post modernism & other convoluted stuff
Edison
>This bit was from Jean:
>
>>>Robert, by whose standards of normal are you judging. For lesbians and gay
>>>men, that IS normal. Your ideas are not normal to me, but I won't call
>>>them abnormal because I have a somewhat open mind. Unlike you.
>
>And here was Edison's reply:
>
>>This deters the conversation along an unresovlable path by offering list
>> members a glimpse of a frequently used tactic often referred to as
>> post-structuralism. In a nutshell, the concept, born of extreme liberalism
>> and excessive trendiness, aims to do away with standards (especially
>> those set by european white men) by declaring that there IS no fixed
>> meaning of things, there is only your perception, my perception, and
>> everyone else's perception
>
>I thought Edison was making a joke here, but apparently not.
But Jamie, *you* think most of my stuff IS a joke! :)
>
>So I'm afraid some corrections are in order.
Actually, I'm afraid, too. :| *taps foot rapidly*
>
>First, Edison hasn't the slightest idea what "post-structuralism" is, so
This info must've eluded me during the course of my readings. B)
But something tells me another one of those boring 2 week banterings
may be lurking just beyond the horizon. My retort: BS.
>just ignore that part. (It isn't anything very interesting, so don't worry
>about it.)
>Second, there is no "concept born of extreme liberalism and excessive
>trendiness" that aims to do away with standards. However, there is
What about the policies of Bill Clinton? :) )
>something like such a concept with different parents. It is commonly
>called "deconstruction," and sometimes called a branch of
>"post-modernism."
Sometimes. Had I not chosen the "nutshell" route, I would've mentioned
that "post-modernism" is a "spin-off" of post-structuralism used by
advocates of the extreme feminist movement (as well as other groups)
that want to tear down (or as you put it "deconstruct") some set of
[usually] traditional standards (or in the feminist case, the Power
Base) set into place by white European men. You can "get me" to
shift slightly toward a position in agreement that the concept of
"post modernism" is born of post-structuralism, thus "post modernism"
is born of excessive trendiness. Still, there's no substantial
difference between the two. Post-modernism is nothing more than
a relabeling of post-structuralism, planted by various activist
groups in an effort to present an appearence of originality and
credibility. In similar fashion, the socialist movement has re-
labeled itself as numerous subset movements, extreme "civil rights",
"environmentalist", and "animal rights" groups, to name a few.
These movements, & proponents of post-<either one> are organizing and
present quite an influential lobbying force. Influential enough to
cause the introduction of legislation controlling various aspects
of our lives, not the least of which will be repeated attempts to
ammend the constitution. For example, the second ammendment,
which will eventually, IMO, be repealed.
>Neither of these terms can really be well defined, because their usage
>is extremely squishy (as one might expect).
True. And (if I may be so bold), on purpose. :) )
>
>Third, and this is the important point, I think, Jean didn't say anything
>to warrant the conclusion that she wants to do away with all standards.
And here I was hoping to jump into this "guns" debate which is much more
interesting. Homosexual acts are widely viewed by society as being
abnormal. Recent trends, mostly for political reasons, have been moving
to promote the notion that not only should homosexuality be tolerated
and accepted, it should be viewed as an alternative lifestyle equal to
that of heterosexuals. It's my guess that compliance with such a
concept will not be widely accepted, but will nevertheless be
espoused by various politicians in an effort to get votes. And
quite successfully, I might add.
>What she said is that normality seems to be relative to common practices
>of the observer. That just obviously doesn't imply a standards-nihilism.
>By way of parallel: I myself think that there is no disputing taste, since
>are no standards of logic.
Actually, there are many instances where taste is quite successfully
disputed and guided. Some of the most popular include various arts,
music, theatre, movies. Your contention that logic is not involved
is true, but nevertheless, the standards exist. How often have we
heard criticism of someone's "taste"? Indeed, is the major function
of a critic not to pass judgement on some work, creation, or situation-
in effect, to dispute taste?
But, if I understand you correctly, you're asserting that taste is
purely subjective. I would contend that the subjectivity
taste is not a basis for society's acceptance or sanctioning of
individual deeds arising from said taste. As an admittedly
extreme, but relevant example: would it be considered
normal or, would a person's "taste" be disputed, if said person n
has a taste for killing, then chopping up the victims and eating them?
These acts were 'normal' for one Mr. Dahmer. But does the notion
that Dahmer's 'taste' for killing was (in his case) normal, somehow
justify his actions? A less extreme example: NAMBLA has marched
in virtually every NY City Gay Pride parade in recent history.
IMO, tolerence for those in the homosexual community is infinitely
more widespead than tolerence for members of NAMBLA. But what is
inferred by the fact that those in the homosexual community
continuously associates themselves with (and in fact show support for)
NAMBLA by granting them permission to march in these parades?
So, while taste may be individually subjective, the
materialization of deeds arising from "taste" or desire is
unrelated to the facility generating the "taste", and is
subject to acceptance by society and maybe even the law.
>> In this case, the argument wasn't needed, because
>> a standard exists. There are ways other than anal sex to show affection
>> for someone. In fact, just try and find a credible doctor to sanction it.
>
>(Too bad, there are a couple of good straight lines there, but they've
>already been picked off by others.)
Well, I'm always 'up' for some humor, so don't shy away just because
someone else has contributed. :)
>Here Edison means, of course, that a standard for "normal" sexual practices
>exists. So why on earth won't he tell us what it is? What is going on here?
>Robert and Edison both know what the standard is for normal use of bodily
>parts, but they refuse to tell us! How annoying.
That's because we're keeping it a secret. Who knows....maybe with enough
experimentation, you too will find out. :) )
>
>I know the proper standard of normality for emus and their use, but I won't tel
>.
No problem. What I REALLY want to know is: how do I change the steering gear
in my hot rod to provide the correct "ackerman" angle?
Too bad Dear Jeff isn't on the list!
Have a good time in the outback! B
KIL...@wvsvax.wvnet.edu
Jamie said:
>>Here Edison means, of course, that a standard for "normal" sexual practices
>>exists. So why on earth won't he tell us what it is? What is going on here?
>>Robert and Edison both know what the standard is for normal use of bodily
>>parts, but they refuse to tell us! How annoying.
And Bill replied:
>That's because we're keeping it a secret. Who knows....maybe with enough
>experimentation, you too will find out. :) )
But I'd be interested in knowing the secret. From the stuff I deleted
(specifically, the line about "society has long viewed" or some such), I
can only conclude that the standard you're using is based on majority
opinion -- which, as we all know, is a pretty poor excuse for limiting
individual rights. If you have a standard based on design arguments, I'd
like to hear about it.
Oh -- and just out of curiosity, where did you get your interpretations of
post-structuralism and post-modernism?
Kerry