What IS "post-modernism", anyway?
je...@catholic.org
My first venture into "PostModern":
I read fashionable magazines and reviews and the
term Post-Modern comes up. I infer some meaning
from context,but my understanding of the idea is
vague and probably wrong so:
Could anyone direct me to a brief description,
or definition, of POST-MODERNISM?
James
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Garry J. Vass
>
>Could anyone direct me to a brief description,
>or definition, of POST-MODERNISM?
>
'Post-modernism' is a loose term used to describe the changes in
literature and the arts since about the 1950's or so. Beyond that, a
definition becomes more a matter of interpretation than anything else.
Whatever discernable elements or characteristics that define 'post-
modern' literature can be found in literature all the way back to the
ancient Greeks.
If that doesn't satisfy your question, then I would suggest that
understanding 'post-modernism' is best done by gaining a solid footing
of 'post-structuralism' (which is probably off-topic).
Kind regards,
--
Garry J. Vass
bst...@georgetowncollege.edu
je...@catholic.org wrote:
> Could anyone direct me to a brief description,
> or definition, of POST-MODERNISM?
>
> James
Here I shall attempt the impossible task.
I think that postmodernism best works in terms of Michel Foucault in his book
_History of Sexuality, Vol. 1_. Postmodernism forces thought, art (be it
architecture, visual art or literature) and religion (there is a postmodern
theology circle now, which I am part of) to "cut the crap" and get back to
the present reality of a given situation. With that said, there are a
million different approaches as to how to do this, be it postmodern
literature (Tom Robbins is a good example here), art or architecture, or
thought (Rorty, Caputo, Derrida (in _Glas_ more than any of his other
writings)). I suggest that all postmoderns know that they are not following
the traditional rules and protocols, but there is not one centralized
"postmodernism," it is merely something that is identifiable when it is seen,
although we can never see the main essence behind all the "family
resemblance" (of course that term itself is a postmodern creation of later
Wittgenstein against the modernist logical positivism of his earlier analytic
works).
Thus, friend, postmodernism is undefinable but has a particular way of
presenting itself very clearly. therefore it is no accident that most
postmodern philosophers somehow start out as phenomenologists or hermeneuts.
Peace and joy!
BES
CL Hamshaw
>
> Hello!
> My first venture into "PostModern":
> I read fashionable magazines and reviews and the
> term Post-Modern comes up. I infer some meaning
> from context,but my understanding of the idea is
> vague and probably wrong so:
>
> or definition, of POST-MODERNISM?
>
> James
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
for a start. Its more complicated than the initial replies you've
received make it out to be.
It is both a reaction to and a (perhaps ironic) continuation of
modernism. It's spread into a lot of disciplines and the perspective of
the definition is different in each. Also note that the concept of a
"definition" is debateable within the discourse of postmodernism so
there are is a lot of evasiveness when one asks for clarification on the
meaning of the word.
--
Carol L. Hamshaw
Administrator
Edgewise ElectroLit Centre
www.edgewisecafe.org
go...@yizrael.org.il
>Hello!
>My first venture into "PostModern":
>I read fashionable magazines and reviews and the
>term Post-Modern comes up. I infer some meaning
>from context,but my understanding of the idea is
>vague and probably wrong so:
>
>Could anyone direct me to a brief description,
>or definition, of POST-MODERNISM?
>
>James
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Although all of those very short decriptions define some of the
post-modern idea, I have this feeling that is not the whole post
modern idea... aren't there some basics to it? (Even a basic that
there are no basics, as I heard sometimes)
Trent Smith
and fostering a "post-modern" stance have made the post-modern disappear,
hence it does not exist, and never did for that matter.
Jean-Christophe Beumier
Tom C
whether it takes the modern with it when it collapses...
Trent Smith wrote in message <368A8620...@sprint.ca>...
Joseph Cautilli
postmodernism, we loose the essence. Joe
CL Hamshaw
think, threatening effect of determining pomo as meaningless. It is not
undefinable but indeterminable: it has no singular locus of meaning, it
doesn't hold "water". Its an effort, to say the least, to grasp the
workings of complex and/or chaotic reality (depending on your valuation
of the "world") by creating a simulacra of that world in the process of
interpretation. This goal isn't distinct to postmodernism but what is
unique to pomo is how it-- the theorists, the artists, the philosophers
and anti-philosophical activists--creates a "mode" of thinking aka
perception that actually integrates its principles of creation in its
expressions. That's how I've seen it since I began learning about it
and I expect to be always learning about it, hearing it reinterpret and
re-present itself for two reasons: first, that is its *nature* and
second, because the whole thing is still evolving. We're not yet past
Post Modernism. Maybe when we are we can come up with a less misleading
term. Or maybe we'll just know better than to interpret it literally ;)
This is why I suggested The Postmodern Reader, its polyvocality on the
subject. Pomo can be defined by its relation to Modernism, but
understanding will eventually go beyond basic comparisons (see Ihab
Hassan, "Toward a Concept of Postmodernism", 273-286. The Postmodern
Reader. Eds. Linda Hutcheon and Joseph Natoli. Albany: State University
of New York, 1993.
I would also recommend looking at pomo through artists and the mediums
they choose to represent it. Film, video, hypertext, photography are all
forms that have a larger life in pomo. For changes in narrative
techniques, see the works of Jeanette Winterson, or Famous Last Words by
Timothy Findley. Pomo isn't just restricted to the arts either though:
its influence can be seen in New Historicism, chaos theory, Jaques
Lacan's work in psychology. I've also found through my interest in
Latin America that perspectives "outside" the Western world can be very
enlightening. There's a lot of potential to address marginalization,
multiculturalism in a non-homogenous sense, and the like through pomo.
Its range is incredible, therefore its "essence" is diffuse.
--
Joseph Cautilli
an unfortunate choice of words on my part. It is a movement in constant
flux that pobably will not have many similarities at its end to the
beginning as any other movement does. My thinking on this one was stagnant
and I appreciate your calling me on it. Joe
Jason Ruspini
easy, unpretentious read and touches upon "postmodernism" in several
contexts.
Jason Ruspini
go...@yizrael.org.il wrote:
Randy
pretending to be rather revolutionary. It's practioners write in a strange
barely literate, and most peculiar style in hopes of impressing other
members of their "club." It's origins are shrouded in mystery and appear to
have arisen in the murky depths of capitalism. It is believed that a secret
printing press located either in the sewers of Paris or the catycombs
beneath the Vatican turns out the thousands of pages of gobblygook necessary
for its continued survival. To date, no one outside of the "club" has
learned their secret handshake or the purpose of their existance.
Jean-Christophe Beumier wrote in message <76e298$o...@news3.euro.net>...
Tom C
Perhaps hanging out in alt.postmodern isn't the brightest thing to do
then...
T
Randy wrote in message <368ba...@news.sound.net>...
CL Hamshaw
Your not on the "outside" I assure you...
--
mondrian
never receives illuminating responses. If you go by what is being written
here, postmodernism looks alternatly faddish, mythological, scholastic,
etc...
May I suggest that one should try to get clear about modernism, since this
term is not generally under contention. Postmodernism then is a reaction
to, and a consequence of, the crises of modernism in the 20th century.
Postmodernists, after the wars and technological hell of the 20th century,
try to refine, reject or transcend the modern ideals and values which
have, some may say, played a major part in these disasters (see, for
example, the Nietzschian "irrationalists" and Heidegger), or others may
say they did not play a big enough part in our culture and it is the
lingering pre-modern ideology which is to blame for modernism's
shipwreck(Adorno, Habermas, Dewey, Rorty).
The interesting question is not What is Postmodernism? What matters is to
understand the kinds of questions post-modernists ask: how do we
understand our recent past in terms of the hopes and dreams of
Enlightenmentt?,Should we continue to share these hopes, or are they
unsalvagable?(Rorty and Habermas, Heidegger, etc.) do we need to move
beyond them?(Foucault, at times) if so, where are new ideas to be
found?(Emerson). In this newsgroup one can see that there are those who
believe that postmodernism signals a near total loss of faith in
knowledge, security and perfection - the sort of metacritical posturing
Foucual is often blamed for. Others see postmodernism as a transition
period, a sort of wandering, looking for direction - the sort of thought
that tends to look beyond "the west" for inspiration... I find the former
to be out of fashion, but it was a very fruitful critical path that has
made us a little clearer about what we can hope and know.
does this help?
Tom C
Oh well....
Tom
CL Hamshaw wrote in message <368BD0...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
CL Hamshaw
>
> I'm assuming that you are talking to him rather than me.
>
> Oh well....
>
> Tom
appropriate too.
CL Hamshaw
the one to you at cheezbtinternet.com bounced back, as host unknown. Are
you forging your return address?
Puss in Boots
> Define postmodernism... seems this question gets asked here regularly, and
> never receives illuminating responses. If you go by what is being written
> here, postmodernism looks alternatly faddish, mythological, scholastic,
> etc...
It used to be a constant topic of discussion around here.
You can see an example in my FAQ. I've been tired of the question
for a long while, but maybe it's time to play another round.
> May I suggest that one should try to get clear about modernism, since this
> term is not generally under contention. Postmodernism then is a reaction
> to, and a consequence of, the crises of modernism in the 20th century.
> Postmodernists, after the wars and technological hell of the 20th century,
> try to refine, reject or transcend the modern ideals and values which
> have, some may say, played a major part in these disasters (see, for
> example, the Nietzschian "irrationalists" and Heidegger), or others may
> say they did not play a big enough part in our culture and it is the
> lingering pre-modern ideology which is to blame for modernism's
> shipwreck(Adorno, Habermas, Dewey, Rorty).
> The interesting question is not What is Postmodernism? What matters is to
> understand the kinds of questions post-modernists ask: how do we
> understand our recent past in terms of the hopes and dreams of
> Enlightenmentt?,Should we continue to share these hopes, or are they
> unsalvagable?(Rorty and Habermas, Heidegger, etc.) do we need to move
> beyond them?(Foucault, at times) if so, where are new ideas to be
> found?(Emerson). In this newsgroup one can see that there are those who
> believe that postmodernism signals a near total loss of faith in
> knowledge, security and perfection - the sort of metacritical posturing
> Foucual is often blamed for. Others see postmodernism as a transition
> period, a sort of wandering, looking for direction - the sort of thought
> that tends to look beyond "the west" for inspiration... I find the former
> to be out of fashion, but it was a very fruitful critical path that has
> made us a little clearer about what we can hope and know.
Nice post, mondrian -- I just want to add one thing. Call it
nitpicking, but as long as we're getting clear about the term
"modernism," let me point out that modernism and the Enlightenment
are two different critters.
The word you want here is "modernity," which takes in the
Enlightenment, the advent of capitalism, the rise of the
bourgeoisie, and so on; modernism is basically what you're calling
"post-modernism." That happens.
-- Moggin
Hue chroma
exposure to postmodernism is from "fashionable magazines" the references to
postmodernism probably only mean that we are in a period of rapid change, high
technology, many diverse opinions, a growing interest in information and
knowledge distribution (the internet for example) and on and on. For want of a
better term, this new era is being described as "postmodern".
If you would like a deeper understanding, check out what is going on in the
world of philosophy by doing a serach on "postmodernism" There are a couple of
very informative web pages with hundreds of links.
jhmcclo...@my-dejanews.com
Joseph Cautilli <jcau...@astro.ocis.temple.edu> wrote:
> I must agree that in searching for and trying to define the essence of
> postmodernism, we loose the essence. Joe
>>>>
Very subtle indeed! All depends on oorthography!
--
Yours, J. H. McCloskey
=== ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ===
jhmcclo...@my-dejanews.com
Jean-Christophe Beumier <jeanchristo...@euronet.be> wrote:
> Post-modernism is likely to be a kind of snobbish pre-modernism.
>>>>>
Probably that sentence best translates as "Ugh! take it away!," but
considering it seriously for a couple of paragraphs may be suggestive.
I'd suggest we contradict it at once, for snobbery is central to one sort
of unprefixed Modernism, namely Bohemianism or Avantgardisme of the
Eliot-Joyce-Picasso sort, always in search of something NEW, but only on
condition that the NEW be also DIFFICULT. (ALL this in sociological reaction
to mass-produced "culture," needless to remark. The cardinal importance of
not being a Philistine is quite an old tale by now.)
The aesthetic or Comp. Lit. side of PoMo mostly evades me, but it does at
least seem to treat "trash" quite as seriously as "art." JCB might hostilely
say that the snobbery has moved from the things treated to the treatment of
the things.
It would, however, be easier to guess what he'd say if one knew what his
notion of plain-spoken down-to-earth "pre-modernism" looked like.
Personally, I can't do the advanced math involved in subtracting snobbery
from Foucault or Mr. Cornell West and then identifying what the result is.
Thomas Aquinas? Norman Vincent Peale? George Orwell? Ben Franklin?
jhmcclo...@my-dejanews.com
"Randy" <r...@sound.net> wrote:
> Post modernism is an interesting way of defending the status quo while
> pretending to be rather revolutionary. It's practioners write in a strange
> barely literate, and most peculiar style in hopes of impressing other
> members of their "club." It's origins are shrouded in mystery and appear to
> have arisen in the murky depths of capitalism. It is believed that a secret
> printing press located either in the sewers of Paris or the catycombs
> beneath the Vatican turns out the thousands of pages of gobblygook necessary
> for its continued survival. To date, no one outside of the "club" has
> learned their secret handshake or the purpose of their existance.
> Jean-Christophe Beumier wrote in message <76e298$o...@news3.euro.net>...
>>>>>>
Clearly PoMo has somehow been mistaken for Leostraussianity. Is this a
common mistake?
Tom C
Tom.C...@btinternet.com and the CHEEZ is just added to stop robots
trawling usenet for addresses. Normally I use a signiture that tells people
this, but I have had a bit of a forgetful period recently.
I would prefer it if you would only send me a message once, though, either
to the group or to me - whichever is most appropriate.
__________________________________________________________
Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com
(To contact me remove the CHEEZ)
Noah Wyle: Man or Animal?
http://www.btinternet.com/~orlando/wyle.htm
Invisibles - The Bomb
http://www.btinternet.com/~orlando/bomb/
CL Hamshaw wrote in message <368BFD...@bc.sympatico.ca>...
Tom C
> It used to be a constant topic of discussion around here.
>You can see an example in my FAQ. I've been tired of the question
>for a long while, but maybe it's time to play another round.
I have to be honest - I have been here for about six months and I have had
so many conversations about what post-modernity is, most of which revolve
around the format of someone going "postmodernity is rubbish created by
idiots from France" and then a few people slowly and grudgingly wandering
into the arena for another round of "explanations". I am *extremely* bored
of it!
I think if someone is going to undertake the explanation this time, they
should do it properly. We should appoint someone (with more information than
I have) to do it reasonably properly over a few posts, which could then be
compiled, with annotations, into the FAQ.
mondrian
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote:
> Nice post, mondrian -- I just want to add one thing. Call it
> nitpicking, but as long as we're getting clear about the term
> "modernism," let me point out that modernism and the Enlightenment
> are two different critters.
>
> The word you want here is "modernity," which takes in the
> Enlightenment, the advent of capitalism, the rise of the
> bourgeoisie, and so on; modernism is basically what you're calling
> "post-modernism." That happens.
Quite right, modernity is the word I ought to have used.
Andrea Chen
postmodernism as an expression of modernist themes in actual form
(A controversial defintion and incomplete)
Following are a few samples.
1) The end of the separation between actors and audience. With talent
audience members can become the new stars. This surpasses efforts made
by various theatre companies.
2) Multiple layers of meaning openly displayed. A "meta art" which
provides (like some rocks) slivers of different perceptions. The medium
can talk about itself. The same thread may be percieved seriously by
some and by others as an intentional joke (a troll.) It is even
possible to describe the nature of the troll (before and during it's
intervention) and have people still percieve it at face value.
3) A form that is multi-dimensional. One Usnet are a number of
"functioning groups" (eg. groups which have a cadre of fine minds). For
example alt.postmodern is one of these.
Several functioning groups can be linked to a common problem
(this must be done with care because if overdone it can destroy the
group.)
Different combinations can result in new problem solving collectives.
Structurally this as though members of one story can walk into another
and vice versa. Ideally some useful connections will be made
(eg x in group 1 will find y in group 2 to be an interesting mind.)
4) Potentially we have a self acting story. By this I mean various
individuals will assume different persona in interactive fiction and
these people will drive the story with no author being in control.
5) the material is analyzable through use of search engines (eg. one can
find the positions of an author on a theme (keyword.) Right now search
engines are primitive but they can (especially if text recieves some
"mapping") become very powerful.
But even today one can follow an author and have a record of if there
opinion on something shifted and if so the various differences of
opinion found day to day.
This builds the studies of symbols (in various social studies such as
linguistics, mythology, memetics etc.) directly into the medium. Art
and criticism (as a sophisticated model) can merge.
CL Hamshaw
Carol L. Hamshaw
Administrator
Edgewise ElectroLit Centre
Andrea Chen
> --
> Carol L. Hamshaw
> Administrator
> Edgewise ElectroLit Centre
> http://www.edgewisecafe.org
I tend to use the language which Nelson used when he coined hypertext.
This is the raw symbolic form (the visual interface would relieve you of
some need for defining symbols).
This language allows control to be inserted into the text itself.
I will use a simple spacial example, but the dimensionals (in this case
2 the 4 points of the compass)
could be any set of symbols. In other words you can line lemon to
pie.
#(ds,meadow,(
A blush of green. A kestrel hovers and dives.
#(ds,north,(#(the woods)))
#(ds,south,(#(the lake)))
#(ds,east,(#(home)))
#(ds,west,(#(unknown)))
)
If meadow was called (perhaps "south" set north as #(meadow)); the
result is the text "a blush..."
At this point the reader has 4 obvious choices and (most likely) a
default.
#(north) will take one to the woods.
Obviously such a structure embedded into text would make even the
archaic structure of Usenet more flexible. Writers could chose whether
or not to use it (just as writers often chose to use or not use HTML in
posts.)
One advantage a symbol based hypertext language is that it remains
fairly readable even if the newsreader is unable to process it.
Puss in Boots
[...]
> Personally, I can't do the advanced math involved in subtracting snobbery
> from Foucault or Mr. Cornell West and then identifying what the result is.
> Thomas Aquinas? Norman Vincent Peale? George Orwell? Ben Franklin?
One of our sometime-regulars, David Swanson, claims substracting
the obscurity from Derrida gives you Dewey.
-- Moggin
Puss in Boots
> I have to be honest - I have been here for about six months and I have had
> so many conversations about what post-modernity is, most of which revolve
> around the format of someone going "postmodernity is rubbish created by
> idiots from France" and then a few people slowly and grudgingly wandering
> into the arena for another round of "explanations". I am *extremely* bored
> of it!
I know the feeling. Sometimes it seems like a fascinating
question -- others, not. Right now I'm as bored with it, too. Maybe
I could get interested again: mondrian's post piqued my interest
more than anything lately.
> I think if someone is going to undertake the explanation this time, they
> should do it properly. We should appoint someone (with more information than
> I have) to do it reasonably properly over a few posts, which could then be
> compiled, with annotations, into the FAQ.
You'll probably agree there is no one explanation, or even a
manageable set. One of the things I like about the Fax (there's two)
is that they don't put the subject into a neat package. They
present plenty of info, tho, especially Van's (the big, ambitious one
in six parts).
-- Moggin
mondrian
(Puss in Boots) wrote:
> <Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com>:
>
> > I have to be honest - I have been here for about six months and I have had
> > so many conversations about what post-modernity is, most of which revolve
> > around the format of someone going "postmodernity is rubbish created by
> > idiots from France" and then a few people slowly and grudgingly wandering
> > into the arena for another round of "explanations". I am *extremely* bored
> > of it!
>
> I know the feeling. Sometimes it seems like a fascinating
> question -- others, not. Right now I'm as bored with it, too.
Having a question like this go dead for you is probably a good thing.
Distinguishing this and that as modern or postmodern is, in my view, a
very minor function of philosophy today. And what really is the point of
this mostly fruitless attempt anyway? Usually to denounce PM as terribly
"french." Habermas, I think, makes a great point, that it is really most
important to view ourselves as the inheritors of modernity rather than as
revolutionaries. What is labled as post modern is so often depressing and
cheerless, irrational and chaotic - Emerson tells us our work should be to
cheer... but here you have the problematic in a nutshell: What is
philosophy today?
> > I think if someone is going to undertake the explanation this time, they
> > should do it properly. We should appoint someone (with more information than
> > I have) to do it reasonably properly over a few posts, which could then be
> > compiled, with annotations, into the FAQ.
>
> You'll probably agree there is no one explanation, or even a
> manageable set. One of the things I like about the Fax (there's two)
> is that they don't put the subject into a neat package. They
> present plenty of info, tho, especially Van's (the big, ambitious one
> in six parts).
The A.P.M. fax are really an excellent resource, bravo.
mondrian
Now if only David could show us the maths involved in getting Rorty from
Dewey. Rorty's recent calim is that you should subtract the actual words
Dewey wrote from the Spirit in which he wrote them... hmmmmm
jhmcclo...@my-dejanews.com
> the obscurity from Derrida gives you Dewey.
>
> -- Moggin
>>>>>>>
Sounds promising. I think very highly of St. John. And I keep hanging
around here hoping to learn all about Derrida tuition-free....
CL Hamshaw
inclined. I need a more expansive answer. thanks
Puss in Boots
>>> I have to be honest - I have been here for about six months and I have had
>>> so many conversations about what post-modernity is, most of which revolve
>>> around the format of someone going "postmodernity is rubbish created by
>>> idiots from France" and then a few people slowly and grudgingly wandering
>>> into the arena for another round of "explanations". I am *extremely* bored
>>> of it!
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots):
>> I know the feeling. Sometimes it seems like a fascinating
>> question -- others, not. Right now I'm as bored with it, too.
mond...@spam.newsguy.com (mondrian):
> Having a question like this go dead for you is probably a good thing.
> Distinguishing this and that as modern or postmodern is, in my view, a
> very minor function of philosophy today. And what really is the point of
> this mostly fruitless attempt anyway? Usually to denounce PM as terribly
> "french." Habermas, I think, makes a great point, that it is really most
> important to view ourselves as the inheritors of modernity rather than as
> revolutionaries. What is labled as post modern is so often depressing and
> cheerless, irrational and chaotic - Emerson tells us our work should be to
> cheer... but here you have the problematic in a nutshell: What is
> philosophy today?
_Of course_ Habermas would say that -- he's a shit-eating reformist.
But look: you've answered your own question. You think that it's
important to discuss what post-modernism is -- or what it isn't -- so we
can hold on to the legacy of modernity. Also, it seems, because what
gets called "post-modern" doesn't fit a cheerfulness-on-principle policy.
(Where's that in Emerson? I'm not doubting you -- just curious.)
I thoroughly disagree, but that's irrelevant. The point is that we
could have a long, engaging conversation about the issues you've just
raised -- and they developed from the sometimes-boring question "What is
post-modernism?" Same for your earlier post on the topic.
Sure, applying labels is a trivial thing. But in some cases it can
lead to more interesting ones. You must know that, since you like
talking about "America" and "American philosophy" -- seemingly pointless.
To call it "a very minor function of philosophy" might be overly
generous -- what purpose does it have except to applaud certain thinking
as terribly "American"? Answer: it's a means for you to engage
various themes.
-- Moggin
Stefan Elisabeth Kapusniak
In alt.syntax.tactical, Andrea Chen <fallin...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>What I'm saying is that this kind of discussion is simply
>futuristic. Someday there will be a sophisticated medium
>(possible prototypes are Smalltalk (the original Xerox Parc GUI
>language, a bit more sophisticated than the version developed by
>Apple) and Lotus notes (now owned by IBM.))
As a point of interest the various WikiWiki{1} flavours
-- which perhaps provide some of the advantages outlined
by Andrea in a fairly early stage of evolution -- grew up
around the Smalltalk and Software Patterns communities.
I see one of the more interesting implementations as
Swiki{2} which uses Squeak, a version of Smalltalk derived
from the original Smalltalk-80 and developed by some of
the original Smalltalk people along with a whole bunch of
other people, and its 'pluggable web server' framework
as the basis for the server engine.
One of the drawbacks WikiWiki's for those of us in
regions where the phone companies meter connect time
by the second remain the web-based-always-online nature
of editing and adding to such a site.
-- Kapusniak, Stefan e
{1} http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiWikiWeb (and associated links)
{2} http://pbl.cc.gatech.edu:8080/myswiki
mondrian
mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots) wrote:
> <Tom.C...@CHEEZbtinternet.com>:
>
> >>> I have to be honest - I have been here for about six months and I have had
> >>> so many conversations about what post-modernity is, most of which revolve
> >>> around the format of someone going "postmodernity is rubbish created by
> >>> idiots from France" and then a few people slowly and grudgingly wandering
> >>> into the arena for another round of "explanations". I am
*extremely* bored
> >>> of it!
>
> mog...@mindspring.com (Puss in Boots):
>
> >> I know the feeling. Sometimes it seems like a fascinating
> >> question -- others, not. Right now I'm as bored with it, too.
>
> mond...@spam.newsguy.com (mondrian):
>
> > Having a question like this go dead for you is probably a good thing.
> > Distinguishing this and that as modern or postmodern is, in my view, a
> > very minor function of philosophy today. And what really is the point of
> > this mostly fruitless attempt anyway? Usually to denounce PM as terribly
> > "french." Habermas, I think, makes a great point, that it is really most
> > important to view ourselves as the inheritors of modernity rather than as
> > revolutionaries. What is labled as post modern is so often depressing and
> > cheerless, irrational and chaotic - Emerson tells us our work should be to
> > cheer... but here you have the problematic in a nutshell: What is
> > philosophy today?
>
> _Of course_ Habermas would say that -- he's a shit-eating reformist.
LOL
> But look: you've answered your own question.
> You think that it's
> important to discuss what post-modernism is -- or what it isn't -- so we
> can hold on to the legacy of modernity.
I think the emphasis here is wrong. I'm not of the opinion that most of
what gets talked about in these debates does help us hold onto this
legacy. Rahter, it distracts us... at least they distracted me for years
as a young Philosophy student.
> Also, it seems, because what
> gets called "post-modern" doesn't fit a cheerfulness-on-principle policy.
> (Where's that in Emerson? I'm not doubting you -- just curious.)
see "The American Scholar"
>
> I thoroughly disagree, but that's irrelevant. The point is that we
> could have a long, engaging conversation about the issues you've just
> raised -- and they developed from the sometimes-boring question "What is
> post-modernism?" Same for your earlier post on the topic.
>
> Sure, applying labels is a trivial thing. But in some cases it can
> lead to more interesting ones. You must know that, since you like
> talking about "America" and "American philosophy" -- seemingly pointless.
> To call it "a very minor function of philosophy" might be overly
> generous -- what purpose does it have except to applaud certain thinking
> as terribly "American"? Answer: it's a means for you to engage
> various themes.
I think I've followed this. I don't disagree that this can be interesting
and productive. I do think, however, that it rarely is. When you have
lots of people throwing an ambiguous term around like a club, I would want
to say that such thinking is not terribly useful, unless you are up for
bashing. I'm being stubbornly Rortian in simply wanting to not talk about
it. My preferred question is What is Philosophy? The pragmatist line
rejects our interest in something called post-modernity, since it sees
philosophy as the champion of the ideals of modernity. For Dewey and
Rorty, the question of what is philosophy is settled. Emerson, often
classed as a pragmatist, is more what I would call a post-modernist in the
sense that he wonders if "scientific method" is really our salvation. He
sees philosophy not on the model of scientific problem solving, but as the
secular inheritor of the prophetic tradition - Derrida seems to see this
too, and like Emerson before him, struggles with the implication.
(I'm not sure the idea of "America" and "American philosophy" has any use,
I'm exploring the idea that it might, that America held for Emerson and
Hegel and Nietzsche, some sort of difference from European thought which
they tried to make an issue for thinking.)
> -- Moggin
Joseph Cautilli
antecednent to it : modernity. The dominant characteristic of modernity is
the belief in an absolute, universal truth, the capitalization of which
implies that in some way we transcend our cultural and historical context.
The word postmodern was first used in the 1930's by Fredico de Onis (I
believe a literary critic by trade). To him postmodernismo was used to
describe as Smart (1993) states "kind of exhausted and mildly conservative
moderismo." (pp. 18-19). The term became very popular in the 1970s with
publication from post-structuralist like Jean-Francios Lyotard's book the
Postmodern Condition. Form this book, Lyotard states that science is not a
path to "truth but merely a path to discourse." Again his arguement was
not a new one. This particular arguement drew heavily on the
realist/antirealist debates at the turn of the century (see some of Quine'
and the positivist Carnap's exchanges), the unconscious of Freud. Lyotard
(1984) higlights:
"Scientific knoweldge cannot know and make known that it is the true
knowledge without resorting to the other, narrative, kind of knowledge,
which from its point of view is no knoweldge at all. With such recourses
it would be in the position of presupposing its own validity and would be
stooping to what it condemns: begging the question, proceeding on
prejudice. But does it not fall into the same trap by using narrative as
its authority?" (p. 29)
The most critical attack on truth, though came from social scientists
themselves. Instead of language allowing us to transcend the context (as
Rationalist like Chomsky would state appealing to an inborne logic/thought
device called the LAD to show us truth) Skinner defined language as
relational and as I have argued before reduced science to the behavior of
the scientist, proned to the same consequnces of any other form of verbal
behavior. Since all verbal behavior was relational in his account, the
effect of the verbal community by definition shaped and changed our way of
seeing the world. He went even further to argue that the language from
which we discribethe sensation in our body was also trained to us from the
verbal community and thus for each of us may not be accurate in many cases
this is what keeps therapist in buisness, helping those in therapy put a
language to their feelings).So the scientists feelings of "curisoty" to
explore "male superiority over females in developing autonomy" was
selected by a history which trained that feeling. As I pointed out before
this is similar to the work of Wittgenstein, ZVygotsky, Mead, and other
psychologists. Marxist social scientists questioned if the driving force
of science was really curiosity or was it a pattern of economic shaping
from government. Authors like Dave Kipnis to this day, write articles
demonstrating the government largely funds social science projects to
manage the poor and those who are sociallly marginal (i.e., addictions
etc).
In the U.S., we have I believe come a long way from the view of America as
the great melting pot, where every child can be president.Humanists are
correct when they argue that postmodernism threatens the basics of rights
and even self (see Brewster Smith arguement in the American Psychologist
back in 1993). If the eself is created from language and language is not
fixed but relational, then the self is created in teh context of social
relationships. In her article in 1993 in Psychology of Women, titled
something like Towards a reconcilation of radical behaviorism and femenism
Ruiz highlights the factors that support this view of the self. well I
could go on more but I tghink that I am boring others on the list. Sorry.
Joe
Joseph Cautilli
context. The post modern recongizes that without context knoweldge is
maningless. This holds as true for postmodern science as postmodern
archtecture. In archtecture, completion of the program was the truth of
efficency. Efficency was served in the end by the box. Buildings of the
period began to become closer and closer to that form. Postmodern
archtecture (sic) recognizes that the building needs to fit the context
for which it is a part. Truth is always context bound. JOe
On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Joseph Cautilli <jcau...@astro.ocis.temple.edu> wrote:
> : I think that postmodernity is often defined in terms of the historical
> : antecednent to it : modernity. The dominant characteristic of modernity is
> : the belief in an absolute, universal truth, the capitalization of which
> : implies that in some way we transcend our cultural and historical context.
>
> And modernity is supposed to differ from pre-modernity in this
> exactly how?
>
> smw
>
>
Joseph Cautilli
the source of truth was god. God was the key to knowing the world and to
daily functioning. In short, god was truth and god gave truth. Modernity
replaced god with teh rational mind. The mind was the key to discoverying
the world. Rationality would soon replace superstition.
Joe
Charles M. P. Ritchea
My uneducated definition of PoMo as I've seen fit to define it myself
without ever reading Derrida or Baudrillard (well except for that ctheory
thing about disney land) :P
everything is unique and infinitely complex therefore analysis and synthesis
are endless endeavors. Analysis and synthesis is the endeavor of Modernism.
Modernism dominates the world creating the society, an attempt to categorize
and explain humanity. Which is all bung, but we live in it. So
postmodernism shows up. Its just the realization that all of this is bung.
We got to call ourselves postmodern cause we live in society and society
demands WORD and Minimalism. What we mean to say is WE IS WHAT WE IS, but
society demands a Predicate Nominative. Here's how to play the game.
Society: What are YOU?
K: YHWH (I Am What I AM)
Society: you are a postmodernist and you are attempting to decuntstruct me.
I will have to arrest you.
Generic Jail Person:Name
K: K
Generic Jail Person:Sex
Charles M. P. Ritchea
My uneducated definition of PoMo as I've seen fit to define it myself
without ever reading Derrida or Baudrillard (well except for that ctheory
thing about disney land) :P
everything is unique and infinitely complex therefore analysis and synthesis
are endless endeavors. Analysis and synthesis is the endeavor of Modernism.
Modernism dominates the world creating the society, an attempt to categorize
and explain humanity. Which is all bung, but we live in it. So
postmodernism shows up. Its just the realization that all of this is bung.
We got to call ourselves postmodern cause we live in society and society
demands WORD and Minimalism. What we mean to say is WE IS WHAT WE IS, but
society demands a Predicate Nominative. Here's how to play the game (in
this case to lose).
Society: What are YOU?
K: YHWH (I Am What I AM)
Society: you are a postmodernist and you are attempting to decuntstruct me.
I will have to arrest you.
Generic Jail Person:Name?
K: K
Generic Jail Person:Sex?
K:Transexual or Postsexual or Nonsexual or Supersexual
Generic Jail Person:Gender?
K:Transgender or Postgender or Nongender or
Generic Jail Person:Religion?
K:Agnostic or Postgnostic or Religion is Poison
Generic Jail Person:Political Party
K:Postpartisan
Generic Jail Person:Nationality
K:Terran or if you prefer Alien
Generic Jail Person:Race
K: What are you Racist?
Generic Jail Person: You want us to probe the information or are you going
to cooperate?
K: Bohemian
Generic Jail Person: Music?
K: Traditional Industrial folk hip-hop (Susanne Vega, Oingo Boingo, TLC)
Generic Jail Person: I'm sorry this Scantron just won't do. We're gonna
have to do this again. Or would you prefer the probe
K: the probe pleeeeeez
Jim F.
Speaking B.F. Skinner and humanists. It is interesting to note that
back in the early 1970s, the American Humanist Association declared
Skinner to be "Humanist of the Year." This award arouse considerable
controversy within the AHA since his radical behaviorism was thought
by many to be incompatible with traditional humanism which presupposed
the reality of the free and autonomous self. Skinner argued for a
new humanism in which the myth of autonomous man would would be
abandoned in exchange for the development of an effective behavioral
technology that would enable the realization of classical humanist
goals, leading to a greater actualization of human potential.
Jim F.
Puss in Boots
>> But look: you've answered your own question. You think that it's
>> important to discuss what post-modernism is -- or what it isn't -- so we
>> can hold on to the legacy of modernity. Also, it seems, because what
>> gets called "post-modern" doesn't fit a cheerfulness-on-principle policy.
mond...@spam.newsguy.com (mondrian):
> I think the emphasis here is wrong. I'm not of the opinion that most of
> what gets talked about in these debates does help us hold onto this
> legacy. Rahter, it distracts us... at least they distracted me for years
> as a young Philosophy student.
I misunderstood, then. Looking back I can't see where I got
that from. O.k. -- my mistake. But saying it's a distraction can't
be right, either: if debating about post-modernism involves
debating about modernity, it's focused directly on what concerns you.
[...]
Moggin:
>> I thoroughly disagree, but that's irrelevant. The point is that we
>> could have a long, engaging conversation about the issues you've just
>> raised -- and they developed from the sometimes-boring question "What is
>> post-modernism?" Same for your earlier post on the topic.
>> Sure, applying labels is a trivial thing. But in some cases it can
>> lead to more interesting ones. You must know that, since you like
>> talking about "America" and "American philosophy" -- seemingly pointless.
>> To call it "a very minor function of philosophy" might be overly
>> generous -- what purpose does it have except to applaud certain thinking
>> as terribly "American"? Answer: it's a means for you to engage
>> various themes.
mondrian:
> I think I've followed this. I don't disagree that this can be interesting
> and productive. I do think, however, that it rarely is. When you have
> lots of people throwing an ambiguous term around like a club, I would want
> to say that such thinking is not terribly useful, unless you are up for
> bashing. I'm being stubbornly Rortian in simply wanting to not talk about
> it. My preferred question is What is Philosophy? The pragmatist line
> rejects our interest in something called post-modernity, since it sees
> philosophy as the champion of the ideals of modernity. For Dewey and
> Rorty, the question of what is philosophy is settled. Emerson, often
> classed as a pragmatist, is more what I would call a post-modernist in the
> sense that he wonders if "scientific method" is really our salvation. He
> sees philosophy not on the model of scientific problem solving, but as the
> secular inheritor of the prophetic tradition - Derrida seems to see this
> too, and like Emerson before him, struggles with the implication.
"What is metaphysics? The question awakens expectations of a
discussion of metaphysics. This we shall forgo." (Heidegger, "What
is Metaphysics?")
> (I'm not sure the idea of "America" and "American philosophy" has any use,
> I'm exploring the idea that it might, that America held for Emerson and
> Hegel and Nietzsche, some sort of difference from European thought which
> they tried to make an issue for thinking.)
But you just said that such thinking isn't useful unless you're
"up for a bashing." Substitute "up for a parade," in this case.
You also said you didn't like the idea of "throwing around an
ambiguous idea like a club." But here you are doing it, except that
the club is a flag. Understand, I don't mind that you are -- I'm
just missing the big distinction between "post-modernism," which you
simply don't want to talk about, and "America," which you're
interested in discussing. As vague abstractions, don't they go into
the same bin?
-- Moggin
Barni
the postmodernism. But I consider it as an aritstic movement in the first
line. Surely there is a connection between the philosophical and artistic
sides ( I think that the artistic side is based on it's philosophy ) But I
am interested about some opinions about the postmodern art, literature, etc.
By the way, Joseph Cautilli mentioned something about the PM architecture. I
disagree him, I think, though the postmodernism is based on functionalism,
it wants to combine it with the organic style ( against the real "cube"-ist
blocks of flats built in the '60s all over Europe and until the '90s in the
communist countries - which are far to be "organic"- their majority was
unoccupied more years). So I think the box is efficient, but not optimal.
Therefore I think the postmodernism only treated this form, which became a
useable element, not the target of the architecture
Barni
Joseph Cautilli
not post modernism. Functionalism is correct in this case butthis was my
poin t of referencing contexctualism. One needs a context to
understandfunction. Joe
Gerry Quinn
=>from the mouth of babes:
=>My uneducated definition of PoMo as I've seen fit to define it myself
=>without ever reading Derrida or Baudrillard (well except for that ctheory
=>thing about disney land) :P
=>
=>everything is unique and infinitely complex therefore analysis and synthesis
=>are endless endeavors. Analysis and synthesis is the endeavor of Modernism.
=>Modernism dominates the world creating the society, an attempt to categorize
=>and explain humanity. Which is all bung, but we live in it. So
=>postmodernism shows up. Its just the realization that all of this is bung.
=>We got to call ourselves postmodern cause we live in society and society
=>demands WORD and Minimalism. What we mean to say is WE IS WHAT WE IS, but
=>society demands a Predicate Nominative. Here's how to play the game (in
=>this case to lose).
=>
=>Society: What are YOU?
=>K: YHWH (I Am What I AM)
=>Society: you are a postmodernist and you are attempting to decuntstruct me.
=>I will have to arrest you.
=>Generic Jail Person:Name?
=>K: K
=>Generic Jail Person:Sex?
=>K:Transexual or Postsexual or Nonsexual or Supersexual
=>Generic Jail Person:Gender?
=>K:Transgender or Postgender or Nongender or
=>Generic Jail Person:Religion?
=>K:Agnostic or Postgnostic or Religion is Poison
=>Generic Jail Person:Political Party
=>K:Postpartisan
=>Generic Jail Person:Nationality
=>K:Terran or if you prefer Alien
=>Generic Jail Person:Race
=>K: What are you Racist?
=>Generic Jail Person: You want us to probe the information or are you going
=>to cooperate?
=>K: Bohemian
=>Generic Jail Person: Music?
=>K: Traditional Industrial folk hip-hop (Susanne Vega, Oingo Boingo, TLC)
=>Generic Jail Person: I'm sorry this Scantron just won't do. We're gonna
=>have to do this again. Or would you prefer the probe
=>K: the probe pleeeeeez
?: Why do you call me a Jail Person? Or Society? I am what I am!
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Cautilli
communication is how does one begin to understand dialogue and synthesize
understanding, across some subtly and some very different types of world
views. Some of the areas that POMO attempts to synthesize is cultural
theory, narrative psychoanalysis, poststructuralism, Marxism,American
pragmatism, what is sometimes referred to as process philosophy,
environmental politics, ecology, I would add some forms of American
Behaviorism, and environmental ethics. For example, at
times POMO philosophers will draw on the psychoanalyst Lacan, who's
starting point would seem very different to me from say pragmatists such
as Rorty. For me, I read some of the writing and I see very differnt
underlying narratives.
Joe