• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Postmodernism

Piscivore

Smelling fishy
Piscivore
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
27,388
Location
Home is wherever I'm with you
I've been lurking here for awhile and am enjoying reading the threads here immensely. I have been an admirer of Mr. Randi's for a long time, since I was given a copy of Flim-Flam back in the dark days of the Reagan era. I do have one question, however. I have seen mention several times the phrase "postmodern" in a usually derogative sense, and I am curious what exactly is meant to be understood by this term. I have my own idea about what is "postmodern", but I'm afraid we may have different definitions.

What does "postmodern" mean to you?
 
Welcome, Piscivore. Here is what postmodern means to me:
We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multidimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.
---Felix Guattari, "Chaosmosis"
Click to expand...
and also
The excrementalization of alterity as the site/sight of homelessness, of utter outsideness and insubiatable dispossession figure(s) in ... Hegel's metanarrational conception of Enlightenment modernity as the teleological process of totalization leading to absolute knowing.
---Calvin Thomas
Click to expand...
I fully admit that I'm throwing out any possible baby with the sewage.

~~ Paul
 
You'll have to forgive Paul, he suffers from knowing (a) too much (b) no-one who can pronounce his surname (c) that (a) will never solve (b).

As a layman then, for such I am, post-modernism, in the context of scepticism, refers to the current degeneration of the spirit of the enlightenment, such that Astrology, New Age Religion, UFOs, Homeopathy, Feng Shui and the like are accepted to the point that they consume energy, money and time that might otherwise be channelled (<- free pun) into more usefully verifiable ventures.

In short, it refers to the West's cultural degeneration into credulousness. It's arguable that the spirit of scepticism was healthier 150 years ago, when Wendell Holmes definitively debunked Homeopathy, than it is today, which is a conundrum, doncha think?

Those with more exacting definitions may, of course, correct me.
 
Postmodernism is summed up, to me, by

All opinions are equally valid.
Click to expand...

I'm also throwing out an awful lot of bathwater here, and I've been pulled up on it by some highly intelligent post-modernists, but never mind.

Anyway, while the above statement is blatantly wrong, it's had to explain exactly why it's wrong.
 
Thanks, all. This has been incredibly enlightening (I had never heard of "Deconstuction" in this sense before, but I'm pretty far outside academic circles). I'd have to say that in this sense postmodernism seems more an "Emperor's New Clothes"-ish treadmill than an honest intellectual enterprise. Art and literature to me are essentially about communication. When one intentionally obfuscates (heh) the process, as is the case in Paul's and Nelson's examples, then that comminication fails, IMO.

In this same vein; what, if anything, does your skepticism mean to your emotional life?

Lastly, "Anagnostopoulos" does not seem that daunting, only I'm not sure where the stresses go!
 
Piscivore said:
Thanks, all. This has been incredibly enlightening (I had never heard of "Deconstuction" in this sense before, but I'm pretty far outside academic circles). I'd have to say that in this sense postmodernism seems more an "Emperor's New Clothes"-ish treadmill than an honest intellectual enterprise. Art and literature to me are essentially about communication. When one intentionally obfuscates (heh) the process, as is the case in Paul's and Nelson's examples, then that comminication fails, IMO.
Click to expand...
All you said here is spot on, except for one point you may have overlooked. The academic papers clearly obfuscate. Clearly, they work hard at an incredibly false erudition. As you said, the communication fails. But, the base message of postmodernism has succeeded, and has been communicated far and wide. This base message is "There is no truth." As ironic as that claim may be, it has succeeded in taking hold in the general population and it has succeeded both in undermining the hard work of the Enlightenment and in eroding the public perception of science.

In this same vein; what, if anything, does your skepticism mean to your emotional life?
Click to expand...
For me, it means I must wince a lot, and inwardly, when speaking with nearly anyone I meet. It also means I must walk away from many discussion topics or walk on eggshells when I must address them. On the positive side, however, I am confident that the skeptical toolkit gives me the ability to see through rhetoric and get to logic. For me, it is far more comforting to know the truth, even if that is provisional, than to allow myself to mistake idle speculations for reality.
 
Piscivore said:
Lastly, "Anagnostopoulos" does not seem that daunting, only I'm not sure where the stresses go!
Click to expand...
You are a gentleman and a scholar. The accent is on the antepenultimate syllable, as is the case with many multisyllable Greek words.

~~ Paul
 
Think of post-modernism being the antithesis to the enlightenment. For a good treatment of it from a skeptical perspective try reading Francis Wheen's "How Mumbo-jumbo conquered the world".
 
Matabiri:
Postmodernism is summed up, to me, by "All opinions are equally valid."

I'm also throwing out an awful lot of bathwater here, and I've been pulled up on it by some highly intelligent post-modernists, but never mind.

Anyway, while the above statement is blatantly wrong, it's had to explain exactly why it's wrong.
Click to expand...
Tell them:
If all opinions are equally valid, then it follows that the opinion "all opinions are equally valid" is no more valid than the opinion "all opinions are NOT equally valid".

Of course if you tell this to a postmodernist, it won't get through to them. At most it might daze them for about two seconds. To get through to them, mere logic is not enough - you need to hit them with political correctness.

So before they have a chance to reply to the previous statement, follow up by telling them something politically correct such as:
The belief that "all opinions are equally valid" is used by elite white Europeans as a weapon to oppress poor brown people by denying brown people the cultural superiority of their own belief systems.
 
By the way, "postmodern" is used in different disciplines in completely unrelated ways.

If someone is talking about postmodern architecture, which has distinct and identifiable characteristics, it has no connection to what people are talking about in this thread so far. It is so named because it evolved from, yet strongly rejects in many ways, the modernist style. Ever seen Philip Johnson's AT&T Corporate headquarters building in New York (now the Sony building)? It has roof that looks like a pediment on a piece of Chippendale furniture.
 
What bothers me...

What bothers me about PM is the apparent general notion that it is innocent and thats it proponents are innocently misguided. In fact I believe it is a deliberate perversion of sensibility. I don't think the obfuscation is merely misguided. I believe there are people in the world who desire to obfuscate and confuse and ruin things. If you go to many meetings as I do there are invariably one or two people at every meeting who have an agenda aimed at undermining progress and understanding and this is quite deliberate on their part. It is a mentality that has always been with us and it has found a new home home in the post modern movement. This may sound extreme, but these are the people who are constrained by the social sanctions that are quite unneccessary for the rest of us. This are the people who would be doing horrible things to other people were it not for those sanctions. They able to submerge their baser incinations sufficiently to function in society, but can not resist the urge to demonstrate their perversity in ways that they can not be sanctioned for.
 
hgc said:
By the way, "postmodern" is used in different disciplines in completely unrelated ways.

If someone is talking about postmodern architecture, which has distinct and identifiable characteristics, it has no connection to what people are talking about in this thread so far. It is so named because it evolved from, yet strongly rejects in many ways, the modernist style.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the sense in which I had understood the term.
 
hgc said:
By the way, "postmodern" is used in different disciplines in completely unrelated ways.
Click to expand...

I agree. The term has been co-opted by the strong programme.
 
bump

I've recently started graduate school at the tender age of 38 in the field of Mental Health Counseling.

I'm aware that this is a field that is less-than-skeptical in many ways, but I have to say that I was completely taken aback by how invasive the post modern worldview was.

The idea that there is no truth, and you can create and even re-create your own reality is solipsistic at best and nihilistic at worst.

It's tough to find meaning in life if everything has the same value. :bricks: :teacher:
 
Jeff Wagg said:
bump

I've recently started graduate school at the tender age of 38 in the field of Mental Health Counseling.

I'm aware that this is a field that is less-than-skeptical in many ways, but I have to say that I was completely taken aback by how invasive the post modern worldview was.

The idea that there is no truth, and you can create and even re-create your own reality is solipsistic at best and nihilistic at worst.

It's tough to find meaning in life if everything has the same value. :bricks: :teacher:
Click to expand...

Value to whom?
Value for what?

Are you familiar with De Shazer?

Some parts of "reality" are more negotiable than others; that's self-evident.
 
Suggestologist said:
Value to whom?
Value for what?

Are you familiar with De Shazer?

Some parts of "reality" are more negotiable than others; that's self-evident.
Click to expand...

In the psychotherapy world, it would be value for the client, though what those values are based on is yet to be determined.

De Shazer..the SFBT guy..well, I was told to ignore that and focus more on Narrative therapy. I will bone up a bit though.

Reality is what it is. It's perception that's faulty. Any negotioations should only be on how to bring perception closer to reality.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
In the psychotherapy world, it would be value for the client, though what those values are based on is yet to be determined.

De Shazer..the SFBT guy..well, I was told to ignore that and focus more on Narrative therapy. I will bone up a bit though.

Reality is what it is. It's perception that's faulty. Any negotioations should only be on how to bring perception closer to reality.
Click to expand...

De Shazer is influenced by Derrida (the father of deconstructionism guy -- who passed away a couple months ago). Look at De Shazer's concept of "fit". He's also influenced by M.H. Erickson (the Hypnotist guy).

There is no reality without perception, and conception. How Real is Real? - Watzlawick is better in my opinion than How We Know What Isn't So - Gilovich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom