> Sorry for being unclear. I didn't intend to say that Frank Ramsey, who died > in 1930, was the jerk. It's Jeffrey Ketland that I'm concerned about. I felt that I was parsing that wrong but because I was rather tired and losing focus I rushed to respond without going back and double-checking my referents... I'm not sure you were particularly unclear... > Re: his entry on postmodernism - I think it's important to realize he didn't > say the 3 (or 4) things were separate *definitions* of it, but that they > contain those 3 main ingredients: > > • scepticism/incredulity at historical metanarratives. > • Deconstruction of "hidden power structures"; social anarchism. > • Intellectual obscurantism. > > I like the way he frames them as ingredients
Once again, I probably read it too quickly/uncritically and projected something onto it. But to be clear, I *appreciate* them as ingredients or perhaps qualities rather than definitions. When I first encountered PoMo it was probably in the context of long winded discussions with other young people when entered college. It was often a breath of fresh air with the first two points as you point out, but it was the last one that probably bothered me the most... it typified what I only knew then as "sophistry". > When someone writes off PoMo, I hold up bullets 1 and 2 to show how PoMo is > in the tradition of good hard criticism. When someone advocates PoMo, I hold > up bullet 3 to argue that they're silly mental contortionists. like that. > As for "what comes after PoMo", *nothing*. To me, PoMo is an exercise in > criticism. Period. They're just doing their duty and attempting to falsify > unjustified beliefs. I think I can appreciate that... maybe what I am seeking is more like epi-PoMo than post-PoMo... from my lame and limited perspective, the link you offered was in fact a bit of that which is what drew me to respond in this otherwise chaotic moment. Any document or person (like yourself I believe) who can both embrace and reject (criticize) PoMo in the same breath is welcome to me... it represents the creation/maintenance of a tension which itself is the point... not the points of attachment to create the tension. My own criticism (really resentment) of PoMo is when it is used as a blunt (or ragged/rusty?) instrument to threaten or intimidate others, it doesn't do itself any favors. > Any scientist should appreciate that as a component of critical rationalism. > I mentioned a book awhile back by Mikhail Epstein: "The Transformative > Humanities", which I think takes a good step toward "what comes after". But > this isn't my domain. So, that's the only recommendation I have. I'll put that in my associative memory and look forward when it gets reactivated again... I haven't even begun to follow the earlier links/references but they were bright shiny objects that I might get back to. - Steve > > On 3/26/20 8:25 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: >> Not just any ole rabbit hole but a very convoluted/complex (albeit >> interesting) one. >> >> I dove into your last link (only) because I've been wanting to understand >> more better what YOUR view of postmoderism is... on the whole I like what >> I read. I don't have the focus nor bandwidth right now to begin to ask >> more questions or assert speculations for you to shoot down or bat around. >> >> One thing I'm left wondering is what the species of post postmodernism are >> or are going to be. >> >> Especially right now when we are all going through a huge >> experiment/experience... in some ways it is as if there is a fast-moving >> battle (fire-fight) between free market capitalism and social democracy in >> this pandemic. Both styles of socioeconomic structuring are being put to >> the test (as are totalitarian vs democratic governances) in a trial by >> fire/virus. >> >> Certainly the author's 4 definitions of postmodernism apply to this current >> goat rope: >> >> 1. Non uniformity of progress is being demonstrated in our face at many >> scales... in the spirit of 3 steps forward and 2 steps back, a LOT of >> obvious things are in the 2 steps back phase. Others we maybe can't see >> clearly for the smoke of our economy and TP supplies burning up might >> actually be 3 forward, or at least foreshadow the possibility. >> 2. Scepticism of the traditional metanarrative is definitely being trumped >> (Trumped?) by the urgent reality of the sky falling in so many ways... >> expedience and practicality are knocking holes in some of the old-school >> metanarratives. >> 3. I'm not sure if hidden power structures are being revealed by >> deconstructionism, but the fat is melting off and leaving the bare bones >> behind to be seen? >> 4. Obscurantism: This is more of a criticism of postmodernism I think >> than a definition of it. I do find most self-identified po-mo's to engage >> in this. >> >> I suppose a meta-question I'm pondering is what kind of post postmodernism >> does postmodernism bootstrap (or procreate if you want a tongue twister)? >> >> >> I don't have anything much to say about separating the man Ramsey from the >> behaviour Jerkiness. This occurs a lot in my experience (mostly when >> reviewing historical or famous figures public/private lives).... I"m >> sympathetic with your preference for not accidentally reinforcing jerkiness >> by giving the vessel of it attention. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
