I love It
WAYNE BROAD
Peanut Butter... Very very intregueing!!!
I laughed so hard I cried...
but I like a lot of the stuff on this news group... my favourite at the
moment is one about a sombrero... it reminds me a bit of beatnik styles...
at least thats how my mind decided to read it...
liquidcubeix
"WAYNE BROAD" <broad...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:exk37.38643$e5.9...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> One of the longest Posts and Replys in this subject is about Crackers and
> Peanut Butter... Very very intregueing!!!
I don't think you can handle it here, seriously, if you have misunderstood
our conversation about post-modernism (which was in the form of a
cracker/peanut butter debate) then you really won't be able to fully
appreciate our genius. I also think someone with you spelling inability
should seek shelter somewhere else.
> I laughed so hard I cried...
> but I like a lot of the stuff on this news group... my favourite at the
> moment is one about a sombrero... it reminds me a bit of beatnik styles...
> at least thats how my mind decided to read it...
j.
Craig McFarlane
> I don't think you can handle it here, seriously, if you have misunderstood
> our conversation about post-modernism (which was in the form of a
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't use words you don't understand. Not even to make a joke.
cm.
liquidcubeix
"Craig McFarlane" <cmcf...@chat.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:9il2l6$l6t$1...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca...
I don't.
j.
>
> cm.
Craig McFarlane
> > > I don't think you can handle it here, seriously, if you have
> misunderstood
> > > our conversation about post-modernism (which was in the form of a
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Don't use words you don't understand. Not even to make a joke.
> I don't.
Okay, what then does it mean? (And don't try a cute attempt, sort of like
what Aidan would do, and say what comes after "modernism")
You'll get bonus points for including the late-modernity/post-modernity
debate (see Jameson's "Postmodernism: the cultural logic of late
capitalism" for some details. Or the "post-modernism" trading card
availabe at theory.org.uk).
cm.
liquidcubeix
> liquidcubeix (one...@amphisbaena.notrealaddress.com) wrote:
>
> > > > I don't think you can handle it here, seriously, if you have
> > misunderstood
> > > > our conversation about post-modernism (which was in the form of a
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >
> > > Don't use words you don't understand. Not even to make a joke.
>
> > I don't.
>
> Okay, what then does it mean? (And don't try a cute attempt, sort of like
> what Aidan would do, and say what comes after "modernism")
some people believe we are in the postmodern era, some people think the
postmodern era is yet to come, some people think the post modern era will
never happen because it will always simply mean 'the future', some people
think post modernism means post-apocalytpic. not many people agree on what
it means, which is what makes it so hard to define. four groups of debators,
having two debates on postmoderism, could have two completely individual
debates because postmodernism, the word, is open to such wide
interpretation.
post modern theatre usually links in with surreality (not as in super
reality, but what the word is actually used for today), existentialism, etc.
However postmodern theatre can simply mean when the play was written.
Beckett is supposedly the last modernist, which I guess makes all current
writers post modernists.
Asking someone to define the word post modernism obviously illustrates the
fact that you yourself have no idea what it is or how to define it, because
it you did you wouldn't ask someone else to, because you would realise what
a silly task it is.
my literature teacher says that post moderism "can really mean practically
anything, and doesn't mean anything in particular".
If you think postmoderism means one particular thing, one particular
movement, one particular era and nothing else, then you're probably...
something derogatory
>
> You'll get bonus points for including the late-modernity/post-modernity
> debate (see Jameson's "Postmodernism: the cultural logic of late
> capitalism" for some details. Or the "post-modernism" trading card
> availabe at theory.org.uk).
I don't need bonus points from you craig.
>
> cum.
j.
Craig McFarlane
> some people believe we are in the postmodern era, some people think the
> postmodern era is yet to come, some people think the post modern era will
> never happen because it will always simply mean 'the future', some people
> think post modernism means post-apocalytpic. not many people agree on what
> it means, which is what makes it so hard to define.
Who are these "some people"?
> four groups of debators,
> having two debates on postmoderism, could have two completely individual
> debates because postmodernism, the word, is open to such wide
> interpretation.
As with any other concept thus rendering your point pretty irrelevant.
For instance, the question "When did the modern period start" has a number
common answers (and all extremely different) ranging from the writing on
Machiavelli's "Prince" (put the forces of history under the control of
human agency... but, still had a cop-out with virtu), or with Hobbes's
"Leviathan" (new form of government legitimacy not centred upon divine
authority... but, those in the liberal democratic tradition would dispute
its modern character), or even Gutenberg's press, the Luther, translation
of the Bible into the vernaculars, etc.
So, when did the modern period start? Other questions produce similar
debates. Consider, "Who was teh first philosopher?" The stanard answer,
of course, is Socrates. But, what about the Milesians and the Elatics?
Why is Socrates the first philospher and not Parmenides? Or Aristotle?
Yet all three of these debates -- "modernity", "postmodernity", and
"philosophy" are all similar in one regard: there is a) a debate, b)
consensus around basic principles.
Now taking into account the "debate" and "the basic principles" of
postmodernity, what do *you* feel it is? (I, of course, have my own
position in this matter. I also know the positions of all the Names, so
don't tell me what Derrida or Eagleton or Jameson or Butler thinks about
these issues.)
> post modern theatre usually links in with surreality (not as in super
> reality, but what the word is actually used for today), existentialism, etc.
> However postmodern theatre can simply mean when the play was written.
> Beckett is supposedly the last modernist, which I guess makes all current
> writers post modernists.
Now we are entering into a serious problem. You are confusing terminology
here. Modernity is distinct from modernism; imagism, Aidan tells us, is
distinct from images; postmodernity is distinct from postmodernism. Do
not confuse a temporal period dealing with certain social, political, and
economic arrangements with an artistic movement. Obviously, there is a
close connection between modernity and modernism, however "modernism" as
an art movement didn't exist until the early 20c while Machiavelli wrote a
"modern" book in 1505.
> Asking someone to define the word post modernism obviously illustrates the
> fact that you yourself have no idea what it is or how to define it, because
> it you did you wouldn't ask someone else to, because you would realise what
> a silly task it is.
I don't believe I asked you to define it, rather I asked you to
demonstrate you understand teh concept. Clearly this is an entirely
different position (check out the Socratic dialogues -- especially "Meno"
for discussion around this epistemological issue).
> my literature teacher says that post moderism "can really mean practically
> anything, and doesn't mean anything in particular".
A common caricarature, but it tells us little. I'll wager he's not very
well educated, or his and has decided you aren't ready to understand teh
term.
> If you think postmoderism means one particular thing, one particular
> movement, one particular era and nothing else, then you're probably...
> something derogatory
Obviously not -- as with any other concept, it is a network of loosely
related ideas.
> I don't need bonus points from you craig.
Borrowing, more or less, from Aidan: I recommend you read a lot of books
before trying to discuss any serious intellectual issue. If only so you
know which stupid mistakes not to make.
cm.
liquidcubeix
> liquidcubeix (one...@amphisbaena.notrealaddress.com) wrote:
>
> > some people believe we are in the postmodern era, some people think the
> > postmodern era is yet to come, some people think the post modern era
will
> > never happen because it will always simply mean 'the future', some
people
> > think post modernism means post-apocalytpic. not many people agree on
what
> > it means, which is what makes it so hard to define.
>
> Who are these "some people"?
Maybe you need to use the dictionary and look up some.
>
> > four groups of debators,
> > having two debates on postmoderism, could have two completely individual
> > debates because postmodernism, the word, is open to such wide
> > interpretation.
>
> As with any other concept thus rendering your point pretty irrelevant.
I had no point. Your point was more irrelevant, actually. You told me not to
use words I don't understand, even when joking. I understand than word, and
therefor you are in the wrong. Hence, all that is below is completely beside
the point, isn't it Craig? But just for the sake of argument, I'll continue.
> For instance, the question "When did the modern period start" has a number
> common answers (and all extremely different) ranging from the writing on
> Machiavelli's "Prince" (put the forces of history under the control of
> human agency... but, still had a cop-out with virtu), or with Hobbes's
> "Leviathan" (new form of government legitimacy not centred upon divine
> authority... but, those in the liberal democratic tradition would dispute
> its modern character), or even Gutenberg's press, the Luther, translation
> of the Bible into the vernaculars, etc.
See, here you are trying to brag and be showy about your knowledge of the
modern period, however all you're really doing is dropping names. It's
almost as though you only read the back covers of books.
>
> So, when did the modern period start? Other questions produce similar
> debates. Consider, "Who was teh first philosopher?" The stanard answer,
> of course, is Socrates. But, what about the Milesians and the Elatics?
> Why is Socrates the first philospher and not Parmenides? Or Aristotle?
>
> Yet all three of these debates -- "modernity", "postmodernity", and
> "philosophy" are all similar in one regard: there is a) a debate, b)
> consensus around basic principles.
There isn't even a consensus about what postmodernism is.
>
> Now taking into account the "debate" and "the basic principles" of
> postmodernity, what do *you* feel it is?
I already explained this. I do not feel that it is anything in particular,
you would have to be a complete and utter moron to do so. The best thing to
do is to keep an open mind and realise that postmodernism has a lot of
contexts, and therefor cannot be spoken of without one, because two people
could be talking about completely different facets of the word
postmodernism.
(I, of course, have my own
> position in this matter. I also know the positions of all the Names, so
> don't tell me what Derrida or Eagleton or Jameson or Butler thinks about
> these issues.)
>
> > post modern theatre usually links in with surreality (not as in super
> > reality, but what the word is actually used for today), existentialism,
etc.
> > However postmodern theatre can simply mean when the play was written.
> > Beckett is supposedly the last modernist, which I guess makes all
current
> > writers post modernists.
>
> Now we are entering into a serious problem. You are confusing terminology
> here. Modernity is distinct from modernism; imagism, Aidan tells us, is
> distinct from images; postmodernity is distinct from postmodernism.
Is Aidan your father, or do you have some other reason to be obsessed with
him? Do you feel intimidated by Aidan? Is he threatening your
intellectuality and superiority? You also have an obsession with Fred. Have
you been to a councellor before?
And more to the point, I don't care what Aidan thinks, or anyone else,
because, as I've already explained (and am obviously going to have to keep
explaining), postmodernism has been used to mean so many different things
that it is a highly confusing word to deal with, and one which should be
avoided. That is why I used it in my joke, because only the high academic
morons, who sit on their asses all day, reading, philosophising and
intellectualising (rather than actually living) are the only people who
really give a fuck.
Do
> not confuse a temporal period dealing with certain social, political, and
> economic arrangements with an artistic movement.
No, actually you did that. If you're denying that the word postmodernism is
related to theatre then you are really a fool. You are the one, who is
declaring the postmodernism has a defined and set meaning, and some social
relevance, I am denying that - so do not try and switch the chairs.
Obviously, there is a
> close connection between modernity and modernism, however "modernism" as
> an art movement didn't exist until the early 20c while Machiavelli wrote a
> "modern" book in 1505.
And what does this have to do with the word postmodernism? Or was this just
you trying to be fancy schmancy?
>
> > Asking someone to define the word post modernism obviously illustrates
the
> > fact that you yourself have no idea what it is or how to define it,
because
> > it you did you wouldn't ask someone else to, because you would realise
what
> > a silly task it is.
>
> I don't believe I asked you to define it, rather I asked you to
> demonstrate you understand teh concept.
You misspell 'the' all the time, it's rather offputting.
Clearly this is an entirely
> different position (check out the Socratic dialogues -- especially "Meno"
> for discussion around this epistemological issue).
Yes, read someone else's view of life rather than going out into the real
world and getting my own. Of course.
>
> > my literature teacher says that post moderism "can really mean
practically
> > anything, and doesn't mean anything in particular".
>
> A common caricarature, but it tells us little. I'll wager he's not very
> well educated, or his and has decided you aren't ready to understand teh
> term.
She has a degree in Literature, Creative Writing and Psychology, which I'm
sure is a lot more than you, you egotistical fuck. I love the way you claim
to know everything. Do you have a "I am god complex". You're a misogynist
too I bet.
>
> > If you think postmoderism means one particular thing, one particular
> > movement, one particular era and nothing else, then you're probably...
> > something derogatory
>
> Obviously not -- as with any other concept, it is a network of loosely
> related ideas.
Which is the complete contrary to how you've been claiming to know what you
think the word means, and a particular meaning at that. You see, you claimed
to know what the word meant, and it's specific context as well, however in
this last sentence you have sided with me, and said that it has no
particular meaning at all.
> > I don't need bonus points from you craig.
>
> Borrowing, more or less, from Aidan: I recommend you read a lot of books
> before trying to discuss any serious intellectual issue. If only so you
> know which stupid mistakes not to make.
If you only you could be like Aidan, hey craig?
j.
Craig McFarlane
> > Who are these "some people"?
> Maybe you need to use the dictionary and look up some.
No, not at all. You made what is often considered a logical error -- you
made an appeal to authority, but even worse, you left the authority
unnamed. You've compounded an error on top of an error. I'm merely
interested in which people you are referring to so I can know where you
are coming from. By no means am I challenging you, rather, I'm asking out
of curiosity.
> > For instance, the question "When did the modern period start" has a number
> > common answers (and all extremely different) ranging from the writing on
> > Machiavelli's "Prince" (put the forces of history under the control of
> > human agency... but, still had a cop-out with virtu), or with Hobbes's
> > "Leviathan" (new form of government legitimacy not centred upon divine
> > authority... but, those in the liberal democratic tradition would dispute
> > its modern character), or even Gutenberg's press, the Luther, translation
> > of the Bible into the vernaculars, etc.
> See, here you are trying to brag and be showy about your knowledge of the
> modern period, however all you're really doing is dropping names.
No, not really. Impressing you (or anyone else here isn't overly
interesting to me -- frankly, you don't award scholarships or give out
degrees) is not the goal. Rather, as you can see I was outlining an
argument countering your point that "postmodernity" is "impossible to
define" -- a position I disagree with. You see, a common rhetorical
tactic in arguing against a postion is to use a counter-example -- using
the same logical structure in order to demonstrate teh absurdity of the
position. Your claimed that "postmodern" could not be defined because no
one agrees on meaning (that, of course, is untrue -- there is a deep
agreement between the Krokers and Baudrillard, for example) and I showed
that your position was untenable: postmodernity is held in apposition to
modernity. It's defined relative to the Other. For the postmodern to
have a meaning, the modern must also have a meaning. And they do.
Do not make the mistake of confusing debate over meaning to necessarily
imply there is no meaning. Further, do not make the mistake of believing
that the "infinite play of differences" entails that meaning is
impossible.
Consider approaches to meaning developed by Fish (situational
indexicality) or Halliday (meaning is negotiated in every utterance).
Both are clearly post-structural, if not post-modern, approaches to
meaning.
> > Yet all three of these debates -- "modernity", "postmodernity", and
> > "philosophy" are all similar in one regard: there is a) a debate, b)
> > consensus around basic principles.
> There isn't even a consensus about what postmodernism is.
I never made teh claim there was, I made the claim that the debate had
boundaries that have been agreed upon by all parties.
You might have noticed that most discussions begin with Lyotard's infamous
line, that postmodernity "is an incredulity towards metanarratives".
> I already explained this. I do not feel that it is anything in particular,
> you would have to be a complete and utter moron to do so. The best thing to
> do is to keep an open mind and realise that postmodernism has a lot of
> contexts, and therefor cannot be spoken of without one, because two people
> could be talking about completely different facets of the word
> postmodernism.
Do not confuse a radical relativity with postmodern -- indeed, no serious
commentator on postmodernity holds a radical relativist position.
> > Now we are entering into a serious problem. You are confusing terminology
> > here. Modernity is distinct from modernism; imagism, Aidan tells us, is
> > distinct from images; postmodernity is distinct from postmodernism.
> Is Aidan your father, or do you have some other reason to be obsessed with
> him? Do you feel intimidated by Aidan? Is he threatening your
> intellectuality and superiority?
Aidan, for better or for worse, is by far the most interesting person
posting to this newsgroup (not counting myself, of course, I'm not able to
judge how interesting other people find me).
> And more to the point, I don't care what Aidan thinks, or anyone else,
> because, as I've already explained (and am obviously going to have to keep
> explaining), postmodernism has been used to mean so many different things
> that it is a highly confusing word to deal with, and one which should be
> avoided.
Ah -- so we are at the crux of your argument. It seems to be something
like this: "A lot of people talk about what 'postmodern' means. There
seems to be one type that relates to art and another that relates to
socio-political structure. Few of these opinions seem to coincide, so
there isn't any consensus. I find the debate really confusing, so because
I don't quite follow it, I feel that the debate should rage on -- so long
as everyone agrees that there is not point in having the debate."
To put your argument in a different context: a lot of people talk about
cloning. Some think it can be done, others think it can't be done. Some
think it is okay on animals, others think it is okay on humans. Some
think it is ultimate evil, and others see no harm in it. Seeing as how no
one agrees what is going on around this debate, it follows that it is
impossible to have any meaning in the debate. Indeed, cloning doesn't
even exist as an idea because I can't express it or sort out what people
are saying.
You might recall that Aristotle wrote, 'a science does not need to
establish the existence of its object of study.'
> Do
> > not confuse a temporal period dealing with certain social, political, and
> > economic arrangements with an artistic movement.
> No, actually you did that. If you're denying that the word postmodernism is
> related to theatre then you are really a fool. You are the one, who is
> declaring the postmodernism has a defined and set meaning, and some social
> relevance, I am denying that - so do not try and switch the chairs.
I'm not denying either position. Obviously there is a collection of
movements in high art called "postmodernism". Just as there was a
movement prior to it called "modernism". Similarly, there is/may a period
of time called "postmodernity", just as there was a period of time called
"modernity". The boundraies of postmodernity and postmodernism do not
coincide, just as the boundaries of modernism and modernity do not
coincide.
I hold the position that our political, cultural and social structures are
aligned differently now than they were during the period known as
"modernity." However, the point where I enter the debate with a separate
position is whether our temporal position is "late modern" or
"postmodern".
> Obviously, there is a
> > close connection between modernity and modernism, however "modernism" as
> > an art movement didn't exist until the early 20c while Machiavelli wrote a
> > "modern" book in 1505.
> And what does this have to do with the word postmodernism? Or was this just
> you trying to be fancy schmancy?
Apparently you have trouble with rhetorical and logical structure of
arguments.
> Clearly this is an entirely
> > different position (check out the Socratic dialogues -- especially "Meno"
> > for discussion around this epistemological issue).
> Yes, read someone else's view of life rather than going out into the real
> world and getting my own. Of course.
Who made that claim? Not I.
> She has a degree in Literature, Creative Writing and Psychology, which I'm
> sure is a lot more than you, you egotistical fuck. I love the way you claim
> to know everything. Do you have a "I am god complex". You're a misogynist
> too I bet.
Where do I claim to know everything? Oh, and when did you stop beating
your wife?
> > Obviously not -- as with any other concept, it is a network of loosely
> > related ideas.
> Which is the complete contrary to how you've been claiming to know what you
> think the word means, and a particular meaning at that. You see, you claimed
> to know what the word meant, and it's specific context as well, however in
> this last sentence you have sided with me, and said that it has no
> particular meaning at all.
Two things:
1) I never claimed that the word has a particular meaning;
2) I never claimed that it has no meaning.
Unfortunately your mind doesn't seem flexible enough to comprehend this at
all.
> If you only you could be like Aidan, hey craig?
No, not really.
cm.
liquidcubeix
As if I'm going to read all of that. I have things to do you know.
j.