Late capitalism?
Michael
capitalism" mean?
Thanks, Michael
Steve Hayes
>I'm only a beginner at postmodernism. What in hell does "late
>capitalism" mean?
Is there a connection (at least in your mind) between your statement and your
question?
Perhaps you could explain it, so that we know whether we should try to answer
your question or not.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
Jack Campin - bogus address
> capitalism" mean?
The phrase has been used by a numnber of Marxist theorists,
predating postmodernism by decades. I doubt they all used
it in the same way. What's your context for it?
============== j-c ====== @ ====== purr . demon . co . uk ==============
Jack Campin: 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland | tel 0131 660 4760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack/> for CD-ROMs and free | fax 0870 0554 975
stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, & Mac logic fonts | mob 07800 739 557
Michael
postmodernism. Searching Amazon for postmodern titles, I see
it attached to the titles of several. Lyotard comes to mind. I've
seen it in the last two books of criticism I've read, both of which
sported a lot of commonly used postmodern terms.
I'll see if I can pull up some direct quote.
Thank you, Michael
G*rd*n
I believe "late capitalism" is supposed to mean recent
capitalism, as opposed to early capitalism. In some cases
no doubt the user also wishes to provide a delicious
shiver of blasphemy in seeming to suggest that capitalism
might not be eternal.
unglued
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2006 19:02:52 -0800, "Michael" <zsp...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> >I'm only a beginner at postmodernism. What in hell does "late
> >capitalism" mean?
>
> Is there a connection (at least in your mind) between your statement and your
> question?
Deep thinkers have thunk that post-modernism is a symptom of the the
degeneration of capitalistic society a.k.a. late capitalism.
James Whitehead
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dt4tiu$gi5$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Michael
Is there a connection (at least in your mind) between your statement
and your question?
***************
Yes, there is a connection between postmodernism and late capitalism.
And yes, the connection goes beyond my mind.
Michael
Paul Ilechko
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>>On 16 Feb 2006 19:02:52 -0800, "Michael" <zsp...@gte.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm only a beginner at postmodernism. What in hell does "late
>>>capitalism" mean?
>>
>>Is there a connection (at least in your mind) between your statement and your
>>question?
>
>
> Deep thinkers have thunk that post-modernism is a symptom of the the
> degeneration of capitalistic society a.k.a. late capitalism.
>
In fact, it's a sympton of capitalism discovering its inner child.
Michael
In fact, it's a sympton of capitalism discovering its inner child.
***************
Which is Communism, right?
Michael
Michael
I believe "late capitalism" is supposed to mean recent
capitalism, as opposed to early capitalism. In some cases
no doubt the user also wishes to provide a delicious
shiver of blasphemy in seeming to suggest that capitalism
might not be eternal.
****************
Thanks for the feedback. I agree with you that the phrasing
infers the aging and impending death of capitalism. I found
some web sites I might be able to learn something from. My
guess is that I could probably look through Eagleton's Literary
Theory and find an explanation, too.
Michael
Michael
definition of late capitalism. Not surprising, postmodernism
popped up. Now: What in hell is reflexivity? I'm familiar
with the term used in Spanish verb conjugation, where it
implies the subject and direct object are the same thing,
but I have a hard time equating some kind of philosophical
connotation to that.
Michael
Paul Ilechko
Communism and Capitalism were twins, separated at birth. Late Capitalism
is the grandson of Capitalism, so Communism is his grouchy great-uncle.
Steve Hayes
Right, I gathered from another message you wrote that postmodernist writers
have used the term, but I'm sure they didn't originate it.
It probably originated with neoMarxists, who recognise that capitalism has
changed a great deal since Marx wrote "Das Kapital". But Marxism remains
essentially modernist in its mentality, not postmodernist, and so if
postmodernists are using the term, they must either be borrowing it from the
general culture, in which case you will need to look at neoMarxists, not
postmodernists, for understanding what it means, or else the postmodernists
have given it a new meaning of their own, in which case one could discuss how
that differs from the meaning given to it by neoMarxists.
Don Tuite
<haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 17 Feb 2006 09:02:24 -0800, "Michael" <zsp...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>Is there a connection (at least in your mind) between your statement
>>and your question?
>>
>>***************
>>Yes, there is a connection between postmodernism and late capitalism.
>>And yes, the connection goes beyond my mind.
>
>Right, I gathered from another message you wrote that postmodernist writers
>have used the term, but I'm sure they didn't originate it.
>
>It probably originated with neoMarxists, who recognise that capitalism has
>changed a great deal since Marx wrote "Das Kapital". But Marxism remains
>essentially modernist in its mentality, not postmodernist, and so if
>postmodernists are using the term, they must either be borrowing it from the
>general culture, in which case you will need to look at neoMarxists, not
>postmodernists, for understanding what it means, or else the postmodernists
>have given it a new meaning of their own, in which case one could discuss how
>that differs from the meaning given to it by neoMarxists.
I think, from earlier postings in this group and alt.postmodern, the
OP needs to check out Adorno's "Late Capitalism or Industrial
Society?"
Moggin was doing most of the floggin', though a couple of years
earlier, I think Zeleney got in a lick.
Don
Don
Paul Ilechko
> Moggin was doing most of the floggin', though a couple of years
> earlier, I think Zeleney got in a lick.
A couple of very distasteful images, especially the latter.
unglued
Gee, and I always thought they had a thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis
kind of relationship. Just goes to show ...
unglued
The spoiled brat has an inner child ? Say it ain't so.
unglued
Contemplating ones own navel is reflexiv as is contemplating the
contemplation of navels. A lot of philosophical energy is poured into
the dissection of philosophy.
>
> Michael
Paul Ilechko
>>
>>In fact, it's a sympton of capitalism discovering its inner child.
>
>
> The spoiled brat has an inner child ? Say it ain't so.
>
So how about this: the elegant, refined maiden of artistic purity,
modernism, is defiled by that rich and tasteless philanderer,
capitalism, and their offspring is postmodernism. But surprising both
its parents, postmodernism grows up to be a vivacious, carefree child,
who suddenly turns serious in her teens and hunkers down into a new life
of academicism.
*Anarcissie*
> > Thanks, everybody. Wikipedia had a fairly straightforward
> > definition of late capitalism. Not surprising, postmodernism
> > popped up. Now: What in hell is reflexivity? I'm familiar
> > with the term used in Spanish verb conjugation, where it
> > implies the subject and direct object are the same thing,
> > but I have a hard time equating some kind of philosophical
> > connotation to that.
Postmodernism is better thought of as a species of literary
criticism, rather than philosophy. Reflexivity quickly blows
itself up in philosophy: for example, Marx incites the ruthless
criticism of everything, but then the ruthless criticism of
everything must be ruthlessly criticized. Skepticism cannot
fully recommend itself. However, since literature floats above
life like froth on the stream, it can get away with reflexivity:
the author of a novel can show up in its pages and comment
on the proceedings, yet get out before he sees himself seeing
himself in a mirror, etc. It's terribly clever and makes for lively
chat at academic cocktail parties, if not for brisker business
downtown at the bookstore. If you're going to put yourself
through the tedium of writing a book, you might as well have
some fun when it's available.
unglued wrote
> Contemplating ones own navel is reflexiv as is contemplating the
> contemplation of navels. A lot of philosophical energy is poured into
> the dissection of philosophy.
"Philosophy is the disease for which it is supposed to be the cure."
Meg Worley
>It's terribly clever and makes for lively chat at academic cocktail
Nothing kills off conversation quicker at your fabled academic
cocktail parties than discussion of literary reflexivity. We much
prefer dishing the dish about the last pecadilloes, trust me.
Unless, of course, you mean David Horowitz's ACPs, in which case
I'll have to take your word for it.
ObGenre: academic novels. Can't stand a one of 'em.
Rage away,
meg
--
Meg Worley _._ m...@steam.stanford.edu _._ Comparatively Literate
unglued
Serious postmodernism sounds like an oxymoron to me, I'll have to
ponder that for a while...
Paul Ilechko
> Postmodernism is better thought of as a species of literary
> criticism, rather than philosophy.
So Philip Johnson and Frank Gehry are literary critics?
Paul Ilechko
> ObGenre: academic novels. Can't stand a one of 'em.
Not even "The History Man" ?
*Anarcissie*
> > Postmodernism is better thought of as a species of literary
> > criticism, rather than philosophy.
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> So Philip Johnson and Frank Gehry are literary critics?
I don't know what they _are_. Above I concerned myself with how
I thought a category of writing might be approached. Perhaps you
should consider it to be another blank page.
*Anarcissie*
> >It's terribly clever and makes for lively chat at academic cocktail
> >parties...
Meg Worley wrote:
> Nothing kills off conversation quicker at your fabled academic
> cocktail parties than discussion of literary reflexivity. We much
> prefer dishing the dish about the last pecadilloes, trust me.
>
> Unless, of course, you mean David Horowitz's ACPs, in which case
> I'll have to take your word for it.
The concept of David Horowitz having an Academic Cocktail Party
fills me with unspeakable dread. Don't they just lock him away
after business hours? What if he got away during a full moon?
Paul Ilechko
Postmodernism is not a category of writing. It is clearly a
philosophical stance, and has had impacts across a wide spectrum of art
forms, including architecture.
Don Tuite
I lay the blame on Wittgenstein. Or on Russell for betting the farm
on a mathematical approach. Now it's all about language. One could
be excused for thinking it was a lit-crit movement.
(PM,BTW, not Late Capitalism)
Don
*Anarcissie*
Andy Warhol was reading philosophy? I don't think so. I think
Warhol and -- who's a proto-postmodernist, Barthes? -- were
reading advertising.
Of course, postmodernism being what it isn't, I can't be sure
what you're talking about. Which philosophers do you think
influenced which artists and architects, and by what routes?
Lewis Mammel
Don Tuite wrote:
> I lay the blame on Wittgenstein. Or on Russell for betting the farm
> on a mathematical approach. Now it's all about language. One could
> be excused for thinking it was a lit-crit movement.
Blame Bohr.
Michael
Postmodernism is not a category of writing. It is clearly a
philosophical stance, and has had impacts across a wide spectrum
of art forms, including architecture.
***************
I agree that postmodernism is a philosophical stance. In the arts,
I see their main significance in literature, their effect on art and
music less so. I am sceptical of their influence on architecture.
The commentary I've read on that appears less in the vein of
expression and closer to expropriation.
Michael
Michael
ObGenre: academic novels. Can't stand a one of 'em.
*************
Could you name a few academic novels? I'm not real clear on
what you mean by that. Is it one with a dean as the main
character? Or is it something that's a thinly disguised philosophic
treatise? The first seems too restrictive, while the second seems
too encompassing.
Michael
Paul Ilechko
>
> Andy Warhol was reading philosophy? I don't think so. I think
> Warhol and -- who's a proto-postmodernist, Barthes? -- were
> reading advertising.
>
Why do you think someone needs to read philosophy to create work that
conforms to a philisophical stance? That's a downright ludicrous
comment. Not that I'm convinced that you can classify Warhol as
postmodernist.
> Of course, postmodernism being what it isn't, I can't be sure
> what you're talking about. Which philosophers do you think
> influenced which artists and architects, and by what routes?
>
I don't recall making a statement that any philosphers influenced any
artists or architects. You might have read that into what I said, but if
so, you were mistaken.
Paul Ilechko
> Paul wrote:
>
> Postmodernism is not a category of writing. It is clearly a
> philosophical stance, and has had impacts across a wide spectrum
> of art forms, including architecture.
>
> ***************
> I agree that postmodernism is a philosophical stance. In the arts,
> I see their main significance in literature, their effect on art and
> music less so.
It depends on what you mean by "effect". For example, Schnittke is a
postmodernist composer, but I doubt that he was directly influenced by
postmodernist theory. It's more that postmodernist approaches became the
gestalt at a certain point in time, and the influence became wide-ranging.
> I am sceptical of their influence on architecture.
> The commentary I've read on that appears less in the vein of
> expression and closer to expropriation.
as above.
*Anarcissie*
In architecture and the plastic arts, _postmodern_ refers to that
which came after Modernism. Given the way in which these
things are bought and paid for, it is a marketing category.
Those who exemplify postmodern characteristics are sometimes
said to be "postmodernists." In literature, the critical work of
Derrida and the other usual suspects seems to have a different
and unrelated genealogy. Reflexivity in literature predates both
of these developments.
There are critics who have attempted to show that the break
with Modernism occurred because of some condition or event
which occurred off the stage, especially a political or economic
change, but nothing I have seen in this genre has been
particularly compelling. The least absurd theories seem to
concern themselves with the gradual shift of capitalist industry
from producing basic goods and services to the invention and
production of new goods which had to be advertised in order
to create a market for them. But this shift began in the 19th
century and was becoming dominant long, long before anyone
thought of postmodernism. Another theory is that Quantum
Mechanics somehow upset the apple-cart -- but Quantum
Mechanics was established in the 1920s, not the 1960s.
The chance that books of philosophy affected the development
of this sort of postmodernism seem even more remote.
Michael
I lay the blame on Wittgenstein. Or on Russell for betting the farm
on a mathematical approach. Now it's all about language. One
could be excused for thinking it was a lit-crit movement.
***********
"There is nothing outside the text." I agree that the postmodern
approach is heavy into literary criticism, but literary criticism
sits upon a philosophical foundation, so they go hand in hand.
Terry Eagleton's Literary Theory explains the spoken and
unspoken philosophy that supports the major schools of 20th
century literary theory. Although Eagleton's raging Marxism
is tiresome, he's damned perceptive, and his book is well worth
the time for anyone mildly interested in the subject.
Michael
Paul Ilechko
> Michael wrote:
>
>>Paul wrote:
>>
>>Postmodernism is not a category of writing. It is clearly a
>>philosophical stance, and has had impacts across a wide spectrum
>>of art forms, including architecture.
>>
>>***************
>>I agree that postmodernism is a philosophical stance. In the arts,
>>I see their main significance in literature, their effect on art and
>>music less so. I am sceptical of their influence on architecture.
>>The commentary I've read on that appears less in the vein of
>>expression and closer to expropriation.
>
>
> In architecture and the plastic arts, _postmodern_ refers to that
> which came after Modernism. Given the way in which these
> things are bought and paid for, it is a marketing category.
No, not at all. Historical modernism (now there's a phrase to conjure
with) came to be regarded as a continual process of refinement and
inceasing abstraction, a stripping away of unnecessary ornamentation.
Postmodernism in all the plastic arts, as well as music, was more
playful, more willing to appropriate outdated styles and slam together
what would previously have seemed incongruous. That was the good part of
postmodernism, before the litcrit buffoons stifled everything with their
dreary insistence on the primacy of language.
BTW, postmodern literature, as opposed to postmodern
criticism/philosophy, has more in common with the approaches in the
other arts. Pynchon, Barth and DFW are closer to Gehry, Rochberg and
Rauschenberg than they are to Foucault and Derrida.
*Anarcissie*
You wrote, "Postmodernism is not a category of writing. It is clearly a
philosophical stance, and has had impacts across a wide spectrum of art
forms, including architecture." I took "philosophical stance" to mean
the sort of thing philosophers produce, or which people produce for
themselves by acting as philosophers, that is, abstract ideas about
how we do or ought to think. To illustrate, in evaluating a proposed
act, a nihilist does whatever she feels like, a religious person does
what she believes the gods want her to do, and a philosopher
constructs a set of ideas about the situation and usually attempts
to arrive at a logical conclusion. Since people usually reason
using a kind of internal verbal conversation (although not always)
and they usually communicate their conclusions verbally (although
not always) I think of philosophy as a kind of text production.
As for the arts, I think Warhol is a good example of the postmodern.
In contrast to the abstract expressionists: he depicted or imitated
familiar objects, and instead of producing a great deal of verbiage
about what his work meant, he said, "There is nothing behind it. It
is just what you see." But was this break (at least in marketing
technique) the result of philosophy? Was Warhol's radical
artistic performance the result of philosophical ideas? It does not
seem so to me. In politics, he was a liberal Democrat, which is
to say middle of the road in New York City, and he was a church-
going Roman Catholic, which was also pretty middle of the road
for the time and place. His artistic values seem to have come
from his audience -- he started out as a commercial artist and
was acutely aware of what people wanted, what would sell. The
people who were buying art had had enough of Picasso, Pollock,
Rothko, Newman and the painted word.
I suppose you might say that there was a sort of libertarian or
anarchistic current running through the 1960s which affected
Warhol, so that he sensed it was time to break with the
dominant tradition of abstract expressionism and the verbiage
that had grown up around it. But is that current, that rejection
of the established order, a "philosophical stance"? Isn't that
like saying agnosticism is a religion?
*Anarcissie*
> > In architecture and the plastic arts, _postmodern_ refers to that
> > which came after Modernism. Given the way in which these
> > things are bought and paid for, it is a marketing category.
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> No, not at all. Historical modernism (now there's a phrase to conjure
> with) came to be regarded as a continual process of refinement and
> inceasing abstraction, a stripping away of unnecessary ornamentation.
> Postmodernism in all the plastic arts, as well as music, was more
> playful, more willing to appropriate outdated styles and slam together
> what would previously have seemed incongruous.
Not what at all? I don't see a contradiction between what I wrote
and what you wrote above.
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> BTW, postmodern literature, as opposed to postmodern
> criticism/philosophy, has more in common with the approaches in the
> other arts. Pynchon, Barth and DFW are closer to Gehry, Rochberg and
> Rauschenberg than they are to Foucault and Derrida.
Definitely. But now we have thrown out the professional
philsophers / literary critics, so where is our philosophical
stance going to come from, and what is it?
Paul Ilechko
> You wrote, "Postmodernism is not a category of writing. It is clearly a
> philosophical stance, and has had impacts across a wide spectrum of art
> forms, including architecture." I took "philosophical stance" to mean
> the sort of thing philosophers produce, or which people produce for
> themselves by acting as philosophers, that is, abstract ideas about
> how we do or ought to think. To illustrate, in evaluating a proposed
> act, a nihilist does whatever she feels like, a religious person does
> what she believes the gods want her to do, and a philosopher
> constructs a set of ideas about the situation and usually attempts
> to arrive at a logical conclusion.
Such a general concept of the philosophical (which is what I was also
assuming) clearly doesn't require philosophical writings ...
> Since people usually reason
> using a kind of internal verbal conversation (although not always)
> and they usually communicate their conclusions verbally (although
> not always) I think of philosophy as a kind of text production.
... so this statement makes no sense.
> As for the arts, I think Warhol is a good example of the postmodern.
> In contrast to the abstract expressionists: he depicted or imitated
> familiar objects, and instead of producing a great deal of verbiage
> about what his work meant, he said, "There is nothing behind it. It
> is just what you see."
I think you misunderstand Warhol's work. He was very much a late
modernist, IMO. His films show that more clearly than his paintings,
perhaps.
> But was this break (at least in marketing
> technique) the result of philosophy? Was Warhol's radical
> artistic performance the result of philosophical ideas? It does not
> seem so to me. In politics, he was a liberal Democrat, which is
> to say middle of the road in New York City, and he was a church-
> going Roman Catholic, which was also pretty middle of the road
> for the time and place.
I fail to see the relevance of any of this.
> His artistic values seem to have come
> from his audience -- he started out as a commercial artist and
> was acutely aware of what people wanted, what would sell. The
> people who were buying art had had enough of Picasso, Pollock,
> Rothko, Newman and the painted word.
> I suppose you might say that there was a sort of libertarian or
> anarchistic current running through the 1960s which affected
> Warhol, so that he sensed it was time to break with the
> dominant tradition of abstract expressionism and the verbiage
> that had grown up around it. But is that current, that rejection
> of the established order, a "philosophical stance"? Isn't that
> like saying agnosticism is a religion?
>
Do you really think that Warhol's work was a break with the modernist
tradition? Don't you see a connection from De Koonig through Johns to
Warhol ? Or even directly from Matisse to Warhol? Don't you think that
producing art in any form requires a philosophical stance? Why didn't he
paint puppies on black velvet, or watercolors of sunsets?
Paul Ilechko
>>BTW, postmodern literature, as opposed to postmodern
>>criticism/philosophy, has more in common with the approaches in the
>>other arts. Pynchon, Barth and DFW are closer to Gehry, Rochberg and
>>Rauschenberg than they are to Foucault and Derrida.
>
>
> Definitely. But now we have thrown out the professional
> philsophers / literary critics, so where is our philosophical
> stance going to come from, and what is it?
>
Art for art's sake?
*Anarcissie*
> >>criticism/philosophy, has more in common with the approaches in the
> >>other arts. Pynchon, Barth and DFW are closer to Gehry, Rochberg and
> >>Rauschenberg than they are to Foucault and Derrida.
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> > Definitely. But now we have thrown out the professional
> > philsophers / literary critics, so where is our philosophical
> > stance going to come from, and what is it?
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> Art for art's sake?
That's kind of vague. It could be nihilistic -- we just do whatever
we feel like doing. On the other hand I understand that G.W.
Moore constructed a mighty edifice of ethics and so on from
aesthetics.
*Anarcissie*
There is an ur-understanding of Warhol's work, so
that some of our understandings are correct and
others aren't? Where is it, and where did it come
from?
> > But was this break (at least in marketing
> > technique) the result of philosophy? Was Warhol's radical
> > artistic performance the result of philosophical ideas? It does not
> > seem so to me. In politics, he was a liberal Democrat, which is
> > to say middle of the road in New York City, and he was a church-
> > going Roman Catholic, which was also pretty middle of the road
> > for the time and place.
>
> I fail to see the relevance of any of this.
I was trying to show that Andy Warhol showed no evidence
of having unusual philosophical thoughts to correspond with
his unusual artistic accomplishments.
> > His artistic values seem to have come
> > from his audience -- he started out as a commercial artist and
> > was acutely aware of what people wanted, what would sell. The
> > people who were buying art had had enough of Picasso, Pollock,
> > Rothko, Newman and the painted word.
>
> > I suppose you might say that there was a sort of libertarian or
> > anarchistic current running through the 1960s which affected
> > Warhol, so that he sensed it was time to break with the
> > dominant tradition of abstract expressionism and the verbiage
> > that had grown up around it. But is that current, that rejection
> > of the established order, a "philosophical stance"? Isn't that
> > like saying agnosticism is a religion?
> >
>
> Do you really think that Warhol's work was a break with the modernist
> tradition? Don't you see a connection from De Koonig through Johns to
> Warhol ? Or even directly from Matisse to Warhol? Don't you think that
> producing art in any form requires a philosophical stance? Why didn't he
> paint puppies on black velvet, or watercolors of sunsets?
Warhol didn't paint puppies on black velvet because he was
trying to make money, be a successful artist, and schmooze
with celebrities, and there was already a great supply of puppies
on black velvet. He had to come up with a new product, but not
so new as to not be recognized as Art. Since he came from the
pop world of advertising the answer was obvious: replace the
conundrums of abstract expressionism with recognizable
objects from the advertising world, and replace the awful
verbiage which had accreted around the art of Modernism with
the vacuity of advertising. But still, paint on canvases so
people know it's Art. He confided himself childlike to the
genius of his times.
If any thought whatever is a "philosophical stance" then, yes,
producing art in any form requires a philosophical stance; you
have to decide that producing art is a more rewarding way to
pass the time than watching television or jumping off a bridge.
If we define "philosophical stance" more narrowly, however, as
having something to do with philosophy, like, say, having an
opinion or two about epistemology or political theory, then I
don't see the necessary connection.
I am pretty sure Matisse and De Koonig would not have made
the Brillo boxes. Maybe Johns would have, if he had thought
of it, but I regard him as pretty postmodern. If you go to the
Warhol museum in Pittsburgh you can look at his early work
which indeed imitates the Modernists, and then you come
across the painting with which Warhol destroyed Modernism
(at least for himself).
It's about three feet across and two feet high, mostly dark
blue with a wide black stripe running across the middle. Oh,
hard-edge, you think, how odd; not something he seemed
to be interested in at all. Then you see some lettering below
the stripe. It reads
"CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING."
Mounard le Fougueux
Since there is nothing outside the text, that means philosophy is dead -
replaced by literary criticism.
... also...
fiction has always been a better explaination of the world then
philosophy has ever been, contrary to its "mission statement".
James Whitehead
"Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:45rdpkF...@individual.net...
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> >
> > Andy Warhol was reading philosophy? I don't think so. I think
> > Warhol and -- who's a proto-postmodernist, Barthes? -- were
> > reading advertising.
> >
>
> Why do you think someone needs to read philosophy to create work that
> conforms to a philisophical stance? That's a downright ludicrous
> comment. Not that I'm convinced that you can classify Warhol as
> postmodernist.
I think the pop artists were regarded as heir to the abstract field painters
in that by depicting 2D comic images their works were in effect "flatter"
than the abstractionist paintings which had a kind of "cosmic depth" - and
as in modernism 'truth was beauty' the flatter a painting was the more
truthful ... the same guff was used about the photo realists... Warhol's
films boil down to being just that - films about films... his silkscreen
are 'obviously' prints etc etc.
The problem with post modern art is that it is in a sense not art at all as
its concerns are with other things... and this isnt a very good criteria as
lots of stuff is concerned with other things...
smw
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
>>Paul wrote:
>>
>>Postmodernism is not a category of writing. It is clearly a
>>philosophical stance, and has had impacts across a wide spectrum
>>of art forms, including architecture.
>>
>>***************
>>I agree that postmodernism is a philosophical stance. In the arts,
>>I see their main significance in literature, their effect on art and
>>music less so. I am sceptical of their influence on architecture.
>>The commentary I've read on that appears less in the vein of
>>expression and closer to expropriation.
>
>
> In architecture and the plastic arts, _postmodern_ refers to that
> which came after Modernism.
ObStandardDefinition: "The postmodern is that _within_ the modern..."
smw
Michael wrote:
> Don wrote:
>
> I lay the blame on Wittgenstein. Or on Russell for betting the farm
> on a mathematical approach. Now it's all about language. One
> could be excused for thinking it was a lit-crit movement.
>
> ***********
> "There is nothing outside the text."
Can we please get the quote right? "There is no outside-the-text", as in
there is no cognition independent of representation.
Lewis Mammel
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> It's about three feet across and two feet high, mostly dark
> blue with a wide black stripe running across the middle. Oh,
> hard-edge, you think, how odd; not something he seemed
> to be interested in at all. Then you see some lettering below
> the stripe. It reads
> "CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING."
http://proto.thinkquest.nl/~klb040/kunst/getimage.php?image_id=641
This is dated 1962 .
Now I know he did different versions of things, but the reason
I looked it up is that the warning appears on the cover flap,
so that if you tuck it in it disappears. Well, maybe it wasn't
always so.( More recently, the striking strip was moved to the
back of the back although the warning remains on the flap. )
In the cited image this is resolved by abstracting the layout,
but the warning does appear above the striking strip.
Here are some collected matchbooks which indicate that the
warning appeared on the flap from the fifties onward:
http://themysterioustraveler.blogspot.com/2005/11/close-cover-before-striking.html
This site contains an indication that the warning was on the front flap
from its inception circa 1900:
http://www.matchcovers.com/first100.htm
... so are you surrrrrre ?
*Anarcissie*
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> > It's about three feet across and two feet high, mostly dark
> > blue with a wide black stripe running across the middle. Oh,
> > hard-edge, you think, how odd; not something he seemed
> > to be interested in at all. Then you see some lettering below
> > the stripe. It reads
> > "CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING."
>
> http://proto.thinkquest.nl/~klb040/kunst/getimage.php?image_id=641
>
> This is dated 1962 .
That's not the painting I'm talking about. I don't remember
the date given on the wall, but it was in a room of his
earlier work. It didn't contain anything representational --
just the bands of color and the lettering..
Of course I can't be sure what Warhol was thinking of, but
it looked like a terminal send-up of minimalism to me.
jadel
Meg Worley wrote:
> Anarcissie writes:
> >It's terribly clever and makes for lively chat at academic cocktail
>
> Nothing kills off conversation quicker at your fabled academic
Indeed, it's a sure way to induce acid refluxivity, reverse
peristalsis, or explosive logorrhea.
J. Del Col
James Whitehead
"smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:4b3Kf.49273$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
"that what opens meaning and language is the disappearance of natural
presence"
this seems to me bad...
Michael
...Another theory is that Quantum
Mechanics somehow upset the apple-cart -- but Quantum
Mechanics was established in the 1920s, not the 1960s.
***********
That doesn't mean that quantum mechanics can't be a cause
for the shift you speak of. Darwin wrote Origin of the Species
in 1859, but it was fairly well into the 20th century before the
impact was fully felt. I would say that the significant impact of
Freud and Marx was delayed, also.
Michael
Michael
fiction has always been a better explaination of the world then
philosophy has ever been, contrary to its "mission statement".
******************
Very well-said, Mounard. I agree. I think the big plus for fiction
over philosophy is that it states a theoretical example of life and,
more or less, leaves the conclusions to the reader.
Michael
Paul Ilechko
Fiction can also give you a better view of history than actual history
writing does.
Lewis Mammel
The idea that Warhol started out with a send-up of abstract
expressionism, using "close cover before striking" more or
less as a joke, then progressed to his full fledged matchbook
cover a few years later is hard to swallow.
I looked in an art book, and it described his beginnings
as a fine artist in New York in 1962, asking dealers to his
place to see his work and playing Bach and rock loudly at
the same time, and other times requiring them to wear
masquerade masks. He quickly became a sensation, and the sale
of CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING was even mentioned, along of
course, with his soup cans.
Not the slightest hint that anything like what you describe
was part of his past - so I'm at a loss.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
*Anarcissie*
> > fiction has always been a better explaination of the world then
> > philosophy has ever been, contrary to its "mission statement".
Michael wrote:
> > Very well-said, Mounard. I agree. I think the big plus for fiction
> > over philosophy is that it states a theoretical example of life and,
> > more or less, leaves the conclusions to the reader.
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> Fiction can also give you a better view of history than actual history
> writing does.
I think this depends on who is being given the view and what
sort of view they are looking for. It is said that truth is stranger
than fiction, because fiction has to make sense. This requirement
could be an important defect, for those who are trying to deal with
the many things in human life that don't make sense.
Mounard le Fougueux
Also, philosophy is empirically indistinguishable from literary
criticism in that if you actually look at what philosophers do as well
as the contents of philosophical journals, you will see that they are
all commentaries on other philosophical authors/commentators, never
about ideas in themselves; so Rorty likes Dewey but dispises Popper, etc.
So you have undisputable primary texts (such as Plato, Nietsche,
Wittgenstein, Saussure, etc) that all other philosophers comment upon,
as secondary sources. Until such time as a secondary source becomes a
famous enough author that their texts automatically become "primary
sources" - like Derrida.
I agree that your assessment of fiction as being better history than
what historians do , as well. My favorite example is Colleen McCullough
(author of the Thorn Birds) and her Roman historical novel series that
began with "The First Man in Rome".
But history wouldn't be what it is without fiction. I mean more then
just the banal pm "truth" that no historical account can be objectively
true (i.e. history as fiction). I mean writing about history is writing
about fiction - the current history of the middle-east is about groups
of people who believe fictions such as that murdering other people and
dying in the process will send one to Heaven to be with 72 virgins. Or
that a piece of land belongs to a particular group of people because of
the Gods contracts, or that the history of europe is bound up with the
fiction that a certain class of "celebate" men has the magical power to
transform bread and wine into the body and blood of a living/yet dead
man/god.
I understand that Thomas Jefferson edited the "Jefferson bible" by
eliminating all unnatural or miraculus reference.
Imagine how short a history of the human race would be if, similarly,
all such fictions were removed from it!
unglued
Michael wrote:
> Mounard wrote:
>
> fiction has always been a better explaination of the world then
> philosophy has ever been, contrary to its "mission statement".
A good sound bite, but philosophy can erect detailed models of aspects
of society and culture that are not readily turned into entertaining
fiction. Examples that come to mind are Paul Virillio's 'Speed &
Politics' and 'Bunker Archeology'. Thought provoking and superbly
written whether or not you take the philosophy seriously.
*Anarcissie*
unglued wrote:
> Michael wrote:
> > Mounard wrote:
> >
> > fiction has always been a better explaination of the world then
> > philosophy has ever been, contrary to its "mission statement".
>
> A good sound bite, but philosophy can erect detailed models of aspects
> of society and culture that are not readily turned into entertaining
> fiction. Examples that come to mind are Paul Virillio's 'Speed &
> Politics' and 'Bunker Archeology'. Thought provoking and superbly
> written whether or not you take the philosophy seriously.
In other words, the examples are entertaining although not
necessarily meaningful or veracious. It seems to me you're
arguing against yourself.
anarc...@yahoo.com
> The idea that Warhol started out with a send-up of abstract
> expressionism, using "close cover before striking" more or
> less as a joke, then progressed to his full fledged matchbook
> cover a few years later is hard to swallow.
>
> I looked in an art book, and it described his beginnings
> as a fine artist in New York in 1962, asking dealers to his
> place to see his work and playing Bach and rock loudly at
> the same time, and other times requiring them to wear
> masquerade masks. He quickly became a sensation, and the sale
> of CLOSE COVER BEFORE STRIKING was even mentioned, along of
> course, with his soup cans.
>
> Not the slightest hint that anything like what you describe
> was part of his past - so I'm at a loss.
Warhol didn't just get up one day in 1962 and decide to
be a fine artist instead of a commercial artist. Even if he
had little interest in fine art in his childhood and teens, he
would have been made to do it in art school. Some of the
work I viewed in Pittsburgh seems to have come out of
that sort of experience: schoolish modernistic drawings
and paintings, uninspired but faithful to the genre. He
was aware of what was going on and knew how to
imitate it.
In the late 1950s, Warhol (correctly) apprehended that
graphic art was going to be largely superseded by
photography in advertising and other commercial work
and decided to effect a transition to fine art as a business
strategy. Just as there were a lot of copy editors with an
unfinished novels in their desk drawer, there were a lot of
commercial artists, editors, and art directors who gazed
or even commuted across the river to the promised land
of fine art, so it wasn't hard for Warhol to find places to
cross; the difficult part was finding a way of hanging on
on the other side. Unlike his peers Warhol very
industriously studied the market and evidently had a sort
of inventiveness, perception and humor they didn't At
that time, the galleries were dominated by abstract
expressionists who mostly imitated one another. I
think the blue and black reduction of Modernism to a
matchbook cover came out of an understanding that
that sort of art had become silly and moribund. The
question was how to get in front of the collectors and
show them something different that would wake them
up and cause them to reach for their checkbooks.
Later, by the time he was playing Bach & rock and
making people wear masks, the transition project was
fully planned and the operation in high gear. Of course,
I'm only going by what I've read and what I see in the
work, but I don't know why you find it so improbable.
James Whitehead
"James Whitehead" <x...@yyy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dtaonb$4f2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:4b3Kf.49273$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> > Michael wrote:
> >
> > > Don wrote:
> > >
> > > I lay the blame on Wittgenstein. Or on Russell for betting the farm
> > > on a mathematical approach. Now it's all about language. One
> > > could be excused for thinking it was a lit-crit movement.
> > >
> > > ***********
> > > "There is nothing outside the text."
> >
> > Can we please get the quote right? "There is no outside-the-text", as in
> > there is no cognition independent of representation.
> >
actualy another thought - and maybe a mathematics bod can supply the
answer - but isnt mathematical thought possible without representation, i
seem to remember a book by rudy rucker (sp?) where such events take place
using empty sets... humm? and what about music or abstract painting - there
is cognition but no representation- as in standing in for something else....
maybe it should just be the other way around - there is no representation
independent of cognition- hummm - that Descartes.... but now i dont think
thats what JD is driving at - its more maybe 'there is no text outside the
text ' i.e. - "a transendental signified" - no "other" which we can find
and in finding it "know". So the various modes of textuality - of reading -
are just that - no one offers a position of absolute.. (representation)
not even the readers or authors remark on the event... as there is no
signified - the text cannot represent something other..
hummm - time to make tea...
unglued
You're not paying attention.
Paul Ilechko
> actualy another thought - and maybe a mathematics bod can supply the
> answer - but isnt mathematical thought possible without representation, i
> seem to remember a book by rudy rucker (sp?) where such events take place
> using empty sets... humm? and what about music or abstract painting - there
> is cognition but no representation- as in standing in for something else....
Mathematics *is* representation, surely?
As for music and abstract art, the question is not whether there is
representation, but whether there is actual cognition, or merely
emotion. If you listen to the pure sound of music and have an emotional
response to it, there is no cognition. Once you begin to analyze the
*why* of the music, you are in the realm of representation.
Paul Ilechko
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
>>In other words, the examples are entertaining although not
>>necessarily meaningful or veracious. It seems to me you're
>>arguing against yourself.
>
>
> You're not paying attention.
>
You've only just noticed ?
smw
James Whitehead wrote:
> "James Whitehead" <x...@yyy.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dtaonb$4f2$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>"smw" <sm...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>>news:4b3Kf.49273$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don wrote:
>>>>
>>>>I lay the blame on Wittgenstein. Or on Russell for betting the farm
>>>>on a mathematical approach. Now it's all about language. One
>>>>could be excused for thinking it was a lit-crit movement.
>>>>
>>>>***********
>>>>"There is nothing outside the text."
>>>
>>>Can we please get the quote right? "There is no outside-the-text", as in
>>>there is no cognition independent of representation.
>>>
>
>
> actualy another thought - and maybe a mathematics bod can supply the
> answer - but isnt mathematical thought possible without representation, i
> seem to remember a book by rudy rucker (sp?) where such events take place
> using empty sets... humm? and what about music or abstract painting - there
> is cognition but no representation- as in standing in for something else....
There may be no mimesis, but I have no clue how you get to "no
representation."
*Anarcissie*
> > > > philosophy has ever been, contrary to its "mission statement".
unglued wrote:
> > > A good sound bite, but philosophy can erect detailed models of aspects
> > > of society and culture that are not readily turned into entertaining
> > > fiction. Examples that come to mind are Paul Virillio's 'Speed &
> > > Politics' and 'Bunker Archeology'. Thought provoking and superbly
> > > written whether or not you take the philosophy seriously.
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> > In other words, the examples are entertaining although not
> > necessarily meaningful or veracious. It seems to me you're
> > arguing against yourself.
unglued wrote:
> You're not paying attention.
Or maybe I'm paying too much attention. I assume that if you
don't take someone's philosophy seriously, it's a species of
fiction (or outright nonsense), it's not a representation of
significant truth. We know it's not merely trivial because it's
"thought provoking and superbly written." But you may think
of _fiction_ in a more restricted sense than I, including only
narratives, perhaps, and thus excluding material such as
Borges's made-up languages and geographies, for example.
As I see it (and this is not very original) fiction, history,
philosophy and other kinds of text production are, among
other things, games. The rules differ from one kind of text.
from one game, to another. However, some text instances
can be put in more than one category. In particular, I think
there could be a considerable overlap between the territory
of fiction and the territory of philosophy.
Lewis Mammel
anarc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Warhol didn't just get up one day in 1962 and decide to
> be a fine artist instead of a commercial artist.
He had his first show in 1952 - "Fifteen Drawings Based on
the Writings of Truman Capote" and a few others that I find
listed. These were all frou frou drawings which were an off-shoot
of his commercial drawing.
Cf. http://www.walkerart.org/archive/2/A97301636BDB5E3B6168.htm
In 1961 he did a window in Bonwit Teller's featuring
some of his Lichtensteinesqe cartoon based art, and this
seemed to be his segue into "pop art"
> Even if he
> had little interest in fine art in his childhood and teens, he
> would have been made to do it in art school. Some of the
> work I viewed in Pittsburgh seems to have come out of
> that sort of experience: schoolish modernistic drawings
> and paintings, uninspired but faithful to the genre. He
> was aware of what was going on and knew how to
> imitate it.
Were these from his school days ? Are we saying that he
did the abstract "close cover" circa 1950 ? Well, of course
it's possible - what do I know ! - but it seems to be
a big secret from his biographers. In David Bourdon's
picture biography he goes into a lot of detail on the
lead-up to the 1962 soupcans. He did "close cover" then
too, with the aid of his opaque projector, so the idea
was the same - replication of commercial items. It was
even dicussed how he cast around for ideas to get away
from Lichtenstein, who seemed to have the cartoon market
cornered.
So the conceptual arc is pretty much laid out. I find the
idea that the whole thing was anticipated some years before
by a critically minded joke, and that nobody ever even mentions
it, just flabbergasting.
Mounard le Fougueux
Obviously there is "outside-the-text".
Verbal "text" for language is similar to MIDI codes in music- an example
of musical "text" if you will. The "transcendental signified" of musical
text is the musical experience itself, which I hope you agree is
different then the musical "text".
However I agree that for writers, an in particular academic writers of
journal articles, there doesn't seem to be much hope of escape from the
"text".
smw
Mounard le Fougueux wrote:
> James Whitehead wrote:
>
>> "James Whitehead" <x...@yyy.co.uk> wrote in message
...
>>>>> ***********
>>>>> "There is nothing outside the text."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can we please get the quote right? "There is no outside-the-text",
>>>> as in
>>>> there is no cognition independent of representation.
>>>>
>>
>
> Obviously there is "outside-the-text".
>
> Verbal "text" for language is similar to MIDI codes in music- an example
> of musical "text" if you will. The "transcendental signified" of musical
> text is the musical experience itself, which I hope you agree is
> different then the musical "text".
>
> However I agree that for writers, an in particular academic writers of
> journal articles, there doesn't seem to be much hope of escape from the
> "text".
Hey, I'm just asking you guys to get the quote right; I never expected
you to understand it.
>
anarc...@yahoo.com
They can understand it.
anarc...@yahoo.com
> ....
> So the conceptual arc is pretty much laid out. I find the
> idea that the whole thing was anticipated some years before
> by a critically minded joke, and that nobody ever even mentions
> it, just flabbergasting.
Well, I certainly don't know why it's so flabbergasting. For all
all we know Warhol thought abstraction expressionism was
funny back in grade school. Unfortunately I don't remember
the exact dates in the paintings -- maybe I was deceived by
the curator.
Kater Moggin
> Mounard le Fougueux wrote:
> > Obviously there is "outside-the-text".
> > Verbal "text" for language is similar to MIDI codes in music- an example
> > of musical "text" if you will. The "transcendental signified" of musical
> > text is the musical experience itself, which I hope you agree is
> > different then the musical "text".
> > However I agree that for writers, an in particular academic writers of
> > journal articles, there doesn't seem to be much hope of escape from the
> > "text".
> Hey, I'm just asking you guys to get the quote right; I never expected
> you to understand it.
Spivak translates it both ways: "There is nothing outside
the text," then in brackets "There is no outside-text" plus
the French (_Of Grammatology_, "Question of Method," 158). Sam
Weber opts for "There is nothing outside the text" in his
Englishing of Derrida's answer to Graff, i.e., the afterword to
_Limited Inc_. 136.
Agreed on the misunderstandings of Maynard et al. Derrida
corrects them like so:
One of the definitions of what is called
deconstruction would be the effort to take
this limitless context into account, to pay
the sharpest and broadest attention possible
to context, and thus to an incessant movement
of recontextualization. The phrase which for
some has become a sort of slogan, so badly
understood, ("there is nothing outside the
text" [_il n'y a pas de hors-texte_]), means
nothing else: there is nothing outside
context. In this form, which says exactly the
same thing, the formula would doubtless have
been less shocking. I am not certain that it
would have provided more to think about.
"Toward an Ethic of Discussion," _Limited Inc_ 136.
-- Moggin
Cedilla
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> Mathematics *is* representation, surely?
Well, wouldn't that depend, at least a tad, on what you mean by
"mathematics"?
When a cook "instinctively" picks the right-sized to hold a certain
quantity
of soup, is she doing mathematics? How about when a monkey makes a
huge
jump and lands precisely on a far-away branch? Or when a snail
architectures a a geometrically exquisite shell, or a bird an intricate
nest?
And the twisting of a tornado, is that a mathematical activity? What
about
the way cells and organisms are engineered - is Nature doing
mathematics?
What about a jazz ensemble improvising together?
> As for music and abstract art, the question is not whether there is
> representation, but whether there is actual cognition, or merely
> emotion. If you listen to the pure sound of music and have an emotional
> response to it, there is no cognition.
Oh I don't know. Are things really so simple? What is "cognition",
such that
"emotion" can be so neatly separated from it? And why can there not be
cognition in abstraction? After all, Nature itself is "abstract".
Mathematics
is in some sense "abstract". Science is in some sense "abstract". And
the art of eliciting one kind of emotion versus another requires a
goodly
amount of cognition, no? And have you not ever felt that listening to
a piece of
music, or seeing a piece of abstract art, gives you cognitive insight
into the
structure or nature of reality?
Cedilla
www.mind-crafts.com
Don Tuite
wrote:
>. . . And have you not ever felt that listening to
>a piece of
>music, or seeing a piece of abstract art, gives you cognitive insight
>into the
>structure or nature of reality?
Well, no. You have? Intriguing. Please describe.
Don
Richard Harter
Those who know the tao do not speak of it; those who speak of the tao
do not know it.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
The eternal revolution has its needs - its slogans to be chanted,
its demonstrations to be held, its children to eat.
James Whitehead
non-representational abstract painting is just that - it does not stand in -
or imitate anything other than itself. It does not represent the artists
feelings or intentions... typically abstract expressionist works but perhaps
a better example would be the work of Ad Reinhardt -he of "Art is art and
everything else is everything else". There certainly is cognition - one
recognizes "it" as art- but that is all. Someone in the gallery might wish
to see symbolism in the colour or cross motif - but 'from a certain point of
view within late modern art' asking what it means is wrong. Typically these
works are "untitled". They are best described as non-representational art
therefore. As for music this also can be non-representational.
Is this an American theme - "no taxation without representation"?
I'll wander on a bit here but i think i've answered your question - if it
was one. The best source of this idea would be Kosuths Art after Philosophy
where this theme is developed into the idea of art as tautology or apirori
analytic propositions. Similarly in mathematics (?) 2 or two do not
represent things - here "2" represents but in mathematics 2 does not - as
its manipulated the symbol isnt needed. Though some philosophers of
mathematics might have a platonic realm of objects? Of course care needs to
be taken as someone from a lit crit background may approach the word in
quite a different way, than say from the philosophical ideas (or Kosuthian)
of tautology. If a tautological statement is empty how can it represent
anything?
And thats not to say that we cant do useful things with maths - like explain
gravity- or maybe get a feeling of the sublime in front of an AdReinhardt -
but from an art is art and everything else is everything else point of view
that is beside the point.
James Whitehead
"Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:45ugl6F...@individual.net...
But non-representational art is nothing to do with emotion (though it can
slip in) from a mathematical point of view straight lines and points do not
exist as things other than concepts, which are self reflexive. Pi R squared
is a function, that it can be considered useful, beautiful, or a description
of certain objects, platonic or not are all exterior to it. Kosuthian art
has no aesthetic. To analyse the why of music or art or mathematics is to
undertake something like psychology perhaps. "Why" questions suppose meaning
where there might not be any. Take a game of chess - from a chess point of
view the game unfolds along the logic of its rules, any meanings emotions or
whys (to pass the time - to win and be famous) are beside the point. To ask
what a particular game of chess represents is i think odd? yet certainly
cognition takes place? Musical form can have abstract non representational
structures which may or maynot sound nice or generate emotion, they can be
appreciated as things within themselves. When the computer recognizes the
wining move this doesnt re-present a wining move - it is, it doesnt match
the move against others stored - or it neednt.
James Whitehead
"Mounard le Fougueux" <Foug...@daeventhorizon.com> wrote in message
news:z6Wdndov-q6...@adelphia.com...
> Obviously there is "outside-the-text".
>
> Verbal "text" for language is similar to MIDI codes in music- an example
> of musical "text" if you will. The "transcendental signified" of musical
> text is the musical experience itself, which I hope you agree is
> different then the musical "text".
>
> However I agree that for writers, an in particular academic writers of
> journal articles, there doesn't seem to be much hope of escape from the
> "text".
>
Every musical performance is *different* as is every reading of a text - and
just as music depends on difference so does a text, to say i have heard
Mahler's 2nd Symphony and that is an end to it (i can now write it off -
set its limits and so move outside of it) is wrong. Another performance -
another response is always possible. And the difference isnt arbitrary - as
in meaningless or meaning anything - though that might be two of an infinite
set of possibilities, or because i cant have the definitive performance does
it mean i have to be sceptical or uncertain about Mahler's 2nd - or any
given text. Humm - though in an art as art sense there is only the
definitive performance - which is empty this is only one of many criteria
for listening - it is open to others, i.e. you only need to hear it once,
you need to hear it as i did when it brought me to tears, you must hear it
as Mahler Intended, you must hear it as revealing Mahler's troubled
subconsiouness, you must hear it as the sublime idea of resurrection and
transcendence, you hear it as kitsch film music... etc etc.
Paul Ilechko
> "Paul Ilechko" <noSPaM_pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
> news:45ugl6F...@individual.net...
>
>>James Whitehead wrote:
>>
>>
>>>actualy another thought - and maybe a mathematics bod can supply the
>>>answer - but isnt mathematical thought possible without representation,
>
> i
>
>>>seem to remember a book by rudy rucker (sp?) where such events take
>
> place
>
>>>using empty sets... humm? and what about music or abstract painting -
>
> there
>
>>>is cognition but no representation- as in standing in for something
>
> else....
>
>>Mathematics *is* representation, surely?
>>
>>As for music and abstract art, the question is not whether there is
>>representation, but whether there is actual cognition, or merely
>>emotion. If you listen to the pure sound of music and have an emotional
>>response to it, there is no cognition. Once you begin to analyze the
>>*why* of the music, you are in the realm of representation.
>
>
> But non-representational art is nothing to do with emotion (though it can
> slip in) from a mathematical point of view straight lines and points do not
> exist as things other than concepts, which are self reflexive. Pi R squared
> is a function, that it can be considered useful, beautiful, or a description
> of certain objects, platonic or not are all exterior to it.
"considering" = "representing".
The aesthetic appreciation of straight lines and regular shapes is
emotional.
The understanding of the fact that straight lines and regular shapes are
pleasing, is representational.
Paul Ilechko
>>There may be no mimesis, but I have no clue how you get to "no
>>representation."
>>
>
> A painting can be representational or non-representational - a
> non-representational abstract painting is just that - it does not stand in -
> or imitate anything other than itself. It does not represent the artists
> feelings or intentions... typically abstract expressionist works but perhaps
> a better example would be the work of Ad Reinhardt -he of "Art is art and
> everything else is everything else". There certainly is cognition - one
> recognizes "it" as art- but that is all.
You're confusing two different meanings of "representational". The art
meaning is that the abstract painting, or the abstract music, does not
represent an "other". That is not the same meaning as in the statement
"there is no cognition independent of representation", where
representation means the use of language to describe an idea, and states
that the idea does not exist without that language to describe it. Or
something like that, I'm sure Silke can describe it far better than I
can ....
anarc...@yahoo.com
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:42:06 GMT, Don Tuite
> <don_...@MAILNOTSAUSAGEhotlinks.com> wrote:
>
> >On 20 Feb 2006 20:53:36 -0800, "Cedilla" <ced...@mind-crafts.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>. . . And have you not ever felt that listening to
> >>a piece of
> >>music, or seeing a piece of abstract art, gives you cognitive insight
> >>into the
> >>structure or nature of reality?
> >
> >Well, no. You have? Intriguing. Please describe.
>
> Those who know the tao do not speak of it; those who speak of the tao
> do not know it.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must sing.
James Whitehead
Are you saying you cant have an idea without a language that expresses it ?
well i think in mathematics the two are the same, the idea of a straight
line is not expressed by or described by "the shortest line between two
points" - thats what it is.... if i represent this by drawing a line - its
not the mathematical concept, it has more than two dimensions. Or are you
saying without language there are no straight lines?
As for the art thing - representational art does just that (or attempts)
represents something other, and it operates very much like a language.
Non-representational art does not - its self referential - like mathematics.
(its stupid to ask what it means) We cant deduce from mathematics the
existence of rice pudding. (if the world is self referential - or ones
existence .. then its also stupid to ask what it means - is the jury still
out on that?) I'm also worried about the idea of language describing an
idea - it sounds like a signified has appeared (the idea) and the
possibility of arriving at a description of that signified (which is
outside) from the text. But i think the mistake or misunderstanding comes
from the idea of representation, Silke or yourself would need to say more
about what is going on in your idea of representation. If you are saying
that cognition is representation - that they are the same - then i'd go
along with that as a meaning of representation other than one thing standing
in for another. As in someone who represents me in court, or the model
represents the finished building, that is the kind of language model that
the early Wittgenstein used, but of course he latter revised this!
And i think we have or could have trouble with 'describe', or such things as
the 'putting into other words..' or as Derrida points out the idea of
'translation'.. its not that things cant represent other things - its that
they can...
Mathematics is a meaningless language.
I'm very aware of the problems of such a discussion from differing
backgrounds but find it interesting never the less...
James Whitehead
>
> "considering" = "representing".
>
From the other post - yes if consider = representing then they are the
same - and if then cobition is consideration - but then to say we cant have
one without the other becomes obvious - but neither has priority.
This is then a technical use of "representing" and not the common useage.
> The aesthetic appreciation of straight lines and regular shapes is
> emotional.
>
> The understanding of the fact that straight lines and regular shapes are
> pleasing, is representational.
>
>
So in the last sentence "representational" is superfluous...
Paul Ilechko
> Are you saying you cant have an idea without a language that expresses it ?
> well i think in mathematics the two are the same, the idea of a straight
> line is not expressed by or described by "the shortest line between two
> points" - thats what it is.... if i represent this by drawing a line - its
> not the mathematical concept, it has more than two dimensions. Or are you
> saying without language there are no straight lines?
No, I'm saying that the concept "straight line" is a language concept.
It's been named. If you don't name it, you can't think it, other than
possibly on some emotional level.
Saying that a straight line exists without the language to describe it
is one of those "tree falls in the forest" moments ... and it's not
really very relevant to an understanding of human cognition.
>
> As for the art thing - representational art does just that (or attempts)
> represents something other, and it operates very much like a language.
> Non-representational art does not - its self referential - like mathematics.
But it's not random. It means something to the artist, even if all it
means is "this works". Which is short hand for saying that "in some way,
this particular set of forms and colors is enjoyable or interesting to
me". So the painting may not represent a thing.
> If you are saying
> that cognition is representation - that they are the same - then i'd go
> along with that as a meaning of representation other than one thing standing
> in for another.
I'm not an expert in this field by any means, but my view is not that
cognition is the same as representation, but that the ability to
represent is a necessary precondition for cognition.
anarc...@yahoo.com
> > > Obviously there is "outside-the-text".
>
> > > Verbal "text" for language is similar to MIDI codes in music- an example
> > > of musical "text" if you will. The "transcendental signified" of musical
> > > text is the musical experience itself, which I hope you agree is
> > > different then the musical "text".
>
> > > However I agree that for writers, an in particular academic writers of
> > > journal articles, there doesn't seem to be much hope of escape from the
> > > "text".
smw <sm...@ameritech.net>:
> > Hey, I'm just asking you guys to get the quote right; I never expected
> > you to understand it.
Kater Moggin wrote:
> Spivak translates it both ways: "There is nothing outside
> the text," then in brackets "There is no outside-text" plus
> the French (_Of Grammatology_, "Question of Method," 158). Sam
> Weber opts for "There is nothing outside the text" in his
> Englishing of Derrida's answer to Graff, i.e., the afterword to
> _Limited Inc_. 136.
>
> Agreed on the misunderstandings of Maynard et al. Derrida
> corrects them like so:
>
> One of the definitions of what is called
> deconstruction would be the effort to take
> this limitless context into account, to pay
> the sharpest and broadest attention possible
> to context, and thus to an incessant movement
> of recontextualization. The phrase which for
> some has become a sort of slogan, so badly
> understood, ("there is nothing outside the
> text" [_il n'y a pas de hors-texte_]), means
> nothing else: there is nothing outside
> context. In this form, which says exactly the
> same thing, the formula would doubtless have
> been less shocking. I am not certain that it
> would have provided more to think about.
>
> "Toward an Ethic of Discussion," _Limited Inc_ 136.
But there is a radical difference between the meanings one is
likely to take from _the text_ and from _the context_, at least
in English. _The text_ will be taken to mean some sort of
written material, or something closely allied to it, like a
conversation which could be written down in the form of a
dramatic dialogue. The meaning of _context_ has long since
lost its connection with writing, if indeed it ever had it. (In
Latin, _-tex-_ refers to weaving, not writing. and _context_
could have started its etymological journey by denoting "that
which is woven around something" without any reference to
writing.)
Of course, one can expand the idea of _text_ by vigorous
metaphorization to include any sort of effect one thing may
have on another. Thus, Derrida mentions a rock sliding down
a slope and leaving a mark as a sort of text. Such a usage
is sure to be misunderstood, that is, it has a certain color
of fraudulence, which reflects curiously on the title of the
essay mentioned above; but this misunderstanding may be
productive and, like Coyote, Derrida may wish to teach through
deception. "There is nothing outside the context" sounds
very humdrum compared to "there is nothing outside the text"
or "there is no outside-the-text", especially, I imagine, to
people whose careers are founded on the interpretation of
texts. The _con_less form -- the _con_less con? -- has
elicited an excited if somewhat recondite buzz likely to
endure for decades, if not centuries.
Inspired by this example, I shall make up an apothegm
too: "There are no misunderstandings." Or have I been
preempted?
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead wrote:
>
> > Are you saying you cant have an idea without a language that expresses
it ?
> > well i think in mathematics the two are the same, the idea of a straight
> > line is not expressed by or described by "the shortest line between two
> > points" - thats what it is.... if i represent this by drawing a line -
its
> > not the mathematical concept, it has more than two dimensions. Or are
you
> > saying without language there are no straight lines?
>
> No, I'm saying that the concept "straight line" is a language concept.
> It's been named. If you don't name it, you can't think it, other than
> possibly on some emotional level.
The concept "straight line" is a language concept - but its also a
mathematical concept - "straight line" is English - but that has nothing to
do with the mathematical concept - which is abstract. And of course you can
think it - non linguistically and non emotionally also, the abstract
properties are realised in nature in crystals in the track of an animal. But
the reason mathematics is so useful is its very lack of emotion, of
empiricism - of observation, even of thought in human terms.
Cant you think of a colour (non emotionally and logically) that hasn't got a
name? Think of the guy who made the first wheel - did he first find the
name! then make it? God had the idea of a tiger - made one and only then
did Adam name it.
>
> Saying that a straight line exists without the language to describe it
> is one of those "tree falls in the forest" moments ... and it's not
> really very relevant to an understanding of human cognition.
>
I didnt think were were talking about how we think. I dont see how the
humanity or not of the reader of "There is nothing outside the text" makes a
difference- isnt Derrida saying something universal about text and reading,
that it hasnt a terminus of finality, not because of some brain function but
because of what it is. Thats why i think cogition is a tricky word, and say
things like - every performance or reading of a text is different and non is
final- better put "Writing is read: it is not the site, "in the last
instance", of a hemenutic deciphering, the decoding of a meaning or truth;"
(and as philosophy (proper?) was about this "the decoding of a meaning or
truth" then the above stands outside the site of philosophy!)
> >
> > As for the art thing - representational art does just that (or attempts)
> > represents something other, and it operates very much like a language.
> > Non-representational art does not - its self referential - like
mathematics.
>
> But it's not random. It means something to the artist, even if all it
> means is "this works". Which is short hand for saying that "in some way,
> this particular set of forms and colors is enjoyable or interesting to
> me". So the painting may not represent a thing.
No - though one may be pleased with ones work - the wheel works because of
its properties - not my feelings towards it. Same with the mathematical
equation.
From the Kosuthian point of view the mental set of the artist is irrelevant.
Again in the game of chess - the player may feel pleased - or be an IBM.
>
>
> > If you are saying
> > that cognition is representation - that they are the same - then i'd go
> > along with that as a meaning of representation other than one thing
standing
> > in for another.
>
> I'm not an expert in this field by any means, but my view is not that
> cognition is the same as representation, but that the ability to
> represent is a necessary precondition for cognition.
You might face the problem of how you know you have represented without
having prior knowledge of what representation is - . Once you elevate
representation to the signified of cognition you bring back in the
metaphysical demons.
Cedilla
It's not really easy to _describe_ "cognitive insight", is it? But let
me try an easier example. There are some comedy films - for example,
Buster Keaton's or Tati's - such that, for a while after watching
them, everything around you seems funny in exactly the same way as the
things in the film. It is as if some aspect of perception got
enhanced; as if Keaton and Tati, and other "structural humorists", so
to speak, had a particularly strong cognition of comic structures
within everyday reality, and their films are little teaching-machines
that strengthen the viewer's own cognitive abilities in this area.
Something similar goes on with certain kinds of music or abstract art -
only there it does not (necessarily) have to do with the comic, but
with other kinds of deep rhythmic or structural relationships.
Cedilla
www.mind-crafts.com
Don Tuite
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:42:06 GMT, Don Tuite
><don_...@MAILNOTSAUSAGEhotlinks.com> wrote:
>
>>On 20 Feb 2006 20:53:36 -0800, "Cedilla" <ced...@mind-crafts.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>. . . And have you not ever felt that listening to
>>>a piece of
>>>music, or seeing a piece of abstract art, gives you cognitive insight
>>>into the
>>>structure or nature of reality?
>>
>>Well, no. You have? Intriguing. Please describe.
>
>Those who know the tao do not speak of it; those who speak of the tao
>do not know it.
>
Reminds me of Wilde's aphorism about fox hunting.
Don
Paul Ilechko
> Cant you think of a colour (non emotionally and logically) that hasn't got a
> name?
You're putting too much emphasis on "name".
> Think of the guy who made the first wheel - did he first find the
> name! then make it?
He might not have called it a wheel, but he called it something.
> God had the idea of a tiger - made one and only then
> did Adam name it.
At this point you lose me. There are no supernatural beings in my universe.
SleepyHeed
> and what about music or abstract painting - there is cognition but no representation- as in standing in for something else....
> Mathematics *is* representation, surely?
Mathematics is representative to the extent that it's used or
understood as a representation. The same goes for painting and music.
Which is why you've got a puzzle: there are representative and
non-representative uses of maths, but you're asking "Is it one or the
other?". It's both.
*Anarcissie*
It's supposed to remind you of something else -- but in any
case you can see how popular and accessible the Unspeakable
is. Why, it's all around us!
James Whitehead
> James Whitehead wrote:
>
> > Cant you think of a colour (non emotionally and logically) that hasn't
got a
> > name?
>
> You're putting too much emphasis on "name".
OK - but i can work this way - lets mix a colour called "oat meal" or i can
work this way lets mix a colour - and then call it 'midnight blush' If you
say no cognition without representation i still think you are left with a
model of language similar to that of the Tractatus.
>
> > Think of the guy who made the first wheel - did he first find the
> > name! then make it?
>
> He might not have called it a wheel, but he called it something.
well he might or he might not - but that didnt stop him making one - lets
say you watch a beaver buiding a dam - would you say cognition is going on,
or a kitten playing with a ball of wool? I would - but i would say that they
are representing anything.
(i put the kitten in as you might say the beaver is just obeying instinct- i
cant see how playing with wool could be instinctive, ah though play might be
as a leaning tool)
>
> > God had the idea of a tiger - made one and only then
> > did Adam name it.
>
> At this point you lose me. There are no supernatural beings in my
universe.
OK for "God" read "NATURE" and for "the idea" read 'via natural selection'
But i do think we've strayed from the idea of meaning and text... If a
computer recognizes your face - has representation took place, and if so
where and how?
Don Tuite
wrote:
Speak . . . for yourself. (Insert smiley.)
Anent context, representation, and Arthur and George (the last a
RAB-only thread), it occurs to me that Barnes' New Yorker long piece
on "The Raft of the Medusa" (anthologized in some Barnes collection or
other) is a good, if indirect, commentary on context and
representation. (I.e., that the painting is more representational than
one would think, and Barnes has a hell of a lot to say about the
layers of context in which the painting exists.)
Don
Paul Ilechko
Representation is not the same representative. Mathematics is a language
used to signify concepts, it's inherently representational.
Paul Ilechko
>>>Think of the guy who made the first wheel - did he first find the
>>>name! then make it?
>>
>>He might not have called it a wheel, but he called it something.
>
>
> well he might or he might not - but that didnt stop him making one
He couldn't make one without thinking about making one, for which he
needed language, which puts us back at the original proposition. We're
going in circles.
> But i do think we've strayed from the idea of meaning and text... If a
> computer recognizes your face - has representation took place, and if so
> where and how?
A computer cannot possibly recognize your face, as a computer has no
sentience. However, a pattern matching program running on a computer can
algorithmically determine that the pixels representing your face are
similar enough to another set of pixels to be a possible match. I don't
really see the relevance of this to the original topic.
Meg Worley
>> ObGenre: academic novels. Can't stand a one of 'em.
Paul wonders:
>Not even "The History Man" ?
Bradbury? Couldn't finish it.
Rage away,
meg
--
Meg Worley _._ m...@steam.stanford.edu _._ Comparatively Literate
Cedilla
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> Representation is not the same representative. Mathematics is a language
> used to signify concepts, it's inherently representational.
If mathematics is a "language to signify concepts", then what do you
call the activity of creating these concepts to begin with? Isn't that
mathematics, too? Isn't mathematics a multifarious network of
activities, not just "a language"? Yes, mathematics _has_ a language
(in fact, many languages); but to say that it _is_ a language is a
pretty strange use of the term "mathematics".
cedilla
www.mind-crafts.com
Cedilla
Paul Ilechko wrote:
> James Whitehead wrote:
>
> >>>Think of the guy who made the first wheel - did he first find the
> >>>name! then make it?
> >>
> >>He might not have called it a wheel, but he called it something.
> >
> >
> > well he might or he might not - but that didnt stop him making one
>
> He couldn't make one without thinking about making one, for which he
> needed language, which puts us back at the original proposition.
Nah. Animals make complex things all the time, and there is no
evidence that they first think, in some language, about making them.
cedilla
www.mind-crafts.com
Meg Worley
I wrote:
>ObGenre: academic novels. Can't stand a one of 'em.
Michael writes:
>Could you name a few academic novels? I'm not real clear on
>what you mean by that.
Lucky Jim. Small World. Moo. Wonder Boys. Straight Man.