1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Thinking Critically?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Refman, Nov 6, 2003.

  1. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    So hey, Ref, does this thread alter your thinking in any critical or even minor way? :)
     
  2. rimbaud

    rimbaud Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    Cool Grizzled - work is slow today so I have a little time.

    Habermas - I'll start by, again, reiterating that I was mostly being cheeky with him. Regardless, you are right to an extent with his usage but he is most commonly brought up for his "public sphere" argument that pre-dates deconstruction. Good call on the Enlightenment position, by the way, as they go hand-in-hand (and explain his opposition to postmodern theory).

    Historians, I think, on the whole, do not really understand deconstruction et al and are certainly not comfortable using it in their own writing (which is why I make fun of them being behind the times). Instead books with titles such as "The Killing of History" get written and tend to be overly dramatic and muddy the situation so that readers can read it and still not know anything about critical theory other than "it is bad."

    Post-postmodernism - Like postmodernism itself it is a slippery term that really has no meaning and, as such, is pretty useless. Nobody knows when (or even if) modernism ended, much less when postmodernism begand and certainly when it ended and post-postmodernism began. That being said, I think we are moving beyond postmodernism to a degree and so I use it lightly as an indication of transition.

    Derrida, deconstruction, and dismay - again, I think their textual analysis is most enlightening and useful. Even Barthes foray into poststrucrualism in "Death of the Author" is valuable in my opinion. However, I think that such a position does not really destroy the author and leave chaos (I think I differ here from a great majority of the world - academics are weird...I also don't understand the whole "feminism was only for white women and since I am a non-white woman it is useless" trend going around...I am more inclusive and think mutating in the fashion of Griselda Pollock or bell hooks is superior to throwing up hands in nihilistic despair). You are right, saying "there is no truth" seems pretty bleak and like the end of the line, but it should not be accepted too literally. Keep in mind there is always a playfullness about postmodernism. Even if some of the writers take themselves too seriously, you should not.

    Wilbur - which one are you talking about...I think I know, but am not sure.

    Ugh, now work calls - to be continued, if you like.
     
  3. Grizzled

    Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    40
    I’m talking about Ken Wilber. I’m not sure how seriously he’s taken by some academics since his academic credentials aren’t great, but his work is based on exhaustive research and reference. Much of what he does is make connections between what serious highly respected academics have done, and in so he’s suggesting a new or renewed meta-narrative. I disagree with him significantly in a number of places but I find that there are some really intriguing ideas in his work.

    I like to hear that you feel we are moving past postmodernism, and I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on that. Understanding that the terms are lose and dates are unclear (except for the architects, who have a single date for the beginning of postmodernism, but their just having fun with that too) what has the shift been about and what is the general emerging character of post-postmodernism?
     
  4. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    I have to say I have a low opinion of Ken Wilbur. You're right that his work is heavily referenced, but I'm not sure that means he understands what he says he has read.

    The most interesting thing about him, to me, is that he dropped out of a graduate science program (biochemistry or some such), and his attitude about science is just laughably negative, as far as I can tell. His writing might just be over my head, but to me it seems like he vastly oversimplifies what science is and can be about.

    Plus,
    [​IMG]
    That title. That face. Do you not have an automatic urge to
    punch him? j/k... mainly.
     
  5. twhy77

    twhy77 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    73
    neo classicism again (I wish)
     
  6. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    By the way, I have no judgement, per se, of dropping out of graduate school. Far from. People get bored or find other interests. His work just reads as slightly bitter when it comes to science though.
     
  7. twhy77

    twhy77 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    4,041
    Likes Received:
    73
    Whatever B-Bob you're a jerk...

    ;)
     
  8. Grizzled

    Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    40
    Interesting, and btw, yes, he has a face that almost invites punching. ;) I haven’t read that one but I have read A Theory of Everything. My main beef with him in that book is that he doesn’t seem to understand Christian spirituality, speaking of it only in terms of the excesses of the legalistic and abusive practices of many organised Christian Churches over the centuries. BUT, where I think I can see where he’s wrong in that area, I can also see how a corrected version of what he’s saying fits into a bigger framework. My problems with his take led me to read some of his key sources, like Habermas and Beck & Cowan, and it lead me to see that there are a number of people out there who are beginning to talk about what I would call post-postmodern ideas, and there’s a fuzzy picture there that’s starting to take shape for me. For me Wilber was a starting point full of rich ideas to be considered and challenged, and a supply of names to be checked and followed up on. (Well, William Torbert’s Developmental Frames was really the starting point but it dealt with a very limited context, even though it was clear it was much more broadly applicable.) I don’t think he’s all right by any means, but I think he’s right enough and his bigger picture in interesting enough to provoke some interesting discussion.
     
  9. rimbaud

    rimbaud Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    Sorry, I was busy talking to an 18th century coal grate (speaking of neo-classicism and the Enlightenment).

    So...Ken Wilbur, since that is the freshest. He is who I thought you were talking about and I actually own A Brief History of Everything. And, well, it makes for an interesting read, but I agree with b-bob a bit that I don't think he always understands or fully develops those that have come before him. As his title would suggest (but he probably wouldn't like hearing) he oversimplifies everything. Not just science, bob (you limited thinker, you!) but history, religion, culture, etc.. I am glad that it led you to other things. That is both the beauty and the curse of reading - it only shows you how much more there is to go. However, he would probably think you missed the point because it is all about him. It is his "breakthroughs" that are repeatedly pounded into your brain as important. Hell, he puts his huge head on his books. What other philosopher or whatever you want to call him does that? Posthumous publications don't count. Anyway, I digress. It already seems that you got out of him what you should.

    Post-postmodernism according to rimmy - You had to ask, right? Should I also add that some might say that we have already passed that phase into something unknown? No...didn't think so.

    Well, the old-guard reactionaries (such as Habermas) are not leading the way, but their shrieking criticisms were heard, to a degree. As such, post-postmodernism can be seen as the same way that people often used post-marxist. That is, not fully in-line with Marx but examination and disourse informed (and in some ways framed) by Marxism. So just apply that to postmodernism and you get the drift. And guess what that is? You are right - the dialectic: thesis-antithesis-synthisis. Sorry, I - as was Marx - am a bit of a Hegelian...but only a bit. So basically different parts postmodernism are often being pillaged and appropriated into "new" old theories/approaches. An immediate example in history is the New Biography movement (which MacBeth and I discussed on this board some time back), or Danto's recent work in aesthetics/philosophy of art.

    I don't really know where this is leading because, frankly, I haven't gotten there yet. When I do I will publish it and make a name for myself. I just hope I am first. :)

    Seriously, though, it is too early. Neo-Neo-Classicism? Don't get your hopes up, tw...but you know that. Besides, NC was limited due to the relative ignorance of the ancient world. There is a bit of looking backwards, though, but it generally does not seem to go past Marx. Ben Watson is a cultural critic and he used Marxism/Trotskyism to critique poststructuralism as fascist. Entertaining. Right now Queer Theory, Gender studies, and Race studies are big...but those are trends more than movements, I think.

    I will stop there because I don't want to steer too far off. I don't have any real direction. I will end finally getting to your question about postmodern literature. There really isn't anything on post-postmodernism as much as it is all over the place. A good book to own in general, though is the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism It covers pretty much everything and was compiled in 2001, so it gets in some of the post-postmodern texts. It can be intimidating for some because it is huge (around 3,000 tissue-thin pages) but it is great to have on hand to get the full scope. David Richeter put together a book called The Critical Tradition: (something about classic and contemporary trends) that has some of the more recent stuff as well. I just realized, with your discussion of spirituality and what I know about your interest in religion that you might be interested in the work of Graham Ward. I am specifically thinking of Theology and Contemporary Critical Theory from around 2000 but he has written other "popular" works as well...one is a Routledge or Blackwell publication designed for a more general audience...can't remember the name.

    Don't know if I am helping or hurting or merely treading water...
     
  10. rimbaud

    rimbaud Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    I realized I never responded to this. I am intrigued. Can you email me a link or something to get more info about your organization?
     
  11. MR. MEOWGI

    MR. MEOWGI Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    14,382
    Likes Received:
    13
    If there were absolute right and wrongs there would be no need for intelligence.
     
  12. Grizzled

    Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    40
    :D Well, I think it’s only one of his books that he puts his melon on, but still that’s probably one too many. I would like to suggest, however, that although I agree that his work is flawed, I don’t think we shouldn’t just summarily dismiss him. I think that this was one of the errors/excesses of postmodernism. They found flaws in modernism and then summarily tossed out baby, bathwater, tub, denied the existence of tubs, babies, etc.. Instead, I think it would be useful to take a higher level look at Wilber, and others who are saying things like him, and ask if there is any merit to it. Does the basic framework of what he is talking about have any validity? I would say that it does, and I can get to that framework from Beck & Cowan, or Torbert, or Habermas, so the idea for me has external validation. We needn’t speak of him again if he is too problematic, but the main ideas he speaks to I think have merit.

    I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about but it sounds interesting. Please expound if you’re so moved.

    Ouch! I think you may be being a little unfair to poor Jurgen. What I know of him is mostly about his theory of Communicative Action which he first introduced in the mid to late 80's. As recently as this year Derrida himself co-authored a paper with him in response to the situation in Iraq where he significantly agreed with Habermas! Here’s a link to a newspaper article on the article. Thin soup I know but to the best of my knowledge the paper hasn’t been translated into English yet. It is available in German and French if your French is up to it.

    Postmodernism succumbs to a friendly takeover
    http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/000361.php

    Habermas in general is very focussed on addressing the social condition of contemporary Germany, so I think that calling him an “old-guard reactionary” is not really accurate. Yes, I know you were joking. I’m just sayin’. I think one of the reasons Habermas is interesting is that he has kept up with the times and evolved a long ways from his Critical Theory roots.

    Thesis, antithesis, synthesis is very close to how Wilber and Beck & Cowan would describe the movement up Beck & Cowan’s world views continuum. I believe Wilber uses the words non-differentiation-differentiation-integration, but I don’t recall off hand if B&C describe it exactly the same way. And surely if postmodernism had any valid criticisms PPM would be said to be “addressing” them instead of “pillaging” them, no? I know you’re joking again, but in a way I think this speaks to one of the differences between PM and PPM. PPM, IMO, is looking for the greater truths. It’s looking to refine the meta-narrative and therefore would speak of “addressing” and “including” and “adapting”. PM, OTOH, (I wonder if we’ll ever get to the point where we can carry on a conversation only in acronyms?), since it does not believe in greater truths, sees the world more in terms of competing interests, power struggles, and exploitation, and hence the use of words like “pillaged” and “appropriated.”

    That’s sooo postmodern of you. ;) But seriously, I think there is a real need in the world now for discussion, communicative action, that will begin to hash out and define a new vision for our emerging global society. As I mentioned before, if we don’t do it someone will, and it will be a vision that will come predominantly from the legalistic, or opportunistic, or mythic world views. (I say predominantly because, as Beck & Cowan would say, there are healthy expression at each of these levels as well as unhealthy ones, and a healthy world view would include elements of every level in their spiral, but this would include the integrative elements of second tier thinking, which I am suggesting is PPM thinking). Since the world has just, and is just emerging from a time when states were/are governed by legalistic, or opportunistic, or mythic world views, we already know a fair bit about what that would look like, and it ain’t good. The proposal for “The New American Century” is already on the table. It’s time for those of us who have a different vision to speak up or that’s the one we’ll be stuck with. (And what’s our generation’s vision? Oh that’s right. We don’t have one. We don’t believe in them because we’re postmodernists. To that I say, bring on post-postmodernism!)



    You’re helping greatly. A good reference is worth gold, as I’m sure you know, and these look great. Thank you very much Rimmy!

    I’m out for the night, and maybe the weekend, so you can take your time in considering how you’re going to slay me for my criticisms of postmodernism. ;)

    Have a good weekend!
     
  13. Refman

    Refman Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    312
    You lost me at post-modernist. :D

    Not true. Cheating on your spouse is absolutely wrong. But the moral relativist would say that it isn't really wrong if she was an abusive person.

    A moral value system and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. Often, they go hand in hand.
     
  14. Grizzled

    Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    40
    I’ll take a mulligan on this sentence:

    What I was trying to say is that if postmodernists and postmodernism doesn’t rise above it’s current state and begin discussion and refining a vision for our future that vision will be defined by people who come predominantly from legalistic, or opportunistic, or mythic world views. I also want to note that, as Beck & Cowan would say, there are healthy expressions at each of these levels as well as unhealthy ones, and a healthy world view would include healthy elements of every level in their spiral, but this includes the integrative elements of second tier thinking, which I am suggesting is PPM thinking.
     
  15. rimbaud

    rimbaud Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    A few things: 1. I don't summarily dismiss him, I just think he is "interesting" and not serious. Again, I have read his work, so this is not bias or anything speaking. 2. I think you are wrong about postomodernism throwing everything out. It just doesn't assign value. Those that throw out and think they are following the trend are useless, though they certainly exist. They are sloganeer philosophers. Intellectual ciphers, etc..

    Well, it is interesting but also complicated and having no answer and way too confusing...thus, I am not so moved.


    Don't tkae it so personally for Jurgen...you could easily follow that me, being a bit of a Hegelian would be even more of an Adorno-phile and, thus, having a fondness for Habermas. I label him as a reactionary simply because, in the context of postmodernism, he is. That is not a bad thing and he would say it himself. And he has been vocal. As for Derrida and his newfound globalism...again, he is a bit insane and definitely schizophrenic (how very postmodern) and I think much of his "big theory" was all just a game and noe meant to be applicable to real-world interests. For a similar example, and still in the Iraq context, see Baudrillard's The Gulf War did not Take Place - essentially an extension of his simulacra arguing (to a degree) that the war (in '91) was all armchair quarterback fantasy...did he really think that? No, of course not...but it is fun and a great read.

    Yeah, again, see above. And, yes, he has a adapted, but not a Barthes-like adaptation from structuralism to post-structuralism, just a more updated Hegelian/Marxist/Adorno-ist critique.

    Again, one of my beefs with Wilbur - it is not your theory, don't rename it. It is as old as the Greeks and modernized by Hegel, politicized by Marx, bastardized by Stalin, etc.. Oh well.

    Wow, very Derridian of you to deconstruct my usage. Sorry, a bit unneccesary. I fear my academic life in theory has often filled me with a jargon that is not transpaerent to you pesky outsiders. I did not mean pillage/appropriate in a negative way. I also regret to inform you that ppm does not seak for any real truth (especially since it itself does not really exist) but merely comes closer to the search...and there certainly are still breakdowns of power plays, etc. - only bit more real-world.



    Quite a bit there...I thought you were trained in business/communications, what are you doing thinking of such things? :)

    Regardless, too much to go into, unfortunately...equally unfortunate is my pessimism at the moment as far as emerging global trends, etc..
    Your words also made me realize that I wrote a "polemic" or "manifesto" (symbolism intentional and exaggeration understood) about the new direction theory needed to take and was pursuing publication...I subsequently abandoned it, but it made me think of two more works you might like: Post-Marxist Marxism by John Baldacchino and Postmodern Apocalypse: Theory and Cul;tural Practice at the End edited by Richard Dellamora. Great...now I might have to re-visit that line of thought.
     
  16. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,082
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    Interesting thread. I do wonder if you could explain the ideas, with less jargon, largely defined by other special jargon, or short references to other works. . I do think that often trying to explain concepts with more generic vocabulary can add clarity and deeper understanding even to the cognoscenti.

    Rimbaud, it is good to see you posting and contributing on something that engages you.

    For my contribution as a neophyte I'll post this articel.
    ************
    26, 2003

    Postmodernism for Dummies

    Michael:

    I've actually been reading that book, "Postmodernism for Dummies"—er, no, “Postmodernism for Beginners” by James M. Powell—that you sent me. (Thanks for the gift.) While I in no way claim to be a great or even a small expert on Postmodern thought, I have been doing a lot of reading in French history this past year. As a consequence, I followed with some interest a section of Mr. Powell’s book that attempts (rather lamely) to deal with the question of why postmodern theorists are all, or nearly all, French.

    Since I didn’t find the book’s explanation—that intellectuals in France crank out heavy, dense, theoretical tomes because that’s a good way to get laid in Paris—to be very convincing, let me hazard my own crude, stupid, American explanation:

    I would guess that postmodernism is so Franco-centric because the real subject of Postmodern theory is France. Perhaps a better way to put this would be to say that postmodernism is about the experience of being French in the late 20th century...after your country suffered a degrading collapse (and then collaborated with the Nazis) in World War II, after your country suffered the humiliating loss of Vietnam and Algeria (and nearly succumbed to a military coup in disengaging from the latter), after being displaced as the world center of art and culture, and after being economically colonized by American transnational business. Hey, talk about being decentered!

    This may be rather glib, but I'm not done. Let’s take Lyotard's "death of meta-narratives." I’d say the biggest meta-narrative that ceased to be credible around, say, 1945, was the notion of France as the center of the world, the Grand Nation, the birthplace of the Revolution, the place where everything important happened and always would happen. (The Marxism of Sartre’s generation was a sort of rear-guard defense of this crumbling meta-narrative, because, bien sur, Marx was an intellectual offshoot of the Revolution and hence, French by association.)

    Or how about Baudrillard's theories about the "death of the real" and the growth of "hyperreality"? Doesn’t that sound a lot like a description of the displacement of traditional French culture by American and international media culture? (By the way, if "Postmodernism for Beginners” is accurate, Baudrillard's discussion of the history of simulacra rather humorously skips over the iconclasm of the Reformation, which I suppose makes sense to a French intellectual because, hey, if it didn’t happen in France, it might as well have not happened at all!)

    Then there are Foucault's theories about power, knowledge and resistance. I don’t know, but they sound a lot like life under the German occupation to me, as well as a discussion of the life under the continuing Vichy-like authoritarian strain in French politics and society.

    But probably the best example is Derrida and his notions of how there is a sort of unstable shifting back and forth between "privileged" and "marginalized" readings of the same text. Hmmm, what could have prompted that notion? Let’s see, over the past 214 years the French have had how many constitutions? How many revolutions? How many governments? How many general strikes? How many flip-flops between "right" and "left"? How much heady rhetoric? And yet, oddly enough, it's still a Catholic country with a tradition of authoritarian central control and a strong affection for its (inefficient) agricultural sector...just like in the days of Louis XIV! Isn't there a saying about "the more things change, the more they stay the same?” (Maybe there’s even a French version of that remark.)

    The Postmodernists are right; there is something "ambiguous" and "unstable" about French culture (indeed, something verging on the schizophrenic). Of course, at the same time there is something awfully fixed and unyielding about French life. I can see how, in France, a suspicion of the ambiguities of language would be appropriate, non?

    I guess the real question is not why the French see something of themselves and their situation in Postmodern thought, but rather what American academics see in it? Whatever our own issues are, America clearly lacks that peculiarly French culture-schizophrenia. Is it possible that our academics miss it, or do they perhaps actually long for it? Or have they simply not read enough history--either French or American?

    Cheers,

    Friedrich

    posted by Friedrich at August 26, 2003


    link
     
  17. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,986
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    I would not have pegged rimbaud for an Adorno-phile, but it does make a little sense upon reflection. I have come to Adorno late in my mental life... perhaps too late.
     
  18. Grizzled

    Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    40
    Rimmy, good points and good discussion. You’re quite right that Habermas continues state (at least from what I’ve read) that he is continuing the cause of modernism. I think there’s interesting symbolism in that, given that from my perspective what he’s talking about now could be said to include and transcend modernism and postmodernism and thus could be called something new. Instead he chooses to frame it as a continuation of an ongoing dialectic process. I think that choice is loaded with symbolism, at multiple levels.

    What am I doing thinking of such things? Well, I have pretty diverse influences. My undergrad degree is in Civil Engineering. My MA (that I’m still slowly picking away at), is on, in broad terms, the management of engineering project teams. This has led me down the path of developmental psychology and social theory in general. It’s all qualitative social science based stuff. My family, however, is full of liberal, socially conscious, politically active, atheist, Boomer, lawyers. They suffer from something very close to Wilber’s concept of Boomeritis. Also, I think us Canadians are more like Europeans in that we like to keep up with current world political and social trends more than the typical American (not to be confused with the highly educated and informed CF.net crowd). There is a common saying in Canada, “being next to the United States is like being in bed with an elephant.” You need to sleep softly and be aware of what the elephant is doing, in case it decides to roll over. From a purely practical standpoint 80% of our trade is with you. Recent world political events have lead to the decline in you dollar and the rise in our dollar relative to yours from less than $0.63US 11 months ago to $0.76US today. This, of course, plays havoc with our exporters. Those caught snoozing are losing.

    From a more serious social perspective, it’s becoming clearer to me that the current ruling generation in the world is, in general, progressively revealing its inability to understand and appropriately address the new global context. This is not all their fault, I’d like to hastily add. They grew up in a very different context, one that couldn’t even imagine the world we live in today. Yes, that generation has adapted to an extent, but their basic precepts and worldviews, their foundation, I submit, is still grounded in a context that no longer exists, a fact which many of them may well not be fully aware of. The dialectic process starts with a conscious idea, an awareness. With no awareness of an issue, a fundamental failure to recognise a problem, there can be no eventual transcending synthesis and resulting higher (or more complex) level of awareness, and resulting appropriate action. Our preceding generations were typically born into a world of black and white ideas, and many of them moved through grey scale and even into 16 colour vision, but we now live in a world of 32 million colours. If you can’t see 32 million colours today you can’t adequately see, never mind read, the signs. The critical codes on the world stage today can only be read from an awareness of contexts and subtleties within contexts that many of our current leaders seem to have slim to no familiarity with.

    We, otoh, can see things they can’t see, simply because of our greater understanding of the contexts at play. We, to a significant extent, grew up in multicultural, pluralistic, complex and multiple contexts. We grew up in a world of 16, 256, and then 32 million colours. We watched the social struggles of our parents and grandparents and we saw their successes and failures. There were indeed significant successes (i.e. the positive elements of modernism) and our preceding generations deserve a lot of credit for them. We didn’t have to fight those battles; they were fought for us. We learned and benefited from what those generations achieved. Our generation’s fights are still ahead of us. In fact, I submit that they lay before us now, clearly in vision and rapidly coming into greater focus. I think it’s now time for us to start/get-on-with the dialectic of our generation. It’s time to speak, write, think, to engage in communicative action, to draw on our perspectives and knowledge that our place in the time continuum of world history has afforded us, and to refine a new/renewed vision for the future, one that includes and transcends the preceding ones. I think our time has come.

    Thanks again for the references. I tend to head off on tangents (duh!) so I’m going to be disciplined and tuck these away in a safe place until I get my thesis comfortably moved along, but I’m definitely appreciative of a good reference, especially on this topic. I look forward to reading your paper too. That sounds very cool, and I think important. I don’t want to see our generation acquire the self-important, inflated egos of many of the boomers (as I think that was largely responsible for blinding and limiting them) but in a humble but very meaningful way I think that step, writing papers on these issues, is very important. We’re on deck. The batter has two strikes against him. He was doing ok, but then the pitcher switched to a different shaped ball and started throwing at a faster speed. Can we pick up the new movement on the ball? Is the pitcher doing anything to tip off his pitches? It’s time to start taking some practice swings in earnest, ‘cause we’re up next.
     
  19. rimbaud

    rimbaud Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    This thread has been mostly devoid of jargon...even the jargon that has been used has been more "basic level." In regards to references, Grizzled asked for some and I gave some.

    Sounds like something one says to a person who has just lost a relative or the like..."it is so good to see you out and about." :) Well, I respect Grizzled so I know that I can "talk" to him intelligently so that I might be energized and not annoyed.

    I found the article you posted to be a little too oversimplified and lacking in understanding of both postmodern theory and French culture. Interestin theory, though, and he was able to pull it off on a superficial level. Reminded e of a cartoon strip in the Atlantic Monthly about how, based upon Iraq, we hould invade France. One of them was "Exporting Weapons of Mass Destruction" or something along those lines (could have been "Promoting worldwide terror" and there was the image of a classroom with a teacher at the podium and "Derrida, Foucault, and Barthes" on the blackboard with confused and distraught students in the foreground.

    B-Bob,

    You should know it is never too late...you are young in academic life, anyway. Adorno is good stuff.

    Grizzled,

    Indeed a good discussion and, unfortunately, one better had in person. As far as my joke about you thinking of critical theory, etc. it obviously was just that. I understand you pretty well. Just nice to have affirmation.

    Definitely do read up on the issues, as you are just a bit dangerous in your knowledge/ignorance ratio. When you get the time it is definitely worth the time...of course I say this having pushed it all aside myself in order to meet my own academic demands, as none of this is really related to my field. Although what I am working on now does deal with masquerade theory, which could be considered post-postmodern.

    I really like the path you took in the last post and your analysis of SQ power structures and personalities. I would fully stand behind your analysis of leaders simply being behind their times. Just as computers move fast and require constant updates, politics and globalization have moved far too rapidly for those trained in a pre-postmodern environment (to encompass everything beyond theory, as you mentioned). Of course, the problem goes beyond them to the large voting population that is, generally, equally behind. That has been part of my work - to redirect a great deal of theoretical focus and make it real-world applicable in order to create change. Also why I am for the complete scrapping of modern educational standards and understanding. It will take a while to produce results, but being behind has now been made unavoidable. Of course, at the center of my theory is the importance of teaching art history/visual culture...only a small bias. The truth, however, is in there due to the fact that our world has become increasingly visual and people should be taught how to decode the visual "forest of signs" that bombard us every second (and it is fun to realize, for example, when the president of the united states is set up cruciform). I can lead the way to enlightenent. :)
     

Share This Page