Post-modernism: what do you think about it?

[Michelle]

There is no such thing as postmodernism. There is only a void left by the death of rationality.

...

For anyone who wants an indication of how bad this can get, Richard Dawkins wrote a hilarious essay on it: http://richarddawkins.net/article,824,Post...-Dawkins-Nature

Michelle,

Thank you for your wonderful insights. I'm glad you've read all these terrible things so that I don't have to. I actually might have Sokal and Bricmont's book somewhere, but I've only read a little of it. Even such a clear critique of such opaque rubbish is ultimately boring.

You are very intelligent and well read for your age.

Keep up the good work.

Darrell

Thanks.

I'm a bit of a masochist. I like torturing myself with stuff like that.

But yeah, you're not missing anything.

Here's a quote attributed to Noam Chomsky. I think it basically sums up how I feel about that rubbish:

"There are lots of things I don't understand — say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. — even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or ( B ) ... I won't spell it out."

Edited June 8, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michelle]

There is no such thing as postmodernism. There is only a void left by the death of rationality.

...

For anyone who wants an indication of how bad this can get, Richard Dawkins wrote a hilarious essay on it: http://richarddawkins.net/article,824,Post...-Dawkins-Nature

Michelle,

Thank you for your wonderful insights. I'm glad you've read all these terrible things so that I don't have to. I actually might have Sokal and Bricmont's book somewhere, but I've only read a little of it. Even such a clear critique of such opaque rubbish is ultimately boring.

You are very intelligent and well read for your age.

Keep up the good work.

Darrell

Let me echo Darrell's compliments. I was given Sokal and Bricmont's book to read as a gift while recouperating from abdominal surgery but had to stop because it hurt to laugh.

HAH.

I need to get it.

I've read enough pomo crap. I deserve to get a good belly laugh from it.

[kiaer.ts]

Let me echo Darrell's compliments. I was given Sokal and Bricmont's book to read as a gift while recouperating from abdominal surgery but had to stop because it hurt to laugh.

HAH.

I need to get it.

I've read enough pomo crap. I deserve to get a good belly laugh from it.

I should have said "hurt to giggle." I was on morphine for six months. It's funny, not a LOL ripsnorter. You only need read one chapter in the middle to get the point, since they dissect about five authors. You get the point rather quickly.

[Rich Engle]

I find my general rule-of-thumb in these matters quite trustworthy.

If the artist/writer/musician/whatever describes themself or their work using a period name (post-modern, etc.), then you are likely looking at ka-ka poo-poo.

It means they haven't actualized themselves; gotten far enough away, innovated, for what you're seeing to be significant new work.

The days of aligning yourself with an art movement are long gone. I mean Hell, there's still people out there who don't know the punk movement died in 1978.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Michelle]

Let me echo Darrell's compliments. I was given Sokal and Bricmont's book to read as a gift while recouperating from abdominal surgery but had to stop because it hurt to laugh.

HAH.

I need to get it.

I've read enough pomo crap. I deserve to get a good belly laugh from it.

I should have said "hurt to giggle." I was on morphine for six months. It's funny, not a LOL ripsnorter. You only need read one chapter in the middle to get the point, since they dissect about five authors. You get the point rather quickly.

For me it'll just be cathartic seeing those two rip into the ones I've read. And their mockery of the ones I haven't read will be fun anyhow.

[Christopher]

Hmmm... perhaps I am stoking fires, eh? Every once in awhile though, I just need to let off some steam. A lot of people espouse opinions with strongly negative feelings and no actual curiosity or inquisitiveness natural to the learning process. These opinions are so driven by emotion that they are blinding and close to a "faith."

The basic idea of post-modernism (real post-modernism) is basically one of aperspectivism. It means that the associative and causal network chains of thinking in our head are unique and different among men just as definitions may vary. Below is Ken Wilber's take of post-modernism. I think that a few here will appreciate these insights and be stimulated:

"

1. Reality is not in all ways a pregiven, but in some significant ways is a construction, an interpretation; the belief that reality is simply given, and not also partly constructed, is referred to as "the myth of the given."

2. Meaning is context-dependent, and contexts are boundless

3. Cognition must therefore unduly privilege no single perspective

"You might see me coming down the street, a frown on my face. You can see that. But what does that exterior frown actually mean? How will you find out? You will ask me. You will talk to me. Yuo can see my surfaces, but in order to understand my interior, my depths, you will have to enter into the interpretive circle (the hermeneutic circle). You, as a subject, will not merely stare at me as an object, but rather you, as a subject, will attempt to understand me as a subject-- as a person, as a self, as a bearer of intentionality and meaning. You will talk to me, and interpret what I say; and I will do the same with you. We are not subjects starting at objects; we are subjects trying to understand subjects--we are in the intersubjective circle, the dialogical dance.

"This is true not only for humans, but for all sentient beings as such. If you want to understand your dog--is he happy, or perhaps hungry, or wanting to go for a walk?-- you will have to interpret the signals he is giving you... to put it bluntly, exterior surfaces can be seen, but interior depth must be interpreted.

"Most forms of postmodern poststructuralism trace their lineage to the work of the brilliant and pioneering linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. Saussure's work, and especially his Course in General Linguistics (1916), was the basis of much of modern linguistics, semiology (semiotics), structuralism, and hence poststructuralism...

"According to Saussure, a linguistic sign is composed of a material signifier (the written word, the spoken word, the marks on this page) and a conceptual signified (what comes to mind when you see the signifier), and both of which are different from the actual referent. For example, if you see a tree, the actual tree is the referent; the written word "tree" is the signifier; and what comes to mind (the image, the thought, the mental picture or concept) when you read the word "tree" is the signified. The signifier and the signified together constitute the overall sign.

" But what is it, Saussure asked, that allows a sign to mean something, to actually carry meaning? It can't be the word itself, because, for example, the word "bark" has a different meaning in the phrases "the bark of a dog" and "the bark of a tree." The word "bark" has meaning, in each case, because of its place in the entire phrase (a different phrase gives the same word a totally different meaning). Any given word in itself is basically meaningless because the same word can have completely different meanings depending on the context or the structure in which it is placed.

"Thus, Saussure pointed out, it is the relationship between all of the words themselves that stabilizes meaning. So-- and this was Saussure's great insight -- a meaningless element becomes meaningful only by virtue of the total structure.

"Accordingly-- and here we begin to see the importance of background cultural contexts so stressed by postmodernists...-meaning is created for me by vast networks of background contexts about which I consciously know very little. I do not fashion this meaning; this meaning fashions me. I am a part of this vast cultural background, and in many cases I haven't a clue as to where it all came from.... Not only is meaning in many important ways dependent upon the context in which it finds itself, these contexts are in principle endless or boundless.

"The fact that meaning is context-dependent... means that a multi-perspective approach to reality is called for. Any single perspective is likely to be partial, limited, perhaps even distorted...

And then Wilber addresses the down-side: "Postmodernism came to embrace surfaces, champion surfaces, glorify surfaces, and surfaces alone. There are only sliding chains of signifiers, everything is a material text, there is nothing under the surface, there is only the surface." (i.e. no depth, no real meaning behind the endless subjective contexts.)

But in good and healthy post-modernistic fashion, I think there are gems in both modernism and postmodernism. No single perspective is 100% accurate. There are objective truths, there are subjective realities. The more people cling to narrow beliefs of a single truism (which is generally because they feel threatened), the more they distort their own perceptions. And perhaps this is part of growing as an Objectivist - the need to protect one's boundaries until they are strong enough to interact with (rather than shout down) the rest of the world. I'm happy to share thoughts with others who are interested in learning about that world.

Christopher

[Selene]

Chris let's work off the same image.

http://www.thetransitioner.org/wiki/tiki-i...=Aperspectivism

Aperspectivism

Using individual perspective to build complex collective objects

Definition

Collective Intelligence

Collective Intelligence > The invisible revolution

3d browser print pdf

Aperspectivism

Definition proposal

Aperspectivism is a concept created by Jean Gebser? in his book called « The Ever Present Origin ».

http://www.thetransitioner.org/wiki/img/wi...x_sculpture.jpg

Sculpture by Maria Teresa Picasso

Let's imagine a circle of people around a complex colorful object. Depending on their position around this object, some people will say it's back with a flower hat. Others will say it has a pair of eyes. Others will mention its blue vaporous aspect, with no precise details, with a had without flowers, etc.

No one can individually grab the object in its plain reality, everyone has an « angled » perception, based upon the angle he/she is looking from. In the classical approach, named « perspectivism », each one would defend his/her point of view by claiming his/her own perception, fully sincere and valid..

No matter which process is used to select the dominant view (from the strongest, the most charismatic, the most agile, the elected representative...), the final version that will emerge will also have an angle.

The only way to apprehend the complex reality of this object is collective. Each one should be able to provide his/her point of view, just like providing a new piece in a giant puzzle. We no longer stick up for a point of view, but we offer it. Thus, while everyone has an individual perception that is absolutely sincere and contradictory, the community becomes able to manipulate a complex object that none of the member can individually grasp..

This approach seems obvious to us for real 3D objects that belong to our perceptible reality. Yet we leave this approach as soon as complex symbolic objects enter in the game. Then we jump into perspectivism, just like if the balance of contradictory forces would give birth to an emerging truth. This is one of the greatest contemporary illusions there is.

Translated into poetry

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,

And happening to fall

Against his broad and sturdy side,

At once began to bawl:

“God bless me! but the Elephant

Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,

Cried, “Ho! what have we here

So very round and smooth and sharp?

To me ’tis mighty clear

This wonder of an Elephant

Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,

And happening to take

The squirming trunk within his hands,

Thus boldly up and spake:

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant

Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,

And felt about the knee.

“What most this wondrous beast is like

Is mighty plain,” quoth he;

“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant

Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,

Said: “E’en the blindest man

Can tell what this resembles most;

Deny the fact who can

This marvel of an Elephant

Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun

About the beast to grope,

Than, seizing on the swinging tail

That fell within his scope,

“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant

Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan

Disputed loud and long,

Each in his own opinion

Exceeding stiff and strong,

Though each was partly in the right,

And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,

The disputants, I ween,

Rail on in utter ignorance

Of what each other mean,

And prate about an Elephant

Not one of them has seen!

From American poet John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887) – see original versionexternal link

Edited June 8, 2009 by Selene

[kiaer.ts]

What pretentious drivel.

But in good and healthy post-modernistic fashion, I think there are gems in both modernism and postmodernism. No single perspective is 100% accurate.

I am glad you admit your perspective is inaccurate.

There are objective truths, there are subjective realities. The more people cling to narrow beliefs of a single truism (which is generally because they feel threatened), the more they distort their own perceptions.

But what threat makes you cling to this narrow belief?

And perhaps this is part of growing as an Objectivist - the need to protect one's boundaries until they are strong enough to interact with (rather than shout down) the rest of the world. I'm happy to share thoughts with others who are interested in learning about that world.

Are you offering us your privileged omniscience, your subjective reality, or just your narrow belief?

As for Saussure, it is unfair to lay the blame for postmodernism at his feet. The Course was compiled after his death, by his students. Strong controversial assertions were added by the compilers, including the oft quoted final sentence. His signifier, signified and referent do not differ from Rands word as a perceptual tag, the concept as a mental unit and the referent as external object, although subsequent theories that divorce sign and referent are, of course, the crux of the problem. Saussure wished to study the sign within its system as a means of comparing grammars to grammars either between languages or within a language over time. He was uniquely successful, predicting the existence of specific types of sounds in extinct languages like Hittite that were not deciphered until after his death. The hijacking of this methodological tool and its inappropriate application to other fields and phenomena is not his fault.

[thomtg]

[...]

The basic idea of post-modernism (real post-modernism) is basically one of aperspectivism. It means that the associative and causal network chains of thinking in our head are unique and different among men just as definitions may vary. Below is Ken Wilber's take of post-modernism. [...]

"The fact that meaning is context-dependent... means that a multi-perspective approach to reality is called for. Any single perspective is likely to be partial, limited, perhaps even distorted..."

But in good and healthy post-modernistic fashion, I think there are gems in both modernism and postmodernism. No single perspective is 100% accurate.

[...]

Against Immanuel Kant's attempt to invalidate our knowledge of reality, Ayn Rand writes in For the New Intellectual:

"His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes--deaf, because he has ears--deluded, because he has a mind--and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them."

Because our perception of reality is perspectival, it is therefore invalid? And you take this "aperspectivism" to be compatible with Objectivism?

This quotation, by the way, is also cited by Rand herself in ITOE, Ch. 8. "Consciousness and Identity," p. 80. I guess she wanted to make doubly sure readers take it seriously.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Thom T G

[BaalChatzaf]

[...]

The basic idea of post-modernism (real post-modernism) is basically one of aperspectivism. It means that the associative and causal network chains of thinking in our head are unique and different among men just as definitions may vary. Below is Ken Wilber's take of post-modernism. [...]

"The fact that meaning is context-dependent... means that a multi-perspective approach to reality is called for. Any single perspective is likely to be partial, limited, perhaps even distorted..."

But in good and healthy post-modernistic fashion, I think there are gems in both modernism and postmodernism. No single perspective is 100% accurate.

[...]

Against Immanuel Kant's attempt to invalidate our knowledge of reality, Ayn Rand writes in For the New Intellectual:

"His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes--deaf, because he has ears--deluded, because he has a mind--and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them."

Because our perception of reality is perspectival, it is therefore invalid? And you take this "aperspectivism" to be compatible with Objectivism?

This quotation, by the way, is also cited by Rand herself in ITOE, Ch. 8. "Consciousness and Identity," p. 80. I guess she wanted to make doubly sure readers take it seriously.

We are hardly blind or senseless. Yet our knowledge of things that truly are and independent of us, cannot be sundered from our perception of the world delivered to our consciousness through our senses. In short, we know what we sense (perceive) and all our concepts and ideas ultimately go back to our perception.

Do we really know anything that is independent of perception?

Rand's criticism is more applicable to Plato than to Kant. It was Plato who said that the Forms (Ideas) are separated from the sensible things. He made a strict separation of nous and that which is perceived.

Aristotle did not see Form and Matter totally separated, which is his chief difference from Plato. He saw Form embodied as Matter.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 8, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Selene]

Ba'al:

"Do we really know anything that is independent of perception?"

Nope, it would be non perceptible.

I am constantly amazed at how misguided humans can become in the "search" for meaning.

Present party included, lol.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

What pretentious drivel.

But in good and healthy post-modernistic fashion, I think there are gems in both modernism and postmodernism. No single perspective is 100% accurate.

I am glad you admit your perspective is inaccurate.

There are objective truths, there are subjective realities. The more people cling to narrow beliefs of a single truism (which is generally because they feel threatened), the more they distort their own perceptions.

But what threat makes you cling to this narrow belief?

And perhaps this is part of growing as an Objectivist - the need to protect one's boundaries until they are strong enough to interact with (rather than shout down) the rest of the world. I'm happy to share thoughts with others who are interested in learning about that world.

Are you offering us your privileged omniscience, your subjective reality, or just your narrow belief?

As for Saussure, it is unfair to lay the blame for postmodernism at his feet. The Course was compiled after his death, by his students. Strong controversial assertions were added by the compilers, including the oft quoted final sentence. His signifier, signified and referent do not differ from Rands word as a perceptual tag, the concept as a mental unit and the referent as external object, although subsequent theories that divorce sign and referent are, of course, the crux of the problem. Saussure wished to study the sign within its system as a means of comparing grammars to grammars either between languages or within a language over time. He was uniquely successful, predicting the existence of specific types of sounds in extinct languages like Hittite that were not deciphered until after his death. The hijacking of this methodological tool and its inappropriate application to other fields and phenomena is not his fault.

The following should be emphasized, especially since Christopher asserts that "lack of education" informs our objections to his own broad narrow perspective.

As for Ferdinand de Saussure, it is unfair to lay the blame for postmodernism at his feet.

The Course in General Linguistics was compiled after his death, by his students. Strong controversial assertions were added by the compilers, including the oft quoted final sentence.

His signifier, signified and referent do not differ from Rands word as a perceptual tag, the concept as a mental unit and the referent as external object, although subsequent theories that divorce sign and referent are, of course, the crux of the problem. Saussure wished to study the sign within its system as a means of comparing grammars to grammars either between languages or within a language over time.

He was uniquely successful, predicting the existence of specific types of sounds in specific words in extinct languages like Hittite that were not deciphered until after his death. In other words, to simplify, he knew that certain words in dead languages would have certain sounds even before those languages were discovered. This was based on his analysis of language as a "system."

The hijacking of this methodological tool and its inappropriate application to other fields and phenomena is not his fault.

[Christopher]

Because our perception of reality is perspectival, it is therefore invalid?

It is my understanding that post-modernism does not set out to invalidate a specific perspective, merely to attempt to include that perspective in a well-rounded picture. Adam had a nice post which I think explained with appropriate analogy.

Also wanted to add... the woman who really set me forward in understanding post-modernism was a psychologist by the name of Hazel Markus. She has demonstrated with a number of other psychologists how the self-concept functions differently for individuals in different cultures. As a result, the relationship between self-esteem (as measured by research psychologists - one's view of one's self-concept) and success, happiness, etc. also varies across cultures. Only a post-modernist perspective is capable of recognizing that self-concept serves different functions in different cultures. ((Btw - the use of "self-esteem" here varies compared to the definition posed by Branden, which I believe is cross-culturally valid but not easily measured))

Edited June 9, 2009 by Christopher

[Selene]

Chris:

"[Only] a post-modernist perspective is capable of recognizing that self-concept serves different functions in different cultures."

The "only" statement weakens your argument and or statement.

"My understanding is that a post-modernist perspective increases ones capability of recognizing that self-concept serves different functions in different cultures."

at least that works because their are a number of other "explanations"/paradigms that could also explain it.

Adam

[Darrell Hougen]

" But what is it, Saussure asked, that allows a sign to mean something, to actually carry meaning? It can't be the word itself, because, for example, the word "bark" has a different meaning in the phrases "the bark of a dog" and "the bark of a tree." The word "bark" has meaning, in each case, because of its place in the entire phrase (a different phrase gives the same word a totally different meaning). Any given word in itself is basically meaningless because the same word can have completely different meanings depending on the context or the structure in which it is placed.

Hi Chris,

I don't have time to analyze everything on this thread, but let's look at the portion of your post that I quoted above. The statement that, "Any given word in itself is basically meaningless," is clearly false and the word "bark" provides a perfect example of that fact. Any given word has a finite and usually small number of possible meanings. That's what allows it to be interpreted in context. Consider the phrases, "the bark of a car," and, "the bark of a cloud." Those phrases have no apparent meaning because the word "bark" has no apparent referent in either case. The meaning of a sentence depends upon the referents of the words in reality. If there are no referents, there is no meaning.

The fact that words can often be used in multiple different ways is not that hard to understand. It is a form of semantic overloading that allows the language to be more compact. So long as the number of ways that word can be used is properly limited, it is easy to disambiguate the overloaded usage. So, far from having no meaning, each word has a small number of possible meanings corresponding to a small number of referents that exist in reality.

All of the wild extrapolations that follow the assertion that words have no independent meaning are based on a faulty premise and can be safely ignored.

Darrell

Edited June 9, 2009 by Darrell Hougen

[Darrell Hougen]

Sculpture by Maria Teresa Picasso

...

The only way to apprehend the complex reality of this object is collective. Each one should be able to provide his/her point of view, just like providing a new piece in a giant puzzle. We no longer stick up for a point of view, but we offer it. Thus, while everyone has an individual perception that is absolutely sincere and contradictory, the community becomes able to manipulate a complex object that none of the member can individually grasp..

...

Translated into poetry

It was six men of Indostan

To learning much inclined,

Who went to see the Elephant

(Though all of them were blind),

That each by observation

Might satisfy his mind ...

A more realistic example might be a computer. One person might understand the power supply, another the monitor, another the hardware logic circuits, another the quantum mechanics underlying the semiconductors, another the operating system, another the CD/DVD drive, and another would be required for each of the major applications loaded onto it.

But, the views of all of the computer experts would not contradict each other, they would be complementary. The various views would have to be consistent at the margins where they overlapped. The application programmer's point of view must be consistent with the OS programmer's point of view which must be consistent with the hardware logic engineer's point of view and so on. The notion that different people could reach contradictory conclusions from different perspectives and all be right is nonsense. Their views must be consistent.

Darrell

BTW, I'm not attributing Picasso's view to you, Adam. I'm just analyzing her assertion.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Darrell Hougen

[Rich Engle]

Hmmm... perhaps I am stoking fires, eh? Every once in awhile though, I just need to let off some steam. A lot of people espouse opinions with strongly negative feelings and no actual curiosity or inquisitiveness natural to the learning process. These opinions are so driven by emotion that they are blinding and close to a "faith."

You started off right. But then, an assumptive close, tantamount to "how long have you been beating your wife?"

And then on to an indictment of the emotional centre.

All that means to me is that you do not know how to handle the emotions, which are aparently knocking on your door.

They are your friends. Listen to them.

rde