Cyberpunk vs. Postmodernism - my last resurrection for today...
Kevin Calder
<Alie...@hotmail.com> writes
>Kevin Calder wrote:
>> [Another resurrection. Actually I make a point of not replying to
>>alienthe's until at least 8 months after he posts them :)]
>With the upcoming holiday season my replies might be on
>the same time scale too...
I find that reading alt.cp at these low frequencies helps to make it
look busy.
>>> From: Alienthe (Alie...@hotmail.com)
>>> Subject: Re: Cyberpunk vs. Postmodernism
>>> Date: 2003-04-14 14:42:02 PST
>>> Kevin Calder wrote:
>>> alie...@hotmail.com writes
>>> [snip]
>> [Snip of sokal throwing marx bros. style pies in pomo faces]
>> > Groucho had a sense of humor, does Derrida? Or the other POMOs?
>> > Just to be clear: I am thinking of intentional humor here.
Where do you find the intention? In the Marx Bros. intending to make
the audience interpret their actions as humorous, or in the audience
intending to enjoy the humour?
Im not sure that it matters, but if you want to be specific about which
kind of humour you are thinking of, then I want to specifically know
what you mean.
>> Sokal clearly had a pretty pomo sense of humor, wouldn't you say?
>I am not sure if it is late POMO or early Post-POMO. Still I
>would agree there is something here. If we go sufficiently
>retro will we reach plain modernism?
I'm not sure if that's how it works, or even if it works at all. It
wouldn't help us much if it did though, Modernism is every bit as
slippery, if not more, than pomoism, IMHO.
>> In fact I hereby claim Sokal's work as postmodernism's greatest triumph!
>> Refute my claim if you dare!
>I won't refute, rather point out that the pomies seem to
>sneer at their greatest achievement.
I'm still not sure I know for sure who the pomies are, but I can imagine
the sorts of people you mean, and I expect that they do sneer at Sokal.
That said I have never read a critique of Sokal, let alone a sneering
article.
I recently ordered a copy of 'Intellectual Impostures', any one read
it? I also ordered a new paper copy of Fashionable Nonsense, but for
some reason my bookshop couldn't get it here in the UK and had to send
to the US for it. Quite surprising really. The UK chapter of the
sneering pomies brigade must have broke into the store room and burned
them!
>> And pomoism is well known for validating humour, parody and pastiche,
>It does?
Maybe not well known then.
However, if you were to ask me (and I should know) to pick out, from a
selection of poems, the ones that i thought were the most pomo, I would
start by looking for the funny poems. I generally find that pomo-poetry
is generally pretty humorous, which I attribute to a reaction against
the grumpy self seriousness (my reaction, or the poets, whatever you
prefer) of 'Modern' poetry.
Try, uh, Tom Raworth, Susan Howe, Paul Muldoon (particularly Immram) or
James Fenton. IMHO they are all very funny.
I realise that by admitting that I think that some poetry is funny that
I run the risk of looking like the English teacher that laughs at the
jokes in Shakespeare productions when on school outings to the theatre,
but... ah well...
>> which tend to be marginalised by other standards and more generally
>>its so damned sceptical about everything that it can't possibly take
>>itself to seriously, unlike every other approach to appraising
>>literature I think of.
>I can agree that humor has these qualities and more but as
>for POMO I am not sure. WmG, to bring this writhing thread
>briefly close to things cyberriffic,
We are on topic now? Crap.
> seems to be regarded
>as highly POMO and claims himself to have a sense of humor
>that he also feels is under-appreciated. The POMO-humor
>connection does not appear to me to be a direct one.
I'm not sure what it would take to convince you, but as far the literary
criticism record is concerned I think you will find that for a lot of
critics one of the defining characteristics of pomo literature is that
it rejects the marginalisation of linguistic 'play' and often engages in
such 'play' usually in the form of humour, pastiche or parody. Pre-pomo
literary critics didn't rate humorous literature very highly at all and
seriousness was generally privileged.
It might take a while but I could probably knock together a reading list
if you are interested, though I imagine that you already have more
reading lists than you have time for!
>> >> And if the Emperor has no clothes then what it suggests to me is that
>> >> the method for determining whether the Emperor is clothed or not is
>> >> inherently unreliable. Some people can see the clothes, some can't.
>> >> *None* of them can produce a truth table to validate their perspective.
>> >Alternatively the emperor is a streaker and those who claim to see
>> >the clothes are just wanting to see some nudity.
Can you validate that alternative in a manner that will satisfy 'those
who claim to see'? Surely if this were possible, in an absolute and
universal manner, then your verification would be so persuasive that
'those who claim to see' would instead begin to see their folly. IMHO
the significant pomo argument is not that we can't establish whether or
not the emperor is clothed in a way that satisfies most people, most of
the time, because it is clear that in practice this is actually quite
easy achieved. The argument is that you can't do it in an absolute,
universally applicable way that satisfies everyone, in all places for
all of time. Its not about denying that you can construct a functional,
practical model that incorporates some limited notion of 'truth', rather
that you cannot rely on invoking some mystical 'absolute truth'.
>> >>> Others had called them
>> >>> charlatans before but Sokal made it amusing.
>> What is exactly is pomoism guilty of pretending?
>That the emperor actually has clothes.
But if I can see that clothes then I am not pretending.
>> And what is wrong with pretending?
>Indecent exposure? A tendency to catch a cold?
Nyuk. Nyuk.
Apparently catching one of the many cold-causing viruses has no more or
no less to do with actually being cold than any other virus :p
`
>> Why should we feel guilty?
>A sense of decency?
Where do I get that from?
> A tendency to reply with new questions?
Eliza: Please go on.
>> Isn't fiction at least a bit about pretending?
>Yes!
So I win? :)
>> >> What is wrong with reading Sokal's text as one worth interpreting?
>> >> What
>> >> is it about it that makes it 'bogus'? Authorial intention? Cmon, that
>> >> argument hasn't been especially tenable for almost a century now. It
>> >> got discredited long before postmodernism! Whether Sokal likes it or
>> >> not, his text isn't demonstrably, intrinsically, and without a doubt,
>> >> 'bogus'.
>> >When in doubt bring out Occam's Razor and start slicing.
>> >To me Sokal
>> >appears genuine while the POMOs appear to be short of a skeleton
So for you it all comes down to how it seems to you.
And for me, then, it all comes down to how it seems to me.
So who is pretending?
Aren't you just heading back toward the emperors clothes problem? If
you are that's fine by me, I don't think its really a problem, but I
thought that you did.
>> We both agree that Sokal's text is valuable, its just that I, coming
>>at it from a pomo-type perspective, am not hung up on whatever
>>Sokal's intention was, or what he thought his intention was, or what
>>he wanted us to think his intention was or whatever! From a pomo
>>perspective the value of Sokal's text is more or less insensitive to
>>his particular
>Well, that seems to be the core of it. The works of the
>originating artist is reinterpreted as something new where
>said artist is disqualified. And critics claim artistry,
>careful not to notice the full circle that leads to infinite
>recursion.
Very, very true.
Pomoism seems to me to be very closely related to scepticism, sophism
and solipsism (check the Platonic dialogues; Socrates, Plato and
Protagoras were having these same sorts of arguments in something like
400bc!) and as such isn't very well suited for making truth claims.
I think that said critics should swallow pomoism whole so that they
could see this, rather than wheeling it out half-baked to back up some
or other argument they mistakenly believe they can support with it.
IMHO pomoism doesn't imply that the author should be disqualified
entirely, rather that they only get one vote, and rightly so!
>> allegiance or intention. Isn't that a powerful \ interesting way of
>>approaching it? Doesn't that suggest that pomoism has more to it than
>>the absence of a skeleton?
>It can be entertaining, at least occationally.
So gruff!
> My problem with
>this is that the artists (originating rather than reinterpreting)
>then no longer has anything valid to bring out to the masses
>short of claiming there is no truth.
I agree.
That said I don't think there is much to worry about. Science, for
example, doesn't IMHO have much to worry about when people are sceptical
about scientific claims, because people can only be sceptical about
stuff for limited amounts of time, and in limited ways. The pressures
of everyday life mean that most people are forced to assume that many
things are true. I have never met a hard-line sceptic. It is claimed
of course that Piro (sp?), a pre-socratic sceptic, had to be accompanied
by his friends everywhere he went because he was such a committed
sceptic that he refused to believe that fire really burned or that you
could drown in water, though I don't expect that many people will follow
this example.
So when Richard Dawkins says "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000
feet and I'll show you a hypocrite." I get the gist of his rhetoric but
I feel he is missing the point somehow. Show me a sceptic at any
altitude that can deny any notion of truth without making a truth claim
and I'll jump out of the plane.
Or even better, just show me a cultural relativist! Or a sophist, or a
solipsist. I have never met anyone who 100% believed in these things
24/7 and I think that the taxonomy is suspect. There are no "cultural
relativists" I guess is what I am trying to say. If you follow
relativism through without arbitrarily drawing the line at some point
you end up going round in circles. A **real**
absolute-relativist-sceptic would never be able to get up off the floor
let alone get on plane.
That said, just because you can't turn these sorts of ideas into
prescriptive 'guides for life' doesn't mean that you should abandon them
all together. I personally favour an aristotelian middle road.
As for art, and approaches to art, I don't think that there is any
reliable way of categorising some as good or right and some as bad or
wrong. Anything goes as far as I'm concerned. If you want to appreciate
a novel by investigating the intentions of the author that seems fine,
and if I want to look at it in different ways that I hope that that
seems fine to you. And if it doesn't, oh well...
> The Matrix did at least
>make some people take up thinking as a new hobby.
This I will grudgingly admit.
Just don't tell anyone.
More about science vs postmodernism in the "Deconstructing the
Deconstructors" thread when I get back from work.
cya,
--
Kevin Calder
Alienthe
> In message <3FE4EAE6...@hotmail.com>, Alienthe
> <Alie...@hotmail.com> writes
>> Kevin Calder wrote:
>
>
>>> [Another resurrection. Actually I make a point of not replying to
>>> alienthe's until at least 8 months after he posts them :)]
>
>> With the upcoming holiday season my replies might be on
>> the same time scale too...
>
> I find that reading alt.cp at these low frequencies helps to make it
> look busy.
I hope to get broadband soon; that might increase my frequency...
>>>> From: Alienthe (Alie...@hotmail.com)
>>>> Subject: Re: Cyberpunk vs. Postmodernism
>>>> Date: 2003-04-14 14:42:02 PST
>
>>>> Kevin Calder wrote:
>>>> alie...@hotmail.com writes
>
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> [Snip of sokal throwing marx bros. style pies in pomo faces]
>
>>> > Groucho had a sense of humor, does Derrida? Or the other POMOs?
>>> > Just to be clear: I am thinking of intentional humor here.
>
> Where do you find the intention? In the Marx Bros. intending to make
> the audience interpret their actions as humorous, or in the audience
> intending to enjoy the humour?
I would say it is both; the Marx Brothers making a living of their
style of humour, and the audience who paid to be entertained. It might
then be more POMO to point out that the audience paid Victor Borge
NOT to play his piano.
> Im not sure that it matters, but if you want to be specific about which
> kind of humour you are thinking of, then I want to specifically know
> what you mean.
>
>>> Sokal clearly had a pretty pomo sense of humor, wouldn't you say?
>
>> I am not sure if it is late POMO or early Post-POMO. Still I
>> would agree there is something here. If we go sufficiently
>> retro will we reach plain modernism?
>
> I'm not sure if that's how it works, or even if it works at all. It
I thought that was one of the very few things one could never say
in a POMO world. Shurely workage would be subject to interpretation?
Right?
> wouldn't help us much if it did though, Modernism is every bit as
> slippery, if not more, than pomoism, IMHO.
After POMO made itself known there has been less talk of Modernism.
Is there for instance a newsgroup called alt.modernism?
>>> In fact I hereby claim Sokal's work as postmodernism's greatest triumph!
>>> Refute my claim if you dare!
>
>> I won't refute, rather point out that the pomies seem to
>> sneer at their greatest achievement.
>
> I'm still not sure I know for sure who the pomies are, but I can imagine
> the sorts of people you mean, and I expect that they do sneer at Sokal.
> That said I have never read a critique of Sokal, let alone a sneering
> article.
Where is Omar when you need him?
> I recently ordered a copy of 'Intellectual Impostures', any one read
> it? I also ordered a new paper copy of Fashionable Nonsense, but for
> some reason my bookshop couldn't get it here in the UK and had to send
> to the US for it. Quite surprising really. The UK chapter of the
> sneering pomies brigade must have broke into the store room and burned
> them!
So that is where Omar was!
>>> And pomoism is well known for validating humour, parody and pastiche,
>
>> It does?
>
> Maybe not well known then.
>
> However, if you were to ask me (and I should know) to pick out, from a
Just curious here, just how should you know?
> selection of poems, the ones that i thought were the most pomo, I would
> start by looking for the funny poems. I generally find that pomo-poetry
> is generally pretty humorous, which I attribute to a reaction against
> the grumpy self seriousness (my reaction, or the poets, whatever you
> prefer) of 'Modern' poetry.
>
> Try, uh, Tom Raworth, Susan Howe, Paul Muldoon (particularly Immram) or
> James Fenton. IMHO they are all very funny.
>
> I realise that by admitting that I think that some poetry is funny that
> I run the risk of looking like the English teacher that laughs at the
> jokes in Shakespeare productions when on school outings to the theatre,
> but... ah well...
Ah, that kind of humour. I have just finished the Tempest and a
number of comments on it and it seems to be full of people
congratulating themselves with the cleverness in determining the
alleged jokes. The word "natural" appears to be a trigger word
to start laughing.
It is amazing how the fun evaporates under scrutiny.
>>> which tend to be marginalised by other standards and more generally
>>> its so damned sceptical about everything that it can't possibly take
>>> itself to seriously, unlike every other approach to appraising
>>> literature I think of.
>
>> I can agree that humor has these qualities and more but as
>> for POMO I am not sure. WmG, to bring this writhing thread
>> briefly close to things cyberriffic,
>
> We are on topic now? Crap.
Quoting Keanu Reeves: Whoa!
>> seems to be regarded
>> as highly POMO and claims himself to have a sense of humor
>> that he also feels is under-appreciated. The POMO-humor
>> connection does not appear to me to be a direct one.
>
> I'm not sure what it would take to convince you, but as far the literary
> criticism record is concerned I think you will find that for a lot of
> critics one of the defining characteristics of pomo literature is that
> it rejects the marginalisation of linguistic 'play' and often engages in
> such 'play' usually in the form of humour, pastiche or parody. Pre-pomo
> literary critics didn't rate humorous literature very highly at all and
> seriousness was generally privileged.
It seems to be that irony is what they seize on, to the point
of strangling the fun. Some of the online POMO magazines show
a level of puns, quality as well as quantity, similar to tabloids
but unrivalled in terms of obviousness. Somehow I get the feeling
the authors of these literary atrocities congratulate themselves
on their inventiveness.
What rates as serious has changed a lot I hear; Shakespeare
was apparently most appreciated for his comedies in his time
while now tragedies is all the rage. Personally I blame the
70's for this. POMO or no POMO, humour doesn't rate that high
everywhere still, and with the passing of Astrid Lindgren it
was pointed out that also children's books had not been
sufficiently appreciated by professional appreciaters. Perhaps
Post-POMO will see to that.
> It might take a while but I could probably knock together a reading list
> if you are interested, though I imagine that you already have more
> reading lists than you have time for!
My reading list could fill a library but your inputs might
of course still be interesting. Food for a FAQ? An update
to the alt.postmodern FAQ?
>>> >> And if the Emperor has no clothes then what it suggests to me is
>>> that
>>> >> the method for determining whether the Emperor is clothed or not is
>>> >> inherently unreliable. Some people can see the clothes, some can't.
>>> >> *None* of them can produce a truth table to validate their
>>> perspective.
>
> >> >Alternatively the emperor is a streaker and those who claim to see
> >> >the clothes are just wanting to see some nudity.
>
> Can you validate that alternative in a manner that will satisfy 'those
> who claim to see'? Surely if this were possible, in an absolute and
> universal manner, then your verification would be so persuasive that
> 'those who claim to see' would instead begin to see their folly. IMHO
First of all any attempts of this would quickly land us in the
awkward subject of objective truth. Also considering the lenghth
to which people go to see porn we cannot even assume that those
who claim to see the clothes would ever tell the truth when a
cheap lie would lead to more cheap porn.
> the significant pomo argument is not that we can't establish whether or
> not the emperor is clothed in a way that satisfies most people, most of
The immediate problem is that truth could end the satisfaction
going on in the crowds.
> the time, because it is clear that in practice this is actually quite
> easy achieved. The argument is that you can't do it in an absolute,
> universally applicable way that satisfies everyone, in all places for
> all of time. Its not about denying that you can construct a functional,
> practical model that incorporates some limited notion of 'truth', rather
> that you cannot rely on invoking some mystical 'absolute truth'.
Means of finding absolute truths are not on the charts anytime soon
so meanwhile we have to do with sufficiently working truths.
>>> >>> Others had called them
>>> >>> charlatans before but Sokal made it amusing.
>
>>> What is exactly is pomoism guilty of pretending?
>
>> That the emperor actually has clothes.
>
> But if I can see that clothes then I am not pretending.
Noone can tell if you see the clothes, only that you were
claiming you did. We are possibly getting close to
solipsism here...
>>> And what is wrong with pretending?
>
>> Indecent exposure? A tendency to catch a cold?
>
> Nyuk. Nyuk.
>
> Apparently catching one of the many cold-causing viruses has no more or
> no less to do with actually being cold than any other virus :p
Sure. It is more indirect; being cold lowers your resitance
to infection and makes it more likely to catch a cold. With
a large crowd enjoying free porn you would be exposed to
more germs.
>>> Why should we feel guilty?
>
>> A sense of decency?
>
> Where do I get that from?
A sense of humour perhaps.
>> A tendency to reply with new questions?
>
> Eliza: Please go on.
Eliza always saves the day.
>>> Isn't fiction at least a bit about pretending?
>
>> Yes!
>
> So I win? :)
You win one cyberpoint. One of these days I will figure
exactly what you can redeem a cyberpoint for.
>>> >> What is wrong with reading Sokal's text as one worth interpreting?
>>> >> What
>>> >> is it about it that makes it 'bogus'? Authorial intention?
>>> Cmon, that
>>> >> argument hasn't been especially tenable for almost a century
>>> now. It
>>> >> got discredited long before postmodernism! Whether Sokal likes
>>> it or
>>> >> not, his text isn't demonstrably, intrinsically, and without a
>>> doubt,
>>> >> 'bogus'.
>>
>
>>> >When in doubt bring out Occam's Razor and start slicing.
>>> >To me Sokal
>>> >appears genuine while the POMOs appear to be short of a skeleton
>
> So for you it all comes down to how it seems to you.
> And for me, then, it all comes down to how it seems to me.
To a large extent: yes.
> So who is pretending?
Noone has to pretend, we just have to observe.
> Aren't you just heading back toward the emperors clothes problem? If
> you are that's fine by me, I don't think its really a problem, but I
> thought that you did.
The emperor's new clothes isn't a problem as long as one settles
for working truths and the principle of least astonishment, not
invoking the fairy twice and so on.
>>> We both agree that Sokal's text is valuable, its just that I, coming
>>> at it from a pomo-type perspective, am not hung up on whatever
>>> Sokal's intention was, or what he thought his intention was, or what
>>> he wanted us to think his intention was or whatever! From a pomo
>>> perspective the value of Sokal's text is more or less insensitive to
>>> his particular
>
>> Well, that seems to be the core of it. The works of the
>> originating artist is reinterpreted as something new where
>> said artist is disqualified. And critics claim artistry,
>> careful not to notice the full circle that leads to infinite
>> recursion.
>
> Very, very true.
Ooops, more agreements.
> Pomoism seems to me to be very closely related to scepticism, sophism
> and solipsism (check the Platonic dialogues; Socrates, Plato and
> Protagoras were having these same sorts of arguments in something like
> 400bc!) and as such isn't very well suited for making truth claims.
While my virtual library of books to read is swelling further, just
how does solipsism come into POMO?
> I think that said critics should swallow pomoism whole so that they
> could see this, rather than wheeling it out half-baked to back up some
> or other argument they mistakenly believe they can support with it.
>
> IMHO pomoism doesn't imply that the author should be disqualified
> entirely, rather that they only get one vote, and rightly so!
Yes, and in fact the first vote.
>>> allegiance or intention. Isn't that a powerful \ interesting way of
>>> approaching it? Doesn't that suggest that pomoism has more to it than
>>> the absence of a skeleton?
>
>> It can be entertaining, at least occationally.
>
> So gruff!
This is alt.cp you know, in spite of that crossposting
you added up there. I am not sure we will hear much
from the alt.postmodern regulars; the last crossposted
thread had them gasping for air.
>> My problem with
>> this is that the artists (originating rather than reinterpreting)
>> then no longer has anything valid to bring out to the masses
>> short of claiming there is no truth.
>
> I agree.
>
> That said I don't think there is much to worry about. Science, for
> example, doesn't IMHO have much to worry about when people are sceptical
> about scientific claims, because people can only be sceptical about
> stuff for limited amounts of time, and in limited ways. The pressures
> of everyday life mean that most people are forced to assume that many
> things are true. I have never met a hard-line sceptic. It is claimed
> of course that Piro (sp?), a pre-socratic sceptic, had to be accompanied
> by his friends everywhere he went because he was such a committed
> sceptic that he refused to believe that fire really burned or that you
> could drown in water, though I don't expect that many people will follow
> this example.
Darwin probably disposed of them. The idea of a working truth
being sufficient to go on living is perhaps something humanity
got through natural selection.
> So when Richard Dawkins says "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000
> feet and I'll show you a hypocrite." I get the gist of his rhetoric but
> I feel he is missing the point somehow. Show me a sceptic at any
> altitude that can deny any notion of truth without making a truth claim
> and I'll jump out of the plane.
Sokal also invited some POMOs to walk out of his office
window if they believed they could just deconstruct gravity.
> Or even better, just show me a cultural relativist! Or a sophist, or a
> solipsist. I have never met anyone who 100% believed in these things
> 24/7 and I think that the taxonomy is suspect. There are no "cultural
> relativists" I guess is what I am trying to say. If you follow
> relativism through without arbitrarily drawing the line at some point
> you end up going round in circles. A **real**
> absolute-relativist-sceptic would never be able to get up off the floor
> let alone get on plane.
Ultimately if the sceptic did not believe in own self we might
at least get a case of anti-solipsism?
> That said, just because you can't turn these sorts of ideas into
> prescriptive 'guides for life' doesn't mean that you should abandon them
> all together. I personally favour an aristotelian middle road.
Isn't that what "working truth" is about?
> As for art, and approaches to art, I don't think that there is any
> reliable way of categorising some as good or right and some as bad or
> wrong. Anything goes as far as I'm concerned. If you want to appreciate
> a novel by investigating the intentions of the author that seems fine,
> and if I want to look at it in different ways that I hope that that
> seems fine to you. And if it doesn't, oh well...
I enjoy reading what the author actually wrote; reading what the
critics thought he wrote is occationally interesting but mostly
I prefer going to the source.
>> The Matrix did at least
>> make some people take up thinking as a new hobby.
>
> This I will grudgingly admit.
>
> Just don't tell anyone.
My credibility is already shaky.
> More about science vs postmodernism in the "Deconstructing the
> Deconstructors" thread when I get back from work.
This should provide for an endless recursion and source
for more discussions. Knowing this place I guess it will
take us strange places.
==<)
Kevin Calder
>Where is Omar when you need him?
>> I recently ordered a copy of 'Intellectual Impostures', any one read
>>it? I also ordered a new paper copy of Fashionable Nonsense, but for
>>some reason my bookshop couldn't get it here in the UK and had to send
>>to the US for it. Quite surprising really. The UK chapter of the
>>sneering pomies brigade must have broke into the store room and burned >>
>So that is where Omar was!
Do not speak ill of the dead.
Ok, so I got 'Intellectual Impostures', and as carefully thinking about
the original title of 'Fashionable Nonsense' would have suggested, it is
in fact the same book. The US title is 'Fashionable Nonsense', the
French is 'Impostures Intellectuelles' and the UK one is 'Intellectual
Impostures'. Quite disappointing really; I though for a moment that I
was getting something new!
--
Kevin Calder
alie...@hotmail.com
> <temporary snip>
>
> >Where is Omar when you need him?
>
> >> I recently ordered a copy of 'Intellectual Impostures', any one read
> >>it? I also ordered a new paper copy of Fashionable Nonsense, but for
> >>some reason my bookshop couldn't get it here in the UK and had to send
> >>to the US for it. Quite surprising really. The UK chapter of the
> >>sneering pomies brigade must have broke into the store room and burned >>
>
> >So that is where Omar was!
>
> Do not speak ill of the dead.
Is he dead? He had a tendency to disappear suddenly and then reappear
equally suddenly after a long period. There are those who have left
alt.cyberpunk rather permanently but I didn't know Omar was amongst
them.
> Ok, so I got 'Intellectual Impostures', and as carefully thinking about
> the original title of 'Fashionable Nonsense' would have suggested, it is
> in fact the same book. The US title is 'Fashionable Nonsense', the
> French is 'Impostures Intellectuelles' and the UK one is 'Intellectual
> Impostures'. Quite disappointing really; I though for a moment that I
> was getting something new!
Could this be a post-modern experience??
==<)
James Whitehead
[...]
> > So when Richard Dawkins says "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000
> > feet and I'll show you a hypocrite." I get the gist of his rhetoric but
> > I feel he is missing the point somehow. Show me a sceptic at any
> > altitude that can deny any notion of truth without making a truth claim
> > and I'll jump out of the plane.
>
a new convert to islamic fundementalism. AKA - he who evolves in any given
sitation in order to survive.... As for the sceptic - its the other way
around - he who makes a truith claim needs to be able to support his claim?
Thats all the sceptic is asking - otherwise he'd buy the hair restorer...
>
> Sokal also invited some POMOs to walk out of his office
> window if they believed they could just deconstruct gravity.
The same could be said of any Newtonian of Einstein, the debate is not about
gravity - but *theories* of gravity. Sokal is no better than the witch
finders - Witches float - the innocent sink - show me anyone willing to take
this test? But of course there will be some even here. Sokal resembles
something from the middle ages in his attempt to hold back thought to the
limits with which he is comfortable. As a po-mo should point out theories of
gravity are deconstructing themselves, this is the point, that theory
endlessly deconstructs itself - or arrives at the final *TRUTH*(t.m.) Either
way modernity is so to speak stuffed.
>
> > Or even better, just show me a cultural relativist! Or a sophist, or a
> > solipsist. I have never met anyone who 100% believed in these things
> > 24/7 and I think that the taxonomy is suspect. There are no "cultural
> > relativists" I guess is what I am trying to say. If you follow
> > relativism through without arbitrarily drawing the line at some point
> > you end up going round in circles. A **real**
> > absolute-relativist-sceptic would never be able to get up off the floor
> > let alone get on plane.
All kinds of people get on to planes not knowing of believing in the science
and technology that makes them work. But the term absolute-relativist *is*
cute!
Kevin Calder
<snip>
>> >A **real**
>> > absolute-relativist-sceptic would never be able to get up off the floor
>> > let alone get on plane.
>All kinds of people get on to planes not knowing of believing in the science
>and technology that makes them work. But the term absolute-relativist *is*
>cute!
Woah. She's a beaut alright!
Regardless, would a, *ahem*, radical-relativist be willing to concede
that it is science and technology that "makes them work"? Possibly I
suppose. Though I doubt that the radical-sceptic would.
Also, does sufficiently radical relativism become solipsism?
ta,
--
Kevin Calder
alias
alie...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> >Where is Omar when you need him?
>>
[and again]
>> >So that is where Omar was!
>>
>> Do not speak ill of the dead.
>
> Is he dead? He had a tendency to disappear suddenly and then reappear
> equally suddenly after a long period. There are those who have left
> alt.cyberpunk rather permanently but I didn't know Omar was amongst
> them.
>
unless i'm mixing up nicks .. or the NSA has tampered with my memory..
*again* .. then Omar is a fellow Jersey boy.. and as such is incapable
of actually being killed, at least not in the traditional sense.
..
alias
James Whitehead
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >A **real**
> >> > absolute-relativist-sceptic would never be able to get up off the
floor
> >> > let alone get on plane.
>
> >All kinds of people get on to planes not knowing of believing in the
science
> >and technology that makes them work. But the term absolute-relativist
*is*
> >cute!
>
> Woah. She's a beaut alright!
>
> Regardless, would a, *ahem*, radical-relativist be willing to concede
> that it is science and technology that "makes them work"? Possibly I
> suppose. Though I doubt that the radical-sceptic would.
>
lurex jump suit and cape emblazoned with RR logo]
- in deep patronising voice - NO! science does NOT make them work -
science *used* to attempt to explain how they worked- and was characterised
by completing theories which *claimed* to give a better explanation, and
offered (implied) a promise that one day this process would arrive at THE
ANSWER. We dont even have to open the quantum can of worms to see that
science never proposed what your question does. As for technologists they
notoriously pursue only pragmatic approaches to nature. (Narrows eyes) -
So! take last years shuttle disaster - was this down to physics or bad
management at NASA?
> Also, does sufficiently radical relativism become solipsism?
>
[opening wide one eye] Weeeeeel - a truly radical relativism must surely
critique the idea of the individual? - [smiling]
> ta,
> --
> Kevin Calder
WARNING! remember children although RR man can fly - despite the laws of
nature - you should not try any of his stunts at home as he has supra
philosophical powers.
Zap
hmz... this reminds me to something I wrote not too long ago.
First I wrote an article about the Nihilist Jihad... it doesn't get
more radically sceptic than that. Note the blatant contraditcion
between Nihilism and the (religiously laden term) Jihad.
In MJ#6 there will be more about the Nihilist Jihad, and how
ingeniously it uses (physical) terrorism to distract from a far more
widespread movement that would make the powers that be soil their
pants. Which they would if we hadn't made sure they constantly
misunderestimated us.
But I digress... without further ado:
Science vs Religion: It's a draw
I think scientific research always begins with a thesis, a couple of
tets and ends with a conclusion right?
Believers cannot possibly do proper research according to that proces.
Because their belief is in essence a conclusion already.
I consider that to be merely a delta though. A thesis can include
conclusions of previously done (and proven) work.
(pure non believing, rational) research cannot possibly do proper
research considering religion either. Because most start with a
conclusion as well.. but one that is always disjunct with religious
research precisely at the point where the believer believes.
Therefore both can probably describe reality surrounding us including
or excluding religion. It's merely reality with an irrational delta.
And by irrationality I mean the belief part... the assumption without
proof.
If the rational and irrational are truely completely disjunct then any
reality can be explained in a scientific *and* a scientific+religious
way. Science merely a way to research the rational... religious the
irrational world.
I for one *believe* both are completely disjunct. Right now that is.
Proof that they are is left as an excercise to the reader *sly grin*
Zap
James Whitehead
"Zap" <zap...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f785476c.04021...@posting.google.com...
> hmz... this reminds me to something I wrote not too long ago.
> First I wrote an article about the Nihilist Jihad... it doesn't get
> more radically sceptic than that. Note the blatant contraditcion
> between Nihilism and the (religiously laden term) Jihad.
Nihilism IS a very religioud term -
? wasnt the kind of things the SS got up to in eastern europw kind of
Nihilst Jihad?
> In MJ#6 there will be more about the Nihilist Jihad, and how
> ingeniously it uses (physical) terrorism to distract from a far more
> widespread movement that would make the powers that be soil their
> pants. Which they would if we hadn't made sure they constantly
> misunderestimated us.
The powers that be have given their power to the focus groups and thus
ensure themselves in perpetuity, any revolution thus becomes one against the
people - and so terrorism. A neat trick.
>
> But I digress... without further ado:
>
> Science vs Religion: It's a draw
>
> I think scientific research always begins with a thesis, a couple of
> tets and ends with a conclusion right?
Or........ a hypothesis which is supported - but never proved by
experiment - and which can be disproved by experiment.
>
> Believers cannot possibly do proper research according to that process.
Scientists BELIEVE in axioms of logic and mathematics as well as other
things - which then allows them to proceed.
Some other belivers - believe in say an all powerful God then procede to
think acordingly, neither will normally conclude that - in the case of
science - Logic is wrong - doesnt exist - or in the other that God doesnt
exist. They look for error elsewhere.
> Because their belief is in essence a conclusion already.
> I consider that to be merely a delta though. A thesis can include
> conclusions of previously done (and proven) work.
>
What is a delta?
> (pure non believing, rational) research cannot possibly do proper
> research considering religion either. Because most start with a
> conclusion as well.. but one that is always disjunct with religious
> research precisely at the point where the believer believes.
Its a big idea to assume the universe is rational.
>
> Therefore both can probably describe reality surrounding us including
> or excluding religion. It's merely reality with an irrational delta.
> And by irrationality I mean the belief part... the assumption without
> proof.
> If the rational and irrational are truely completely disjunct then any
> reality can be explained in a scientific *and* a scientific+religious
> way. Science merely a way to research the rational... religious the
> irrational world.
>
> I for one *believe* both are completely disjunct. Right now that is.
> Proof that they are is left as an excercise to the reader *sly grin*
>
Religion has a theology - which is surly rational, but i'm not sure where
science has any mysticism? Other than in its origins.
Ted Lechman
> Nihilism IS a very religioud term -
Only by extending the term religious untill it looses all meaning -
i.e. when there is nothing that isn't religious. This process has been
going on for a while now (e.g. "Holy Shit!"). ( I can't wait till "The
Passion of the Christ" by Mel Gibson get deconstructed here).
>> > But I digress... without further ado:
> >
> > Science vs Religion: It's a draw
> >
> > I think scientific research always begins with a thesis, a couple of
> > tets and ends with a conclusion right?
>
> Or........ a hypothesis which is supported - but never proved by
> experiment - and which can be disproved by experiment.
>
> >
> > Believers cannot possibly do proper research according to that process.
>
> Scientists BELIEVE in axioms of logic and mathematics as well as other
> things - which then allows them to proceed.
> Some other belivers - believe in say an all powerful God then procede to
> think acordingly, neither will normally conclude that - in the case of
> science - Logic is wrong - doesnt exist - or in the other that God doesnt
> exist. They look for error elsewhere.
>
> > Because their belief is in essence a conclusion already.
> > I consider that to be merely a delta though. A thesis can include
> > conclusions of previously done (and proven) work.
Actually, Jim, It is not quite correct to say that scientists BELIVE
their axioms and PROCEED from their. He's closer to the truth.
Scientists ASSUME their azioms and BUILD from their - they "BELIVE"
their results when the results WORK. It similar to a bunch of kids
raiding their fathers toolshed for lumber, tools, nails, etc in order
to BUILD a treehouse. They ASSUME their tools, and use them to BUILD
their treehouse - which the "believe" if it is sturdy and "cool"
enough to play in.
Giambattista Vico was very observant with his Fundamental principle:
" The Truth is the Made" (G.B. Vico - the Making of an Anti-Modern,
M. Lilla).
Also - "To Know the world, one must contruct it." - Cesare Pavese.
With Religion, on the other hand the Assumptions (Axioms) and the
resulting contruction (ediface) is one and the same. One is not
allowed to build from religious assumptions, judging the results by
their usefullness or sturdiness - on the contrary - to take religious
assumptions in one own hands is considered heresy and severly rebuked
- preiously physically and violently, now more socially using
ostracism.
Building is forbidden in religion. That's how I interpret his
statemanet that in religion you start with the conclusion. That's how
theology is traditionally done.
Ted lechman
Utica, NY
18hz
>Kevin Calder <kca...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<M8dzyxA3...@cableinet.co.uk>...
>> <snip>
>>
>> Regardless, would a, *ahem*, radical-relativist be willing to concede
>> that it is science and technology that "makes them work"? Possibly I
>> suppose. Though I doubt that the radical-sceptic would.
>>
>> Also, does sufficiently radical relativism become solipsism?
>>
>> ta,
>
>hmz... this reminds me to something I wrote not too long ago.
>First I wrote an article about the Nihilist Jihad... it doesn't get
>more radically sceptic than that. Note the blatant contraditcion
>between Nihilism and the (religiously laden term) Jihad.
>In MJ#6 there will be more about the Nihilist Jihad, and how
>ingeniously it uses (physical) terrorism to distract from a far more
>widespread movement that would make the powers that be soil their
>pants. Which they would if we hadn't made sure they constantly
>misunderestimated us.
As an aside, my attempt to join the 'Nihilist Assault Group' back in
September was thwarted by the fact that their mailing list appeared to
be in Norwegian..
http://www.nihilistassaultgroup.org/
--
Iain x http://18hz.com
"I wouldn't tell people that Father Christmas didn't exist - it's the
same as that" http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/noblelie.htm
Kevin Calder
<Abx4...@jjh76g7856gh.com> writes
>> Regardless, would a, *ahem*, radical-relativist be willing to concede
>> that it is science and technology that "makes them work"? Possibly I
>> suppose. Though I doubt that the radical-sceptic would.
>[Enters telephone box - Takes off jacket and shirt to reveal tight fitting
>lurex jump suit and cape emblazoned with RR logo]
>- in deep patronising voice - NO! science does NOT make them work -
>science *used* to attempt to explain how they worked- and was characterised
>by completing theories which *claimed* to give a better explanation, and
>offered (implied) a promise that one day this process would arrive at THE
>ANSWER. We dont even have to open the quantum can of worms to see that
>science never proposed what your question does. As for technologists they
>notoriously pursue only pragmatic approaches to nature.
Cmon man, the radical sceptic is never going to buy any of that!
And it depends on on what you mean by "make work". If nature made boats
work then there wouldn't be anything for ship builders to do.
So what you are saying is that 'scientists' observe nature and theorise
about it, and then 'technologists' come along and make stuff work using
said theories? I just want to be clear about the distinction between
scientist and technologist.
>> Also, does sufficiently radical relativism become solipsism?
>[opening wide one eye] Weeeeeel - a truly radical relativism must surely
>critique the idea of the individual? - [smiling]
So, it goes beyond solipsism into nihilism then?
zip,
--
Kevin Calder
Kevin Calder
<Abx4...@jjh76g7856gh.com> writes
>Scientists BELIEVE in axioms of logic and mathematics as well as other
>things - which then allows them to proceed.
>Some other belivers - believe in say an all powerful God then procede to
>think acordingly, neither will normally conclude that - in the case of
>science - Logic is wrong - doesnt exist - or in the other that God doesnt
>exist. They look for error elsewhere.
Do they have any choice?
Could a even a non-scientist logically conclude that logic is wrong
without invoking a contradiction? I guess what I am asking is, is it
perhaps naive to believe that logic is optional?
zip,
--
Kevin Calder
Kevin Calder
>Kevin Calder wrote:
>I hope to get broadband soon; that might increase my frequency...
Broadband is great! Pr0n for everyone!
<snip>
>>>> Sokal clearly had a pretty pomo sense of humor, wouldn't you say?
>>> I am not sure if it is late POMO or early Post-POMO. Still I
>>> would agree there is something here. If we go sufficiently
>>> retro will we reach plain modernism?
>> I'm not sure if that's how it works, or even if it works at all. It
>I thought that was one of the very few things one could never say
>in a POMO world. Shurely workage would be subject to interpretation?
&
>> wouldn't help us much if it did though, Modernism is every bit as
>>slippery, if not more, than pomoism, IMHO.
>After POMO made itself known there has been less talk of Modernism.
>Is there for instance a newsgroup called alt.modernism?
Im not sure that there would have been even if the Internet had existed
in the 1920's. The impression I get from reading period discussions of
High Modernism is that it was even less well understood than pomoism. T.
S. Eliot et al have all kinds of ideas that they seem to have difficulty
actually putting down on paper, so you get lots of talk of things like
the "Mythical Method", but im not sure if anyone actually settles on a
stable definition. Pomoism, perhaps by virtue of its sheer verbosity,
does IMHO seem to settle a little bit more distinctly. I mean this in
the sense that as an undergraduate I found that summary texts on
Modernism seemed to have less definite content than the ones on pomoism
(!).
That said, many more recent commentaries maintain that pomoism does not
constitute a significant break from the project of Modernity, and the
whole thing is still very much a debate in progress.
Also, any question dealing with historical outlooks and postmodernism
will run into all kinds of problems associated with the various forms of
historicism attached to the term.
Which is why I say I am not sure if it "works" at all :)
And yes, in sufficiently sceptical "world", perhaps like some flavour of
pomo one, "workage" is very probably subject to interpretation.
>>>> And pomoism is well known for validating humour, parody and pastiche,
>>> It does?
>> Maybe not well known then.
>> However, if you were to ask me (and I should know) to pick out, from
>Just curious here, just how should you know?
Lol.
Good question.
I was mostly joking.
But a portion of my honours work was concerning 'narrative forms in
contemporary poetry' which is really just a sly way of titling an essay
on pomoish stuff.
You would probably be pleased to learn that there wasn't very much open
talk of pomoism during my whole degree, and that the course for which I
produced the above mentioned essay had 3 other students in it.
I have to wonder sometimes where the leftist-cultural
relativist-pomoistic conspiracy that rules non scientific departments in
higher education in the UK is actually taking place.
>> I realise that by admitting that I think that some poetry is funny
>>that I run the risk of looking like the English teacher that laughs
>>at the jokes in Shakespeare productions when on school outings to the
>>theatre, but... ah well...
>Ah, that kind of humour.
See! I knew you'd make fun of me!
> I have just finished the Tempest and a
>number of comments on it and it seems to be full of people
>congratulating themselves with the cleverness in determining the
>alleged jokes. The word "natural" appears to be a trigger word
>to start laughing.
Hrm I don't remember laughing much while reading the Tempest to be quite
honest. Ah well, humour at least is pretty relative isn't it?
>It is amazing how the fun evaporates under scrutiny.
Well, stop scrutinising then! Take back the fun!
>>> I can agree that humor has these qualities and more but as
>>> for POMO I am not sure. WmG, to bring this writhing thread
>>> briefly close to things cyberriffic,
>> We are on topic now? Crap.
>Quoting Keanu Reeves: Whoa!
Whoa there's a bomb in the matrix dude!
Seriously though. Seen as how we are on this xposting excursion I'd
like to invite the inhabitants of alt.pomo to comment on William Gibson,
and the produce of the ""cyberpunk movement"", and perhaps science
fiction in general. Pomoism seems to come up periodically in alt.cp,
not least perhaps because ""cyberpunk"" literature comes up occasionally
in scholarly discussions of pomoism. This is not necessarily to say
that cyberpunk texts are postmodern, but rather that some of the threads
in pomo literary criticism seem sympathetic to some of the features of
said texts. IMHO this has something to do with the fact that cp is a
pulped up jumbling of 'beat' stuff, noir detective fiction, bleak,
ambivalent, amoral social commentary and a particularly dystopian 'five
minutes into the future' brand of sci fi, a kind of low-art pastiche if
you will.
>It seems to be that irony is what they seize on, to the point
>of strangling the fun.
Someone else said pretty much the same thing to me the other night; it
seems to be that one of the main complains about forms of pomoism is
that they are preoccupied with irony. I have honestly never noticed
this, but I am certainly open to possibility. That said, I am not sure
if 'irony' even persists in discourse where meaning has been
substantially destabilised, like heavily pomoised texts.
> Some of the online POMO magazines show
>a level of puns, quality as well as quantity, similar to tabloids
>but unrivalled in terms of obviousness.
Ok, I see. I tend to navigate away from online magazines at top speed
whenever I encounter them, so I haven't witnessed this for myself, but
it seems probable enough for me to believe you about it :)
> Somehow I get the feeling
>the authors of these literary atrocities congratulate themselves
>on their inventiveness.
Is this the same feeling you got about the people who thought that The
Tempest was funny?
>What rates as serious has changed a lot I hear; Shakespeare
>was apparently most appreciated for his comedies in his time
>while now tragedies is all the rage. Personally I blame the
>70's for this. POMO or no POMO, humour doesn't rate that high
>everywhere still, and with the passing of Astrid Lindgren it
>was pointed out that also children's books had not been
>sufficiently appreciated by professional appreciaters. Perhaps
>Post-POMO will see to that.
That's certainly one option. Or maybe we need to get rid of
professional appreciaters, or at least put them in their place. I
realise that in general most people don't have time to personally rate
everything for themselves, but I wonder if music & film review magazines
and shows don't have a wee bit too much power when it comes to
manipulating peoples opinions.
>> It might take a while but I could probably knock together a reading
>>list if you are interested, though I imagine that you already have
>>more reading lists than you have time for!
>My reading list could fill a library but your inputs might
>of course still be interesting. Food for a FAQ?
I have been involved in many an ill-fated FAQ (including a Neuromancer
one), and wouldn't want to jinx such an endeavour.
> An update
>to the alt.postmodern FAQ?
I have never actually read the FAQ come to think of it, but then I have
never (as far as Im aware) asked a frequently asked question.
[A quick skim of the FAQ reveals that funnily enough a few Omar H posts
are included.]
>> >> >Alternatively the emperor is a streaker and those who claim to
>> >> >see the clothes are just wanting to see some nudity.
>> Can you validate that alternative in a manner that will satisfy
>>'those who claim to see'? Surely if this were possible, in an
>>absolute and universal manner, then your verification would be so
>>persuasive that 'those who claim to see' would instead begin to see
>>their folly. IMHO
>First of all any attempts of this would quickly land us in the
>awkward subject of objective truth. Also considering the lenghth
>to which people go to see porn we cannot even assume that those
>who claim to see the clothes would ever tell the truth when a
>cheap lie would lead to more cheap porn.
>> the significant pomo argument is not that we can't establish whether
>>or not the emperor is clothed in a way that satisfies most people,
>>most of
By leaving my IMHO up on the preceding paragraph instead on at the head
of the one directly above you make me sound worryingly arrogant :) Also
I should probably point out that this is merely an argument I associate
with pomoism, rather than one I would attribute to any particular
pomotheorist.
>The immediate problem is that truth could end the satisfaction
>going on in the crowds.
I hadn't actually thought about people lying. Similarly I get confused
when others start refuting radical scepticism's on the basis that no-one
could sincerely maintain them. What does it mean to say that someone is
lying? Does it just mean that they are claiming something that doesn't
match up with your experience of the world? The alternative, I suppose,
is that they are saying something that they don't truly believe, but
that seems like a pretty wobbly definition to me. Does the
philosophical formulation of sincerity rely on absolute truth, which
presumably everyone is supposed to have access to, or is being sincere
in relation to working truths enough? I'm not sure... If I'm imagining
scenarios involving other people, and they are claiming stuff I don't
like going any further than what I can verify for myself, i.e. that what
they are claiming is truly what they are claiming, in other words that
what they said is really what they said. Once you start trying to
extrapolate peoples thoughts, and beliefs I think it gets pretty messy.
>> the time, because it is clear that in practice this is actually quite
>>easy achieved. The argument is that you can't do it in an absolute,
>>universally applicable way that satisfies everyone, in all places for
>>of time. Its not about denying that you can construct a functional,
>>practical model that incorporates some limited notion of 'truth',
>>rather that you cannot rely on invoking some mystical 'absolute truth'.
>Means of finding absolute truths are not on the charts anytime soon
>so meanwhile we have to do with sufficiently working truths.
I agree. Does this mean that you believe that absolute truths, or
facts, have actual, real, ontological status, and that it is merely our
knowledge of them, the 'working truths', that is flawed? This is
certainly what most people I know believe, and it directly contradicts
many pomoish outlooks. I'm not sure where I stand on the ontological
status of facts, or concepts and ideas and stuff like that. A more
pomoish view would be that all ontologies are relative to the subject
("who" is culturally constructed) and that everyone can claim to have
knowledge of their own facts with equal validity. Its pretty democratic
but a lot of people think that it ignores the authority of the external
world. In practice though I imagine that the external world impinges on
everyone's POV's in a manner which does not vary greatly and that this
will tend toward building consensus.
>>>> >>> Others had called them
>>>> >>> charlatans before but Sokal made it amusing.
>>>> What is exactly is pomoism guilty of pretending?
>>> That the emperor actually has clothes.
>> But if I can see that clothes then I am not pretending.
>Noone can tell if you see the clothes, only that you were
>claiming you did.
I agree.
> We are possibly getting close to
>solipsism here...
Im not sure that its solipsism exactly. Rather it seems to me to be the
practical realisation that you will only ever see things from your own
pov, and never from anyone else's. However, I also believe that there
are reliable ways of learning pretty reliably about the external world,
and the other people that it contains, so even if you accept the
practical realisation that I propose, nothing really changes!
<snip>
>>>> >When in doubt bring out Occam's Razor and start slicing.
>>>> >To me Sokal
>>>> >appears genuine while the POMOs appear to be short of a skeleton
>> So for you it all comes down to how it seems to you.
>> And for me, then, it all comes down to how it seems to me.
>To a large extent: yes.
>> So who is pretending?
>Noone has to pretend, we just have to observe.
>> Aren't you just heading back toward the emperors clothes problem? If
>>you are that's fine by me, I don't think its really a problem, but I
>>thought that you did.
>The emperor's new clothes isn't a problem as long as one settles
>for working truths and the principle of least astonishment, not
>invoking the fairy twice and so on.
I agree then. But what is the 'principle of least astonishment', and
what is 'not invoking the fairy twice'?
>> Pomoism seems to me to be very closely related to scepticism, sophism
>>and solipsism (check the Platonic dialogues; Socrates, Plato and
>>Protagoras were having these same sorts of arguments in something like
>>400bc!) and as such isn't very well suited for making truth claims.
>While my virtual library of books to read is swelling further, just
>how does solipsism come into POMO?
It might not, though I think as a form of scepticism it is related.
That said, Kristeva and others write sceptically about the notion of the
"self" so solipsism and pomoism aren't necessarily comfortable
bedfellows. People will tend to connect them though,
http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/objective_reality.html
IMHO pomoism more commonly denies that certain things, like facts and
absolute truths exist the external world rather than denying the
existence of the external world outright. Be warned however that my
memory is very selective, and my pomoism isn't everyone's :)
>> IMHO pomoism doesn't imply that the author should be disqualified
>>entirely, rather that they only get one vote, and rightly so!
>Yes, and in fact the first vote.
Well, first in terms of temporality only IMHO. Which isn't to say that
I won't potentially come to value the authors vote over all others, only
that this won't happen automatically by virtue of the authors
'authority'. Eliot dismissed his "The Wasteland" as "dry thoughts on a
dry day" but I still think its a great poem.
>>>> allegiance or intention. Isn't that a powerful \ interesting way
>>>>approaching it? Doesn't that suggest that pomoism has more to it
>>>>than the absence of a skeleton?
>>> It can be entertaining, at least occationally.
>> So gruff!
>This is alt.cp you know, in spite of that crossposting
>you added up there.
I hope you don't mind, I probably should have made it more obvious that
we were going on an excursion. It seemed to make sense in terms of what
we were discussing, and most usenet groups these days don't seem to be
busy enough to object to xposts on principle.
> I am not sure we will hear much
>from the alt.postmodern regulars; the last crossposted
>thread had them gasping for air.
Well, one thing we might hear at least is that someone from alt.pomo may
rightly point out that we aren't discussing pomoism proper. What
Derrida, Kristeva, Baudrillard et al actually wrote often falls far
short of what is oft referred to as postmodernism. Many of the original
pomotheorists have actually protested quite loudly about the way that
commentators have ran amok with partisan readings of their theories. I
have long since forgotten who argued what and have ended up with an
admittedly popularish distillation of the ideas that I liked the most,
so my pomoism is probably horribly bastardised. That said, generally
people seem to be referring to this version of postmodernism when they
use the term, so I don't think there is any problem here.
>>I have never met a hard-line sceptic. It is claimed of course that
>>Piro (sp?), a pre-socratic sceptic, had to be accompanied by his
>>friends everywhere he went because he was such a committed sceptic
>>that he refused to believe that fire really burned or that you could
>>drown in water, though I don't expect that many people will follow
>>this example.
>Darwin probably disposed of them.
I just got an image of Darwin driving out to the desert with a shovel
and a trunkfull of absolutists.
> The idea of a working truth
>being sufficient to go on living is perhaps something humanity
>got through natural selection.
>> So when Richard Dawkins says "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000
>>feet and I'll show you a hypocrite."
>Sokal also invited some POMOs to walk out of his office
>window if they believed they could just deconstruct gravity.
And I don't think he is wrong too. Theories and formulations which
don't account for the reliably predictable phenomena occurring in the
external world probably won't survive much selection if said phenomena
turn out to be dangerous.
>>A **real** absolute-relativist-sceptic would never be able to get up
>>off the floor let alone get on plane.
>Ultimately if the sceptic did not believe in own self we might
>at least get a case of anti-solipsism?
Anti-solipsism? The belief that only the external world exists, but you
do not. Hrm... Kinda pomo. I'd have to check who it is that writes
about the "death of the self", but the roughest version of the idea is
that the self is merely a cultural construction, determined entirely by
the external world. Someone else in alt.pomo may be able to provide a
better summary.
>> That said, just because you can't turn these sorts of ideas into
>>prescriptive 'guides for life' doesn't mean that you should abandon
>>them all together. I personally favour an aristotelian middle road.
>Isn't that what "working truth" is about?
I hope so. 'Workage' is of course subject to interpretation :) From a
scientific perspective you would take radical scepticism and solipsism,
think about them in practical terms (probably about as close to an
empirical test as you can get with such slippery ideas) and discard them
because they don't seem to be workable. The trouble with this is that
its a little bit utilitarian for my liking. I quite like all kind of
mystical, nonsensical ideas and don't find that entertaining them
occasionally inhibits my ability to function in the real world too much
;) So I'd rather they weren't discarded altogether. This is where I
don't agree with Sokal & Bricmont. They state that poetic license is no
justification of postmodernism, and I could disagree more! They find
postmodernism lacking in functionality, dismiss it, and suggest that
everyone do the same. Basically, Im not sure that their advice will do
me any good!
>>If you want to appreciate a novel by investigating the intentions of
>>the author that seems fine, and if I want to look at it in different
>>ways that I hope that that seems fine to you. And if it doesn't, oh
>>well...
>I enjoy reading what the author actually wrote; reading what the
>critics thought he wrote is occationally interesting but mostly
>I prefer going to the source.
I enjoy reading what the author actually wrote as well, but I enjoy
doing what I will when it comes to interpreting what they wrote :) As
for critics, I can take them or leave them quite honestly.
>> More about science vs postmodernism in the "Deconstructing the
>>Deconstructors" thread when I get back from work.
Uh, yeah. I'm still getting to that.
>This should provide for an endless recursion and source
>for more discussions. Knowing this place I guess it will
>take us strange places.
Lets hope so.
ta,
--
Kevin Calder
James Whitehead
science is about a certain type of theory of the physical world - natural
philosophy. Technology is just making things, and the technologist may use
science - or may not. It was though however yourself who thought science
made things work?
>
> >> Also, does sufficiently radical relativism become solipsism?
>
> >[opening wide one eye] Weeeeeel - a truly radical relativism must surely
> >critique the idea of the individual? - [smiling]
>
> So, it goes beyond solipsism into nihilism then?
>
personality?
> zip,
> --
> Kevin Calder
James Whitehead
"Ted Lechman" <eastw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b89924f9.04021...@posting.google.com...
> "James Whitehead" <Abx4...@jjh76g7856gh.com> wrote in message
news:<c1019u$727$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> > Nihilism IS a very religioud term -
>
> Only by extending the term religious untill it looses all meaning -
What i was implying was nihilism's dependence on the idea of 'something'
meaningful in life - its the opposite of the idea of meaning of life - which
is i thought often religious. The idea of believing in something or
'believing in nothing. One is committed to nihilism in the same way as one
is committed to a religion.
They do more than assume - they assume that their assumption is true. They
assume that certain logical operations are a guarantee of truth. But have it
the otherway - can you do science on the basis of an assumption which one
believes or knows is not true. I like your analogy of the kids - its very
17th century - the father is of course God - who guarantees the tools are
true and good.... so the treehouse wont fall down.
>
> Giambattista Vico was very observant with his Fundamental principle:
> " The Truth is the Made" (G.B. Vico - the Making of an Anti-Modern,
> M. Lilla).
>
> Also - "To Know the world, one must contruct it." - Cesare Pavese.
>
> With Religion, on the other hand the Assumptions (Axioms) and the
> resulting contruction (ediface) is one and the same. One is not
> allowed to build from religious assumptions, judging the results by
> their usefullness or sturdiness - on the contrary - to take religious
> assumptions in one own hands is considered heresy and severly rebuked
> - preiously physically and violently, now more socially using
> ostracism.
But religions do change - theological thought has altered and created sects
within christianity- are you not aware of the reformation? Heretics exist
even in science - like Robert Jahn.
>
> Building is forbidden in religion. That's how I interpret his
> statemanet that in religion you start with the conclusion. That's how
> theology is traditionally done.
>
Doesn't fit the actuality - like the ideas of the authors of The Myth of God
Incarnate and others who continually reinterpret and add to Christian
theology -
James Whitehead
Its long been noticed that its possible to construct sentences such as "This
sentence is false" - its not that logic is wrong - its that its nature is
like the nature of myth.... it carries no special case.
Alienthe
[snip]
> hmz... this reminds me to something I wrote not too long ago.
> First I wrote an article about the Nihilist Jihad... it doesn't get
> more radically sceptic than that. Note the blatant contraditcion
> between Nihilism and the (religiously laden term) Jihad.
> In MJ#6 there will be more about the Nihilist Jihad, and how
What is MJ#6 ?
> ingeniously it uses (physical) terrorism to distract from a far more
> widespread movement that would make the powers that be soil their
> pants. Which they would if we hadn't made sure they constantly
> misunderestimated us.
>
> But I digress... without further ado:
>
> Science vs Religion: It's a draw
Rather I think it is a non-match. The parties turned up
at different venues.
> I think scientific research always begins with a thesis, a couple of
> tets and ends with a conclusion right?
Not necessarily. To take one extreme: a PhD work usually
ends up with a thesis. The beginning of a research can be
- exploratory (what happens if I...)
- follow on (it worked for masers, will it work for lasers?)
- extensions (will the theory/observations also hold for
relativistic and/or quantum mechanical limits?)
- accidental dicoveries (modern whoa! or classical eureka!)
and many, many other origins.
Moreover research can be a combination or parts of
- experimental (life and death in the labs)
- simulations (safely on a computer)
- theoretical (even safer using pen and paper)
Experimental is more hazardous and equipment breakdown
can cause project collapse though chances of employment
is greater for the survivor of lab hazards. Theoretical
work is on the other end of the scales.
There are more parameters of course, this is just a tiny
overview.
> Believers cannot possibly do proper research according to that proces.
> Because their belief is in essence a conclusion already.
> I consider that to be merely a delta though. A thesis can include
> conclusions of previously done (and proven) work.
A scientific theory has to be possible to check and
shown to be wrong; sticking its neck out so to speak.
A religious concept does not.
Scientific work is usually based on previous work or
fundamental axioms and assumptions though the word
"proven" does not always apply.
> (pure non believing, rational) research cannot possibly do proper
> research considering religion either. Because most start with a
> conclusion as well.. but one that is always disjunct with religious
> research precisely at the point where the believer believes.
>
> Therefore both can probably describe reality surrounding us including
> or excluding religion. It's merely reality with an irrational delta.
> And by irrationality I mean the belief part... the assumption without
> proof.
> If the rational and irrational are truely completely disjunct then any
> reality can be explained in a scientific *and* a scientific+religious
> way. Science merely a way to research the rational... religious the
> irrational world.
Early religions often gave explanations for natural phenomena
such as sun, moon, lightning, seasons and more that satisfied
the audience of its time. Science has to satisfy the critical
thinking of a more modern audience.
> I for one *believe* both are completely disjunct. Right now that is.
> Proof that they are is left as an excercise to the reader *sly grin*
Current scientific theories have some pretty solid limits to
what is possible to know, boundaries beyond which religion
can still remain.
==<)
Alienthe
[snip]
> Scientists BELIEVE in axioms of logic and mathematics as well as other
It is not neccessary to believe, only to take them as starting points
and then not always either.
For instance a great many theories assume that inertial and gravitational
mass is the same. Not close but just two views of the same thing. Still
there are projects underway to test this (STEP and Gravity Probe B
explores some of these issues). It follows then that is even the tiniest
discrepancy is found then tons of theories have to be scrapped or
rewritten.
> things - which then allows them to proceed.
That is closer to the core of it.
Anyway, assumptions are either obvious or stated, making it
possible for others to check the firmness of the foundation
of a theory.
[snip]
> Its a big idea to assume the universe is rational.
That is just an example of the French Lamppost method.
==<)
Alienthe
> In message <402FF009...@hotmail.com>, Alienthe
> <Alie...@hotmail.com> writes
>> Kevin Calder wrote:
>
>
>> I hope to get broadband soon; that might increase my frequency...
>
> Broadband is great! Pr0n for everyone!
Rah! Rah! Rah! And a new machine too. Bliss.
> <snip>
>
>>>>> Sokal clearly had a pretty pomo sense of humor, wouldn't you say?
>>>>
>
>>>> I am not sure if it is late POMO or early Post-POMO. Still I
>>>> would agree there is something here. If we go sufficiently
>>>> retro will we reach plain modernism?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if that's how it works, or even if it works at all. It
>>
>> I thought that was one of the very few things one could never say
>> in a POMO world. Shurely workage would be subject to interpretation?
>
> &
>
>>> wouldn't help us much if it did though, Modernism is every bit as
>>> slippery, if not more, than pomoism, IMHO.
>>
>> After POMO made itself known there has been less talk of Modernism.
>> Is there for instance a newsgroup called alt.modernism?
>
> Im not sure that there would have been even if the Internet had existed
> in the 1920's. The impression I get from reading period discussions of
> High Modernism is that it was even less well understood than pomoism. T.
Perhaps I am being too sceptical here but could it not be less well
understood at the time because people spent more time doing things
rather than talking about the doing of things?
> S. Eliot et al have all kinds of ideas that they seem to have difficulty
> actually putting down on paper, so you get lots of talk of things like
> the "Mythical Method", but im not sure if anyone actually settles on a
> stable definition. Pomoism, perhaps by virtue of its sheer verbosity,
> does IMHO seem to settle a little bit more distinctly. I mean this in
> the sense that as an undergraduate I found that summary texts on
> Modernism seemed to have less definite content than the ones on pomoism
> (!).
Well, then again an era is rarely understood in its own time; noone
surely called their own era classical, medieval, baroque etc? I am
therefore a bit sceptical when people declare this or that current
event as being POMO, such as for instance a POMO marriage. How long
did it take to name past eras? And how long then until we determine
what is now called modernism into something that will settle in the
history books?
> That said, many more recent commentaries maintain that pomoism does not
> constitute a significant break from the project of Modernity, and the
> whole thing is still very much a debate in progress.
Perhaps then we have to wait until we get it all at a distance
and get to analyse the woods rather than single trees.
> Also, any question dealing with historical outlooks and postmodernism
> will run into all kinds of problems associated with the various forms of
> historicism attached to the term.
>
> Which is why I say I am not sure if it "works" at all :)
Agreed; only time will tell.
> And yes, in sufficiently sceptical "world", perhaps like some flavour of
> pomo one, "workage" is very probably subject to interpretation.
>
>>>>> And pomoism is well known for validating humour, parody and pastiche,
>
>>>> It does?
>
>>> Maybe not well known then.
>>> However, if you were to ask me (and I should know) to pick out, from
>
>> Just curious here, just how should you know?
>
> Lol.
>
> Good question.
>
> I was mostly joking.
>
> But a portion of my honours work was concerning 'narrative forms in
> contemporary poetry' which is really just a sly way of titling an essay
> on pomoish stuff.
>
> You would probably be pleased to learn that there wasn't very much open
> talk of pomoism during my whole degree, and that the course for which I
> produced the above mentioned essay had 3 other students in it.
Isn't the word "narrative" a giveaway that a POMO plot is brewing?
> I have to wonder sometimes where the leftist-cultural
> relativist-pomoistic conspiracy that rules non scientific departments in
> higher education in the UK is actually taking place.
I thought the whole conspiracy was out in the open. At one place of
higher eucation the chancellor asked for (paraphrased) "more Marks
and Spencer and less Marx and Engels", and he was not thinking of
Groucho either.
>>> I realise that by admitting that I think that some poetry is funny
>>> that I run the risk of looking like the English teacher that laughs
>>> at the jokes in Shakespeare productions when on school outings to
>>> the theatre, but... ah well...
>>
>> Ah, that kind of humour.
>
> See! I knew you'd make fun of me!
Actually I wasn't, it is just that British humour can get
excessively subtle. It is easier to handle Ben Elton at
full tilt.
>> I have just finished the Tempest and a
>> number of comments on it and it seems to be full of people
>> congratulating themselves with the cleverness in determining the
>> alleged jokes. The word "natural" appears to be a trigger word
>> to start laughing.
>
> Hrm I don't remember laughing much while reading the Tempest to be quite
> honest. Ah well, humour at least is pretty relative isn't it?
It certainly is and the kinds of humour appreciated as well
as the humour produced around the world differ much too. To
take one extreme: have you heard of Finnish humour? (This one
is sure to shake out any Finnish lurkers around here).
>> It is amazing how the fun evaporates under scrutiny.
>
> Well, stop scrutinising then! Take back the fun!
I do. And compensate with low brow humour too.
>>>> I can agree that humor has these qualities and more but as
>>>> for POMO I am not sure. WmG, to bring this writhing thread
>>>> briefly close to things cyberriffic,
>>>
>>> We are on topic now? Crap.
>>
>> Quoting Keanu Reeves: Whoa!
>
> Whoa there's a bomb in the matrix dude!
>
> Seriously though. Seen as how we are on this xposting excursion I'd
> like to invite the inhabitants of alt.pomo to comment on William Gibson,
> and the produce of the ""cyberpunk movement"", and perhaps science
> fiction in general. Pomoism seems to come up periodically in alt.cp,
Judging by the non-response I'd say we have them stunned already
and that was even before the inverted commas started multiplying.
> not least perhaps because ""cyberpunk"" literature comes up occasionally
> in scholarly discussions of pomoism. This is not necessarily to say
> that cyberpunk texts are postmodern, but rather that some of the threads
> in pomo literary criticism seem sympathetic to some of the features of
> said texts. IMHO this has something to do with the fact that cp is a
> pulped up jumbling of 'beat' stuff, noir detective fiction, bleak,
> ambivalent, amoral social commentary and a particularly dystopian 'five
> minutes into the future' brand of sci fi, a kind of low-art pastiche if
> you will.
I have long suspected critics to beieve in gaining some kind of
credits for being the first to discover and analyse someting that
is more or less new to the general public, the newer and further
out the better. The Booker Prize shows this, maxed out. So what
better field to plough than previously dismissed styles like pulp,
science fiction and, combining both, cyberpunk?
>> It seems to be that irony is what they seize on, to the point
>> of strangling the fun.
>
> Someone else said pretty much the same thing to me the other night; it
> seems to be that one of the main complains about forms of pomoism is
> that they are preoccupied with irony. I have honestly never noticed
> this, but I am certainly open to possibility. That said, I am not sure
> if 'irony' even persists in discourse where meaning has been
> substantially destabilised, like heavily pomoised texts.
My sense of irony is quite destabilised just by reading the
headlines in the online POMO magazines.
>> Some of the online POMO magazines show
>> a level of puns, quality as well as quantity, similar to tabloids
>> but unrivalled in terms of obviousness.
>
> Ok, I see. I tend to navigate away from online magazines at top speed
> whenever I encounter them, so I haven't witnessed this for myself, but
> it seems probable enough for me to believe you about it :)
>
>> Somehow I get the feeling
>> the authors of these literary atrocities congratulate themselves
>> on their inventiveness.
>
> Is this the same feeling you got about the people who thought that The
> Tempest was funny?
Similar but not the same. Those who found the Tempest funny seem
to me like those who make an effort finding uncommon words when
writing articles in the Sunday broadsheets, while to POMO crowd
seem more tabloid.
>> What rates as serious has changed a lot I hear; Shakespeare
>> was apparently most appreciated for his comedies in his time
>> while now tragedies is all the rage. Personally I blame the
>> 70's for this. POMO or no POMO, humour doesn't rate that high
>> everywhere still, and with the passing of Astrid Lindgren it
>> was pointed out that also children's books had not been
>> sufficiently appreciated by professional appreciaters. Perhaps
>> Post-POMO will see to that.
>
> That's certainly one option. Or maybe we need to get rid of
> professional appreciaters, or at least put them in their place. I
> realise that in general most people don't have time to personally rate
> everything for themselves, but I wonder if music & film review magazines
> and shows don't have a wee bit too much power when it comes to
> manipulating peoples opinions.
There is an interesting trend now in adopting journalists, that
is watching their every move and article and analyse it for
accuracy, impartiality and more. If this grows I can see a day
when we have an Internet Media database covering everything. A
lot of journalists fit nicely into my killfiles already.
The time to take back the power is way overdue.
>>> It might take a while but I could probably knock together a reading
>>> list if you are interested, though I imagine that you already have
>>> more reading lists than you have time for!
>>
>> My reading list could fill a library but your inputs might
>> of course still be interesting. Food for a FAQ?
>
> I have been involved in many an ill-fated FAQ (including a Neuromancer
> one), and wouldn't want to jinx such an endeavour.
That one vaguely rings a bell. How far did it get?
>> An update
>> to the alt.postmodern FAQ?
>
> I have never actually read the FAQ come to think of it, but then I have
> never (as far as Im aware) asked a frequently asked question.
>
> [A quick skim of the FAQ reveals that funnily enough a few Omar H posts
> are included.]
Yes. I suspect that is where he came from originally.
>>> >> >Alternatively the emperor is a streaker and those who claim to
>>> >> >see the clothes are just wanting to see some nudity.
>>
>>> Can you validate that alternative in a manner that will satisfy
>>> 'those who claim to see'? Surely if this were possible, in an
>>> absolute and universal manner, then your verification would be so
>>> persuasive that 'those who claim to see' would instead begin to see
>>> their folly. IMHO
>>
>> First of all any attempts of this would quickly land us in the
>> awkward subject of objective truth. Also considering the lenghth
>> to which people go to see porn we cannot even assume that those
>> who claim to see the clothes would ever tell the truth when a
>> cheap lie would lead to more cheap porn.
>
>>> the significant pomo argument is not that we can't establish whether
>>> or not the emperor is clothed in a way that satisfies most people,
>>> most of
>
> By leaving my IMHO up on the preceding paragraph instead on at the head
> of the one directly above you make me sound worryingly arrogant :) Also
The occational "Hah!" is just normal and healthy, right?
> I should probably point out that this is merely an argument I associate
> with pomoism, rather than one I would attribute to any particular
> pomotheorist.
>
>> The immediate problem is that truth could end the satisfaction
>> going on in the crowds.
>
> I hadn't actually thought about people lying. Similarly I get confused
I suspect this is the primary stumbling block and the reason why
objective truth is little discussed; it is often too hard to get
safely past the convenient lies and half truths.
> when others start refuting radical scepticism's on the basis that no-one
> could sincerely maintain them. What does it mean to say that someone is
> lying? Does it just mean that they are claiming something that doesn't
> match up with your experience of the world? The alternative, I suppose,
To me it means they say something they themselves know (or rather
is convinced) is not a truth.
> is that they are saying something that they don't truly believe, but
> that seems like a pretty wobbly definition to me. Does the
> philosophical formulation of sincerity rely on absolute truth, which
> presumably everyone is supposed to have access to, or is being sincere
> in relation to working truths enough? I'm not sure... If I'm imagining
It quickly gets wobbly as you put it when people are mistaken
about what they even think is the truth. People used to think
Earth was flat even when it was not a working truth.
> scenarios involving other people, and they are claiming stuff I don't
> like going any further than what I can verify for myself, i.e. that what
> they are claiming is truly what they are claiming, in other words that
> what they said is really what they said. Once you start trying to
> extrapolate peoples thoughts, and beliefs I think it gets pretty messy.
That brings us to the established "Cogito ergo sum", yet there
is no way to know that others do think, so do they exist then?
And yes, it does get messy, quickly.
>>> the time, because it is clear that in practice this is actually quite
>>> easy achieved. The argument is that you can't do it in an absolute,
>>> universally applicable way that satisfies everyone, in all places for
>>> of time. Its not about denying that you can construct a functional,
>>> practical model that incorporates some limited notion of 'truth',
>>> rather that you cannot rely on invoking some mystical 'absolute truth'.
>>
>> Means of finding absolute truths are not on the charts anytime soon
>> so meanwhile we have to do with sufficiently working truths.
>
> I agree. Does this mean that you believe that absolute truths, or
> facts, have actual, real, ontological status, and that it is merely our
> knowledge of them, the 'working truths', that is flawed? This is
As far as we know there is no way to know if there is an inner,
absolute truth, not even a way to know if we even can get to know
if such a truth exists, and not a way to know if or when we can
know even that.
It smells of a definite possibility of a firm maybe but that is
all the belief I can muster on this.
Working truths will still aggregate for some time yet but I
would not be surprised if we meet more absolute looking walls
than we have already encountered. The knowledge event horizon
is one I guess we might meet in less than 100 years.
> certainly what most people I know believe, and it directly contradicts
> many pomoish outlooks. I'm not sure where I stand on the ontological
> status of facts, or concepts and ideas and stuff like that. A more
> pomoish view would be that all ontologies are relative to the subject
> ("who" is culturally constructed) and that everyone can claim to have
> knowledge of their own facts with equal validity. Its pretty democratic
> but a lot of people think that it ignores the authority of the external
> world. In practice though I imagine that the external world impinges on
> everyone's POV's in a manner which does not vary greatly and that this
> will tend toward building consensus.
The external world is what I believe Sokal was about, one can
have any opinion on gravity but that doe snot grant you safe
passage out of his office window. So yes, external world will
bring on consensus and Darwin will make an appointment with
the rest.
>>>>> >>> Others had called them
>>>>> >>> charlatans before but Sokal made it amusing.
>>>>
>>>>> What is exactly is pomoism guilty of pretending?
>>>>
>>>> That the emperor actually has clothes.
>>>
>>> But if I can see that clothes then I am not pretending.
>>
>> Noone can tell if you see the clothes, only that you were
>> claiming you did.
>
> I agree.
At this rate of agreements I am running out of "Whoa"s.
>> We are possibly getting close to
>> solipsism here...
>
> Im not sure that its solipsism exactly. Rather it seems to me to be the
> practical realisation that you will only ever see things from your own
> pov, and never from anyone else's. However, I also believe that there
> are reliable ways of learning pretty reliably about the external world,
> and the other people that it contains, so even if you accept the
> practical realisation that I propose, nothing really changes!
True. The problem comes when looking past the idea of working
truths to find what is beneath. We can know what we think but
not what the others think unless we make the entire world a
construct of the mind of the one observer. I would rather stick
to working truths.
> <snip>
>
>>>>> >When in doubt bring out Occam's Razor and start slicing.
>>>>> >To me Sokal
>>>>> >appears genuine while the POMOs appear to be short of a skeleton
>>>>
>>> So for you it all comes down to how it seems to you.
>>> And for me, then, it all comes down to how it seems to me.
>>
>> To a large extent: yes.
>
>>> So who is pretending?
>
>> Noone has to pretend, we just have to observe.
>
>>> Aren't you just heading back toward the emperors clothes problem? If
>>> you are that's fine by me, I don't think its really a problem, but I
>>> thought that you did.
>>
>> The emperor's new clothes isn't a problem as long as one settles
>> for working truths and the principle of least astonishment, not
>> invoking the fairy twice and so on.
>
> I agree then. But what is the 'principle of least astonishment', and
> what is 'not invoking the fairy twice'?
The principle of least astonishment is perhaps more common in
software where you are not supposed to surprise the users. So
for instance when someone clicks OK to install, say, Windows XP
the system should not start playing the Ride of the Valkyries
at maximum blast, degenrate punk rock style, even though it
would be the most appropriate.
In science a proof sometimes comes about so abruptly that some
extra elaborations are required. Same goes when a simple term
is substituted with something far more complicated looking that
in the end unravels into something very simple.
Invoking the fairy (or tooth fairy) is best avoided. Science
is based on previous works, buildt up like a massive pyramid
that is inverted, resting on a narrow foundation of basic
assumptions and axioms. To support this giant structure the
foundation has to be solid and kept small.
Adding a new assumtion to make a new theory work is called
"invoking the fairy" and will raise a few eyebrows in the
scientific community. Invoking it twice to make a theory
work is going too far.
R&D has a number of tools, expressions and methods but Googling
for these gave meagre results. Strange really, these things are
not trade secrets or parts of strange rituals.
There are many others, such as the "French Lamppost Method"
that I mentioned elsewhere in this thread; let's see how
that goes.
>>> Pomoism seems to me to be very closely related to scepticism, sophism
>>> and solipsism (check the Platonic dialogues; Socrates, Plato and
>>> Protagoras were having these same sorts of arguments in something
>>> like 400bc!) and as such isn't very well suited for making truth claims.
>>
>> While my virtual library of books to read is swelling further, just
>> how does solipsism come into POMO?
>
> It might not, though I think as a form of scepticism it is related. That
> said, Kristeva and others write sceptically about the notion of the
> "self" so solipsism and pomoism aren't necessarily comfortable
> bedfellows. People will tend to connect them though,
>
> http://www.geek-central.gen.nz/peeves/objective_reality.html
>
> IMHO pomoism more commonly denies that certain things, like facts and
> absolute truths exist the external world rather than denying the
> existence of the external world outright. Be warned however that my
> memory is very selective, and my pomoism isn't everyone's :)
I get this image of POMOs being like Vroonfondle et al. desperately
holding onto definite uncertainties while gradually losing out to
technology...
>>> IMHO pomoism doesn't imply that the author should be disqualified
>>> entirely, rather that they only get one vote, and rightly so!
>>
>> Yes, and in fact the first vote.
>
> Well, first in terms of temporality only IMHO. Which isn't to say that
> I won't potentially come to value the authors vote over all others, only
> that this won't happen automatically by virtue of the authors
> 'authority'. Eliot dismissed his "The Wasteland" as "dry thoughts on a
> dry day" but I still think its a great poem.
Ah, this one at least I found on the net. It saves me having to
buy more bookshelves.
>>>>> allegiance or intention. Isn't that a powerful \ interesting way
>>>>> approaching it? Doesn't that suggest that pomoism has more to it
>>>>> than the absence of a skeleton?
>>>>
>>>> It can be entertaining, at least occationally.
>>>
>>> So gruff!
>>
>> This is alt.cp you know, in spite of that crossposting
>> you added up there.
>
> I hope you don't mind, I probably should have made it more obvious that
> we were going on an excursion. It seemed to make sense in terms of what
> we were discussing, and most usenet groups these days don't seem to be
> busy enough to object to xposts on principle.
I don't mind at all. In fact I have participated in earlier threads
that ended up crossposted elsewhere.
>> I am not sure we will hear much
>> from the alt.postmodern regulars; the last crossposted
>> thread had them gasping for air.
>
> Well, one thing we might hear at least is that someone from alt.pomo may
> rightly point out that we aren't discussing pomoism proper. What
> Derrida, Kristeva, Baudrillard et al actually wrote often falls far
> short of what is oft referred to as postmodernism. Many of the original
> pomotheorists have actually protested quite loudly about the way that
> commentators have ran amok with partisan readings of their theories. I
If we call the commentators for critics I can see some humour in this.
> have long since forgotten who argued what and have ended up with an
> admittedly popularish distillation of the ideas that I liked the most,
> so my pomoism is probably horribly bastardised. That said, generally
> people seem to be referring to this version of postmodernism when they
> use the term, so I don't think there is any problem here.
>
>>> I have never met a hard-line sceptic. It is claimed of course that
>>> Piro (sp?), a pre-socratic sceptic, had to be accompanied by his
>>> friends everywhere he went because he was such a committed sceptic
>>> that he refused to believe that fire really burned or that you could
>>> drown in water, though I don't expect that many people will follow
>>> this example.
>>
>> Darwin probably disposed of them.
>
> I just got an image of Darwin driving out to the desert with a shovel
> and a trunkfull of absolutists.
I can see "I'd pay to see that!" becoming a slogan.
>> The idea of a working truth
>> being sufficient to go on living is perhaps something humanity
>> got through natural selection.
>
>>> So when Richard Dawkins says "Show me a cultural relativist at 30,000
>>> feet and I'll show you a hypocrite."
>>
>> Sokal also invited some POMOs to walk out of his office
>> window if they believed they could just deconstruct gravity.
>
> And I don't think he is wrong too. Theories and formulations which
> don't account for the reliably predictable phenomena occurring in the
> external world probably won't survive much selection if said phenomena
> turn out to be dangerous.
>
>>> A **real** absolute-relativist-sceptic would never be able to get up
>>> off the floor let alone get on plane.
>>
>> Ultimately if the sceptic did not believe in own self we might
>> at least get a case of anti-solipsism?
>
> Anti-solipsism? The belief that only the external world exists, but you
> do not. Hrm... Kinda pomo. I'd have to check who it is that writes
This could be the plot to "Matrix Unloaded", were they to make
a new one. More seriously, I read that some religions stated that
the world was only a dream of a sleeping deity that would end on
waking up. Interesting world view.
> about the "death of the self", but the roughest version of the idea is
> that the self is merely a cultural construction, determined entirely by
> the external world. Someone else in alt.pomo may be able to provide a
> better summary.
the birth of the self is part of what the breakdown of the
bicameral mind was about, right?
>>> That said, just because you can't turn these sorts of ideas into
>>> prescriptive 'guides for life' doesn't mean that you should abandon
>>> them all together. I personally favour an aristotelian middle road.
>>
>> Isn't that what "working truth" is about?
>
> I hope so. 'Workage' is of course subject to interpretation :) From a
> scientific perspective you would take radical scepticism and solipsism,
> think about them in practical terms (probably about as close to an
> empirical test as you can get with such slippery ideas) and discard them
> because they don't seem to be workable. The trouble with this is that
But are these terms possible to put to some kind of test? That would
be a necessity from a scientific perspective.
> its a little bit utilitarian for my liking. I quite like all kind of
> mystical, nonsensical ideas and don't find that entertaining them
> occasionally inhibits my ability to function in the real world too much
> ;) So I'd rather they weren't discarded altogether. This is where I
> don't agree with Sokal & Bricmont. They state that poetic license is no
> justification of postmodernism, and I could disagree more! They find
> postmodernism lacking in functionality, dismiss it, and suggest that
> everyone do the same. Basically, Im not sure that their advice will do
> me any good!
Science is not always purely utilitarian, there is still a lot
of pure exploration where even the strating point can be questionable
such as investigating properties of matter in a 2-dimentional world.
When these investigations become applicable when systems with reduced
dimentionalities are found, well, that is just luck.
And I think it was Gamov that got a book published on a story of
someone who fell into a 2D world. Mr. Thompkins, was it?
There is also art in science, inspiration and intuition; used to
determine a starting point, perhaps a course, for when juggling
awkward equations and more. That, however is not enough, the
hypothesis has to be firmed up and made solid to graduate into a
theory. I guess then that is the reason te artistic aspects are
less known jst like trade expressions like invoking the fairy.
>>> If you want to appreciate a novel by investigating the intentions of
>>> the author that seems fine, and if I want to look at it in different
>>> ways that I hope that that seems fine to you. And if it doesn't, oh
>>> well...
>>
>> I enjoy reading what the author actually wrote; reading what the
>> critics thought he wrote is occationally interesting but mostly
>> I prefer going to the source.
>
> I enjoy reading what the author actually wrote as well, but I enjoy
> doing what I will when it comes to interpreting what they wrote :) As
> for critics, I can take them or leave them quite honestly.
I think I will have to concentrate on authors rather than
the critics for a while, at least unti I get my queued up
reading list under control.
>>> More about science vs postmodernism in the "Deconstructing the
>>> Deconstructors" thread when I get back from work.
>>
>
> Uh, yeah. I'm still getting to that.
>
>> This should provide for an endless recursion and source
>> for more discussions. Knowing this place I guess it will
>> take us strange places.
>
> Lets hope so.
This thread has reached critical mass, weirdness is assured.
==<)