here is authenticity...
(def. genuine - or real / pure) :=/
--
James Whitehead
ale...@my-deja.com
illusion, then so is depth". One thing which strikes me is the frequent
usage of listing in articles which attempts to describe/introduce
postmodernism.
> I've said this before - but isnt *the book* as mass produced printed
> object suspect, why is it that all truths come in at between 200 and
> 1000 pages - with a mean at about 300?
Hey, if reading a book smokes your tire, spank your monkey, and floats
your boat, why not?! besides, if I recall correctly, Michel Foucault
and the likes published their works in... books....
Perhaps what we need is the re-realisation and re-interpretation of
books as only one of the many source of information (rather than
knowledge). I am dreaming of the ability to download and swap books on
Napster ;)
>
> Of course Joyce the one thing we lack here is authenticity...
> (def. genuine - or real / pure) :=/
> --
I quite like the idea of "authenticity" and alt.postmodern, in the
sense that we pomos seem to be a minority among these philosophy
branches, hence the demand for some essential speaking position, as a
strategic political stance against the homogenisation of old school
western philosophy. That is, if one can blissfully ignore the
problematic (such as exclusionism, elitism, and, well, essentialism
itself).
Joyce (in a desperate attempt to revive alt.postmodern, whose fondness
for the group is of genuine ;)
Ned Ludd
>
> I quite like the idea of "authenticity" and alt.postmodern, in the
> sense that we pomos seem to be a minority among these philosophy
> branches, hence the demand for some essential speaking position, as a
> strategic political stance against the homogenisation of old school
> western philosophy. That is, if one can blissfully ignore the
> problematic (such as exclusionism, elitism, and, well, essentialism
> itself).
> Joyce (in a desperate attempt to revive alt.postmodern, whose fondness
> for the group is of genuine ;)
>
When postmodernism dies, how will we know it?
Ned
H. Curtiss Leung
>
>I quite like the idea of "authenticity" and alt.postmodern, in the
>sense that we pomos seem to be a minority among these philosophy
>branches, hence the demand for some essential speaking position, as a
>strategic political stance against the homogenisation of old school
>western philosophy. That is, if one can blissfully ignore the
>problematic (such as exclusionism, elitism, and, well, essentialism
>itself).
>
Just a few thoughts:
(1) As far as the French thinkers lumped together as postmodernists go,
couldn't they also be called post-Heideggerian or post-Nietzschean? I
once witnessed a violent argument over whether Foucault was a
postmodernist or a modernist. OTOH, neither part could deny the influence
of Heidegger and Nietzsche on his work.
(2) I'm curious to know what those who post that "postmodernism is sophistry"
would say to the proposition that Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom were
postmodernists _par excellence_ (albeit Right, not Left, post-Heideggerians)?
(3) The equation
"postmodernism = antifoundationism"
is often given in lieu of a definition. But Hegel could be called an
antifoundationist, as could certain analytic philosophers (Quine?).
Wouldn't it be better to say
"postmodernism = antifoundationism + ..."
instead?
(4) For anyone interesting in seeing the notion of "authenticity" given a
good trashing from a modernism/Marxian viewpoint might want to check out
Adorno's attack on Heidegger*, _The Jargon of Authenticity_. It contains
some especially vicious and funny passages.
--
Curtiss, sympathetic modernist
(*) OK, _The Jargon of Authenticity_ isn't really an attack on Heidegger but
rather the ideology (meaning obsfucations of the social/economic conditions
prevailing) and ideological terms that preceded Heidegger's early works.
But Adorno does take on Heidegger as the philosophical appearance of
the jargon.
Fong
>
> "postmodernism = antifoundationism"
>
> is often given in lieu of a definition. But Hegel could be called an
> antifoundationist, as could certain analytic philosophers (Quine?).
> Wouldn't it be better to say
>
> "postmodernism = antifoundationism + ..."
> instead?
I don't think Hegel can be called an antifoundationalist. Given his movement
from subjective idealism to absolute absolutism based on a linguistic
relationship between the universal and the particular (or in more
contemporary jargon, signfier and signified) which in turn finds its
articulation in Saussure. Hegel, in my opinion, gave the last true, and most
radical expression of logocentric philosophy. He reached the top of the
mountain of modernity, and if he proceeded in any direction, he would go
down. He had to make that leap from the peak to the heavens above, and
that's a leap he took.
But you're right in saying that postmodernism is not equatable to
antifoundationalism. Postmodernism = *<a dynamic theoretical matrix that
serves to unravel and unpoliticize uhm, stuff. Which I why, as much as I
consider myself postmodern, I recognize it to be potentially pernicious as
well>
* an inaccurate but necessary description.
> Curtiss, sympathetic modernist
Fong, cautious postmodernist.
H. Curtiss Leung
>
> <my stuff snipped>
>
>I don't think Hegel can be called an antifoundationalist. Given his movement
>from subjective idealism to absolute absolutism based on a linguistic
>relationship between the universal and the particular (or in more
>contemporary jargon, signfier and signified) which in turn finds its
>articulation in Saussure.
I'll agree there's a movement between the universal in the particular in
Hegel (as well as between subject and object, being-for-itself and
being-for-another, and others I'm sure) but as I (mis?)understand Hegel,
neither side of these dialectical opposites forms the ground for the other.
Hegel wants to *get to* his absolute subject and absolute knowledge, he
proceeds there by showing that any grounds or starting point for
philosophy is 'mediated,' i.e., any candidate for a starting point
has constituent parts. And for my money, saying there's no grounds is as
good as being an antifoundationalist.
Now, I suppose one can say that he's stil a foundationalist in that he takes
these categories as given (even though they can be shown to be mediated)
and as standing in dialectical relationship to each other, i.e., dialectical
philosophy doesn't have a ground but does have a method and is foundational
in that the method goes without being interrogated.
>Hegel, in my opinion, gave the last true, and most
>radical expression of logocentric philosophy. He reached the top of the
>mountain of modernity, and if he proceeded in any direction, he would go
>down. He had to make that leap from the peak to the heavens above, and
>that's a leap he took.
>
!!!! I like it!
>But you're right in saying that postmodernism is not equatable to
>antifoundationalism. Postmodernism = *<a dynamic theoretical matrix that
>serves to unravel and unpoliticize uhm, stuff. Which I why, as much as I
>consider myself postmodern, I recognize it to be potentially pernicious as
>well>
>
>* an inaccurate but necessary description.
>
>> Curtiss, sympathetic modernist
>
>Fong, cautious postmodernist.
Modernist or postmodernist, "Let's be careful out there."
--
Curtiss, in solidarity
ale...@my-deja.com
Ned Ludd
>>> Joyce (in a desperate attempt to revive alt.postmodern, whose
>>> fondness for the group is of genuine ;)
>> When postmodernism dies, how will we know it?
> [sob] When they ban scooters in Melb CBD.
>
The bastards. Have they no heart at all?
What's the healthiest sign that postmodernism is alive and well?
Ned
Hyperrealist
> Though, if you really want, here's a list:
>
How about JG Ballard's "Crash"? with or without Baudrillard's comments
in his essay of the same name. very penetrating novel about cars,
technology, sex, hyperreality.
anyone heard of or read "the princess hoppy" by......(author escapes me
at the moment, but he's French I think)
u...@nadaredhotant.com
> Fong <fon...@mcmaster.ca> wrote:
>>
>> <my stuff snipped>
>>
>> I don't think Hegel can be called an antifoundationalist. Given his movement
>> from subjective idealism to absolute absolutism based on a linguistic
>> relationship between the universal and the particular (or in more
>> contemporary jargon, signfier and signified) which in turn finds its
>> articulation in Saussure.
>
> I'll agree there's a movement between the universal in the particular in
> Hegel (as well as between subject and object, being-for-itself and
> being-for-another, and others I'm sure) but as I (mis?)understand Hegel,
> neither side of these dialectical opposites forms the ground for the other.
> Hegel wants to *get to* his absolute subject and absolute knowledge, he
> proceeds there by showing that any grounds or starting point for
> philosophy is 'mediated,' i.e., any candidate for a starting point
> has constituent parts. And for my money, saying there's no grounds is as
> good as being an antifoundationalist.
>
> Now, I suppose one can say that he's stil a foundationalist in that he takes
> these categories as given (even though they can be shown to be mediated)
> and as standing in dialectical relationship to each other, i.e., dialectical
> philosophy doesn't have a ground but does have a method and is foundational
> in that the method goes without being interrogated.
Except adding the Hegelian claim that the dialectic is not an abstract
method, but is putatively found in its objects, this gets my vote.
> Curtiss, in solidarity
Giles, in passing (away).
ale...@my-deja.com
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> <ale...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:957bf1
$q8k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> >>> Joyce (in a desperate attempt to revive alt.postmodern, whose
> >>> fondness for the group is of genuine ;)
>
> >> When postmodernism dies, how will we know it?
>
> > [sob] When they ban scooters in Melb CBD.
> >
>
> The bastards. Have they no heart at all?
They probably bottled their hearts in pickle jars....
>
> What's the healthiest sign that postmodernism is alive and well?
>
> Ned
[grin]Foucault cross-dressing as Madonna in Sydney's Mardi Gras
parade!!!
ale...@my-deja.com
hn...@panix.com (H. Curtiss Leung) wrote:
> In article <9561o7$kou$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <ale...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >I quite like the idea of "authenticity" and alt.postmodern, in the
> >sense that we pomos seem to be a minority among these philosophy
> >branches, hence the demand for some essential speaking position, as a
> >strategic political stance against the homogenisation of old school
> >western philosophy. That is, if one can blissfully ignore the
> >problematic (such as exclusionism, elitism, and, well, essentialism
> >itself).
> >
>
> Just a few thoughts:
>
> (1) As far as the French thinkers lumped together as postmodernists
go,
> couldn't they also be called post-Heideggerian or post-Nietzschean?
Well, postmodern theorist might derive their theories from Heidegger
and Nietzsche, but I thought it was more of a cultural epoch and
reaction against modernity in general?
I
> once witnessed a violent argument over whether Foucault was a
> postmodernist or a modernist. OTOH, neither part could deny the
influence
> of Heidegger and Nietzsche on his work.
>
Atleast it's better than this debate I had with an anti-pomoist, who
insisted Foucault wrote a poem praising the existence of, um, little
kids.
> (2) I'm curious to know what those who post that "postmodernism is
sophistry"
> would say to the proposition that Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom were
> postmodernists _par excellence_ (albeit Right, not Left, post-
Heideggerians)?
>
Leo Strauss? Allan Bloom? Oh dear, excuse my profound ignorance :(
> (3) The equation
>
> "postmodernism = antifoundationism"
>
> is often given in lieu of a definition. But Hegel could be called an
> antifoundationist, as could certain analytic philosophers (Quine?).
> Wouldn't it be better to say
>
> "postmodernism = antifoundationism + ..."
>
> instead?
how about: "postmodernism = antifoundationalism + (political agency -
collective homogenisation) and multiplied by a good dose of self-
reflexivity?
>
> (4) For anyone interesting in seeing the notion of "authenticity"
given a
> good trashing from a modernism/Marxian viewpoint might want to check
out
> Adorno's attack on Heidegger*, _The Jargon of Authenticity_. It
contains
> some especially vicious and funny passages.
>
> --
> Curtiss, sympathetic modernist
>
> (*) OK, _The Jargon of Authenticity_ isn't really an attack on
Heidegger but
> rather the ideology (meaning obsfucations of the social/economic
conditions
> prevailing) and ideological terms that preceded Heidegger's early
works.
> But Adorno does take on Heidegger as the philosophical appearance of
> the jargon.
>
>
Fong
> I'll agree there's a movement between the universal in the particular in
> Hegel (as well as between subject and object, being-for-itself and
> being-for-another, and others I'm sure) but as I (mis?)understand Hegel,
> neither side of these dialectical opposites forms the ground for the
other.
> Hegel wants to *get to* his absolute subject and absolute knowledge, he
> proceeds there by showing that any grounds or starting point for
> philosophy is 'mediated,' i.e., any candidate for a starting point
> has constituent parts. And for my money, saying there's no grounds is as
> good as being an antifoundationalist.
I see that our claims are actually similar but I think I have to clarify my
position. To my understanding, Hegel posits the entire dialectic to be
fundamental. The interedependent whole is the fundament. That is to say that
neither the universal nor the particular is logically prior to the other,
but rather we encounter them together as one. This is the metaphysical
foundation of Hegel, I think.
Regards,
Fong.
James Whitehead
>Well, postmodern theorist might derive their theories from Heidegger
>and Nietzsche, but I thought it was more of a cultural epoch and
>reaction against modernity in general?
>
>
>how about: "postmodernism = antifoundationalism + (political agency -
>collective homogenisation) and multiplied by a good dose of self-
>reflexivity?
Such definitions only work from a modernist perspective - po-mo is seen
as a critique of modernity from a modern view - moggin was right to
point out the (my) contradiction (Shock horror!) Art was always about
some theory - shared programme - modern art about the nature of art,
with post-modern art (or better post-art *art*) no such hegemony exists.
If modernism sees the possibility of generalisations it will generalise
po-mo - as that which does not generalise. The paradigm shift is from
theory, truth and authenticity.
--
James Whitehead
James Whitehead
>Hey, if reading a book smokes your tire, spank your monkey, and floats
>your boat, why not?! besides, if I recall correctly, Michel Foucault
>and the likes published their works in... books....
And i would take issue with him if he cares to post :-)
Books i think came about around 2000 years ago - before that scrolls and
a cursor was the norm (what comes around goes around) How much these
books are "modern" is questionable - in most cases they were not made
for profit. Only with the printing press could capital be made from
publishing ideas. And the idea of authorship and rights to intellectual
property... I'm not saying books are bad, but they are part of
modernity, not integral to post-modernity. Modernity focuses on theory
and authorship, which is always of book length. OK the expression of po-
mo has appeared in book form, St. Paul did preach in synagogues and
temples....
>
>Perhaps what we need is the re-realisation and re-interpretation of
>books as only one of the many source of information (rather than
>knowledge). I am dreaming of the ability to download and swap books on
>Napster ;)
Or interact with other authors in a network which never sets anything in
stone - not even if you have a cool french name.
>>
>> Of course Joyce the one thing we lack here is authenticity...
>> (def. genuine - or real / pure) :=/
>> --
>I quite like the idea of "authenticity" and alt.postmodern, in the
>sense that we pomos seem to be a minority among these philosophy
>branches, hence the demand for some essential speaking position, as a
>strategic political stance against the homogenisation of old school
>western philosophy. That is, if one can blissfully ignore the
>problematic (such as exclusionism, elitism, and, well, essentialism
>itself).
I prefer to see po-mos as birds in these branches - (not attached at
all) - so lets roost on Nietzche for awhile... then fly somewhere else?
>
>Joyce (in a desperate attempt to revive alt.postmodern, whose fondness
>for the group is of genuine ;)
--
James Whitehead
ale...@my-deja.com
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <9561o7$kou$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ale...@my-deja.com writes
> >Hey, if reading a book smokes your tire, spank your monkey, and
floats
> >your boat, why not?! besides, if I recall correctly, Michel Foucault
> >and the likes published their works in... books....
>
> And i would take issue with him if he cares to post :-)
With the formidable might of your argumentation, I say he wouldn't
dare ;)
> Books i think came about around 2000 years ago - before that scrolls
and
> a cursor was the norm (what comes around goes around) How much these
> books are "modern" is questionable - in most cases they were not made
> for profit. Only with the printing press could capital be made from
> publishing ideas. And the idea of authorship and rights to
intellectual
> property... I'm not saying books are bad, but they are part of
> modernity, not integral to post-modernity.
Hmm, I thought the earliest books made were bible - are bible and
religion part of the modernity epoch, or preceded it?
Modernity focuses on theory
> and authorship, which is always of book length. OK the expression of
po-
> mo has appeared in book form, St. Paul did preach in synagogues and
> temples....
>
For the sake of practicality and common usage of books as means of
information storage and resource, pomos had no choice.
> >
> >Perhaps what we need is the re-realisation and re-interpretation of
> >books as only one of the many source of information (rather than
> >knowledge). I am dreaming of the ability to download and swap books
on
> >Napster ;)
>
> Or interact with other authors in a network which never sets anything
in
> stone - not even if you have a cool french name.
>
> >>
> >> Of course Joyce the one thing we lack here is authenticity...
> >> (def. genuine - or real / pure) :=/
> >> --
> >I quite like the idea of "authenticity" and alt.postmodern, in the
> >sense that we pomos seem to be a minority among these philosophy
> >branches, hence the demand for some essential speaking position, as a
> >strategic political stance against the homogenisation of old school
> >western philosophy. That is, if one can blissfully ignore the
> >problematic (such as exclusionism, elitism, and, well, essentialism
> >itself).
>
> I prefer to see po-mos as birds in these branches - (not attached at
> all) - so lets roost on Nietzche for awhile... then fly somewhere
else?
> >
Sure. If you're able to transform his sentiments about women into a
feminist reading ;)
> >Joyce (in a desperate attempt to revive alt.postmodern, whose
fondness
> >for the group is of genuine ;)
>
> --
> James Whitehead
>
ale...@my-deja.com
Confederacy of Dunces_ by firstname something Toole. It's way cool book
about this obese product of modernity (the name Ignatius J. Reilly is
self-explantory ;) entrapped in 20th century New Orleans.
James Whitehead
>In article <aiTxueAR...@jliat.demon.co.uk>,
> James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <9561o7$kou$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, ale...@my-deja.com writes
>> >Hey, if reading a book smokes your tire, spank your monkey, and
>floats
>> >your boat, why not?! besides, if I recall correctly, Michel Foucault
>> >and the likes published their works in... books....
>>
>> And i would take issue with him if he cares to post :-)
>
>With the formidable might of your argumentation, I say he wouldn't
>dare ;)
(grin)
>
>> Books i think came about around 2000 years ago - before that scrolls
>and
>> a cursor was the norm (what comes around goes around) How much these
>> books are "modern" is questionable - in most cases they were not made
>> for profit. Only with the printing press could capital be made from
>> publishing ideas. And the idea of authorship and rights to
>intellectual
>> property... I'm not saying books are bad, but they are part of
>> modernity, not integral to post-modernity.
>
>Hmm, I thought the earliest books made were bible - are bible and
>religion part of the modernity epoch, or preceded it?
The early bibles were written in book form - a new technology replacing
the scroll, but not part of the modern epoch. Guttenberg's invention of
moveable type occurs just at the right moment for the rise of the modern
epoch - (15th c) or did it help create it? - just as we now have the
Internet.... at the beginning of the post-modern epoch. The modern epoch
brought access to information by commerce - buying a book - buying
education and institutions of the enlightenment, creating the genius,
whereas before such information was kept encoded by the church.
He had a problem with women - catching syphilis on a one night stand
(its rumoured) maybe made him a little bitter... you could regard
Nietzche as the disease of the 19th C (dis ease?)
--
James Whitehead
Ned Ludd
news:6OU5VHAA...@jliat.demon.co.uk...
>
> He had a problem with women - catching syphilis on a one night stand
> (its rumoured) maybe made him a little bitter... you could regard
> Nietzche as the disease of the 19th C (dis ease?)
>
Or, you could view the 19th century as a disease and Nietzsche
as the cure.
Ned
G*rd*n
| > (its rumoured) maybe made him a little bitter... you could regard
| > Nietzche as the disease of the 19th C (dis ease?)
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| Or, you could view the 19th century as a disease and Nietzsche
| as the cure.
Why didn't it work?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 12/21/0 <-adv't
H. Curtiss Leung
>"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
>| Or, you could view the 19th century as a disease and Nietzsche
>| as the cure.
>
>Why didn't it work?
>
It did. But the cure was worse than the disease.
--
Curtiss, who enjoys Nietzsche very much but regards him as
extremely hazardous
James Whitehead
<hn...@panix.com> writes
he be pleased?
--
James Whitehead
H. Curtiss Leung
> <previous posts snipped>
>you treat the great philosopher like a cigarette - ummm! i wonder would
>he be pleased?
As the man himself said on more than one occasion, "What do I matter?"
--
Curtiss, who can't smoke anymore because of asthma
Ned Ludd
news:95a5qf$jn4$1...@panix6.panix.com...
James Whitehead <jl...@jliat.demon.co.uk>:
> He had a problem with women - catching syphilis on a one night stand
> (its rumoured) maybe made him a little bitter... you could regard
> Nietzche as the disease of the 19th C (dis ease?)
Ned:
| Or, you could view the 19th century as a disease and Nietzsche
| as the cure.
G*rd*n:
> Why didn't it work?
>
Compared to what? Things were going in a certain direction, and
how far would things have gone without that particular poison which
FWN poured into the brew?
Curtiss:
> It did. But the cure was worse than the disease.
> --
> Curtiss, who enjoys Nietzsche very much but regards him as
> extremely hazardous
>
No, no. "Medicine and disease subdue each other."
Ned
Hyperrealist
> Which reminds me, everyone must get their hands on a copy of _The
> Confederacy of Dunces_ by firstname something Toole. It's way cool book
> about this obese product of modernity (the name Ignatius J. Reilly is
> self-explantory ;) entrapped in 20th century New Orleans.
excellent book, can't praise too highly.
--
"because where we
think that information
produces meaning, the opposite occurs"
G*rd*n
| >| Or, you could view the 19th century as a disease and Nietzsche
| >| as the cure.
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
| >Why didn't it work?
hn...@panix.com (H. Curtiss Leung):
| It did. But the cure was worse than the disease.
|
| --
| Curtiss, who enjoys Nietzsche very much but regards him as
| extremely hazardous
I once stopped posting on a thread because it had wandered
over into Nietzschean terrain and I was taking the demonic
side. It occurred to me that there are people who could
really be set off by stuff like that. I suppose it's a sort
of compliment.
But then, there are a lot of "worse" things in public
circulation, like the Bible. People seem to develop
something like an immunity or tolerance which enables them
to read such things and, most of the time, not go crazy.
I don't think, though, that we have been cured of the 19th
century. I have been reading Thomas Beer's _The_Mauve_Decade_
-- a cranky, witty, percipient looking-back upon the 1890s
from the point of view of the mid-1920s by a writer at least
temporarily brilliant -- and it appears to me that, the 20th's
sea of blood having receded a bit, the 19th is with us still.
G*rd*n
| > He had a problem with women - catching syphilis on a one night stand
| > (its rumoured) maybe made him a little bitter... you could regard
| > Nietzche as the disease of the 19th C (dis ease?)
Ned:
| | Or, you could view the 19th century as a disease and Nietzsche
| | as the cure.
G*rd*n:
| > Why didn't it work?
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| Compared to what? Things were going in a certain direction, and
| how far would things have gone without that particular poison which
| FWN poured into the brew?
Well, maybe they would have popped from 1914 to 1989, not
with less Nietzsche perhaps, but more.
Curtiss:
| > It did. But the cure was worse than the disease.
| > --
| > Curtiss, who enjoys Nietzsche very much but regards him as
| > extremely hazardous
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
| No, no. "Medicine and disease subdue each other."
He could have said _health_ and disease subdue one another.
Ned Ludd
>
> I don't think, though, that we have been cured of the 19th
> century. I have been reading Thomas Beer's _The_Mauve_Decade_
> -- a cranky, witty, percipient looking-back upon the 1890s
> from the point of view of the mid-1920s by a writer at least
> temporarily brilliant -- and it appears to me that, the 20th's
> sea of blood having receded a bit, the 19th is with us still.
>
There is a beautiful monograph (cranky, witty, percipient),
written in 1933 - but talking about the late 1890's and first
decades of the 20th century, from a Japanese perspective. It
is called "In Praise of Shadows" by Junichiro Tanizaki. He was
outraged and disgusted by almost everything, but especially by
electric lighting at night. Today, the monograph couldn't be
taught, if only for its attitude toward women, but it is very
perceptive of the changes modernism wrought on society.
Ned
Ned Ludd
>
G*rd*n:
>|> Why didn't it work?
>
"Ned Ludd" <ned...@ix.netcom.com>:
>| Compared to what? Things were going in a certain direction, and
>| how far would things have gone without that particular poison which
>| FWN poured into the brew?
>
> Well, maybe they would have popped from 1914 to 1989, not
> with less Nietzsche perhaps, but more.
>
Curtiss:
>|> It did. But the cure was worse than the disease.
>|> --
>|> Curtiss, who enjoys Nietzsche very much but regards him as
>|> extremely hazardous
>
>| No, no. "Medicine and disease subdue each other."
>
> He could have said _health_ and disease subdue one another.
>
No, sometimes poison is the only medicine. A toxin. Nothing
healthy about it. Except the unsure outcome.
(Actually, it was said by a chinaman.)
Ned
Fong
> object suspect, why is it that all truths come in at between 200 and
> 1000 pages - with a mean at about 300?
Because Plato and Aristotle screwed up. If Plato had not felt the need to
objectify his ontology; if Aristotle had not given up on Being; if Aquinas
had not stagnated the categories in his _summa_.
Why do all truths, indeed, Truth, come in between 200 and 1000 pages?
Because Plato and Aristotle screwed up.
Because of the great divide that tore our rationale asunder and plunged our
status of Dasein into mere objectified subject.
Because the little scribbles on a leaf of paper, is itself a leaf of paper
whose relationship between recto and verso have been so determined by
Saussure and 2300+ years of "logical analysis".
Because the relationship is not just between the recto and the verso, but
recto, verso and the leaf itself whose cottony texture is forgotten in our
objectification.
Oy, too many Heidegger lectures.
Oy, Derrida and Levinas tomorrow.
G'night.
Fong.
matisse
ale...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > >
> Sure. If you're able to transform his sentiments about women into a
> feminist reading ;)
>
baurdrillard, -seduction-
ale...@my-deja.com
matisse
marcel duchamp wrote:
> matisse wrote:
> >
> > ale...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3A7B3732...@pathetic.com>,
> > > matisse <mat...@pathetic.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ale...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > Sure. If you're able to transform his sentiments about women into a
> > > > > feminist reading ;)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > baurdrillard, -seduction-
> > > >
> > > NO!!!
> >
> > oh come on, it is such a brilliantly silly book. Besides that, it is loyal
> > to NIetzsche in many ways.
>
> You are brilliantly silly, matisse.
>
> *lick*
>
meow
Ned Ludd
news:3A89DDB8...@pathetic.com...
>
> marcel duchamp wrote:
>
>> matisse wrote:
>>>
>>> ale...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <3A7B3732...@pathetic.com>,
>>>> matisse <mat...@pathetic.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ale...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure. If you're able to transform his sentiments about women
>>>>>> into a feminist reading ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> baurdrillard, -seduction-
>>>>>
>>>> NO!!!
>>>
>>> oh come on, it is such a brilliantly silly book. Besides that,
>>
>> You are brilliantly silly, matisse.
>>
>> *lick*
>
> meow
>
postmodern?
Ned