For DataRat from alt.postmodern (Was:Re: What IS "post-modernism", anyway?)
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
Found this thread in alt.postmodern,
Thought you might find it interesting
> Path:
news3.best.com!news2.best.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshub.northeast.verio.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.temple.edu!tempest.ocis.temple.edu!jcautill
> From: Joseph Cautilli <jcau...@astro.ocis.temple.edu>
> Newsgroups: alt.postmodern
> Subject: Re: What IS "post-modernism", anyway?
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 22:42:09 -0500
> Organization: Temple University
> Lines: 62
> Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.990106...@tempest.ocis.temple.edu>
> References: <764qvu$2n5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
<76bdem$79o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <368A8620...@sprint.ca>
<Pine.OSF.3.96.981230...@tempest.ocis.temple.edu>
<mondrian-311...@sdn-ar-001lanorlp264.dialsprint.net>
<moggin-3112...@user-38ld519.dialup.mindspring.com>
<76ie67$4r$2...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>
<moggin-0201...@209.86.150.26>
<mondrian-020...@sdn-ar-001lanorlp242.dialsprint.net>
<moggin-0601...@user-38ld5go.dialup.mindspring.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: tempest.ocis.temple.edu
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> X-Sender: jcau...@tempest.ocis.temple.edu
> To: Puss in Boots <mog...@mindspring.com>
> In-Reply-To: <moggin-0601...@user-38ld5go.dialup.mindspring.com>
> Xref: news3.best.com alt.postmodern:62485
>
> I think that postmodernity is often defined in terms of the historical
> antecednent to it : modernity. The dominant characteristic of modernity is
> the belief in an absolute, universal truth, the capitalization of which
> implies that in some way we transcend our cultural and historical context.
> The word postmodern was first used in the 1930's by Fredico de Onis (I
> believe a literary critic by trade). To him postmodernismo was used to
> describe as Smart (1993) states "kind of exhausted and mildly conservative
> moderismo." (pp. 18-19). The term became very popular in the 1970s with
> publication from post-structuralist like Jean-Francios Lyotard's book the
> Postmodern Condition. Form this book, Lyotard states that science is not a
> path to "truth but merely a path to discourse." Again his arguement was
> not a new one. This particular arguement drew heavily on the
> realist/antirealist debates at the turn of the century (see some of Quine'
> and the positivist Carnap's exchanges), the unconscious of Freud. Lyotard
> (1984) higlights:
>
> "Scientific knoweldge cannot know and make known that it is the true
> knowledge without resorting to the other, narrative, kind of knowledge,
> which from its point of view is no knoweldge at all. With such recourses
> it would be in the position of presupposing its own validity and would be
> stooping to what it condemns: begging the question, proceeding on
> prejudice. But does it not fall into the same trap by using narrative as
> its authority?" (p. 29)
>
>
> The most critical attack on truth, though came from social scientists
> themselves. Instead of language allowing us to transcend the context (as
> Rationalist like Chomsky would state appealing to an inborne logic/thought
> device called the LAD to show us truth) Skinner defined language as
> relational and as I have argued before reduced science to the behavior of
> the scientist, proned to the same consequnces of any other form of verbal
> behavior. Since all verbal behavior was relational in his account, the
> effect of the verbal community by definition shaped and changed our way of
> seeing the world. He went even further to argue that the language from
> which we discribethe sensation in our body was also trained to us from the
> verbal community and thus for each of us may not be accurate in many cases
> this is what keeps therapist in buisness, helping those in therapy put a
> language to their feelings).So the scientists feelings of "curisoty" to
> explore "male superiority over females in developing autonomy" was
> selected by a history which trained that feeling. As I pointed out before
> this is similar to the work of Wittgenstein, ZVygotsky, Mead, and other
> psychologists. Marxist social scientists questioned if the driving force
> of science was really curiosity or was it a pattern of economic shaping
> from government. Authors like Dave Kipnis to this day, write articles
> demonstrating the government largely funds social science projects to
> manage the poor and those who are sociallly marginal (i.e., addictions
> etc).
>
> In the U.S., we have I believe come a long way from the view of America as
> the great melting pot, where every child can be president.Humanists are
> correct when they argue that postmodernism threatens the basics of rights
> and even self (see Brewster Smith arguement in the American Psychologist
> back in 1993). If the eself is created from language and language is not
> fixed but relational, then the self is created in teh context of social
> relationships. In her article in 1993 in Psychology of Women, titled
> something like Towards a reconcilation of radical behaviorism and femenism
> Ruiz highlights the factors that support this view of the self. well I
> could go on more but I tghink that I am boring others on the list. Sorry.
>
>
> Joe
Regards,
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
Supreme Chief, Gnostic Friends Network
--
Gnostic Friends Network: http://www.enemies.com/
The Gnostic Ring: http://members.tripod.com/~TempleOfGnosis/join.html
The DataRat
Thanx, Max, but the Calvinist Rodent is
very familiar with the tenets of Post-Modernism.
The DataRat
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
Hey DR.
this was was the relavant part, Ithought (from the FAQ)
> 1) What is the author's take on the idea that critical distance and
> the potential for real objectivity are unattainable? This question can
> be seen at work... in Laclau's mapping
> of an "analytic terrain" where the "given" is no longer a viable myth.
> Pejoratively put, this collapse of critical distance is decried as
> "aestheticist" or as aestheticizing ideology in many discussions
> (Norris). The usual implication is that the culprits are decadent,
> apolitical and dangerously irrational...Whereas for many differently oriented
> commentators those same decriers of aestheticism are often themselves
> denounced as totalitarian rationalists, modernists, "mere" moralizers,
> reactionaries and unsophisticated know-nothings (Haraway; Giroux).
Anyway, that's what the "pomos" are "whining" about, as you are fond of
repeating - now, having heard what they believe from the "horse's mouth,"
as it were, I wonder which of these issues (specifically) you take issue
with?
Eagerly awaiting your answer,
Thanks in advance,
Max
The DataRat
"...now, having heard what they believe
from the 'horse's mouth,' as it were..."
Max, you insult the Reformed Rodent by
insinuating that he hadn't read any PoMo
stuff until you posted this !
"I wonder which of these issues (specifically)
you take issue with?"
The ~same~ ones he has publicly taken
issue with previously in these newsgroups !
In the text you quoted- one has to dig through
obscure references, intentionally awkward
phraseology, and convoluted logic to arrive
at what is being said. Bro. Rat particularly
likes PoMo lingo such as "differently oriented
commentators" and "collapse of critical distance".
Sheesh ! Who are they trying to impress ?
( Actually, each other. )
The specific false doctrine here is denial
of the objective. The Calvinist Rodent has
commented on that many times. PoMo's not
only denounce objectivity ( a position with some
degree of validity ), but also objective reality.
Which is to say- external truth independent of
perception.
"Truth" for them is whatever we want to
~believe~ it is. This being the inevitable
consequence of moral relativity leading to
cultural relativity leading to intellectual
relativity. And, intellectual relativity is nothing
else other than fuzzy thinking !
The DataRat
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
> "...now, having heard what they believe
> from the 'horse's mouth,' as it were..."
>
>
> Max, you insult the Reformed Rodent by
> insinuating that he hadn't read any PoMo
> stuff until you posted this !
>
>
Well you talk about the "tenets" of postmodernism as though there were
such a thing - when what it is really all about (as you know) is an end to
the Enlightment idea that there is one story that speaks to and is true
for everyone - so how how could there be any "tenets"? Or "party-line,"
for that matter (as you stated elsewhere)...
Also, you talk about people being "poster children" for "postmodernism."
which supposedly involves people "affirming each other" - but c'mon, that
is ridiculous and you know it. What's to affirm? If anything pomo ideas
seem more nihilistic to me...
Such statements lead me to believe that you had probably never been
exposed to any postmodern theorists or literature, but that you had
probably absorbed a caricature of postmodern thought by osmosis from pop
culture.
>
>
> "I wonder which of these issues (specifically)
> you take issue with?"
>
>
> The ~same~ ones he has publicly taken
> issue with previously in these newsgroups !
And that is a form of ironic critical distancing too, referring to
yourself in the third person - you have a sense of humor, which is why I
keep talking to you.
>
> In the text you quoted- one has to dig through
> obscure references, intentionally awkward
> phraseology, and convoluted logic to arrive
> at what is being said. Bro. Rat particularly
> likes PoMo lingo such as "differently oriented
> commentators" and "collapse of critical distance".
> Sheesh ! Who are they trying to impress ?
> ( Actually, each other. )
Well, these are novel and timely ideas. For example, do you ever think
about how your own views - and the way you phrase things and address
people - might be influenced by your experience of the world as a
Calvinist cop living in Arizona?
What seems right and good to you - capital punishment, for example - might
not seem so great to a black South African Christian, for example, who
very likely grew up see his or her people getting the wrong end of that
particular stick. Y'see what I mean?
That is, I think, the lesson implicit in the quoted questions "critical
distance and the potential for real objectivity are unattainable... the
"given" is no longer a viable myth..."
Because you can't assume that what is a given for you is necessarily going
to be a given for someone else - or that all you have to do is tell them
that God believes the same as you enough times - and they will be won over
to your point of view. Critical thinking doesn't work that way.
>
> The specific false doctrine here is denial
> of the objective. The Calvinist Rodent has
> commented on that many times. PoMo's not
> only denounce objectivity ( a position with some
> degree of validity ),
A position with a LOT of validity!
> but also objective reality.
> Which is to say- external truth independent of
> perception.
Well, look at it this way. If there is an external truth independent of
perception, who has access to it? God? Or you?
I would tend to think that only God is privy to this hypothetical
"objective truth independent of perception," since most obviously, either
everyone - or no-one - on these NGs are. And if everyone is, then there is
no ONE objective truth.
>
> "Truth" for them is whatever we want to
> ~believe~ it is.
Do you not want to believe what you proclaim (rhetorical)? I would imagine
you derive some degree of satisfaction from being on the side of the
angels, and daily doing battle with the demonically influenced...
This being the inevitable
> consequence of moral relativity leading to
> cultural relativity leading to intellectual
> relativity. And, intellectual relativity is nothing
> else other than fuzzy thinking !
<snip>
But with intellectual absolutism comes no thinking at all. Like Nietzsche
said, "power makes stupid." If you are truly going to "be all things to
all people" and spread the gospel, you might actually benefit from taking
some postmodern ideas into account. This ain't Geneva, after all!
The DataRat
"Well you talk about the 'tenets' of
postmodernism as though there were
such a thing - when what it is really all
about (as you know) is an end to the
Enlightment idea that there is one story
that speaks to and is true for everyone..."
Well, Max, that certainly is a "tenet"
of Post-Modernism. Perhaps even the
main one. But, PoMo has other tenets
( albeit they may be derivative ).
"...so how could there be any 'tenets'?
Or 'party-line,' for that matter..."
In theory there ~wouldn't~ be ! THAT is
the hypocrisy of Post-Modernism.
"...but c'mon, that is ridiculous and you know
it. What's to affirm?"
This is going to be a real short conversation,
Max, if you continue to allege that Bro. Rat
intentionally posts ideas he knows to be
"ridiculous".
The affirming being done is of each other
and everything.
"If anything pomo ideas seem more nihilistic
to me..."
Christian commentators ...including The DataRat...
don't view PoMo as full-blown Nihilism. Several
have remarked that the next step after PoMo is
Nihilism, though. ( The Reformed Rodent views
Post-Modernism as pre-Nihilism. )
"Such statements lead me to believe that you
had probably never been exposed to any
postmodern theorists or literature..."
Well, you're wrong again Max.
The DataRat
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
(Re: Postmodern theorists)
>
> The affirming being done is of each other
> and everything.
Really? Derrida agrees w. Lyoptard? Agrees w. Baudrillard?
What are you smoking?
>
>
>
>
> "If anything pomo ideas seem more nihilistic
> to me..."
>
>
> Christian commentators ...including The DataRat...
> don't view PoMo as full-blown Nihilism. Several
> have remarked that the next step after PoMo is
> Nihilism, though. ( The Reformed Rodent views
> Post-Modernism as pre-Nihilism. )
>
Hmmm... that's an interesting observation. Nietzsche talked about that -
how nihilism stood on the threshold of western civilization - that people
had lost faith in the idea of God - there was no one idea that tied it all
together (concepts of divinity) for all the world's peoples. He expressed
this idea poetically as the idea that "God is dead" - thus, people had to
forge their own values in the absence of one over-arching metanarrative.
In similar fashion, Postmodernism states that "the author is dead" - here
is this same idea being applied to literature and ideas, the idea that no
one interpretation of any text speaks to everyone. Luther said much the
same thing "I recognize no fixed standard of interpretation," is what he
said of the Bible.
Isn't Calvin's interpretation just another interpretation, no more or less
valid than Luther's, or Joseph Smith's, or Steve Winter's?
vinc...@my-dejanews.com
en...@enemies.com (Rev. Illuminatus Maximus) wrote:
> In article <PCfm2.787$RK5...@news.rdc1.az.home.com>, "The DataRat"
> <dat...@home.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> (Re: Postmodern theorists)
>
> >
> > The affirming being done is of each other
> > and everything.
>
> Really? Derrida agrees w. Lyoptard? Agrees w. Baudrillard?
>
> What are you smoking?
>
pre-mo?
-v33
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Quire
The DataRat wrote in message ...
>
>
>"...now, having heard what they believe
> from the 'horse's mouth,' as it were..."
>
>
>Max, you insult the Reformed Rodent by
>insinuating that he hadn't read any PoMo
>stuff until you posted this !
>
>
>
>
> you take issue with?"
>
>
>The ~same~ ones he has publicly taken
>issue with previously in these newsgroups !
>
>obscure references, intentionally awkward
>phraseology, and convoluted logic to arrive
>at what is being said. Bro. Rat particularly
>likes PoMo lingo such as "differently oriented
>commentators" and "collapse of critical distance".
>Sheesh ! Who are they trying to impress ?
>( Actually, each other. )
>
>of the objective. The Calvinist Rodent has
>commented on that many times. PoMo's not
>only denounce objectivity ( a position with some
>Which is to say- external truth independent of
>perception.
>
>consequence of moral relativity leading to
>cultural relativity leading to intellectual
>relativity. And, intellectual relativity is nothing
>else other than fuzzy thinking !
>
>
>
>
>
>
Honesty ultimately corrects all errors and evolves all valid knowledge.
Fully integrated honesty is the underlying fundamental that leads to
Objectivism. Civilizations advance not through the static scholastic modes
of philosophy, economics, or education per se, but through the dynamic
action modes of integrated honesty, effort, and competitive value
production.
3. Honesty and Effort Deliver all Values
Manipulated facts are always wrong and destructive. Manipulated truths are
always wrong and destructive.
Integrated honesty is always constructive.
Wide-scope accountability and fully integrated honesty is the essence of
everyone's future.
If a person examines in full context just one concept, that person should
examine the honesty-versus-truth concept. That concept underlies all
long-term competitive advantages. Implementing that concept means discarding
the concept of "truth" as bogus, arbitrary, and universally harmful to
conscious beings. For, truth is a manipulative, anticivilization artifact.
Only the concept of "honesty" is valid, noncontradictory, consistent, and
universally beneficial to conscious beings.
The philosopher's job is to provide human beings with practical tools for
dealing with reality in order to live easier, more prosperous, happier
lives. But almost all philosophers throughout history have defaulted in
their responsibility and failed in their job. Indeed, most philosophers have
done all in their power to make life for human beings not easier and
happier, but more difficult and unhappy by obscuring reality. As a result,
almost everyone rejects the practicality of philosophy. Thus, almost no one
recognizes the potential of this mighty tool.
Mysticism is defined as: 1. Any mental or physical attempt to recreate,
evade, or alter reality through dishonesty, rationalizations, non sequiturs,
emotions, deceptions, or force. 2. Any attempt to use the mind to create
reality rather than to identify and integrate reality.
Mysticism is a disease that blocks integrated thinking and brings
stupidities through mind-created "realities". Mysticism is a rebellion
against life, effort, and the conscious mind. Mysticism is the only disease
of the conscious mind.
Mysticism is based on a false and destructive idea: the primacy of emotions
over reality.
THE KEY CHOICE
The choice between exerting effort or defaulting to laziness determines the
course of all important human actions. The three choices constantly
confronting every human being are to (1) exert integrated effort, (2)
default to camouflaged laziness, or (3) act somewhere in between.
The choice to exert integrated effort or to default to camouflaged laziness
is the key choice that determines the character, competence, and future of
every human being. That crucial choice must be made by everyone,
continually, throughout life. The nature of all animals evolves around their
survival mechanism. But what is the distinguishing nature of man? He has the
ability to think consciously in concepts and then integrate those concepts
into wider concepts. No other animal can think consciously or think
significantly beyond percepts, much less integrate concepts. Indeed, man can
easily and logically integrate two or more concepts into new and still
wider, more abstract concepts. That logical integration of concepts is
called reasoning. Man's reasoning ability is his survival mechanism. But
unlike all other animals whose survival mechanisms work automatically, man's
reasoning mechanism works volitionally. Man must choose to exert the effort
required to reason. Man undermines or damages his or her reasoning ability
by nonuse or misuse of the mind through mysticism.
Reasoning is the nature of man -- the distinguishing nature that elevates
the value of man above all other life.... Reasoning through logic is man's
survival mechanism.
MORALS
Since morals and morality require conscious choices, man is the only animal
who can be moral or immoral. Thus, man is the only animal who can
consciously or purposely make moral choices: to think or not to think, to be
mystical or nonmystical, to produce or usurp -- to benefit or hurt oneself
and others.
Whatever is consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good
and moral (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is
consciously done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is
bad and immoral.
Honestly using one's reasoning nature is always beneficial and moral;
dishonestly using one's reasoning nature is always harmful and immoral.
...Volitionally harmful acts always arise from mysticism -- from dishonesty,
rationalizations, evasions, defaults.
All current religions and governments exist through altruism.
The dictionary definition of altruism is: "Uncalculated consideration of,
regard for, or devotion to other's interests sometimes in accordance with
ethical principle." Upon first consideration, the definition of altruism
seems loving, kind, and good.
Close examination of altruism reveals that its ethical principle and
implications are human sacrifice.[ 4 ] Thus, the altruist accepts as ethical
principle that human beings and their values can be sacrificed to others.
And those human sacrifices can be made to anyone or for the sake of
anything -- the gods, the tribe, the ruler, the fatherland, the system, the
party, the "good", the poor, the cause...for the sake of enhancing the power
or prosperity of any professional mystic or cheater.
All current political and religious systems depend on the principle of
altruism...the principle of forced or coerced sacrifice of victims to
others. Altruism (as in Biblical mysticism) holds sacrifice as a good in
itself, regardless of the means (e.g., force, coercion, fraud, guilt,
deception, charisma), regardless of the recipients (e.g., dictators,
presidents, popes, theologians, welfare clients), and regardless of the
victims (e.g., war dead, taxpayers, business people, value producers).
Sacrifice is the opposite of productivity: Productivity creates values.
Sacrifice destroys values. Sacrifice is contrary to human biological nature
Upholding the ideas of sacrifice or altruism involves accepting the
nonreality of mysticism. And accepting such mysticism always requires
evasive rationalizations. Indeed, mysticism, altruism, and sacrifice are
purposeful reasoning defaults that are always harmful to human beings, thus,
are always immoral.
Altruism and sacrifice are rationalized through mysticism. And mysticism is
a reasoning default that accepts fake realities or nonrealities such as
sacrifice, faith, dogma. Thus, all advocates of altruism are mystics or
cheaters by nature because they accept or manipulate the mystical concepts
of sacrifice.
But why do people default on reason? Why do they evade reality to become
advocates of altruism who promote sacrifice? Professional advocates of
altruism are always, in a direct or indirect way, recipients of the
sacrifices they promote. The booty is often unearned power. But the booty
may also be or include unearned material goods, glory, adulation, love,
respect, pseudo self-esteem, neurotic or psychopathic satisfactions. In any
case, professional advocates of altruism depend on the sacrifice of others
to fill their material needs, their self-esteem needs, their images of
importance, their neurotic wants. . In the long run, altruism and sacrifice
fill the needs of no one. Instead, altruism and sacrifice always drain
everyone.
Integrated thinking is the conscious effort of putting information into
accurate context by logically and honestly connecting all relevant
knowledge. All valid and powerful knowledge is contextual. Thus, genuine
power is gained through integrated thinking used to obtain the widest
possible range of contextual knowledge.
Quire