Post-modernism is...(II)?
SOM
because the question is laden with particular attitudes, of course; it is
a question which directs one, when answering it, toward conclusions which
insist that to be human is to be something at all, in particular to be
something metaphysically or innately meaningful. indeed to conclude that
humans have purposefuleness is nearly an inevitable blunder manifested
throughout 'history', be it religious, Platonic, Confucian, Nietzschian,
feminist(s) or even Legalist, and it speaks to the limits of and limits
created by the language of the post-modern."
SOM K. Gibran: We fear death, yet we long for slumber and
dow...@nevada.edu beautiful dreams.
Brian Dell
: "The question 'What is it to be human?' is a linguistic folly. This
: it is a question which directs one, when answering it, toward
: conclusions which insist that to be human is to be something at all,
: in particular to be something metaphysically or innately meaningful.
: post-modern."
It is very PM to say "if, with no little indulgence, we attribute you,
Mr. Author, with an existence prior to or independent of "your"
(the possessive here also being hypothetical!) text, we would
nonetheless consider (any given query in) your text *leading*, because
even if it is so fundamental or universal as to not suggest any
particular answer per se, it suggests *answerability*. That is, you are
guilty of, not specifically of leading us somewhere, but of *leading*,
as if we want to go *anywhere*! You presuppose our *intentionality*!
You make the metaphysical assumption that there is something *external*
to yourself which would want to (intention being necessary for action)
answer the question."
The attribution of intentionality to the reader is most certainly "an
inevitable blunder" because it is the necessary condition for
communication! You are not going to understand what role my words play
in the language game if you have have no desire to ever play the game;
"role" implies "tool" or something that has *utility* (if you
nonetheless "understand" it would only in the sense that a computer who
parses language according to formal rules "understands" what it does).
It also most certainly ""speaks to the limits of ... language ..." in
that it gives us a glimpse of how PM may be ultimately reduced into a
materialist determinism that throws language out the same window as
metaphysics (is if all language does not, in fact, *presuppose*
metaphysics!)
: K. Gibran: We fear death, yet we long for slumber
: and beautiful dreams.
Another profound quote. What is happiness to the Slave, if not peace,
sabbath, narcosis, folding of the hands, in short, *security*. In the
slowing of the blood one finds the origin of "slave morality". It was
when I divide my intentionality, my will, my *self* from its material
instantiation, transform my End, my purpose, from the mere perpetuation
of my physical existence to the realization that of which I *will*,
that which gives meaning to the earth; - herein lies the Master. And
for what does my Will strive? *To overcome itself again and again*; I
conquer death when my death gives life to the Ubermensch...
--
Brian Dell
http://gpu.srv.ualberta.ca/~dellb/index.html
Eugene Mosburg
: "The question 'What is it to be human?' is a linguistic folly. This is
: a question which directs one, when answering it, toward conclusions which
: insist that to be human is to be something at all, in particular to be
: something metaphysically or innately meaningful. indeed to conclude that
: humans have purposefuleness is nearly an inevitable blunder manifested
: throughout 'history', be it religious, Platonic, Confucian, Nietzschian,
: feminist(s) or even Legalist, and it speaks to the limits of and limits
: created by the language of the post-modern."
Fair enough. If humanity is not a proper subject for the inquiry "What
is it?" then what *will* we predicate of humanity? With what semantic
tools? There's too much great raw material here, in the fact of human
life/experience/intelligence/creativity, for us to let ourselves off
the hook by so facile a device as saying "We can't ask 'what is it?'"
Let's educate the question; rephrase it in more satisfactory terms,
change paradigms where necessary, but let's not let the opportunity to
inquire into our humanity (by fair means or foul) go to waste.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Eugene Mosburg, O.C.D. % She broke your ribs %
% % giving you %
% mos...@qns.com % a backrub?!? %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Omar Haneef '96
> SOM (dow...@nevada.edu) wrote:
> : "The question 'What is it to be human?' is a linguistic folly. This is
> : because the question is laden with particular attitudes, of course; it is
> : a question which directs one, when answering it, toward conclusions which
> : insist that to be human is to be something at all, in particular to be
> : something metaphysically or innately meaningful. indeed to conclude that
> : humans have purposefuleness is nearly an inevitable blunder manifested
> : throughout 'history', be it religious, Platonic, Confucian, Nietzschian,
> : feminist(s) or even Legalist, and it speaks to the limits of and limits
> : created by the language of the post-modern."
> Fair enough. If humanity is not a proper subject for the inquiry "What
> is it?" then what *will* we predicate of humanity? With what semantic
> tools? There's too much great raw material here, in the fact of human
> life/experience/intelligence/creativity, for us to let ourselves off
> the hook by so facile a device as saying "We can't ask 'what is it?'"
> Let's educate the question; rephrase it in more satisfactory terms,
> change paradigms where necessary, but let's not let the opportunity to
> inquire into our humanity (by fair means or foul) go to waste.
Absolutely. We can rephrase the question "When people use the word human,
whatever do they mean?" That is to say that even if it IS a linguistic
folly,it foolishly talks about SOMETHING, people at least THINK they use the
word, whatever in the world are they gesturing (so franticly) at?
-Omar Haneef
SOM
::SOM (dow...@nevada.edu) wrote:
::"The question 'What is it to be human?' is a linguistic folly. This is
::because the question is laden with particular attitudes, of course; it is
::a question which directs one, when answering it, toward
::conclusions which insist that to be human is to be something at all,
::in particular to be something metaphysically or intately meaningful.
::Indeed to conclude that humans have purposefulness is nearly an
::inevitable blunder manifested throughout 'history', be it religious,
::Platonic, Confucian, Nietzschian, feminist(s) or even Legalist, and it
::speaks to the limits of and limits created by the language of the
::post-modern."
:
:It is very PM to say "if, with no little indulgence, we attribute you,
:Mr. Author, with an existence prior to or independent of "your"
:(the possessive here also being hypothetical!) text, we would
:Nonetheless concider (any given query in)your text *leading*, because
:even if it is so fundamental or universal as to not suggest any
:particular answer per se, it suggest *answerility*. That is, you are
:guity of, not specifically of leading us somewhere, but of *leading*
:as if we want to go *anywhere*! Tou presuppose our *intentionality*!
:You make the metaphysical assumption that there is something *external*
:to yourself which want to (intention being necessary for action)
:answer the question."
Whether in denial of itself or the Self in the Other, the text is indeed
always answerable, because it is always presentable! The Self must
presuppose its intentionality in order to *Be*, in order to Be where it
is and find *where it is not*; hence, the linits of language, as we all
know, are self-manifested, self-referiant, self-negating -- 'In the
Beginning there was only the Word of God'; the metaphysical assumption of
that which is external, the logocentric mutation hereafter forgotten in
time (though reason remains dispossessed of itself); in stone one finds
security of Being, that which will outlast my Will (thus gives me reason
to believe in my Will); and in the schizophrenia of dreams one finds the
cipher of one's own identity, one's Will, that which defines my existence
in deceit. We are our own god.
: What is happiness to the Slave, if not peace,
:sabbath, narcosis, folding of the hands, in short, *sercurity*. In the
:slowing of the blood one finds the origins of 'slave morality". It was
:when i divide my intentionality, my will, my *self8 from its material
:instantiation, transform my End, my purpose, from the mere perpetuation
:of my physical existence to the realization that of which I *will*,
:that which gives meaning to the earth; -- herein lies the Mater. And
:for what doesmy Will strive? *To over come itself again and again*;
Could the Self be otherwise? I do not see it. But what happens when The
Master runs? What is happiness to the Slave, now that his Master has
abandoned him? Does freedom not lose its atrractiveness, does one not
find satisfaction in the *pain of one's own desires? When one's Self is
kept in suspence, when one's uncertainty is dry, one is psychologically
unable to escape the Self, unable to remain the Absolute Master, and so
one desires to be the Slave, to revisit the uncertainty of the text in
hopes of prolonging the game, of regianing Authorship. So what is
happiness to the Slave -- to be the Master! We are trapped, my friends,
in our own inauthentic world of lies. Herein lies our security, in our
insecurity.
'If delirium always pivots on what one would (ideally) like to be,' say
the post-structuralists, 'and not on what one would like to have, then
does not the Self necessarilty existence external itself? What I myself
am not (namely, *a subject*; free, autonomous) is always another (another
subject; powerful, the Master, the distanced Slave) who is taking my
place. the problem is, of course, that I Will, because of the Other, to
compete for that Other, for the metaphysical; because if the Other is in
*my place*, I will never cease to dislodge him, in order to realize
myself. What begins in admiration ends in murder --'If you desire
salvation of you souls,' said Jesus, 'give-up your Self, and *follow me*'.
Again, we are our own gods.
Brian, I like your style.
Brian Dell
: ... The Self must
: it is and find *where it is not*;
There is no assertion of identity _ex nihilo_; it is always via
*negation*, in terms of what it is *not*. To arrive at A I must say
not (not A)!
: the limits of language,
And such is my striving that I explore, nay, throw myself against the
walls of my prison and long to *overcome* these obstacles.
You see *me* when you see for what my words *reach*.
I travel not in the arrow you see, I am in its *direction*; but to see
this, to understand _teleos_, you must know what it is to be *archer*.
: ... What is happiness to the Slave, now that his Master has
: abandoned him? Does freedom not lose its attractiveness, does one not
: find satisfaction in the *pain of one's own desires*?
I may desire this, and I may desire that, but what, at bottom, does
Desire desire, if not simply *what it does not have*.
The real estate over which the battle is fought is not *material* but
*command over the material*.
What Desire yearns for is not the *effect* but to negate the *cause*
that is not itself, non-Willed, and thereby bring about a *self-caused*
effect!
It is not the resulting "property" that is the object but the *origin*
of the property. I fight for material property, not because it is a
good in itself but because the concrete realm is the *edge* of the Self,
it is that which indicates, to the Other, where the self begins and
ends. To expand the Self one must engage the Other over the defining
*iconography* reified in the concrete. I wish to be *recognized* as
Self by the Other's recognition of my *command* over the material.
What is the Self? The answer must be in terms of what the Self is not.
Thou art a Self if thou are not *effect*.
: When one's Self is
: kept in suspense, when one's uncertainty is dry, ...
The paralysis of doubt. The Will heals the lame.
SOM
but also dying
(as well as
to cry and sing,
my love
and wonder) is something....
-Cummings
Most certainly true (and what is so true?); the reason I 'popped out of
nowhere" and posted my original quote was to 'not let us off the hook so
easily'. "What the hell IS humanity?"; is to be human to have no idea of
humanism?; we look for righteousness, correctness, and we spill blood for
*our own truths*, for what we believe to be so real. "I would die for
you, my loving Dionysis!, if only you would remember me hereafter." Are
you afraid, as am I, to look around our fabricated wonders for the answer
to a question which is already an answer to itself? (and what is so
true?) The answer, I believe, to our question is hidden from us in an
entropy point in the human Will, as some of you have cried out, in one's
own cipher. Arbitrary and enigmatic as they are, the phenomena and
rememberance of a dream holds within its depths human identity; and it
can be suggested that humankind, in all its *imperfection*, has not come
far in the last two million years -- to dream, it has been said and
known, is to revisit the insane faculties of *prehistoric humanity*. It
is death that I long for, my Love! For in the depths of the dream,"what
man encounters is his death, a death which in its most inauthentic form
is but the brutal and bloody interruption of *life*, yet in its authentic
form, is his very existence being accomplished." Perhaps we are looking
in all the right places, but with the 'wrong' desires. If the question is
unanswerable in a satisfactory way, is that a satisfactory answer? Even
if so, it can never be so.