are you a postmodernist?
brigit bardot brigade
and where did you pick it up? art school? books? or, do you just
like to follow the latest fashion?
Andre
> if so, why?
>
> and where did you pick it up? art school? books? or, do you just
> like to follow the latest fashion?
They say that postmodernism is a reaction to the most profound
spiritual and philosophical crises of our time-the faile of the
Enlightenment.
Postmodernism is a resies of maps that help people find their way
through a changing world.
Most people don't even agree that the "post" preface implies something
that follows Modernism.They don't agree that Postmodernism is a break
from Modernism or a continuation to it - or both. In fact, they don't
even agree as to what Modernism is, much less Postmodernism.
According to Lyotard, it has to do with scepticism about Grand
Narratives; an it is about heterogeneity.
Andre Janssens
Alex
> brigit...@hotmail.com (brigit bardot brigade) wrote in message news:<3cd79f7a.04073...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>if so, why?
>>
>>and where did you pick it up? art school? books? or, do you just
>>like to follow the latest fashion?
>
>
> They say that postmodernism is a reaction to the most profound
> spiritual and philosophical crises of our time-the faile of the
> Enlightenment.
They say a lot of things about it. I've yet to read a description of
what it is that doesn't sound like bullshit. I'm still vaguely
interested, because it would appear to be associated with some of the
pieces of art I find interesting, although I've never heard any of the
actual artists use it. I'm thinking perhaps it's more relevant to art
critics who like to talk about art without having the intelligence or
creativity to actual create any of it, so it's a sort of compensatory
measure. I'm more than willing to be proved wrong, however.
La Donna Mobile
"Alex" <Spa...@Up.Baby> wrote in message
news:cegh74$c7s$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
I'm speaking from the deepest depths of profound ignorance, but I believe
post-modernism to be a belief that anything counts. Eg that Big Brother is a
valid as Beethoven's 9th, because both have creative input. To suggest that
B's 9th is superior to BB is to imply that some forms of 'art' of better
than others, and, in the view of the post-modernist, that is irrelevant,
irreverent or invalid.
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>I'm speaking from the deepest depths of profound ignorance, but I believe
>post-modernism to be a belief that anything counts. Eg that Big Brother is a
>valid as Beethoven's 9th, because both have creative input. To suggest that
>B's 9th is superior to BB is to imply that some forms of 'art' of better
>than others, and, in the view of the post-modernist, that is irrelevant,
>irreverent or invalid.
Which doesn't stop today's crop of critics & theorists from endlessly
proclaiming the superiority of their views over those of, for example,
Cleanth Brooks or Meyer Abrams.
Art, I suppose, is all of a piece; but critical method must fall on
all twelve sides of the fence.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Alex wrote:
>
> Andre wrote:
>
> > brigit...@hotmail.com (brigit bardot brigade) wrote in message news:<3cd79f7a.04073...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>if so, why?
> >>
> >>and where did you pick it up? art school? books? or, do you just
> >>like to follow the latest fashion?
> >
> >
> > They say that postmodernism is a reaction to the most profound
> > spiritual and philosophical crises of our time-the faile of the
> > Enlightenment.
>
> They say a lot of things about it. I've yet to read a description of
> what it is that doesn't sound like bullshit.
>
At its base, Modernism is the breaking of the rules of the past,
operating in a ruleless anarchical environment without artificially
imposed limitations of form. Postmodernism is the realization that rules
are important even vital to art, though exactly what those rules are
might change over time or at the whim of the creator of the art, but
certainly that the boundless expanse of the whole universe is too big of
a canvas for any but God to paint on.
--
He and Evie soon fell into a conversation of the "No, I didn't; yes, you
did" type--conversation which, though fascinating to those who are
engaged in it, neither desires nor deserves the attention of others.
-+E.M. Forster, "Howards End"
Ian Pace
"Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
message news:410BDE4E...@backpacker.com...
>
>
> Alex wrote:
> >
> > Andre wrote:
> >
> > > brigit...@hotmail.com (brigit bardot brigade) wrote in message
news:<3cd79f7a.04073...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > >>if so, why?
> > >>
> > >>and where did you pick it up? art school? books? or, do you just
> > >>like to follow the latest fashion?
> > >
> > >
> > > They say that postmodernism is a reaction to the most profound
> > > spiritual and philosophical crises of our time-the faile of the
> > > Enlightenment.
> >
> > They say a lot of things about it. I've yet to read a description of
> > what it is that doesn't sound like bullshit.
> >
> At its base, Modernism is the breaking of the rules of the past,
> operating in a ruleless anarchical environment without artificially
> imposed limitations of form.
On the contrary, Modernism can entail a modified re-inscription of
classicizing tendencies as an antidote to late romantic excess
Postmodernism is the realization that rules
> are important even vital to art, though exactly what those rules are
> might change over time or at the whim of the creator of the art, but
> certainly that the boundless expanse of the whole universe is too big of
> a canvas for any but God to paint on.
>
Post-modernism is an aesthetic movement that has its roots in architecture,
as a celebration of the small-scale and the diverse, pluralistic, as a
reaction against the 'grand designs' of high modernism. In philosophical and
cultural theory, it is about a concomitant scepticism towards all
'metanarratives', all totalising theories. It has been attacked on the left
(e.g. by Frederic Jameson) as a smokescreen for the values of global
capitalism, pretending diversity and pluralism on an unprecedented scale
while actually being highly constrained by the limitations of the
marketplace, reducing everything to a mere commodity. Global capitalism is a
'metanarrative' as much as any, simply one that pretends to universality and
inevitablity.
Some so-called 'postmodernism' is really a type of pre-modernism, using the
post-modernist label while simply inheriting the categories of late
romanticism, though the historical disjunction gives these a certain
objectified form which maybe is inevitably post-modern in nature.
Ian
Jerry Kohl
> Alex wrote:
> >
> > Andre wrote:
> >
> > > brigit...@hotmail.com (brigit bardot brigade) wrote in message news:<3cd79f7a.04073...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > >>if so, why?
> > >>
> > >>and where did you pick it up? art school? books? or, do you just
> > >>like to follow the latest fashion?
> > >
> > >
> > > They say that postmodernism is a reaction to the most profound
> > > spiritual and philosophical crises of our time-the faile of the
> > > Enlightenment.
> >
> > They say a lot of things about it. I've yet to read a description of
> > what it is that doesn't sound like bullshit.
> >
> At its base, Modernism is the breaking of the rules of the past,
I would say rather "questioning" the rules of tradition. That is
after all what Cartesian Doubt is all about--not denying all received
wisdom, but not uncritically accepting it, either.
> operating in a ruleless anarchical environment without artificially
> imposed limitations of form.
What??? Can you give an example?
--
Jerry Kohl <jerom...@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Ian Pace
"La Donna Mobile" <donna...@REMOVEbrixton.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ceglcm$1b5$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
postmodernists. Without any deeper sense of cultural worth (which of course
is very hard to define, but still important to try), the only defining
factor in what gets performed, viewed, etc. becomes that which sells best,
or achieves most instantaneous popularity. Hence 'Postmodernism, or the
ideology of late capitalism', to give the title of Jameson's book.
Other good anti-postmodern books: Alex Callinicos - Against Postmodernism;
Terry Eagleton - The Illusions of Postmodernism; Christopher Norris - What's
Wrong with Postmodernism; The Truth about Postmodernism; Uncritical Theory:
Postmodernism, Intellectuals and the Gulf War. The latter deals in a
scathing manner with the postmodern philosopher Jean Baudrillard's claim
that 'The Gulf War didn't happen', in the sense that our knowledge of it was
so filtered through various media of simulation that we could have no
possibility of knowledge of the reality of the events. That sort of attitude
opens the door to holocaust revisionism, etc. The key text from a
pro-postmodern point of view is Jean-Francois Lyotard - 'The Postmodern
Condition: A Report on Knowledge'. A variety of interesting essays on the
subject from different perspectives is to be found in Hal Foster (ed) -
Postmodern Culture. On another level, an important book addressing
postmodern scepticism towards historical 'truth' is Richard J. Evans - In
Defence of History (Evans was a key witness for the defence of Deborah
Lipstadt in the David Irving/Lipstadt trial).
Best,
Ian
Michael
> Other good anti-postmodern books: Alex Callinicos - Against Postmodernism;
> Terry Eagleton - The Illusions of Postmodernism; Christopher Norris - What's
> Wrong with Postmodernism; The Truth about Postmodernism; Uncritical Theory:
> Postmodernism, Intellectuals and the Gulf War.
The "Sokal affair" was quite interesting, and worth googling for those
new to postmodernism. If you know even a bit of college level math, or
even what a complex number is, you'll be amazed that his paper was
published in _Social Text_.
And Bridgit's use of "postmodern aesthete ideologue" was cleverly
self-referencial. Most newsgroups don't get such quality trolling.
michael
Mani Deli
belief in the unreasonable.
Present day mysticism of the POMO variety:
-a belief that it is a new philosophical outlook
-sees logic and the scientific method as flawed.
-sees culture rather than rationality and evidence as the arbiter for
the truth of conclusions.
-Confuses aesthetics with reality.
-explained by lots of convoluted repetitious cryptic text. which even
its advocates can't understand.
-objects to the conclusions of the Enlightenment
POMO much like Artspeak is mostly baffelgab. This attracts artzy
fartzies.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Michael
> POMO much like Artspeak is mostly baffelgab. This attracts artzy
> fartzies.
>
I think a case could be made that "Art Diploma: Take One" is decidedly
POMO. Esp if that's a play on Mondrian, or friends. I found it funny,
and very accessible, much as Philip Glass is relative to modernism.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/Works6.jpg
You also seem to have issues not only with POMO, but modernism. And
your views seem deconstructionist in a sense. Perhaps this is my naive
understanding of POMO. Or perhaps a bit of satire on your part.
BTW, nice site.
michael
Dr.Matt
At its root, Postmodernism isn't about beauty at all but about truth.
It says that facts have no privileged status above opinions in history,
e.g., or science.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
A genuine countertenor voice silences all arguments. --Salman Rushdie
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Dr.Matt
Postmodernism in the arts has its roots in postmodernism in epistomology,
where it actually says something--though what it is saying is nonsense.
Andrew Werby
"Michael" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:O8SOc.21378$iK....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Ian Pace wrote:
>
> > Other good anti-postmodern books: Alex Callinicos - Against
Postmodernism;
> > Terry Eagleton - The Illusions of Postmodernism; Christopher Norris -
What's
> > Wrong with Postmodernism; The Truth about Postmodernism; Uncritical
Theory:
> > Postmodernism, Intellectuals and the Gulf War.
>
>
> The "Sokal affair" was quite interesting, and worth googling for those
> new to postmodernism. If you know even a bit of college level math, or
> even what a complex number is, you'll be amazed that his paper was
> published in _Social Text_.
[He was the guy that wrote a typically incomprehensible jargon-filled paper
"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of
Quantum Gravity" and got it printed in a hitherto-respected journal of
sociology, only to reveal it as a hoax:
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/~as2/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
To me, it seems a little unfair of him, since he was a physics prof and the
editors of the mag were all "social" scientists, so thrilled to get
anything from a hard science type that they took his word for it on the math
stuff, only to be held up to public ridicule for doing so. ]
>
> And Bridgit's use of "postmodern aesthete ideologue" was cleverly
> self-referencial. Most newsgroups don't get such quality trolling.
>
> michael
[Nor such quality cross-posting. All this erudition is rather shocking here
in rec.arts.fine; mostly we spend our time slinging mud-pies at each other.
It's as if someone opened the door to where the grown-ups were talking - but
no worry, they'll quickly slam it shut...]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Dr.Matt
sarpedon
> post-modernism to be a belief that anything counts. Eg that Big Brother is a
> valid as Beethoven's 9th, because both have creative input. To suggest that
> B's 9th is superior to BB is to imply that some forms of 'art' of better
> than others, and, in the view of the post-modernist, that is irrelevant,
> irreverent or invalid.
I hope you are not as uninformed as you modestly presume. Yours is the
first comment on this issue I can connect my situation to. I am
searching for a way to bring art out of of elitist and escapist
tendencies. This requires pulling in, or at least reacting to, all
stimuli from the exterior world affecting the artist: politics as much
as music as much as history,etc. Rock and roll as much as jazz, etc.
sarpedon
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>Present day mysticism of the POMO variety:
>
>-a belief that it is a new philosophical outlook
See John M. Ellis's "Against Deconstruction."
Mani Deli
Probably the clearest definition of PM in the POMO FAQ is:
"postmodernity is seen as involving an end of the dominance of an
overarching belief in scientific
rationality and a unitary theory of PROGRESS, the replacement of
empiricist theories of representation and TRUTH, and increased
emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, on free-floating signs
and images, and a plurality of viewpoints. "
I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
anti-scientific, anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
any of this means.
PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in a new jargon. It
offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
same old nonsense.
Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
angles on mystical self delusion.
PM got a lot of its lingo from Artspeak. Read the FAQ for some neat
samples.
Another quote:
"postmodernism, on the contrary, is committed to
modes of thinking and representation which emphasize fragmentations,
discontinuities and incommensurable aspects of a given object, from
intellectual systems to architecture. "
In a word, Bullshitology.
brigit bardot brigade
maybe these critics are right.
but imagine this scenario.
earth is about to go kablooey and only two rocketships can take off to
different planets. and each rocketship can only take 100 novels, 100
musical pieces, 100 movies, etc. noah's ark scenario.
one rocket choose works like those of beethoven, dostoevksy, kurosawa,
sophocles, shakespeare, etc.
the other chooses stuff like britney spears, buffy the vampire
slayers, porky's and weekend at bernie's, etc.
do you think the future generations of both groups will be served
equally?
i guess it's like asking would human civilization have been no worse
if instead of michaelangelo, shakespeare, beethoven, tolstoy, etc.
mankind had bothered to preserve the reputations of hacks, no-talents,
and dufuses.
also, if there is no such thing as art and all art is just bullshit or
no better than any other, did nazi germany and maoist china not suffer
from lack of artistic freedom since they still had art: ideological
art or propaganda art. if indeed, a propaganda movie of maoist china
is no worse than the great works of chinese directors of the 80s and
90s--since nothing is better than the other--then why even worry about
censorship? so what if the nazis censored art since what they
censored was no better than whatever they put forth as art?
we must be on the side of freedom and we can't help but judge.
judgments may vary and change but we're not human unless we feel the
urge to judge. otherwise, art teachers should give the same grade to
all the students. i still remember those elementary school days. some
kids just couldn't draw a circle(and no, they were not trying to avant
garde. they just sucked).
Lewis Mammel
brigit bardot brigade wrote:
>.................. i still remember those elementary school days. some
> kids just couldn't draw a circle(and no, they were not trying to avant
> garde. they just sucked).
That was Penmanship, and that was me.
Peter T. Daniels
> At its root, Postmodernism isn't about beauty at all but about truth.
> It says that facts have no privileged status above opinions in history,
> e.g., or science.
It says what historians have realized for a century now: "facts" are
unknowable, and this has implications for what is said about "them."
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
G*rd*n
> > post-modernism to be a belief that anything counts. Eg that Big Brother is a
> > valid as Beethoven's 9th, because both have creative input. To suggest that
> > B's 9th is superior to BB is to imply that some forms of 'art' of better
> > than others, and, in the view of the post-modernist, that is irrelevant,
> > irreverent or invalid.
the_...@yahoo.com (sarpedon):
> I hope you are not as uninformed as you modestly presume. Yours is the
> first comment on this issue I can connect my situation to. I am
> searching for a way to bring art out of of elitist and escapist
> tendencies. This requires pulling in, or at least reacting to, all
> stimuli from the exterior world affecting the artist: politics as much
> as music as much as history,etc. Rock and roll as much as jazz, etc.
How are you going to sell it, then?
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't
G*rd*n
> > At its root, Postmodernism isn't about beauty at all but about truth.
> > It says that facts have no privileged status above opinions in history,
> > e.g., or science.
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net>:
> It says what historians have realized for a century now: "facts" are
> unknowable, and this has implications for what is said about "them."
Some facts are knowable. Even Mr. Ding-an-sich himself would tell
you that.
Dr.Matt
Biljo White <biljowhit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Hi, Matt - thanks for the definition of POMO - the best I've seen. As
>others have remarked, it's good to have some interesting discussion here to
>balance out the Mani kook-factor.
>
>Do you think that POMO's statement is true? And what really do you mean by
>'privileged status?' Validity?
Let me make it simpler: POMO says there's no such thing as a true
fact, all of reality being a cultural construction. If you take that
as an axiom, then the claim that there's no such thing as a true fact
is itself unsupportable because it is merely a cultural
construction. In other words, the basic premise of PostModernism is
logically self-defeating. For this reason, PostModernists don't like
logic and don't like looking in mirrors.
>Biljo
G*rd*n
> Biljo White <biljowhit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi, Matt - thanks for the definition of POMO - the best I've seen. As
> >others have remarked, it's good to have some interesting discussion here to
> >balance out the Mani kook-factor.
> >
> >Do you think that POMO's statement is true? And what really do you mean by
> >'privileged status?' Validity?
fie...@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
> Let me make it simpler: POMO says there's no such thing as a true
> fact, all of reality being a cultural construction. ...
Where does "it" say that?
Mani Deli
>Mani starts out well,
Gee we don't want any of that do we?
>but immediately
after 5 paragraphs.
>degenerates into the only kind of
>discourse he knows - name-calling.
If its the only kind how come it starts off well.
> Note the use of the word 'stupid' later
Yes do note it! What's wrong with it?
>on. And one of his pet barbs, 'bullshitology.' Maybe he actually thinks
>he's being funny.
Not only funny but I think it irritates you because you are a
bullshitologist.
>
>Biljo
>
>
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Probably the clearest definition of PM in the POMO FAQ is:
>> "postmodernity is seen as involving an end of the dominance of an
>> overarching belief in scientific
>> rationality and a unitary theory of PROGRESS, the replacement of
>> empiricist theories of representation and TRUTH, and increased
>> emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, on free-floating signs
>> and images, and a plurality of viewpoints. "
>>
>> I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
>> anti-scientific, anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
>> support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
>> Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
>> any of this means.
>>
>> PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in a new jargon. It
>> offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
>> PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
>> Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
>> newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
>> same old nonsense.
>>
>> Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
>> favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
>> importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
>> angles on mystical self delusion.
>>
>>
G*rd*n
> >Mani starts out well,
> ...
> >but immediately
> ...
> >discourse he knows - name-calling.
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca>:
> If its the only kind how come it starts off well.
> ...
That's easy. You start off quoting something by someone else
who may know what he's talking about.
Dr.Matt
Jerry Kohl
> In article <20040801083955.070$h...@newsreader.com>,
> Biljo White <biljowhit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi, Matt - thanks for the definition of POMO - the best I've seen. As
> >others have remarked, it's good to have some interesting discussion here to
> >balance out the Mani kook-factor.
> >
> >Do you think that POMO's statement is true? And what really do you mean by
> >'privileged status?' Validity?
>
> Let me make it simpler: POMO says there's no such thing as a true
> fact, all of reality being a cultural construction. If you take that
> as an axiom, then the claim that there's no such thing as a true fact
> is itself unsupportable because it is merely a cultural
> construction. In other words, the basic premise of PostModernism is
> logically self-defeating. For this reason, PostModernists don't like
> logic and don't like looking in mirrors.
Ah! But since logic, too, is merely a cultural construction, it is
inapplicable in this case, and the proposition is carried. (Now, where
is the nearest zebra-crossing? ;-)
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <410CDF...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Dr.Matt wrote:
> >
> >> At its root, Postmodernism isn't about beauty at all but about truth.
> >> It says that facts have no privileged status above opinions in history,
> >> e.g., or science.
> >
> >It says what historians have realized for a century now: "facts" are
> >unknowable, and this has implications for what is said about "them."
> >--
> >Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
>
> So you buy this?
I buy the fact that Ranke's claim that the historian describes things
"exactly as they were" was soon seen to be absurd.
Dr.Matt
Dr.Matt
And this has what to do with POMO as implemented in Academe in the 1980s?
Peter T. Daniels
> >> >> At its root, Postmodernism isn't about beauty at all but about truth.
> >> >> It says that facts have no privileged status above opinions in history,
> >> >> e.g., or science.
> >> >
> >> >It says what historians have realized for a century now: "facts" are
> >> >unknowable, and this has implications for what is said about "them."
> >> >--
> >> >Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
> >>
> >> So you buy this?
> >
> >I buy the fact that Ranke's claim that the historian describes things
> >"exactly as they were" was soon seen to be absurd.
> >--
> >Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
>
> And this has what to do with POMO as implemented in Academe in the 1980s?
I don't care about its implementation. The basic notion that everything
is unknowable is correct.
Dr.Matt
How do you know?
(which is to say, this basic notion is self-annihilating again....)
W. Lydecker
brigit bardot brigade
> I'm a pre-Raphaelite - definitely!
i always wondered, how can people who came centuries after raphael
call themselves preraphalites? it's like calling oneself a
premodernist.
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>i always wondered, how can people who came centuries after raphael
>call themselves preraphalites? it's like calling oneself a
>premodernist.
They were aligning themselves with styles & subjects of painting that
preceded Raphael & his time.
Michael
> [He was the guy that wrote a typically incomprehensible jargon-filled paper
> "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of
> Quantum Gravity" and got it printed in a hitherto-respected journal of
> sociology, only to reveal it as a hoax:
> http://www.physics.nyu.edu/~as2/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
> To me, it seems a little unfair of him, since he was a physics prof and the
> editors of the mag were all "social" scientists, so thrilled to get
> anything from a hard science type that they took his word for it on the math
> stuff, only to be held up to public ridicule for doing so. ]
Buried in the references is a doozy:
"86...universe.
Markley (1992, 264). A minor quibble: It is not clear to me that complex
number theory, which is a new and still quite speculative branch of
mathematical physics, ought to be accorded the same epistemological
status as the three firmly established sciences cited by Markley."
The three sciences is referring to Quantum physics, hadron bootstrap
theory, and chaos theory, although I didn't quote that part. Now if I
take complex numbers to be the traditional dual axis, one imaginary and
one real component stuff, well that's hardly speculative since the other
three use that. While some of Sokal's paper delves into college
physics, this is actually covered in algebra or electronics theory
(phase angle considerations in power calculations, reactive component of
Z, etc). It's one example of the humor that Sokal sprinkled into the paper.
Some of the real "postmodern" stuff is beautiful, like this Guattari quote:
"We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between
linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and
this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The
symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive
character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the
logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the
ontological binarism we criticised previously."
michael
Erik A. Mattila
> "La Donna Mobile" <donna...@REMOVEbrixton.fsworld.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ceglcm$1b5$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
>>"Alex" <Spa...@Up.Baby> wrote in message
>>news:cegh74$c7s$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>>>Andre wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>brigit...@hotmail.com (brigit bardot brigade) wrote in message
>>
>>news:<3cd79f7a.04073...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>>>if so, why?
>>>>>
>>>>>and where did you pick it up? art school? books? or, do you just
>>>>>like to follow the latest fashion?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They say that postmodernism is a reaction to the most profound
>>>>spiritual and philosophical crises of our time-the faile of the
>>>>Enlightenment.
>>>
>>>They say a lot of things about it. I've yet to read a description of
>>>what it is that doesn't sound like bullshit. I'm still vaguely
>>>interested, because it would appear to be associated with some of the
>>>pieces of art I find interesting, although I've never heard any of the
>>>actual artists use it. I'm thinking perhaps it's more relevant to art
>>>critics who like to talk about art without having the intelligence or
>>>creativity to actual create any of it, so it's a sort of compensatory
>>>measure. I'm more than willing to be proved wrong, however.
>>
>>post-modernism to be a belief that anything counts. Eg that Big Brother is
>
> a
>
>>valid as Beethoven's 9th, because both have creative input. To suggest
>
> that
>
>>B's 9th is superior to BB is to imply that some forms of 'art' of better
>>than others, and, in the view of the post-modernist, that is irrelevant,
>>irreverent or invalid.
>>
>
> postmodernists. Without any deeper sense of cultural worth (which of course
> is very hard to define, but still important to try), the only defining
> factor in what gets performed, viewed, etc. becomes that which sells best,
> or achieves most instantaneous popularity. Hence 'Postmodernism, or the
> ideology of late capitalism', to give the title of Jameson's book.
>
> Other good anti-postmodern books: Alex Callinicos - Against Postmodernism;
> Terry Eagleton - The Illusions of Postmodernism; Christopher Norris - What's
> Wrong with Postmodernism; The Truth about Postmodernism; Uncritical Theory:
> Postmodernism, Intellectuals and the Gulf War. The latter deals in a
> scathing manner with the postmodern philosopher Jean Baudrillard's claim
> that 'The Gulf War didn't happen', in the sense that our knowledge of it was
> so filtered through various media of simulation that we could have no
> possibility of knowledge of the reality of the events. That sort of attitude
> opens the door to holocaust revisionism, etc. The key text from a
> pro-postmodern point of view is Jean-Francois Lyotard - 'The Postmodern
> Condition: A Report on Knowledge'. A variety of interesting essays on the
> subject from different perspectives is to be found in Hal Foster (ed) -
> Postmodern Culture. On another level, an important book addressing
> postmodern scepticism towards historical 'truth' is Richard J. Evans - In
> Defence of History (Evans was a key witness for the defence of Deborah
> Lipstadt in the David Irving/Lipstadt trial).
>
> Best,
> Ian
Ian, Carlos Fuentes wrote a wonderful essay on Cervantes, which claimed
that the dragons that Quixote battled were the old "medieval" forms that
had weakened with the advent of the early modern era. Looking back tat
far, it's not too unclear to most of us that there was a very different
"condition" between the Middle ages and the Renaissance. In several
arenas: social, political, economic and so on. "Postmodernism" is
another attempt to signify dramatic social change. Personally, I think
Lyotard has it right about the collapse of narratives. Other writers
have expressed this as the collapse of totalizing ideology. That is,
that some "ism" will save the world and automatically create art and so
on. The opposite is situationism, where each specific situation (like
the striking faculty at SF State in 1968 became the "universe" that the
protestors addressed - they didn't think it would save the world) is an
end in itself. I think this is real, actually. Generally people don't
go in for grand schemes like communism or Trotskyism or things like that
that were proffered as utopian cure-alls. We're much more cynical
today, i think.
Artists who make a claim to be "post-moderns" are...I don't know. Forms
have always provided the possibility of aping the description of the
form, I guess. Any historian or philosopher who acknowledges the
possibility of a distinct social form called "postmodernism" would tend
to believe that we are all "post modern" by virtue of being alive in the
era. You know, you can no longer BE a communist...the best you can do
is "appropriate" communism.
Erik
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
Michael wrote:
> Ian Pace wrote:
>
>> Other good anti-postmodern books: Alex Callinicos - Against
>> Postmodernism;
>> Terry Eagleton - The Illusions of Postmodernism; Christopher Norris -
>> What's
>> Wrong with Postmodernism; The Truth about Postmodernism; Uncritical
>> Theory:
>> Postmodernism, Intellectuals and the Gulf War.
>
>
>
> The "Sokal affair" was quite interesting, and worth googling for those
> new to postmodernism. If you know even a bit of college level math, or
> even what a complex number is, you'll be amazed that his paper was
> published in _Social Text_.
>
> And Bridgit's use of "postmodern aesthete ideologue" was cleverly
> self-referencial. Most newsgroups don't get such quality trolling.
>
> michael
See, there you go..."self-referenicality" is one of the cannons of
postmodernism. There is no escape ;-)
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Mani Deli wrote:
> POMO- elaborate verbal disguises to convey non-ideas. An unreasonable
> belief in the unreasonable.
>
> Present day mysticism of the POMO variety:
>
> -a belief that it is a new philosophical outlook
> -sees logic and the scientific method as flawed.
> -sees culture rather than rationality and evidence as the arbiter for
> the truth of conclusions.
> -Confuses aesthetics with reality.
> -explained by lots of convoluted repetitious cryptic text. which even
> its advocates can't understand.
> -objects to the conclusions of the Enlightenment
>
> POMO much like Artspeak is mostly baffelgab. This attracts artzy
> fartzies.
Yes, but Mani...the moment you put Donald Duck in a Daliesque landscape
you signed-on to PoMo. There is no escape.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Dr.Matt wrote:
> In article <20040801083955.070$h...@newsreader.com>,
> Biljo White <biljowhit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi, Matt - thanks for the definition of POMO - the best I've seen. As
>>others have remarked, it's good to have some interesting discussion here to
>>balance out the Mani kook-factor.
>>
>>Do you think that POMO's statement is true? And what really do you mean by
>>'privileged status?' Validity?
>
>
> Let me make it simpler: POMO says there's no such thing as a true
> fact, all of reality being a cultural construction. If you take that
> as an axiom, then the claim that there's no such thing as a true fact
> is itself unsupportable because it is merely a cultural
> construction. In other words, the basic premise of PostModernism is
> logically self-defeating. For this reason, PostModernists don't like
> logic and don't like looking in mirrors.
Hmmm...tell that to Jacques Lacan.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
G*rd*n wrote:
>>In article <20040801083955.070$h...@newsreader.com>,
>>Biljo White <biljowhit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi, Matt - thanks for the definition of POMO - the best I've seen. As
>>>others have remarked, it's good to have some interesting discussion here to
>>>balance out the Mani kook-factor.
>>>
>>>Do you think that POMO's statement is true? And what really do you mean by
>>>'privileged status?' Validity?
>
>
> fie...@zektor.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
>
>>Let me make it simpler: POMO says there's no such thing as a true
>>fact, all of reality being a cultural construction. ...
>
>
>
> Where does "it" say that?
Well, you know, G...following the example of the "Blind Priests and the
Elephant" we now know that PoMo is a large mouth (that utters).
Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
How do you know that, Peter? Just kidding.
Erik
Lewis Mammel
Michael wrote:
>
> Some of the real "postmodern" stuff is beautiful, like this Guattari quote:
>
> "We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between
> linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and
> this multireferential, multi-dimensional machinic catalysis. The
> symmetry of scale, the transversality, the pathic non-discursive
> character of their expansion: all these dimensions remove us from the
> logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the
> ontological binarism we criticised previously."
But what is truth?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths.
Are mine the same as yours?
Crucify him!
Crucify him!
miss guydid
i know. was just being facetious.
Dr.Matt
Grand Narrative we get catetorized-in, nor whether people think of us as
innovative or derivative. Many of us have other things to focus on
Tom Cervo
materialist's working relationship with a managing director.
Me, I can't help but notice the similarities between post modernism and
theology--you have to believe because you have to believe because . . .
G*rd*n
> Those of us who are creative don't necessarily care about what -ism or
> Grand Narrative we get catetorized-in, nor whether people think of us as
> innovative or derivative. Many of us have other things to focus on
Then why are you posting in this thread?
Dr.Matt
>fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
>> Those of us who are creative don't necessarily care about what -ism or
>> Grand Narrative we get catetorized-in, nor whether people think of us as
>> innovative or derivative. Many of us have other things to focus on
>
>
>Then why are you posting in this thread?
Because the thread title asked a question so it's polite to answer!
Mani Deli
>fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
>> Those of us who are creative don't necessarily care about what -ism or
>> Grand Narrative we get catetorized-in, nor whether people think of us as
>> innovative or derivative. Many of us have other things to focus on
>
>
>Then why are you posting in this thread?
It might just be because he wants to express his opinion. Anything
wrong with that?
Edward G. Nilges
> if so, why?
>
> and where did you pick it up? art school? books? or, do you just
> like to follow the latest fashion?
The question presumes that "postmodernism" is a mere pose: a mere
fashion.
In fact I became a post-modernist as a data processing consultant and
compiler developer as a way to analyze the language used in system
development.
This language used without self-reflection terms like "simplicity"
which encoded in fact the desire of a small subset of stakeholders who
systematically ignored the real needs of real software users
(including working people actually operating the computer) in such a
way that the software "empowered" in fact only small circles around
the CEO. Enron is a latter-day example, for in fact the criminal deeds
were "empowered" by data systems constructed by midlevel network
administrators and programmers who were then victimized by their own
creation.
This was in a fashion predicted in the abstract but unforeseen in the
concrete by Marx.
In compiler development, I discovered a postmodern phenomenon in that
at one and the same time, languages were presented as reified and
formalized, but actually used in the manner of natural languages with
in some cases users becoming dependent upon buggy and marginal
features of the language and compiler.
I discovered views that were in fact Romantic in the sense of literary
history applied to unromantic artifacts to mystify processes of
production that would otherwise be open to critique.
REAL postmodernism wasn't a pose, didn't involved staying up late and
dancing the night away in clubs where everyone wears black.
It was in fact a morally serious response to Nikita Krushchev's secret
speech before the CPSU in 1956 in which Krushchev revealed how the
symbol "Stalinism" only roughly corresponded to its reality.
In second-rate American art schools where the sons and daughters of
the well-to-do spend Daddy's ill-gotten Enron money on a pose of being
Artists, post modernism may well be a nihilistic delinkage of sign and
symbol and for this reason just another way to say like Falstaff bring
in.
But for Jacques Derrida, the sign and symbol were already delinked by
their very artifactual linkage, meaning that the philosopher's job is
less to pass a stone (a reified theory of everthing most useful to
totalitarians) and more to interrogate specific social arrangements
(such as in my case software) in detail, reminding others that what
makes us human is the willingness to do so.
In America, "postmodernism" is in fact the symbol of the absence of
moral seriousness and the sweetness of life, two terms that themselves
have a mystified relationship. But without culture (indeed without a
language for speaking of its absence) and deprived of mentoring in
favor of the false mentoring of a globalized metropolis, American kids
today know neither.
Francis A. Miniter
yet posted about language, Derrida and sign and symbol. You
have given some very good examples of the delinking of
certain signs with the symbols placed upon them.
Francis A. Miniter
Ian Pace
"Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5dda427.04080...@posting.google.com...
All interesting stuff, but it suggests to me that you're identifying
Modernism as an 'unfinished process', as Habermas described it. Derrida's
work to me still stands within the modernist tradition (unlike that of
Lyotard and Baudrillard). He and the earlier Barthes reveal hidden
metanarratives rather than denying the existence of any such things. Your
sentiments sound quite anti-postmodern to me(except when seen from the
viewpoint of those who just blanketly call everything they can't understand
'postmodern'), is that the intention? Or are you simply trying to claim a
real and important definition of postmodernism as opposed to its cheapened
popularised form? How would that relate to Lyotard?
A big question relating to something you said above: given all these
processes, what could be salvaged of value from Romanticism? Or is that
Romanticism a bastardised version of a previously complex aesthetic
ideology?
Best,
Ian
Ian Pace
"Francis A. Miniter" <min...@attglobalZZ.net> wrote in message
news:41104...@news1.prserv.net...
> Excellent post. I was beginning to wonder that no one had
> yet posted about language, Derrida and sign and symbol. You
> have given some very good examples of the delinking of
> certain signs with the symbols placed upon them.
>
>
> Francis A. Miniter
>
appropriated for quite contrary ends. I believe many people in ad agencies
have a copy of Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies' on their shelf, indeed some
books on advertising draw upon Barthes' ideas. If these ideas are
potentially useable to replenish the techniques and strategies of
advertising, the depth of their critique is at least questionable in the
depth of their critique. Maybe the ideas aren't inherently 'postmodern' but
their appropriated forms are?
Naomi Klein has an interesting chapter in 'No Logo' about how the brands and
big corporations are somehow managing to appropriate the work of the
anti-advertisers and 'culture jammers', seeing these people or at least
their followers as simply another target audience, another 'lifestyle'
category. You get 'anti-brand' adverts now, selling something as a 'car, not
a lifestyle', say, to appeal to the 'anti-lifestyle' lifestyle. Often such
forms of critique are imprisoned within the categories they inherit, and are
vulnerable in this respect by the way in which they reinforce such
categories (do read Naomi Klein for more detail on this if one hasn't
already done so - not unrelated to Adorno's critique of Brecht). A
penetrating critique should be able to resist being hijacked to perpetuate
that which it is meant to be criticising.
Best,
Ian
Dr.Matt
Edward G. Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>But for Jacques Derrida, the sign and symbol were already delinked by
>their very artifactual linkage, meaning that the philosopher's job is
>less to pass a stone (a reified theory of everthing most useful to
>totalitarians) and more to interrogate specific social arrangements
>(such as in my case software) in detail, reminding others that what
>makes us human is the willingness to do so.
>
>In America, "postmodernism" is in fact the symbol of the absence of
>moral seriousness and the sweetness of life, two terms that themselves
>have a mystified relationship. But without culture (indeed without a
>language for speaking of its absence) and deprived of mentoring in
>favor of the false mentoring of a globalized metropolis, American kids
>today know neither.
I'm not sure, but it sounds like this essay came from
The Postmodern Essay Generator.
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
Dr.Matt
>
>I don't care about its implementation. The basic notion that everything
>is unknowable is correct.
Alan Sokal opens with a comment which seems quite appropriate to this
discussion. "Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics
are mere social conventions [i.e. not knowledge] is invited to try
transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I
live on the twenty-first floor.) "
G*rd*n
> >> Those of us who are creative don't necessarily care about what -ism or
> >> Grand Narrative we get catetorized-in, nor whether people think of us as
> >> innovative or derivative. Many of us have other things to focus on
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com>:
> >Then why are you posting in this thread?
fie...@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
> Because the thread title asked a question so it's polite to answer!
But you think the question is irrelevant or stupid. If you try to
answer every stupid or irrelevant question posed on Usenet, you're
going to have very little time to be creative, or anything else.
G*rd*n
> >> And this has what to do with POMO as implemented in Academe in the 1980s?
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net>:
> >I don't care about its implementation. The basic notion that everything
> >is unknowable is correct.
fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
> Alan Sokal opens with a comment which seems quite appropriate to this
> discussion. "Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics
> are mere social conventions [i.e. not knowledge] is invited to try
> transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I
> live on the twenty-first floor.) "
Here he seems to be arguing against Buddhism, rather than "postmodernism".
That the laws of physics are socially constructed doesn't mean they don't
refer to something real.
G*rd*n
> ... A
> penetrating critique should be able to resist being hijacked to perpetuate
> that which it is meant to be criticising.
I don't see how. Culture jamming (for instance) is a critique
of advertising, but one which apparently accepts the notion
of advertising and criticizes the performance of the advertisers.
It's pretty easy for the more hip advertisers to pick up on the
critique and use it.
Michael
>>Because the thread title asked a question so it's polite to answer!
Now I see why the troll has been so successful starting threads.
michael
Ian Pace
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ceqivd$akc$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> " Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com>:
> > ... A
> > penetrating critique should be able to resist being hijacked to
perpetuate
> > that which it is meant to be criticising.
>
>
> I don't see how. Culture jamming (for instance) is a critique
> of advertising, but one which apparently accepts the notion
> of advertising and criticizes the performance of the advertisers.
> It's pretty easy for the more hip advertisers to pick up on the
> critique and use it.
>
being critiqued. Maybe culture jamming is by its nature fatally flawed in
this respect, but that doesn't mean other forms of critique need be (or at
least I hope not).
If you had an advert with a 17-year old Filipino girl working in a Nike
factory, noticeably urinating into a plastic bag under her desk (because she
only gets two fifteen-minute toilet breaks in her day), with a big caption
above saying 'Nike - shoes made from piss' would that really be easy to
appropriate in by the company in such a manner (I suppose Benetton might
find a way)?
Best,
Ian
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>I discovered views that were in fact Romantic in the sense of literary
>history applied to unromantic artifacts to mystify processes of
>production that would otherwise be open to critique.
Wow. Did it hurt?
Dr.Matt
>> >>
>> >> And this has what to do with POMO as implemented in Academe in the 1980s?
>
>Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net>:
>> >I don't care about its implementation. The basic notion that everything
>> >is unknowable is correct.
>
>fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
>> Alan Sokal opens with a comment which seems quite appropriate to this
>> discussion. "Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics
>> are mere social conventions [i.e. not knowledge] is invited to try
>> transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I
>> live on the twenty-first floor.) "
>
>
>Here he seems to be arguing against Buddhism, rather than "postmodernism".
>That the laws of physics are socially constructed doesn't mean they don't
>refer to something real.
In a footnote to the same paragraph he addresses this mistake glancingly,
and perhaps means to allude to the entire history of the philosophy
of science, as well as the difference between a particular creative
expression of physics (which requires a particular language, which
requires social construction) and the actual laws of physics, for which
the need for social construction has not been demonstrated at all.
Michael
>
>>Alan Sokal opens with a comment which seems quite appropriate to this
>>discussion. "Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics
>>are mere social conventions [i.e. not knowledge] is invited to try
>>transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I
>>live on the twenty-first floor.) "
>
>
>
> Here he seems to be arguing against Buddhism, rather than "postmodernism".
> That the laws of physics are socially constructed doesn't mean they don't
> refer to something real.
>
A lot of it's metaphor. The untrained eye could misconstrue a lot of
texts as bullcrap, but sometimes it's due to naivete. Now Sokal quotes
from philosophical texts (with no context) then critiques them.
Philosophy is so knotty, that often each author has a different set of
terms, and spends many pages trying to relate the meaning to the reader.
Why would philosophy be much more accessible than quantum mechanics
papers? Now the author could dumb it down for the masses, like a
physics popularization, but he's writing for specialists in some cases.
Sokal has a good point though. Even a physicist can't figure why the
arcane terms were used, how would a common philosopher? I can yap about
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and how it relates to psychology
experiments, but it's bullcrap and terrible metaphor.
michael
Milt Lumky
> discussion. "Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics
> are mere social conventions [i.e. not knowledge] is invited to try
> transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I
> live on the twenty-first floor.) "
Sort of OT, but reminds me of my paramedic days, when I said "If you
can heal gunshot wounds with therapeutic touch, positive thinking, or
alternative medicine, I'll be happy to believe in your ideas, too."
G*rd*n
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net>:
> >> >I don't care about its implementation. The basic notion that everything
> >> >is unknowable is correct.
fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
> >> Alan Sokal opens with a comment which seems quite appropriate to this
> >> discussion. "Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics
> >> are mere social conventions [i.e. not knowledge] is invited to try
> >> transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I
> >> live on the twenty-first floor.) "
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com>:
> >Here he seems to be arguing against Buddhism, rather than "postmodernism".
> >That the laws of physics are socially constructed doesn't mean they don't
> >refer to something real.
fie...@rastan.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
> In a footnote to the same paragraph he addresses this mistake glancingly,
> and perhaps means to allude to the entire history of the philosophy
> of science, as well as the difference between a particular creative
> expression of physics (which requires a particular language, which
> requires social construction) and the actual laws of physics, for which
> the need for social construction has not been demonstrated at all.
We don't know what "actual laws" refers to, so indeed, one
can't say that they have any need for social construction.
It is the man-made laws which attempt to express the "actual
laws" (if any) that require social construction. However,
the philosophical disputes around this issue are hardly the
exclusive property of "postmodernism" or postmodernity.
Dr.Matt
No, the "actual laws" refer to the semantic content of the
mathematical expressions of the measurements, rather than
the particular choice of symbols to represent them, and we
know quite a few of them quite well, thank you very much.
G*rd*n
> >Peter T. Daniels <gram...@worldnet.att.net>:
> >> >> >I don't care about its implementation. The basic notion that everything
> >> >> >is unknowable is correct.
fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
> >> >> Alan Sokal opens with a comment which seems quite appropriate to this
> >> >> discussion. "Fair enough: anyone who believes that the laws of physics
> >> >> are mere social conventions [i.e. not knowledge] is invited to try
> >> >> transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I
> >> >> live on the twenty-first floor.) "
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com>:
> >> >Here he seems to be arguing against Buddhism, rather than "postmodernism".
> >> >That the laws of physics are socially constructed doesn't mean they don't
> >> >refer to something real.
fie...@rastan.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
> >> In a footnote to the same paragraph he addresses this mistake glancingly,
> >> and perhaps means to allude to the entire history of the philosophy
> >> of science, as well as the difference between a particular creative
> >> expression of physics (which requires a particular language, which
> >> requires social construction) and the actual laws of physics, for which
> >> the need for social construction has not been demonstrated at all.
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >We don't know what "actual laws" refers to, so indeed, one
> >can't say that they have any need for social construction.
> >It is the man-made laws which attempt to express the "actual
> >laws" (if any) that require social construction. However,
> >the philosophical disputes around this issue are hardly the
> >exclusive property of "postmodernism" or postmodernity.
fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
> No, the "actual laws" refer to the semantic content of the
> mathematical expressions of the measurements, rather than
> the particular choice of symbols to represent them, and we
> know quite a few of them quite well, thank you very much.
Well, you could be a brain in a vat, and devil operating the
vat could be working in a universe with different laws. And
of course that devil and his vat could be an illusion generated
in a brain in yet another vat, and so on. One doesn't know
what's outside the known, observable universe. It could be
almost anything, or nothing, and every hypothesis is equally
probable -- at about zero.
However, even if we decide that whatever the laws refer to
is/are really, really, real, or at least real enough, we have
had several different takes on it/them. For instance, the
gravitational force to which Dr. Sokal referred is differently
described by primitive, Aristotelian, Newtonian, Relativistic,
and Quantum-Mechanical observer-theoreticians. The differences
I speak of are, of course, more than a choice of symbols and
grammatical relationships, although all will serve to predict
the mashing of someone who steps out of a 21st-storey window.
Now, it is _possible_ that we have come to the end of our
revisions, and our semantics are now perfectly in line with
the good old Ding an sich; but history indicates otherwise.
Again, there is nothing (post)modern(ist(ic)) about my
observations. They are very Old Hat.
Edward G. Nilges
Hurt like shit, but as Dosteoevsky says, "suffering is the origin of consciousness".
Edward G. Nilges
Not necessarily. In my case, a thorough exposure, over a twenty-year
period, to postmodernism's effective reverse (the reified world of
programming, a realization of the mad dreams of the hegemony of
symbolic logic as seen first in Frege), followed by a course of deep
reading, created, not a "belief" so much as a need for a different
approach...one that could effectively deconstruct without fear or
reproach (sans peur et sans reproche) the claims that a globalized
system erects on this thin foundation.
In the more important case of Derrida, there was not so much "belief"
as an astonishing breadth and depth of philosophical training (one
that in France alone starts with high school thanks to Jean Paul
Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir) and life experience including growing
up in colonized Algeria, getting busted, and starting a family.
Only in America is postmodernism a pose.
Edward G. Nilges
This appears to predefine the goal of postmodernism as something both
futile and already completed. Even Sartre announced, in L'Etre et Le
Neant, that there was nothing "beyond" appearance, no-thing, beyond
appearance.
If postmodernism is membership in a sort of Church in which one must
intone, "ain't be nobody here but us chickens", in which hymns are
sung to Neant, then this is beating a dead horse.
Postmodernism in the hands of Derrida is a practice and a morally
serious stance (American postmodernists consistently fail to apprehend
the strong ethical component in Derrida, although it was noticed by
Phillip Caputo). While denying essences it asserts in a morally,
rather than ontologically, serious way that praxis, all along, is the
whole ball game.
Indeed, the base-ball metaphor is apropos. There is no "essence" of
baseball. If some guy proposed to make it to the major leagues by way
of studying theory, he would at best make it to the triple A farm
team.
In the departure of supporting essences, there still is the praxis
which (not to American postmodernists but certainly to French) becomes
a self-reinforcing morally serious activity which itself is seen to
need no ground.
Indeed, French theory was it seems to me the insight that once you
separate either thought from its justificatory procedures, or more
perniciously, politics from its own justification, the separated
component becomes an infernal machine (of which Stalinism was the
first example).
Derrida represents a return to Kant in which the foundation of the
apprehension of reality is in fact the apprehension of reality, and
the foundation of the good is good deeds such as taking out the trash,
not knocking down little old ladies in the street, and demonstrating
against practically everything George Bush stands for except My Pet
Goat.
[I am quite serious here. For just when we became convinced of the
unreality of absolute banality, it was presented with the potential to
be as evil and as banal as any man in the glass booth.]
But to answer your question. The only "real and important" definition
of postmodernism is the whole ball of wax, a complete reading of all
its texts until the lesson sticks, just like you don't understand
Kant, just as you Kant understand Kant, until you finish the Kritik.
As to Lyotard I have NO idea. I just haven't read enough Lyotard and
as such am not qualified to speak. And note that Derrida would be
gratified, IMHO, by my response here which humbly seeks to evince the
moral seriousness I see in Derrida, and I do not encounter in
Baudrillard.
This is because the absence of the mystified does not reduce by a
single jot the responsibility to truth. Indeed, as the shadow and
curse of Plato fades away in the encounter of globalization we
discover ourselves still doing mathematics and good deeds, and this is
because there was a time BEFORE the old monster when people did
mathematics, took out the trash, and refrained from whacking little
old ladies upside the head.
The "modern" answer to despair was "have a drink, live it up, and the
hell with it". The "postmodern" answer is wait a minute, maybe the
very fact that the sun is dimming year by year means that we better
find a reason to live in the sense of praxis."
None of the above, of course, is anything like what passes for
post-modernism at American universities. It also may strike the reader
as complete and total bullshit. Too fucking bad.
>
> A big question relating to something you said above: given all these
> processes, what could be salvaged of value from Romanticism? Or is that
> Romanticism a bastardised version of a previously complex aesthetic
> ideology?
Romanticism can only salvage the ability of the Romantic to narrate
his own life and blog an apologia pro vita sua.
>
> Best,
> Ian
michael
"Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5dda427.04080...@posting.google.com...
> Indeed, the base-ball metaphor is apropos. There is no "essence" of
> baseball. If some guy proposed to make it to the major leagues by way
> of studying theory, he would at best make it to the triple A farm
> team.
..."indeed", indeed... such a gaping void! a vast and windy neant does
indeed open before us with this scalpel-like formulation...not to say that
Yogi hasn't said it better, though...
michael
Peter T. Daniels
Bill James did indeed make it to the majors, and his team didn't do any
better with him than without him, did it?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Christopher J. Henrich
<fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
> In article <f5dda427.04080...@posting.google.com>,
> Edward G. Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >But for Jacques Derrida, the sign and symbol were already delinked by
> >their very artifactual linkage, meaning that the philosopher's job is
> >less to pass a stone (a reified theory of everthing most useful to
> >totalitarians) and more to interrogate specific social arrangements
> >(such as in my case software) in detail, reminding others that what
> >makes us human is the willingness to do so.
> >
> >In America, "postmodernism" is in fact the symbol of the absence of
> >moral seriousness and the sweetness of life, two terms that themselves
> >have a mystified relationship. But without culture (indeed without a
> >language for speaking of its absence) and deprived of mentoring in
> >favor of the false mentoring of a globalized metropolis, American kids
> >today know neither.
>
> I'm not sure, but it sounds like this essay came from
> The Postmodern Essay Generator.
>
> http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
There were other paragraphs in the quoted article which did connect
with the experience of being a software developer.
--
Chris Henrich
The total lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.
Michael
>>I'm not sure, but it sounds like this essay came from
>>The Postmodern Essay Generator.
>>
>>http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
>
>
> There were other paragraphs in the quoted article which did connect
> with the experience of being a software developer.
There's a lot of postmodern stuff relating to software. He could have
grabbed something via Google, or be speaking sincerely from experience.
He's posted twice on it, so I'd suspect it's authentic.
To even critique it, one would have to be a software designer, plus be
familiar with very specific philosophy.
michael
Dr.Matt
Or at least be able to apply logic to the problem. Software design
is not all that difficult of a field, really.
Edward G. Nilges
> In article <1GZPc.184$vs....@news.itd.umich.edu>, Dr.Matt
> <fie...@rygar.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <f5dda427.04080...@posting.google.com>,
> > Edward G. Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >But for Jacques Derrida, the sign and symbol were already delinked by
> > >their very artifactual linkage, meaning that the philosopher's job is
> > >less to pass a stone (a reified theory of everthing most useful to
> > >totalitarians) and more to interrogate specific social arrangements
> > >(such as in my case software) in detail, reminding others that what
> > >makes us human is the willingness to do so.
> > >
> > >In America, "postmodernism" is in fact the symbol of the absence of
> > >moral seriousness and the sweetness of life, two terms that themselves
> > >have a mystified relationship. But without culture (indeed without a
> > >language for speaking of its absence) and deprived of mentoring in
> > >favor of the false mentoring of a globalized metropolis, American kids
> > >today know neither.
> >
> > I'm not sure, but it sounds like this essay came from
> > The Postmodern Essay Generator.
> >
> > http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
People who write this garbage and send spoofs to journals are pathetic
creatures for in fact they are altiterate technicians who confuse
THEIR inability to connect, whether with other people or with
concepts, with an attribute of "postmodernism".
Dr.Matt
What does it say that the journal accepted Sokal's paper?
Are you familiar with the Homeopathic Crystals affair?
Michael
> People who write this garbage and send spoofs to journals are pathetic
> creatures for in fact they are altiterate technicians who confuse
> THEIR inability to connect, whether with other people or with
> concepts, with an attribute of "postmodernism".
>
The Postmodern Essay Generator is just humor. Lighten up.
michael
Erik A. Mattila
> fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
>
>>>>Those of us who are creative don't necessarily care about what -ism or
>>>>Grand Narrative we get catetorized-in, nor whether people think of us as
>>>>innovative or derivative. Many of us have other things to focus on
>
>
> G*rd*n <g...@panix.com>:
>
>>>Then why are you posting in this thread?
>
>
> fie...@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
>
>>Because the thread title asked a question so it's polite to answer!
>
>
>
> But you think the question is irrelevant or stupid. If you try to
> answer every stupid or irrelevant question posed on Usenet, you're
> going to have very little time to be creative, or anything else.
>
theory of consumption disguised as a theory of production?" Shapiro?
Anyway, so much for "creative."
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Dr.Matt wrote:
> Those of us who are creative don't necessarily care about what -ism or
> Grand Narrative we get catetorized-in, nor whether people think of us as
> innovative or derivative. Many of us have other things to focus on
>
er, I think you missed the point. You are a missist, practitioner of
missism.
E
Erik A. Mattila
G*rd*n wrote:
Whoah! Don't you think this conversation needs to back up a bit? No
one's come right out and said it, but it looks like "social
construction" is being treated as if it is an act of volition. I think
this is misleading. Culture appears to be an opaque process, always
appearing to us as "truth" even when we have little knowledge of the
mechanisms behind it. Thus critical philosophy tries to get to a
greater truth behind this "truth" - which may be bogus (often, "culture"
gets it right, I think).
"Social construction" only "means" at all when bounced-off it's polar
opponent: the "naturalized concept". We don't really have any
particular social carpenters pounding ideological nails to hold
accountable...it just happens, usually below our radar.
Anyway, I think it would be helpful to understanding if these sorts of
theoretical terms aren't reified.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Dr.Matt wrote:
But aren't you refering to the phenomenology that the "actual law"
represents? You have "actual law" referencing language instead of
symbols. Isn't language the symbol here?
Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
G*rd*n wrote:
There was a newsgroup established a few years ago to debate this sort of
issue - I dropped by a few times to read the posts. One really caught
my imagination. It was posted by a mathematician from India who was out
to dispoil the "law" that 2 + 2 = 4, or at least expose it as a cultural
construction. It was pretty fascinating. Mostly above my head, but he
drew on the tradition of maths in India which were quite exotic to the
western maths traditions to prove his challenge. Great stuff.
Erik
>
Dr.Matt
My girlfriend has no trouble considering me a Mister, and that's good
enough for me.
Dr.Matt
>issue - I dropped by a few times to read the posts. One really caught
>my imagination. It was posted by a mathematician from India who was out
>to dispoil the "law" that 2 + 2 = 4, or at least expose it as a cultural
>construction. It was pretty fascinating. Mostly above my head, but he
>drew on the tradition of maths in India which were quite exotic to the
>western maths traditions to prove his challenge. Great stuff.
Zeno's axioms for arithmetic are not over your head, and "2+2=4" is
just a theorem of arithmetic derived from the naming of strings of the
form 0, 0+1, 0+1+1, 0+1+1+1, etc.
In short, the fellow from India was either pulling your leg or
using an equivocation fallacy--most likely the former.
Michael
> Zeno's axioms for arithmetic are not over your head, and "2+2=4" is
> just a theorem of arithmetic derived from the naming of strings of the
> form 0, 0+1, 0+1+1, 0+1+1+1, etc.
> In short, the fellow from India was either pulling your leg or
> using an equivocation fallacy--most likely the former.
They didn't deal with 1 + 1 until the second volume of Principia
Mathematica. I have no idea why Dr. Matt trivializes mathematics (and
software design in a prior post).
As for the Usenet proof it's most likely gibberish or metamath.
michael
Dr.Matt
Michael <no...@none.com> wrote:
>Dr.Matt wrote:
>
>> Zeno's axioms for arithmetic are not over your head, and "2+2=4" is
>> just a theorem of arithmetic derived from the naming of strings of the
>> form 0, 0+1, 0+1+1, 0+1+1+1, etc.
>> In short, the fellow from India was either pulling your leg or
>> using an equivocation fallacy--most likely the former.
>
>They didn't deal with 1 + 1 until the second volume of Principia
>Mathematica. I have no idea why Dr. Matt trivializes mathematics (and
>software design in a prior post).
I make the comments I do about math and software design based on my
direct experience with them (BA Math Oberlin 1986, programmer for
University of Michigan Medical Center 1992-present). I'm not
trivializing them, just pointing out that they're stuff which normal
people can grasp if they take the time. This in turn leads back to my
comments about "talent", but let's not go there.
>As for the Usenet proof it's most likely gibberish or metamath.
The former would fit my notion of "pulling your leg" and the latter
"equivocation".
>michael
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>There was a newsgroup established a few years ago to debate this sort of
>issue - I dropped by a few times to read the posts. One really caught
>my imagination. It was posted by a mathematician from India who was out
>to dispoil the "law" that 2 + 2 = 4, or at least expose it as a cultural
>construction. It was pretty fascinating. Mostly above my head, but he
>drew on the tradition of maths in India which were quite exotic to the
>western maths traditions to prove his challenge. Great stuff.
>
Yes, but could the guy count his change?
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Michael
> People who write this garbage and send spoofs to journals are pathetic
> creatures for in fact they are altiterate technicians who confuse
> THEIR inability to connect, whether with other people or with
> concepts, with an attribute of "postmodernism".
Is "altiterate" the output of a Postmodern Word Generator?
Goethe was a very smart man, and yet accessible. As for the
postmodernists, I think the "Simpsons" summed it up:
"excuse me but, proactive, paradigm, aren't those just words dumb people
use to sound intelligent?"
Then again I'm the type of person who throws up reading The Absolute
Sound or hearing "empowerment" in a meeting at work.
michael
Miles Bader
> I think the "Simpsons" summed it up: "excuse me but, proactive,
> paradigm, aren't those just words dumb people use to sound
> intelligent?"
It's sort of a shame -- those are perfectly good words, but now you
can't really use them for fear of sounding like a pinhead...
-Miles
--
"Most attacks seem to take place at night, during a rainstorm, uphill,
where four map sheets join." -- Anon. British Officer in WW I
Jonsmind
Heh heh heh! He said "tit" eh heh heh!
G*rd*n
> >>>>Those of us who are creative don't necessarily care about what -ism or
> >>>>Grand Narrative we get catetorized-in, nor whether people think of us as
> >>>>innovative or derivative. Many of us have other things to focus on
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com>:
> >>>Then why are you posting in this thread?
fie...@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt):
> >>Because the thread title asked a question so it's polite to answer!
G*rd*n:
> > But you think the question is irrelevant or stupid. If you try to
> > answer every stupid or irrelevant question posed on Usenet, you're
> > going to have very little time to be creative, or anything else.
> hehehhehehehh....who was it that wrote "The theory of modern art is a
> theory of consumption disguised as a theory of production?" Shapiro?
> Anyway, so much for "creative."
Can't have one (prod|con) without the other. And I suppose
the creative requires the destructive. And so it must be that
the time and energy we destroy on Usenet is leading to a great
upsurge of something somewhere. But what?
G*rd*n
> > We don't know what "actual laws" refers to, so indeed, one
> > can't say that they have any need for social construction.
> > It is the man-made laws which attempt to express the "actual
> > laws" (if any) that require social construction. However,
> > the philosophical disputes around this issue are hardly the
> > exclusive property of "postmodernism" or postmodernity.
> Whoah! Don't you think this conversation needs to back up a bit? No
> one's come right out and said it, but it looks like "social
> construction" is being treated as if it is an act of volition.
Not by me.
I think
> this is misleading. Culture appears to be an opaque process, always
> appearing to us as "truth" even when we have little knowledge of the
> mechanisms behind it. Thus critical philosophy tries to get to a
> greater truth behind this "truth" - which may be bogus (often, "culture"
> gets it right, I think).
>
> "Social construction" only "means" at all when bounced-off it's polar
> opponent: the "naturalized concept". We don't really have any
> particular social carpenters pounding ideological nails to hold
> accountable...it just happens, usually below our radar.
>
> Anyway, I think it would be helpful to understanding if these sorts of
> theoretical terms aren't reified.
Well, I was just thinking of the sociology of science, most
particularly the praxeology of how it comes to be decided that
something is known, and what that something may be. And of
course thinking also of Uncle Mannie and his wonderful Ding
an sich behind the veil. Just the usual.
G*rd*n
> > I think the "Simpsons" summed it up: "excuse me but, proactive,
> > paradigm, aren't those just words dumb people use to sound
> > intelligent?"
Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org>:
> It's sort of a shame -- those are perfectly good words, but now you
> can't really use them for fear of sounding like a pinhead...
Maybe they're not perfectly good words. _Proactive_ was
invented so that people wouldn't have to say what they meant,
which was "aggressive". _Paradigm_ was borrowed from the
grammar of classical languages, where it meant a grammatical
pattern or model. There does not seem to have been any
particular reason to borrow the word, other than to wow the
less literate members of the managerial class and so sell
books, courses, consultantcies, and the like. Well, at
least they have now enlisted in the armies of humor.