Postmodernism

[G L Wilson]

Do get over it - it's tiresome.

[Red-Headed]

"Postmodernism is the aesthetic spilling over into the moral & the cognitive." ~ Patricia Waugh.

I can live with that as a definition, well, that & the 10,000 other definitions I suppose. I blame Jean-François Lyotard.

[laymonite]

Modernism: Colouring outside the lines is kind of cool.
Postmodernism: What lines?

[G L Wilson]

"Postmodernism is the aesthetic spilling over into the moral & the cognitive." ~ Patricia Waugh.

I can live with that as a definition, well, that & the 10,000 other definitions I suppose. I blame Jean-François Lyotard.

I blame everybody.

[Red-Headed]

I blame everybody.

That's postmodern.

[laymonite]

That's postmodern.

Love it.

[G L Wilson]

That's postmodern.

Bugger.

[Calidore]

I've never been able to figure out what the hell postmodern means, except maybe "arch and self-aware and snarky." Is there a generally accepted definition?

[Red-Headed]

I've never been able to figure out what the hell postmodern means, except maybe "arch and self-aware and snarky."

Part of the postmodern is not figuring the hell out of things ... possibly.


Is there a generally accepted definition?

I quite like Patricia Waugh's: Postmodernism is the aesthetic spilling over into the moral & the cognitive, but I think one of the problems with the 'p' word is that it is essentially indefinable.

I recommend (edited by Waugh) 'Postmodernism, A Reader' as well as Lyotard's famous essay. The anthology discusses the earlier more purely aesthetic phases of postmodernism up to & including the later philosophical & theoretical developments.

Failing that, just get the DVD of Blade Runner.

[Calidore]

Part of the postmodern is not figuring the hell out of things ... possibly.


Ah, like:

Bill (quoting Socrates): "The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing".
Ted: That's us, dude!

I'm there.



I recommend (edited by Waugh) 'Postmodernism, A Reader' as well as Lyotard's famous essay. The anthology discusses the earlier more purely aesthetic phases of postmodernism up to & including the later philosophical & theoretical developments.


Woof. Theories about the philosophies behind an attitude that nobody can define anyway sounds just a bit vague. I'll keep an eye out, though.



Failing that, just get the DVD of Blade Runner.

Got that. :-) Why Ridley Scott was never given a Batman movie is beyond me. I can't imagine a better match.

Now I have an idea for a story about ironically self-aware cavemen, but I'm afraid that writing prehistoric postmodernism may cause my brain to implode into a wormhole.

[Red-Headed]

Ah, like:

Bill (quoting Socrates): "The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing".
Ted: That's us, dude!

I'm there.

Most excellent.


Woof. Theories about the philosophies behind an attitude that nobody can define anyway sounds just a bit vague. I'll keep an eye out, though.

They made me study it at university. I don't see why others shouldn't suffer LOL!


Got that. :-) Why Ridley Scott was never given a Batman movie is beyond me. I can't imagine a better match.

Its eclectic mixture of visual styles, objects & overall mise en scène is quite a good example of the aesthetics of postmodernism.


Now I have an idea for a story about ironically self-aware cavemen, but I'm afraid that writing prehistoric postmodernism may cause my brain to implode into a wormhole.

Yeah, I'd watch that.

[G L Wilson]

Blade Runner is my favourite film. Bugger.

[JBI]

G L Wilson

Do stop making stupid threads about what you hate, it's tiresome.

If you want to rant, go to the newspaper stand.

[Calidore]

Blade Runner is my favourite film. Bugger.

Heh. Reminds me of the time one of my friend's kids' friends, who doesn't like pork, was mightily disappointed to learn that chorizo is pork sausage. She managed, so will you. There's worse reasons to learn to appreciate postmodernism than Daryl Hannah in short shorts.

[Red-Headed]

Blade Runner is my favourite film. Bugger.

Remember to watch the director's cut.

[StephenDaedalus]

Remember to watch the director's cut.

Remember to read the book.

[Red-Headed]

Remember to read the book.

I'm a huge fan of Phillip K. Dick's novels, but I was referring to the visual style of the film & Scott's rendering of it rather than the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which was one of the novels used as the source material for the movie itself.

As to recommending postmodernist literature, your guess is as good as mine. I'd start with Don Delilo's White Noise.

[G L Wilson]

Remember to read the book.

The book is no way as good as the film, and I've made a study of Philip K. Dick.

[StephenDaedalus]

I'm a huge fan of Phillip K. Dick's novels, but I was referring to the visual style of the film & Scott's rendering of it rather than the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which was one of the novels used as the source material for the movie itself.

I kind of assumed and was mostly kidding. That said, I find intriguing the way people relates neo-noir films and postmodernism. I think Mercer and Deckard's epiphany has more to do with it than Ridley Scott's mix between Alien, Metropolis, Touch of Evil and fancy scifi-jazz. I love the film too, though.

[G L Wilson]

The postmodern is mere speculation.

[Red-Headed]

The postmodern is mere speculation.

It can be defined in aesthetic terms though. The trouble with it as a concept is that it became a blanket term that eventually ate itself, not unlike the word 'existentialism'.

The postmodern in aesthetic terms can reflect & comment on imagery in use in everything from advertising to interior design. Consistent cultural self-referencing & the implied knowledge of the relevancy of these references, moving between both the observer & the image/signifier maker, is a manifestation of the postmodern in the quotidian & in fact everyday life. The medium of this interchange is not always as important, unless it has a direct relevance to the message itself. Assuming that there is in fact, a message at all of course.

[G L Wilson]

It can be defined in aesthetic terms though. The trouble with it as a concept is that it became a blanket term that eventually ate itself, not unlike the word 'existentialism'.

The postmodern in aesthetic terms can reflect & comment on imagery in use in everything from advertising to interior design. Consistent cultural self-referencing & the implied knowledge of the relevancy of these references, moving between both the observer & the image/signifier maker, is a manifestation of the postmodern in the quotidian & in fact everyday life. The medium of this interchange is not always as important, unless it has a direct relevance to the message itself. Assuming that there is in fact, a message at all of course.

Is not the medium the message be it text or a washing machine in postmodernism?

[Red-Headed]

Is not the medium the message be it text or a washing machine in postmodernism?

That's a good question. I'm going to have to think about this.

[G L Wilson]

That's a good question. I'm going to have to think about this.

Here is something else I thought of: Does postmodernism not celebrate faulty logic as correct? For example, Foucault's history is notoriously faulty and yet celebrated, and that intertextuality was effectively abandoned for the higher authority of Foucault himself. Therefore, the author is not dead; he is just an anti-humanist now and atop upon the heap.

[Red-Headed]

Here is something else I thought of: Does postmodernism not celebrate faulty logic as correct?

I am not sure about that, but it does not (as a concept) necessarily accept that there is any real definable objective truth.


For example, Foucault's history is notoriously faulty and yet celebrated, and that intertextuality was effectively abandoned for the higher authority of Foucault himself.

A lot have criticised Foucault & also Derrida. Which one of them resembles The Mekon out of Dan Dare now? I can never remember. Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

As for intertextuality, take a look at Julia Kristeva's site (http://www.kristeva.fr/). You will need a translator/reader though. Probably best to download a decent browser like Opera, SeaMonkey or Chrome which have built-in translators.


Therefore, the author is not dead; he is just an anti-humanist now and atop upon the heap.

Foucault?

[G L Wilson]

Foucault?

Foucault.

[Red-Headed]

Foucault.

Technically he died in 1984, an odd year to kick the bucket in maybe? That may be deemed as postmodern in itself.

[G L Wilson]

Technically he died in 1984, an odd year to kick the bucket in maybe? That may be deemed as postmodern in itself.

It is certainly ironic whichever way you look at it.

[Red-Headed]

It is certainly ironic whichever way you look at it.

Indeed.

[Arrowni]

I thought the point of post-modernism is that every logic is faulty but it can be useful.

Which is kind of what fiction has done since forever, but who cares?

[Red-Headed]

I thought the point of post-modernism is that every logic is faulty but it can be useful.

It's probably one point!

[G L Wilson]

The future is mediaeval.

[Red-Headed]

The future is mediaeval.

I won't argue with that. We're heading towards global obscurantism.

[G L Wilson]

I won't argue with that. We're heading towards global obscurantism.

Deference to Authority: obscurantism internalised.
In an anarchical society, size matters.

[Panglossian]

http://skreened.com/render-product/y/k/u/ykurxknspzxranpunhgo/postmodernism-2-0-tote-bag.american-apparel-bull-denim-tote-bag.natural.w760h760.jpg

[G L Wilson]

Postmodernism is tomorrow...The funeral is today.

[ralfyman]

Indeed, we will get over it, but not in the way we imagined.

[Red-Headed]

Indeed, we will get over it, but not in the way we imagined.

We don't need to 'get over' postmodernism, we need to embrace it, then move on.

[G L Wilson]

We don't need to 'get over' postmodernism, we need to embrace it, then move on.

How does one embrace the end of something dear?

[Arrowni]

From the rear.

[lisasianlibu]

It will never end, now we are about to have post-postmodernism.

[Red-Headed]

It will never end, now we are about to have post-postmodernism.

Maybe, but that would still be postmodern.

[ralfyman]

We don't need to 'get over' postmodernism, we need to embrace it, then move on.

What I mean is that postmodernism is dependent on industrialization (by that, I mean postmodernism as seen from 1945 onward and increasing industrialization worldwide, not postmodernism as anything that comes after modernism), which in turn requires oil and many other resources coupled with continuous economic growth.

We face three problems: a drop in oil production with other sources of energy to be used, if we're lucky, for basic needs, chronic economic crises due to increasing debt, and the long-term effects of environmental damage, including climate change.

With that, there will be no postmodernism to "embrace." And if we will "move on," it will probably be towards a new dark ages.

[Red-Headed]

What I mean is that postmodernism is dependent on industrialization (by that, I mean postmodernism as seen from 1945 onward and increasing industrialization worldwide, not postmodernism as anything that comes after modernism), which in turn requires oil and many other resources coupled with continuous economic growth.

I'm not so sure that the literary term postmodernism was ever meant to conceptually just be about anything that 'comes after' modernism. From an architectural or literary point of view it can even aesthetically refer to a reintroduction of more traditional or classical elements, depending of course, on the political, socio-economic &/or other intent that the original idea was trying to convey, for whatever purpose (if in fact it was conveying anything). Notwithstanding the ideas of cultural recognition, gender identity revisions, alternative histories, shifting subjectivity paradigms, the politics of 'otherness' & various forms of self-referential & inherent knowledge noticed or utilised in various & assorted texts (not excluding intertextuality of course).


We face three problems: a drop in oil production with other sources of energy to be used, if we're lucky, for basic needs, chronic economic crises due to increasing debt, and the long-term effects of environmental damage, including climate change.

These are economic arguments though, only about twenty five years ago there were predictions of oil running out by the millennium if not sooner. Projected population figures were billions higher than they actually are now & the idea that we are all going to live in a Soylent Green scenario pretty soon seem somewhat hysterical, exaggerated & far-fetched to me.


With that, there will be no postmodernism to "embrace." And if we will "move on," it will probably be towards a new dark ages.

The dark ages won't be because of energy problems, they will, if they in fact do come, almost certainly be because of obscurantism & religious fundamentalism.

[ralfyman]

I'm not so sure that the literary term postmodernism was ever meant to conceptually just be about anything that 'comes after' modernism. From an architectural or literary point of view it can even aesthetically refer to a reintroduction of more traditional or classical elements, depending of course, on the political, socio-economic &/or other intent that the original idea was trying to convey, for whatever purpose (if in fact it was conveying anything). Notwithstanding the ideas of cultural recognition, gender identity revisions, alternative histories, shifting subjectivity paradigms, the politics of 'otherness' & various forms of self-referential & inherent knowledge noticed or utilised in various & assorted texts (not excluding intertextuality of course).

Your argument proves my point: whether it is the introduction of something traditional or something that is akin to a space age, it is anything that comes after modernism.



These are economic arguments though, only about twenty five years ago there were predictions of oil running out by the millennium if not sooner. Projected population figures were billions higher than they actually are now & the idea that we are all going to live in a Soylent Green scenario pretty soon seem somewhat hysterical, exaggerated & far-fetched to me.

Hubbert set the estimated date for the peak at 1995 + 10 years. Right on the dot, as the IEA just confirmed that global oil production has been in a plateau since 2006, and the last effort by KSA to raise production for "super light" oil failed dismally last March. BP just confirmed that from 2006 onwards, we've been using biofuels and other sources just to meet global energy demand.

Apparently, there is nothing "hysterical, exaggerated, and far-fetched" about this. Either one knows what is happening or one doesn't.



The dark ages won't be because of energy problems, they will, if they in fact do come, almost certainly be because of obscurantism & religious fundamentalism.

Religious fundamentalism has been out of place for more than a hundred years. As Niall Ferguson and others put it, the main driver of conflict worldwide has been realpolitik, driven by secular religions like capitalism and socialism. In fact, the last sixty years consisted of military powers of various economic ideologies preying on weaker nations in exchange for strategic and economic advantages. If any, religious fundamentalism has been used as a tool or as an excuse for some "war on terror" veiling resource wars.

The dark ages will come because of three problems: a resource crunch (not just oil but phosphates, fresh water, and others), the long-term effects of climate change (leading to top soil destruction, extended droughts and floods, and many other problems that we are experiencing right now), and what is essentially a debt-driven global capitalist economy--with over $1 quadrillion in total money supply, much of it consisting of unregulated derivatives--which will lead to one economic crisis after another.

Finally, if any hysteria and over-exaggeration will arise, it will be from the majority who will simply not accept such realities because they have so much at stake in maintaining or experiencing a middle class lifestyle, and will hold on to religious beliefs that science, government, and big business will save us.

[G L Wilson]

I think that we have drifted away from postmodernism into an episode of Better Homes and Gardens. Please address the issue of postmodernism and not unfounded fears of the Apocalypse.

[Red-Headed]

Your argument proves my point: whether it is the introduction of something traditional or something that is akin to a space age, it is anything that comes after modernism.

No it doesn't. You have not read what I wrote. Go back & read it again. It is a naivete to believe that the term postmodernism literally means 'after the modern' any more than to literally take the noun 'understanding' literally, & actually stand underneath someone.


Hubbert set the estimated date for the peak at 1995 + 10 years. Right on the dot, as the IEA just confirmed that global oil production has been in a plateau since 2006, and the last effort by KSA to raise production for "super light" oil failed dismally last March. BP just confirmed that from 2006 onwards, we've been using biofuels and other sources just to meet global energy demand.

Is this the same Hubbert who has been criticised for oversimplification & of having a Malthusian viewpoint? Hardly a good example!


Apparently, there is nothing "hysterical, exaggerated, and far-fetched" about this. Either one knows what is happening or one doesn't.

Well, in that case, I suggest you dig a large bunker & stock up on Vegemite & tins of beans.

Meanwhile the rest of us will get on with reality.


I think that we have drifted away from postmodernism into an episode of Better Homes and Gardens. Please address the issue of postmodernism and not unfounded fears of the Apocalypse.

Definitely.

[ralfyman]

I think that we have drifted away from postmodernism into an episode of Better Homes and Gardens. Please address the issue of postmodernism and not unfounded fears of the Apocalypse.

Such fears are no longer unfounded. See my previous message for details.

The implication is that the postmodern world, i.e., from 1945 to the present, is not moving towards some "space age" but the opposite.


No it doesn't. You have not read what I wrote. Go back & read it again. It is a naivete to believe that the term postmodernism literally means 'after the modern' any more than to literally take the noun 'understanding' literally, & actually stand underneath someone.

Yes, it does. Read your message again. You mention the possibility of a return to the "traditional" rather than the opposite. That's "whatever."

It doesn't take naivete to argue that "post" means "after," or that postmodernism describes the period that comes after modernism, just common sense. Unless you're claiming the opposite?



Is this the same Hubbert who has been criticised for oversimplification & of having a Malthusian viewpoint? Hardly a good example!


No, it's the Hubbert who predicted peak oil accurately, and just confirmed by the IEA.

Hubbert's prediction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY

Confirmation from the IEA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaNz3qS5WAo

Hardly a good example? Completely the opposite!



Well, in that case, I suggest you dig a large bunker & stock up on Vegemite & tins of beans.


Bad idea.



Meanwhile the rest of us will get on with reality.

You mean the opposite.

[Red-Headed]

Yes, it does. Read your message again. You mention the possibility of a return to the "traditional" rather than the opposite. That's "whatever."

No it isn't. I mentioned traditional concepts, in a postmodern sense these are often culturally encoded & inevitably utilised for various reasons in the modern world. An example of this would be forms of classical architecture used on a modern house (such as Doric columns). This would be a statement of some sort, perhaps socio-economic or otherwise. Either way, it doesn't mean that the house's occupants are actually Ancient Greeks. That would imply that they were either very long-lived, & although Mediterranean cuisine is very healthy, I doubt it would contribute to that kind of longevity, or that they had in fact invented the time machine.


It doesn't take naivete to argue that "post" means "after," or that postmodernism describes the period that comes after modernism, just common sense. Unless you're claiming the opposite?

If you don't wish to discuss the paradigmatic concepts inherent in postmodernism sensibly why not post elsewhere? Otherwise this is just a form of trolling. You need to actually read-up on what postmodernism is. It is interesting that you are taking it literally though, I expect next you will post hyperlinks to some social site 'proving' your literalistic & odd interpretation of the subject.


No, it's the Hubbert who predicted peak oil accurately, and just confirmed by the IEA.

Hubbert's prediction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY

Confirmation from the IEA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaNz3qS5WAo

Hardly a good example? Completely the opposite!

Oh look! I was right: "Completely the opposite!"

My, my ... a binary oppositional statement ...

& you have, in a beautifully predictive way fell into the 'paradigmatic reality' trap! How very postmodern of you, in an 'oh no the apocalypse is coming' kind of way.

BTW I don't accept any of this Malthusian apocalyptic gibberish. If you don't want to actually discuss the concept of postmodernism, why are you posting on this thread?

Although, having said that, your rather Malthusian claims about global economics & paranoid asseverations of geo-politics do in many ways fit into the postmodern concept of varying subjectivities of truth.

Postmodernism regularly claims that there is no truth, just ontological subjectivities & culturally shifting points of view. It is rather interesting that you claim that your particular empirical truth is THE truth!

How predictably postmodern!

In fact, you are now actually exhibiting a classic hierarchical binary oppositional argument.

Postmodernist theory does often predict these rather odd binary oppositional views & contrived arguments that suppose to be empirical truths. Although, there is almost inevitably a binary opposite with equal claims of sincerity.

Not only have you not 'proved' your case, the very fact that you are convinced that your particular subjective proof is 'reality' & then proceed to give hyperlinks to YouTube to 'prove' your 'argument' is a classic example of the behaviour predicted by much postmodernist theory.

[ralfyman]

No it isn't. I mentioned traditional concepts, in a postmodern sense these are often culturally encoded & inevitably utilised for various reasons in the modern world. An example of this would be forms of classical architecture used on a modern house (such as Doric columns). This would be a statement of some sort, perhaps socio-economic or otherwise. Either way, it doesn't mean that the house's occupants are actually Ancient Greeks. That would imply that they were either very long-lived, & although Mediterranean cuisine is very healthy, I doubt it would contribute to that kind of longevity, or that they had in fact invented the time machine.


Yes, it is. What is the opposite of "traditional concepts"? There's your "whatever".




If you don't wish to discuss the paradigmatic concepts inherent in postmodernism sensibly why not post elsewhere? Otherwise this is just a form of trolling. You need to actually read-up on what postmodernism is. It is interesting that you are taking it literally though, I expect next you will post hyperlinks to some social site 'proving' your literalistic & odd interpretation of the subject.



I am discussing the basis of such "paradigmatic concepts." Your response to that has no sense whatsoever. That is trolling.

Read up on postmodernism? No thanks, I've read more than enough of that. The problem is that I never imagined that industrialization--the basis of postmodernism--will not be maintained indefinitely.




Oh look! I was right: "Completely the opposite!"

My, my ... a binary oppositional statement ...



Uh. that's not a "binary oppositional statement." Perhaps you meant "binary opposition." Why so? Are you expecting something between having enough oil and not having enough oil? :rolleyes5:



& you have, in a beautifully predictive way fell into the 'paradigmatic reality' trap! How very postmodern of you, in an 'oh no the apocalypse is coming' kind of way.


Yeah, right. And the opposite of a "paradigmatic reality" trap is....? Gotcha.

So, an "oh no the apocalypse is coming" is a paradigmatic reality and "relax, big government and business will save is" is not?

Really, now, if you're going to play that game, then why not assume that it works both ways? That is, what you believe is a "paradigmatic reality" trap, too, right?




BTW I don't accept any of this Malthusian apocalyptic gibberish. If you don't want to actually discuss the concept of postmodernism, why are you posting on this thread?



Of course, not. That's because you have to accept sheeple gibberish.

But I am discussing the concept of postmodernism: I'm saying it's based on industrialization that won't continue.




Although, having said that, your rather Malthusian claims about global economics & paranoid asseverations of geo-politics do in many ways fit into the postmodern concept of varying subjectivities of truth.



Does "varying subjectivities of truth" also include non-Malthusian claims? Is the claim that there are "varying subjectivities of truth" also an example of "varying subjectivities of truth"? :rolleyes5:




"Postmodernism regularly claims that there is no truth, just ontological subjectivities & culturally shifting points of view. It is rather interesting that you claim that your particular empirical truth is THE truth!"



So, is the claim that there is no truth the truth? :rolleyes5:




How predictably postmodern!



It's the other way round. Something predictably postmodern involves claiming that there are "just ontological subjectivities and culturally shifting points of view," usually declared within the wonderful recesses of a middle class lifestyle provided for by some unknown entities that we shouldn't bother knowing about because we'd end up trapped in more "ontological subjectivities and cultural shifting points of view," right?



In fact, you are now actually exhibiting a classic hierarchical binary oppositional argument.


A "classic hierarchical binary oppositional argument" is a non-postmodern view. A postmodern one would posit a multiplicity of arguments.

Following this line, you'd have to state that my arguments AND yours have no basis of truth. Otherwise, by claiming that I'm wrong and that you're right, you end up "exhibiting [the same] classic hierarchical binary oppositional argument."



Postmodernist theory does often predict these rather odd binary oppositional views & contrived arguments that suppose to be empirical truths. Although, there is almost inevitably a binary opposite with equal claims of sincerity.


Actually, it's postmodernist "theories." The phrase "postmodernist theory" implies a unified set of arguments centering on the argument that there's no such thing as a unified set of arguments. :rolleyes5:



Not only have you not 'proved' your case, the very fact that you are convinced that your particular subjective proof is 'reality' & then proceed to give hyperlinks to YouTube to 'prove' your 'argument' is a classic example of the behaviour predicted by much postmodernist theory.

And you proved your case? If so, does this mean that what you say about my arguments also applies to yours?

Also, the behavior that I exhibited isn't predicted by "much postmodernist theory" but explained as such and then challenged.

Finally, there are several postmodernist theories, not one, as implied that in the phrase that you keep using.

[Red-Headed]

Uh. that's not a "binary oppositional statement." Perhaps you meant "binary opposition." Why so? Are you expecting something between having enough oil and not having enough oil? :rolleyes5:

Again, you have not actually read what I have written. This thread is about postmodernism, not oil.


Yeah, right. And the opposite of a "paradigmatic reality" trap is....? Gotcha.

You haven't 'got' this thread, that's for sure.


So, an "oh no the apocalypse is coming" is a paradigmatic reality and "relax, big government and business will save is" is not?

Big government & business? You're still living in the binary oppositional argument.


Really, now, if you're going to play that game, then why not assume that it works both ways? That is, what you believe is a "paradigmatic reality" trap, too, right?

What game? This entire thread is about postmodernism, I don't give a pair of dingo's kidneys about oil or oil production.


Of course, not. That's because you have to accept sheeple gibberish.

I've never accepted sheeple gibberish in my life. I think that you may not be getting enough vitamins though.


But I am discussing the concept of postmodernism: I'm saying it's based on industrialization that won't continue.

You have absolutely no idea of what postmodernism is & just keep blathering about oil production. I don't care about oil production. This thread is not about oil production. Perhaps you can join a group devoted to discussing oil production?


Does "varying subjectivities of truth" also include non-Malthusian claims? Is the claim that there are "varying subjectivities of truth" also an example of "varying subjectivities of truth"? :rolleyes5:

'Rolls eyes', according to postmodernism there is no truth. Unless you count empirical absolutes, & that is science, not postmodernism. Which is what this thread is actually about.


So, is the claim that there is no truth the truth? :rolleyes5:

That would be postmodernism.


It's the other way round. Something predictably postmodern involves claiming that there are "just ontological subjectivities and culturally shifting points of view," usually declared within the wonderful recesses of a middle class lifestyle provided for by some unknown entities that we shouldn't bother knowing about because we'd end up trapped in more "ontological subjectivities and cultural shifting points of view," right?

This is a thread about postmodernism, not about social realism.


A "classic hierarchical binary oppositional argument" is a non-postmodern view. A postmodern one would posit a multiplicity of arguments.

Binary oppositional arguments would be recognised by postmodernism as a form. But yes, postmodernist views are multiple. That's the whole point.


Following this line, you'd have to state that my arguments AND yours have no basis of truth. Otherwise, by claiming that I'm wrong and that you're right, you end up "exhibiting [the same] classic hierarchical binary oppositional argument."

I didn't say that you were wrong. That's the huge & glaring mistake you have made, & the basis of your binary tirade. I said I don't 'believe' your viewpoint or 'evidence'. *Rolls eyes a bit for dramatic effect*

I don't give a rodent's derrière about how much oil there is or isn't. This thread is about postmodernism, not oil production.


Actually, it's postmodernist "theories." The phrase "postmodernist theory" implies a unified set of arguments centering on the argument that there's no such thing as a unified set of arguments. :rolleyes5:

That's just bandying semantics, I'm English, it's common to use the noun 'theory' referring to postmodernist theories colloquially in my country.


And you proved your case? If so, does this mean that what you say about my arguments also applies to yours?

I don't have a case to prove, apart from the fact that you have misunderstood the entire reason that this thread exists, or in fact, was started in the first place! *Doesn't roll eyes but sighs a little*


Also, the behavior that I exhibited isn't predicted by "much postmodernist theory" but explained as such and then challenged.

I don't know about that, the very fact that it can be recognised explained & challenged means that there is an inevitable predictability about it.


Finally, there are several postmodernist theories, not one, as implied that in the phrase that you keep using.

Finally, I explained that earlier. In fact, it would be inaccurate to even define postmodernism in the terms of 'theories' as it is a phenomenon that defies actual definition. If you really had studied postmodernism you would have realised this & not reduced the concept of the postmodern to merely a collection of 'theories'.

Just as you have reduced this thread to an argument (that you seem to be having with yourself) about oil production.

[G L Wilson]

Is a binary oppositional argument ironic self-referencing? If it is, evidence should show us where the liar truly lies. Postmodernism doesn't analyse, it deconstructs. And, as far as I am concerned, ralfyman has done a great job at deconstructing my intelligence.

[Red-Headed]

Is a binary oppositional argument ironic self-referencing? If it is, evidence should show us where the liar truly lies.

Most binary oppositional arguments are hierarchical. The hierarchy here is that the whole argument is about oil production & that the concept of postmodernism is only applicable if we take the social realism of this into account. I'm not interested in oil production nor the impending apocalypse, which may or may not happen.


Postmodernism doesn't analyse, it deconstructs.

Yes, it can definitely deconstruct. Which is why I am wondering why this thread has descended into an economic argument about the sustainability or not of oil production.


And, as far as I am concerned, ralfyman has done a great job at deconstructing my intelligence.

I think ralfyman can't see the wood for the trees.

I can see the wood & the trees, I can also see the small village beyond ... & I have a flame thrower.

[G L Wilson]

As a humanist, postmodernism's conclusions strike very close to the bone. It puts me in doubt and damned if I like it.

[Red-Headed]

As a humanist, postmodernism's conclusions strike very close to the bone. It puts me in doubt and damned if I like it.

Doubt may be the first step to a greater understanding. That might not be a negative thing.

[G L Wilson]

Most binary oppositional arguments are hierarchical. The hierarchy here is that the whole argument is about oil production & that the concept of postmodernism is only applicable if we take the social realism of this into account. I'm not interested in oil production nor the impending apocalypse, which may or may not happen.

Reality is a social construct - this I can understand.

[Red-Headed]

Reality is a social construct - this I can understand.

Reality is also first & foremost essentially an ontological construct. A social construct of reality is necessarily a subjective modification of that based on a viewpoint & its interaction with perceived external factors.

[G L Wilson]

Reality is also first & foremost essentially an ontological construct. A social construct of reality is necessarily a subjective modification of that based on a viewpoint & its interaction with perceived external factors.

The scientific viewpoint comes in for a bashing from postmodernists. What perceived threat does science pose?

[Red-Headed]

The scientific viewpoint comes in for a bashing from postmodernists. What perceived threat does science pose?

I think that the perceived threat has been beautifully outlined by our oil-obsessed friend above. Science likes to claim that it is empirical & totally above subjectivity. However, as Koestler pointed out decades ago, science isn't the objective reality it likes to think it is. Much 'science' had obscure origins & when you get to the realm of quantum physics it seems that even the universe itself is based on subjective viewpoints. The Copenhagen Interpretation (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Copenhagen_interpretation) & its interpretation of the famous 'Double Slit' experiment has divided physicists for quite a while. It appears that just observing something at a subatomic level can change its behaviour.

Science, like religion tends to posit the idea that it is an ultimate truth. This paradigm did actually hold up well until quantum theory.

I think that postmodernism has to question the scientific viewpoint because 'science' is now held up as the ultimate asseveration of truth.

[G L Wilson]

I think that the perceived threat has been beautifully outlined by our oil-obsessed friend above. Science likes to claim that it is empirical & totally above subjectivity. However, as Koestler pointed out decades ago, science isn't the objective reality it likes to think it is. Much 'science' had obscure origins & when you get to the realm of quantum physics it seems that even the universe itself is based on subjective viewpoints. The Copenhagen Interpretation (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Copenhagen_interpretation) & its interpretation of the famous 'Double Slit' experiment has divided physicists for quite a while. It appears that just observing something at a subatomic level can change its behaviour.

Science, like religion tends to posit the idea that it is an ultimate truth. This paradigm did actually hold up well until quantum theory.

I think that postmodernism has to question the scientific viewpoint because 'science' is now held up as the ultimate asseveration of truth.

Are my methods unsound, Red-Headed?

[oshima]

I've certainly never studied post-modernism directly or in depth, but I have flirted with Derrida, Foucault, and Eco's discussions about what it might or might not be. I've always just seen it as a useful way to describe self-aware/ironic/meta narratives whatever they might be. For example, Borges fiction is an obvious example of postmodern narrative, and perhaps to a lesser extent, TV shows like Curb you Enthusiasm and Entourage. While postmodern literature is often tedious, it's still interesting. However, postmodernism can also be wonderful and still maintain a solid narrative. Right now I am currently finishing up A.S. Byatt's Possession, which, while I think could be classified as postmodern, is a thoroughly enjoyable and artistically solid novel because of, not despite, it's postmodern orientation.

[Red-Headed]

Are my methods unsound, Red-Headed?

Which methods are you referring to?


I've always just seen it as a useful way to describe self-aware/ironic/meta narratives whatever they might be. For example, Borges fiction is an obvious example of postmodern narrative, and perhaps to a lesser extent, TV shows like Curb you Enthusiasm and Entourage. While postmodern literature is often tedious, it's still interesting. However, postmodernism can also be wonderful and still maintain a solid narrative. Right now I am currently finishing up A.S. Byatt's Possession, which, while I think could be classified as postmodern, is a thoroughly enjoyable and artistically solid novel because of, not despite, it's postmodern orientation.

Yes, this is certainly a part of postmodernism, I think that 'White Noise' by Don Delilo can be added to that list of novels as well. Many have cited George Eliot's 'Middlemarch' with its self-aware narrative & its web-like structure as postmodern. I agree with you about 'Curb Your Enthusiasm'.

[G L Wilson]

Which methods are you referring to?

I am referring to my scientific methods: analysis and preparation.

[Red-Headed]

I am referring to my scientific methods: analysis and preparation.

They are a start I suppose. Do you think that they are flawed somewhat?

[G L Wilson]

They are a start I suppose. Do you think that they are flawed somewhat?

The question is: do you think that they are flawed somewhat?

[Red-Headed]

The question is: do you think that they are flawed somewhat?

I think that scientific analysis is a useful & methodical tool; for scientific subjects. It's not always easy to apply them to literary theory.

[NoReasonWriter]

My biggest issue with this thread thus far is that postmodernism seems to be getting a bad rap because of deconstruction. Yes, deconstruction spawned from postmodernism. But postmodernism exists without the application of deconstructive theories.
Postmodernism is, in my estimation, a movement in art that tries to remove the constructs of “truth” and “meaning” allowing the experience of art appreciation to be more flexible.
(In a socio-global perspective, this is self-preservation for literature. By writing in a looser format, that engages the reader in a variety of ways, there is a greater chance that future generations will be entertained. And at the core, literature is intended to entertain, be it through amusement, or alienation.)
The essence of postmodern literature is the exploration of structural changes and redefinitions of established hierarchies to alter the way in which a text is produced and consumed. (Hence the issues of Structuralism, Deconstruction and Hypermodernity that have come up in this thread.)

[Red-Headed]

Yes, deconstruction spawned from postmodernism.

Are you quite sure about this? I thought it was the other way round:

Jacques Derrida (1930–2004)
re-examined the fundamentals of writing and its consequences on philosophy in general; sought to undermine the language of 'presence' or metaphysics in an analytical technique which, beginning as a point of departure from Heidegger's notion of Destruktion, came to be known as Deconstruction. Derrida utilized, like Heidegger, references to Greek philosophical notions associated with the Skeptics and the Presocratics, such as Epoché and Aporia to articulate his notion of implicit circularity between premises and conclusions, origins and manifestations, but - in a manner analogous in certain respects to Gilles Deleuze - presented a radical re-reading of canonical philosophical figures such as Plato, Aristotle and Descartes as themselves being informed by such "destabilizing" notions. ~ Wikipedia


But postmodernism exists without the application of deconstructive theories.
Postmodernism is, in my estimation, a movement in art that tries to remove the constructs of “truth” and “meaning” allowing the experience of art appreciation to be more flexible.

I can dig that.


The essence of postmodern literature is the exploration of structural changes and redefinitions of established hierarchies to alter the way in which a text is produced and consumed. (Hence the issues of Structuralism, Deconstruction and Hypermodernity that have come up in this thread.)

I can dig that too.

[NoReasonWriter]

Are you quite sure about this? I thought it was the other way round

Well, there are many who disagree with me, but I see deconstruction as a product of postmodern ideas in visual art.
We see postmodernism as visual art perhaps most notably in Dada (1916 to 1922) and Cubism (1907 -1911), decades before it happens in literature. Visually, Impressionism from the Mid-Late 1800's precedes Literary Modernism of the early 1900's.
The two have quite a bit in common.
Then the rise of Visual "Modernism" in the early to mid 1900's precedes the Literary Postmodern of the mid to late 1900's.
Again, the visual genre seems to have informed the subsequent literature.
Therefore, I argue that Postmodernism existed before deconstruction, just in the form of visual art, which can also be interpreted as a text.

[G L Wilson]

Well, there are many who disagree with me, but I see deconstruction as a product of postmodern ideas in visual art.
We see postmodernism as visual art perhaps most notably in Dada (1916 to 1922) and Cubism (1907 -1911), decades before it happens in literature. Visually, Impressionism from the Mid-Late 1800's precedes Literary Modernism of the early 1900's.
The two have quite a bit in common.
Then the rise of Visual "Modernism" in the early to mid 1900's precedes the Literary Postmodern of the mid to late 1900's.
Again, the visual genre seems to have informed the subsequent literature.
Therefore, I argue that Postmodernism existed before deconstruction, just in the form of visual art, which can also be interpreted as a text.

Crap is still crap with or without a narrative.

[Red-Headed]

Well, there are many who disagree with me,

Yes, I'm sure there are.


but I see deconstruction as a product of postmodern ideas in visual art.

Ermmm ... forgetting Heidegger for the moment ... OK ...


We see postmodernism as visual art perhaps most notably in Dada (1916 to 1922) and Cubism (1907 -1911), decades before it happens in literature. Visually, Impressionism from the Mid-Late 1800's precedes Literary Modernism of the early 1900's.

Ermm ...


The two have quite a bit in common.

If you say so ...


Then the rise of Visual "Modernism" in the early to mid 1900's precedes the Literary Postmodern of the mid to late 1900's.

Ermm ... maybe ...


Again, the visual genre seems to have informed the subsequent literature.

Ermm ... possibly ...


Therefore, I argue that Postmodernism existed before deconstruction, just in the form of visual art, which can also be interpreted as a text.

Yeah, good theory. I'm not buying it, but I like your thinking.

[ralfyman]

Again, you have not actually read what I have written. This thread is about postmodernism, not oil.

Again, you are not reading what I posted. The thread is about postmodernism. I am saying that postmodernism is linked to industrialization, which in turn is linked to oil.



You haven't 'got' this thread, that's for sure.


That should be the other way round.



Big government & business? You're still living in the binary oppositional argument.

What are you saying? That in a postmodern world, we're now seeing some "information age" coupled with "intellectual capital" and "wealth" gained from financial speculation involving money that's essentially worthless? That's so's '90s.

And what's with this "binary oppositional argument" that you keep repeating? Isn't your argument--that I am insisting on a binary oppositional argument--itself a binary oppositional argument, that is, as opposed to yours?




What game? This entire thread is about postmodernism, I don't give a pair of dingo's kidneys about oil or oil production.



Didn't you know? Part of postmodernist theories is that everything is "spiel" or "deterritorialized" or "relative." Also, it's a "binary oppositional argument" to claim that you "don't give a pair of dingo's kidneys about oil or oil production" as that implies that you care about something else. On the other hand, if you argue that you care about everything, nothing, or both....




I've never accepted sheeple gibberish in my life. I think that you may not be getting enough vitamins though.



When you say you don't care about this or that, then that's "sheeple gibberish," no different from critical theorists of the '80s and '90s imagining some deeply fragmented world where one's consciousness is lost in some matrix.




You have absolutely no idea of what postmodernism is & just keep blathering about oil production. I don't care about oil production. This thread is not about oil production. Perhaps you can join a group devoted to discussing oil production?



That should be the other way round. Postmodernism has different views, ranging from poststructuralist to revisions of psychoanalysis to neo-Marxist.

You're focusing on only one view. For example, you're so-called "binary oppositional argument" is part of deconstruction, but the view focuses on how the identity of one of the factors rests on the presence of the other. Another view, on the other hand, will insist that there are no binaries, only multiplicities.

So, how do you resolve these contradictions? Still stuck with the illusion that "postmodern theory" is unified?




'Rolls eyes', according to postmodernism there is no truth. Unless you count empirical absolutes, & that is science, not postmodernism. Which is what this thread is actually about.



And the claim that there is no truth is a truth?




That would be postmodernism.



So, if it is true that there is no truth, then does that mean that the claim that there is no truth not true?




This is a thread about postmodernism, not about social realism.



Social realism is part of postmodernism. See, for example, applications of poststructuralist theories in postcolonial discourse.




Binary oppositional arguments would be recognised by postmodernism as a form. But yes, postmodernist views are multiple. That's the whole point.



Then you are contradicting yourself! The point you've been making is that my views rests on such and are thus not part of "postmodern theory." Now, you're claiming that the same is "recognized" by postmodernism.




I didn't say that you were wrong. That's the huge & glaring mistake you have made, & the basis of your binary tirade. I said I don't 'believe' your viewpoint or 'evidence'. *Rolls eyes a bit for dramatic effect*



But isn't that "binary tirade" recognized by postmodernism?




I don't give a rodent's derrière about how much oil there is or isn't. This thread is about postmodernism, not oil production.



Postmodernism, as discussed by Jameson and others, refers to late capitalism, with manufacturing leading to financial speculation, consumerism, and globalization from 1945 onward. Given that, you CANNOT talk about postmodernism without realizing how such a global economic system on which it rests is sustained.




That's just bandying semantics, I'm English, it's common to use the noun 'theory' referring to postmodernist theories colloquially in my country.



If you look at your previous messages, you will see that you refer to postmodern theory arguing that there is no truth, or that it doesn't deal with social realism. Actually, there are a variety of theories, with some arguing that there is no truth, or that truth is hinged on an opposition, or that there is truth but it is marginalized, and so on.

I believe that this is not a problem concerning semantics but about your perception that there is some "postmodern theory" that's not self-contradictory.




I don't have a case to prove, apart from the fact that you have misunderstood the entire reason that this thread exists, or in fact, was started in the first place! *Doesn't roll eyes but sighs a little*



Fredric Jameson has a whole book devoted to the topic, and what he argues puts your claims about postmodernism claiming that there is no truth or that social realism is not part of the cultural condition into question.

The problem is that late capitalism, on which postmodernism now rests, has material constraints, something which no amount of fantasizing about the future can wish away!




I don't know about that, the very fact that it can be recognised explained & challenged means that there is an inevitable predictability about it.



Or an inevitable truth about it.




Finally, I explained that earlier. In fact, it would be inaccurate to even define postmodernism in the terms of 'theories' as it is a phenomenon that defies actual definition. If you really had studied postmodernism you would have realised this & not reduced the concept of the postmodern to merely a collection of 'theories'.



Remember, I didn't refer to "postmodern theory." And I only stated that there are several theories involved because your views (that there is no truth, for example) imply that all of these theories agree with each other. The same goes for your points about "binary oppositional arguments," which are accepted by some theorists and rejected by others.

So, whatever you insist that I lack about studying the matter should apply to you.




Just as you have reduced this thread to an argument (that you seem to be having with yourself) about oil production.



But it's obvious that postmodernism is built on industrialization, which in turn is dependent on oil and other resources.

Again, look up the concept of "late capitalism," which is in many ways linked to postmodernism.

[Red-Headed]

What are you saying? That in a postmodern world, we're now seeing some "information age" coupled with "intellectual capital" and "wealth" gained from financial speculation involving money that's essentially worthless? That's so's '90s.

I haven't mentioned any of this, nor the '90s. You are imagining an argument or discourse that doesn't actually exist.


And what's with this "binary oppositional argument" that you keep repeating? Isn't your argument--that I am insisting on a binary oppositional argument--itself a binary oppositional argument, that is, as opposed to yours?

You started this with your asseveration that I was wrong about your argument about oil production. The hierarchical binary is inherent in your need to 'prove' that my argument is incorrect. Even though I have no argument about or concerning your 'evidence' about dwindling oil reserves. I just don't believe your corollary or 'evidence' about dwindling oil production. The hierarchical aspect is that you are convinced that you are in fact correct about this & this has a huge relevance on the topic of postmodernism. Again, I'm not saying that you are wrong, I just don't believe the oil is going to run out for many decades. You can't prove your case however many links to YouTube you post.


Didn't you know? Part of postmodernist theories is that everything is "spiel" or "deterritorialized" or "relative."

I wouldn't argue against that, this is more or less what I stated about subjectivity, but I don't know what or how this has to do with the impending apocalypse of alleged dwindling oil supplies & the end of western civilisation.


Also, it's a "binary oppositional argument" to claim that you "don't give a pair of dingo's kidneys about oil or oil production" as that implies that you care about something else.

Wow, that's some leap of semantics! I don't care about oil production in its relation to literary postmodernism, that's for sure. I would call it more nonchalance or indifference than a binary oppositional though, binary implying a polarity into two basic arguments.


When you say you don't care about this or that, then that's "sheeple gibberish," no different from critical theorists of the '80s and '90s imagining some deeply fragmented world where one's consciousness is lost in some matrix.

You are extrapolating far too much from anything that I have actually stated. I just don't accept the impending oil apocalypse.


You're focusing on only one view. For example, you're so-called "binary oppositional argument" is part of deconstruction, but the view focuses on how the identity of one of the factors rests on the presence of the other. Another view, on the other hand, will insist that there are no binaries, only multiplicities.

Which view is this? The one where I don't care about the oil production figures you got from YouTube?


So, how do you resolve these contradictions? Still stuck with the illusion that "postmodern theory" is unified?

Postmodern theory isn't unified at all, I doubt whether I actually stated that. You must have misinterpreted what I wrote.


And the claim that there is no truth is a truth?

No, it's a viewpoint!


So, if it is true that there is no truth, then does that mean that the claim that there is no truth not true?

I am not debating whether there is no truth or not. It is a view of the postmodern that all truths are subjective though. If truth can be subjective, it does kind of imply that there is no objective truth ipso facto.


Social realism is part of postmodernism. See, for example, applications of poststructuralist theories in postcolonial discourse.

Yes, it can be. So what is your actual point & what has it got to do with oil production & the postmodern?


Then you are contradicting yourself! The point you've been making is that my views rests on such and are thus not part of "postmodern theory." Now, you're claiming that the same is "recognized" by postmodernism.

Did I? Or are you just 'reading into' that (hermeneutics?)


Postmodernism, as discussed by Jameson and others, refers to late capitalism, with manufacturing leading to financial speculation, consumerism, and globalization from 1945 onward. Given that, you CANNOT talk about postmodernism without realizing how such a global economic system on which it rests is sustained.

So, now you are stating that no one can even talk about postmodernism unless they recognise any socio-economic factors that allegedly or actually affect it? That is a reductionist argument & now we are back to where you came in. That is, in fact, an example of an hierarchical binary oppositional argument ... oh no ... déjà vu ...


If you look at your previous messages, you will see that you refer to postmodern theory arguing that there is no truth, or that it doesn't deal with social realism. Actually, there are a variety of theories, with some arguing that there is no truth, or that truth is hinged on an opposition, or that there is truth but it is marginalized, and so on.

I don't think so, I'm fully cognisant of postmodern theory having multiple viewpoints on truth, credibility & veracity, also I know full well that forms of social realism & even feminism are all discussed by postmodernism.


I believe that this is not a problem concerning semantics but about your perception that there is some "postmodern theory" that's not self-contradictory.

No, I'm pretty sure postmodernist theory is self-contradictory. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be postmoderism.


Fredric Jameson has a whole book devoted to the topic, and what he argues puts your claims about postmodernism claiming that there is no truth or that social realism is not part of the cultural condition into question.

I never claimed that social realism is not part of the cultural condition, however, as a whole postmodernism views truth as a subjectivity dependent on many factors, including race, culture, class etc. You are just splitting hairs again now. I am not sure what your original argument is anyway.


The problem is that late capitalism, on which postmodernism now rests, has material constraints, something which no amount of fantasizing about the future can wish away!

This is still a reductionist argument. You can reduce everything down to a material dialectic. There's nothing new in that.


Remember, I didn't refer to "postmodern theory." And I only stated that there are several theories involved because your views (that there is no truth, for example)

And how do you deduce that this is 'my' view?


imply that all of these theories agree with each other.

No they don't.


The same goes for your points about "binary oppositional arguments," which are accepted by some theorists and rejected by others.

Rather like your theories on oil production. Which, incidentally, have yet to be proved.


But it's obvious that postmodernism is built on industrialization, which in turn is dependent on oil and other resources.

Again, this is an argument of economic reductionism.


Again, look up the concept of "late capitalism," which is in many ways linked to postmodernism.

Again, I don't really need to. They may well be linked, in fact I am sure that they are. So what actually is your point in this thread? It seems to me that your entire 'argument' rests on oil resources & their apparent sustainability or not. Now, what exactly has that got to do with examples of the postmodern in literature or otherwise?

[ralfyman]

I haven't mentioned any of this, nor the '90s. You are imagining an argument or discourse that doesn't actually exist.

You implied it by insisting that there is no truth regarding Malthusian views.

Imagining an argument or discourse? The perception of a postmodern world with increasing industrialization and the development of technologies such as the Internet can be seen in various academic journals and sites published during the period!

Your ignorance of the issue is appalling.




You started this with your asseveration that I was wrong about your argument about oil production. The hierarchical binary is inherent in your need to 'prove' that my argument is incorrect. Even though I have no argument about or concerning your 'evidence' about dwindling oil reserves. I just don't believe your corollary or 'evidence' about dwindling oil production. The hierarchical aspect is that you are convinced that you are in fact correct about this & this has a huge relevance on the topic of postmodernism. Again, I'm not saying that you are wrong, I just don't believe the oil is going to run out for many decades. You can't prove your case however many links to YouTube you post.



And you are still wrong. You proved nothing in your previous messages regarding oil production and nothing with your insistence describing my argument as part of some "hierarchical binary." Worse, your own point works against you, as you imply real evidence as opposed to the "evidence" that I presented.

No, it's not just that I'm convinced. It's that you've presented nothing showing the contrary. Worse, you contradict yourself again by claiming that you "just don't believe the oil is going to run out for many decades," as that's not the point about peak oil at all. On top of that, you now appear to care about what you wrote earlier you don't care about. Make up your mind!

Of course, I can't prove my point. You believe that oil will not run out for many decades, and no amount of "evidence" will allow you to believe otherwise. Where that belief comes from I'd like to know. Let's see if you can fulfill my request, or if you will state once more that you don't care. My guess, though, is that your belief comes from the ability of big business and science to ensure that suitable replacements are found or more oil is found.




I wouldn't argue against that, this is more or less what I stated about subjectivity, but I don't know what or how this has to do with the impending apocalypse of alleged dwindling oil supplies & the end of western civilisation.



Simple: if you argue that there won't be "dwindling oil supplies," etc., then you are operating in the same hierarchical binary as I am. If you argue that it may or may not happen, or that it may and may not happen, or that you don't care if it does or does not happen, then there's you "spiel."




Wow, that's some leap of semantics! I don't care about oil production in its relation to literary postmodernism, that's for sure. I would call it more nonchalance or indifference than a binary oppositional though, binary implying a polarity into two basic arguments.



Wow, that's some leap in ignorance, not to mention the fact that you believe that there will be no drop in oil production for decades while claiming at the same time that you are indifferent about the matter.




You are extrapolating far too much from anything that I have actually stated. I just don't accept the impending oil apocalypse.



I think it is the other way round, as I wasn't referring to an "impending oil apocalypse."




Which view is this? The one where I don't care about the oil production figures you got from YouTube?



No, the one where you claim that I operate using a "binary oppositional argument" even as you do the same and even as the same type of argument is also part of postmodernism.




Postmodern theory isn't unified at all, I doubt whether I actually stated that. You must have misinterpreted what I wrote.



Of course, it's not unified at all. That's why your and my "binary oppositional argument" is part of such.




No, it's a viewpoint!



Does that mean that if you change your viewpoint, you will say the opposite? :)




I am not debating whether there is no truth or not. It is a view of the postmodern that all truths are subjective though. If truth can be subjective, it does kind of imply that there is no objective truth ipso facto.



But, if the claim that all truths are subjective is also subjective, and that claim that there is no objective truth may be questioned....




Yes, it can be. So what is your actual point & what has it got to do with oil production & the postmodern?



Part of that social realism is resources needed to maintain industrialization, from which late capitalism that is part of postmodernism stems.




Did I? Or are you just 'reading into' that (hermeneutics?)



What is the purpose, then, of insisting that my argument rests on an "binary oppositional argument"?




So, now you are stating that no one can even talk about postmodernism unless they recognise any socio-economic factors that allegedly or actually affect it? That is a reductionist argument & now we are back to where you came in. That is, in fact, an example of an hierarchical binary oppositional argument ... oh no ... déjà vu ...



No, I did not say that. Rather, I am arguing against your claim that,

"This is a thread about postmodernism, not about social realism."

and now your admission that social realism "can be" part of postmodernism. And that's another contradiction that you made.




I don't think so, I'm fully cognisant of postmodern theory having multiple viewpoints on truth, credibility & veracity, also I know full well that forms of social realism & even feminism are all discussed by postmodernism.



Exactly, my point! And yet you argue otherwise in your previous messages, as you state that this thread is about postmodernism and not social realism.




No, I'm pretty sure postmodernist theory is self-contradictory. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be postmoderism.



Exactly! Hence, the contradictions in your messages. Let me show more examples from the rest of your post.




I never claimed that social realism is not part of the cultural condition, however, as a whole postmodernism views truth as a subjectivity dependent on many factors, including race, culture, class etc. You are just splitting hairs again now. I am not sure what your original argument is anyway.



And yet you claimed that this thread is not supposed to be about social realism! Worse, you now admit that other factors are involved in postmodernism. Why you exclude some of the factors I raised makes no sense to me.

As for splitting hairs, it's the other way round. My argument is that resource availability should be considered because it is part of industrialization, on which postmodernism also rests. Your claim is that my arguments are incorrect because I am operating on some "binary oppositional argument" (as if you're not doing the same thing) and then, on top of stating that you "don't care about oil production" now admit that you don't "believe" in negative claims about the same (even though in a third line, you insist that you were being "indifferent").

That's the reason why you never got to my original argument: you kept using various postmodernist views from theories that are also self-contradictory you got caught in your own trap.




This is still a reductionist argument. You can reduce everything down to a material dialectic. There's nothing new in that.



And yet you are not admitting that I'm wrong. :reddevil:




And how do you deduce that this is 'my' view?



"Although, having said that, your rather Malthusian claims about global economics & paranoid asseverations of geo-politics do in many ways fit into the postmodern concept of varying subjectivities of truth."

So, how about giving some non-Mathusian claims, Red-Headed, just so that you can prove your claim that what we have are "varying subjectivities of truth"? After all, you did assert earlier that you "believe" these claims aren't correct.




Rather like your theories on oil production. Which, incidentally, have yet to be proved.



Uh, no, they're not my theories. In fact, they're not even theories. Your ignorance of this matter is showing.




Again, this is an argument of economic reductionism.



Which you never admitted is wrong, especially given your belief that we have lots of decades before oil production starts dropping!




Again, I don't really need to. They may well be linked, in fact I am sure that they are. So what actually is your point in this thread? It seems to me that your entire 'argument' rests on oil resources & their apparent sustainability or not. Now, what exactly has that got to do with examples of the postmodern in literature or otherwise?

Of course, you don't need, as that would destroy the streak of ignorance which you have shown quite well in this thread. Also, given your references to Lyotard and others, I think this thread isn't simply about "the postmodern in literature," right? So, why not use Lyotard, who has been mentioned many times in this thread, as an example?

Lyotard, like Jameson, sees postmodernism (which includes production of knowledge) as part of the postindustrial age, which is the same as late capitalism. Late capitalism, in turn, is based on earnings from financial speculation and so-called "intellectual capital," all aspects of wealthier societies as manufacturing is outsourced to poorer ones.

Apparently, wealth from financing is nothing more than a simulacrum, and even part of the same "postmodern condition," as it is mostly composed of numbers in accounts. We are now seeing the effects of that reality given one credit crunch after another affecting the global economy, leading to chronic unemployment coupled with high food and oil prices and social unrest.

But behind all of this is the need for more resources to keep mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture going, esp. oil, on which both sectors are heavily dependent.

Your response to such views? First, you claim that they are unfounded and based on paranoia. Then, you state that you simply "don't care" about such issues. After that, you implicitly show that you do care, except that you believe the opposite, i.e., there's more than enough oil for decades. Then, you state that this thread isn't about social realism, after which you state the opposite, as social realism "can be" part of postmodernism, never mind the fact that some of the names you mention, like Lyotard, express precisely that.

[Red-Headed]

You implied it by insisting that there is no truth regarding Malthusian views.

Imagining an argument or discourse? The perception of a postmodern world with increasing industrialization and the development of technologies such as the Internet can be seen in various academic journals and sites published during the period!

Your ignorance of the issue is appalling.

I didn't insist anything. I don't accept Malthusian explanations & they have never been proved outright anyway.


And you are still wrong. You proved nothing in your previous messages regarding oil production and nothing with your insistence describing my argument as part of some "hierarchical binary." Worse, your own point works against you, as you imply real evidence as opposed to the "evidence" that I presented.

I'm wrong about what exactly?


No, it's not just that I'm convinced. It's that you've presented nothing showing the contrary. Worse, you contradict yourself again by claiming that you "just don't believe the oil is going to run out for many decades," as that's not the point about peak oil at all. On top of that, you now appear to care about what you wrote earlier you don't care about. Make up your mind!

Just what is your point?


Of course, I can't prove my point. You believe that oil will not run out for many decades, and no amount of "evidence" will allow you to believe otherwise. Where that belief comes from I'd like to know. Let's see if you can fulfill my request, or if you will state once more that you don't care. My guess, though, is that your belief comes from the ability of big business and science to ensure that suitable replacements are found or more oil is found.

I don't care about big business, science, oil production or the reptoids from the Zeta Reticuli system. What is exactly was your original point about postmodernism?



Simple: if you argue that there won't be "dwindling oil supplies," etc., then you are operating in the same hierarchical binary as I am. If you argue that it may or may not happen, or that it may and may not happen, or that you don't care if it does or does not happen, then there's you "spiel."

So what?


Wow, that's some leap in ignorance, not to mention the fact that you believe that there will be no drop in oil production for decades while claiming at the same time that you are indifferent about the matter.

No, I am indifferent & I doubt that there will be a drop for decades.



Part of that social realism is resources needed to maintain industrialization, from which late capitalism that is part of postmodernism stems.

... & your point is?



What is the purpose, then, of insisting that my argument rests on an "binary oppositional argument"?

If you can't figure this out, I can't help you.


and now your admission that social realism "can be" part of postmodernism. And that's another contradiction that you made.

This is not a contradiction, anyone with a vague knowledge of postmodern theory would know this. I automatically assumed social realism, feminism, culture etc were a part of the subject. However, this thread is about postmodernism, a subject of some complexity. You have reduced it down to a debate on its reliance on capitalistic oil production. Well done.



Exactly, my point! And yet you argue otherwise in your previous messages, as you state that this thread is about postmodernism and not social realism.

Of course its about postmodernism. So, what exactly has your view of social realism got to do with postmodernism & its relation thereof? Answers on a postcard please ...


Exactly! Hence, the contradictions in your messages. Let me show more examples from the rest of your post.

Oh, what joy & fun.


And yet you claimed that this thread is not supposed to be about social realism! Worse, you now admit that other factors are involved in postmodernism. Why you exclude some of the factors I raised makes no sense to me.

Maybe because I really don't care about oil production?


As for splitting hairs, it's the other way round. My argument is that resource availability should be considered because it is part of industrialization, on which postmodernism also rests. Your claim is that my arguments are incorrect because I am operating on some "binary oppositional argument" (as if you're not doing the same thing) and then, on top of stating that you "don't care about oil production" now admit that you don't "believe" in negative claims about the same (even though in a third line, you insist that you were being "indifferent").

You don't have an argument & never have. Unless you are saying that if the oil runs out we will all live in the Middle Ages. And this has what to do with literary postmodernism exactly?


That's the reason why you never got to my original argument: you kept using various postmodernist views from theories that are also self-contradictory you got caught in your own trap.

I am not in a trap, you on the other hand, are just merely repeating yourself without ever having a point to make. Except for rather questionable figures on oil productivity.



So, how about giving some non-Mathusian claims, Red-Headed, just so that you can prove your claim that what we have are "varying subjectivities of truth"? After all, you did assert earlier that you "believe" these claims aren't correct.

I am going to repeat this again. I am not interested in oil production. Nor am I interested in non-Malthusian claims of oil production. However, I am interested in discussing literary examples of postmodernism. None of which you have ever actually discussed.


Uh, no, they're not my theories. In fact, they're not even theories. Your ignorance of this matter is showing.

Obviously.


Of course, you don't need, as that would destroy the streak of ignorance which you have shown quite well in this thread. Also, given your references to Lyotard and others, I think this thread isn't simply about "the postmodern in literature," right? So, why not use Lyotard, who has been mentioned many times in this thread, as an example?

I may have a 'streak of ignorance' but at least I am not arguing just for the sake of it. Apart from your view about postmodernism & its reliance on economics, what are you actually talking about?



Lyotard, like Jameson, sees postmodernism (which includes production of knowledge) as part of the postindustrial age, which is the same as late capitalism. Late capitalism, in turn, is based on earnings from financial speculation and so-called "intellectual capital," all aspects of wealthier societies as manufacturing is outsourced to poorer ones.

Apparently, wealth from financing is nothing more than a simulacrum, and even part of the same "postmodern condition," as it is mostly composed of numbers in accounts. We are now seeing the effects of that reality given one credit crunch after another affecting the global economy, leading to chronic unemployment coupled with high food and oil prices and social unrest.

But behind all of this is the need for more resources to keep mass manufacturing and mechanized agriculture going, esp. oil, on which both sectors are heavily dependent.

Yes, but what exactly does all this have to do with postmodernism in art & literature? It doesn't matter how long you spend on the Internet looking up quotes about postmodernism, what do you actually have to discuss about the postmodern in literature or art? This is still a reductionist argument based on economics.


Your response to such views? First, you claim that they are unfounded and based on paranoia. Then, you state that you simply "don't care" about such issues. After that, you implicitly show that you do care, except that you believe the opposite, i.e., there's more than enough oil for decades. Then, you state that this thread isn't about social realism, after which you state the opposite, as social realism "can be" part of postmodernism, never mind the fact that some of the names you mention, like Lyotard, express precisely that.

Just quoting me all of the time still doesn't belie the fact that you have never discussed anything about literary or artistic postmodernism. You can employ all of the disingenuity & sophistry in the world to prolong this 'debate' but you have never actually stated anything about literary or artistic postmodernism in the 21st century. The posters 'Oshima' & 'NoReasonWriter' both had interesting views on literary & artistic postmodernism. At least they actually had something to say.

I really don't care if the oil runs out & we all have to live in the steam age. I won't be able to do anything about it. The trains would probably still not run on time. This is a science fiction scenario & belongs in a thread that deals with this.

So, apart from whether or not the oil runs out, or whether I am ignorant & contradictory, what was your actual point about postmodernism?

[PeterL]

I hadn't realized that postmodernism depended on one's opinion about oil production. I suppose that the fact that there is more than enough oil for production at today's level to continue for more than 200 years means that postmodernism will continue as a philosophical position for at least tat long.

[Arrowni]

I hadn't realized that postmodernism depended on one's opinion about oil production. I suppose that the fact that there is more than enough oil for production at today's level to continue for more than 200 years means that postmodernism will continue as a philosophical position for at least tat long.

If literature was born with capitalism, then post-modernism can be related with oil prices.

[PeterL]

If literature was born with capitalism, then post-modernism can be related with oil prices.

I thought that the postmodernists related postmoderism to everything, regardless of the root of the relationship. Apparently you think otherwise.

[ralfyman]

I didn't insist anything. I don't accept Malthusian explanations & they have never been proved outright anyway.



Why do you believe that "Malthusian explanations...have never been proved outright anyway"? Also, how are you able to believe that while stating at the same time that you "don't care" about oil production?




I'm wrong about what exactly?



"You proved nothing in your previous messages regarding oil production and nothing with your insistence describing my argument as part of some 'hierarchical binary.' Worse, your own point works against you, as you imply real evidence as opposed to the 'evidence' that I presented."




Just what is your point?



"My argument is that resource availability should be considered because it is part of industrialization, on which postmodernism also rests. Your claim is that my arguments are incorrect because I am operating on some 'binary oppositional argument' (as if you're not doing the same thing) and then, on top of stating that you 'don't care about oil production' now admit that you don't 'believe' in negative claims about the same (even though in a third line, you insist that you were being 'indifferent')."




I don't care about big business, science, oil production or the reptoids from the Zeta Reticuli system.



Given that, how are you able to argue that "Malthusian explanations" have not "proved anything anyway"? For once, would you like to explain why Malthusian views are false? This is the second time I'm asking you.




What is exactly was your original point about postmodernism?



"What I mean is that postmodernism is dependent on industrialization (by that, I mean postmodernism as seen from 1945 onward and increasing industrialization worldwide, not postmodernism as anything that comes after modernism), which in turn requires oil and many other resources coupled with continuous economic growth.

"We face three problems: a drop in oil production with other sources of energy to be used, if we're lucky, for basic needs, chronic economic crises due to increasing debt, and the long-term effects of environmental damage, including climate change.

"With that, there will be no postmodernism to 'embrace.' And if we will 'move on,' it will probably be towards a new dark ages."




So what?



I should be asking that question!




No, I am indifferent & I doubt that there will be a drop for decades.



But doesn't indifference imply that there will be a drop sooner that that, and you wouldn't care either?




... & your point is?



Your argument about this thread not being about social realism is wrong.




If you can't figure this out, I can't help you.



Figure out what? That you are also engaged in a "binary oppositional argument"? :)




This is not a contradiction, anyone with a vague knowledge of postmodern theory would know this. I automatically assumed social realism, feminism, culture etc were a part of the subject. However, this thread is about postmodernism, a subject of some complexity. You have reduced it down to a debate on its reliance on capitalistic oil production. Well done.



Of course, I'll be happy to talk about other issues concerning postmodernism! The problem is that YOU started the debate by arguing that we have "decades of oil" left. On top of that, your belief doesn't go against the notion of postmodernism reliant on oil production. All you did was argue that we only have a several "decades" more.

The other problem is that you muddled things up by bringing up nonsense such as "oppositional binary arguments" and reductionism when it turns out that your arguments are characterized by the same.

Given that, it seems that the only debate we have here is that you think that oil production will drop decades from now. Now, how about sharing the basis of that belief?




Of course its about postmodernism. So, what exactly has your view of social realism got to do with postmodernism & its relation thereof? Answers on a postcard please ...



"...resource availability should be considered because it is part of industrialization, on which postmodernism also rests."




Oh, what joy & fun.



Anything to help the ignorant.




Maybe because I really don't care about oil production?



Don't care or don't know?




You don't have an argument & never have. Unless you are saying that if the oil runs out we will all live in the Middle Ages. And this has what to do with literary postmodernism exactly?



Let's see: Middle Ages and postmodernism....what do you think?




I am not in a trap, you on the other hand, are just merely repeating yourself without ever having a point to make. Except for rather questionable figures on oil productivity.



You're in a trap because the manner by which you characterize my arguments also applies to yours. Also, you seem to have strong beliefs about something you also claim not to care about.




I am going to repeat this again. I am not interested in oil production. Nor am I interested in non-Malthusian claims of oil production. However, I am interested in discussing literary examples of postmodernism. None of which you have ever actually discussed.



I'm not going to repeat this: how are you able to claim that Malthusian explanations are not proven and believe that we have "decades of oil" left while also claiming at the same time that you don't care for anything for or against Malthusian views?

Also, why are you looking for "literary examples of postmodernism" in light of references to Lyotard, who like Jameson talks about postmodernism outside "literary examples." Care to explain that, too?




Obviously.



Indeed, your ignorance is showing.




I may have a 'streak of ignorance' but at least I am not arguing just for the sake of it. Apart from your view about postmodernism & its reliance on economics, what are you actually talking about?



Do I need to quote from my previous messages again? To add to what I've written, postmodern thinkers like Lyotard, Jameson, and others have referred to late capitalism and its connections with postmodernity, and it is painfully obvious that late capitalism stems from industrialization. What I am adding is that such industrialization can only be sustained if more than enough oil and other resources are available. Once the latter does not take place, then late capitalism will not continue, and with it, the conditions of postmodernity.

Now, from what I bothered, you are not contradicting this "reductionist" view. Instead, you state that you believe that oil production will drop "decades" from now, that there's no connection between industrialization, late capitalism, and postmodernity, or that you don't care. You have a fourth argument: the connection between late capitalism and postmodernity is reductionist.

All of these arguments contradict each other, but you use them anyway to insist that I'm mistaken.

So, you see, I'm not the one arguing for the sake of it: you are.




Yes, but what exactly does all this have to do with postmodernism in art & literature? It doesn't matter how long you spend on the Internet looking up quotes about postmodernism, what do you actually have to discuss about the postmodern in literature or art? This is still a reductionist argument based on economics.



You have to read theorists like Lyotard, Jameson, and others to understand my point. For example, Lyotard doesn't only refer to postmodernism in "art and literature."




Just quoting me all of the time still doesn't belie the fact that you have never discussed anything about literary or artistic postmodernism. You can employ all of the disingenuity & sophistry in the world to prolong this 'debate' but you have never actually stated anything about literary or artistic postmodernism in the 21st century. The posters 'Oshima' & 'NoReasonWriter' both had interesting views on literary & artistic postmodernism. At least they actually had something to say.



Now, you're trying to crawl your way out by insisting that what I'm writing about is off-topic! It's amazing how you will refer to thinkers like Lyotard in this thread and then argue that the topic is only supposed to be about "literary or artistic postmodernism"!




I really don't care if the oil runs out & we all have to live in the steam age. I won't be able to do anything about it. The trains would probably still not run on time. This is a science fiction scenario & belongs in a thread that deals with this.



My point has nothing to do with whether or not we can do anything about this problem. (Also, why do you think we "won't be able to do anything about it" if we should have "decades" of oil left? Is this another contradiction on your part?) It's that the postmodern condition, as Lyotard, Jameson, and even Deleuze and Guattari will see it, is strongly connected to "the war-machine," bureaucracies, mass commercial entertainment, and other aspects of late capitalism. The problem is that postmodern theorists have not bothered to consider that the resources needed to keep the global capitalist system operating (a milieu that even postmodern thinkers see in light of feminism and postcolonial discourse) on which late capitalism is dependent are limited, presumably because market forces will allow for resource replacements. But that's not happening.




So, apart from whether or not the oil runs out, or whether I am ignorant & contradictory, what was your actual point about postmodernism?

See my previous paragraph.

[ralfyman]

I hadn't realized that postmodernism depended on one's opinion about oil production. I suppose that the fact that there is more than enough oil for production at today's level to continue for more than 200 years means that postmodernism will continue as a philosophical position for at least tat long.

Not just an opinion but actual numbers. Also, the premise has to do with the availability of oil and other resources to ensure the move from manufacturing to finance to late capitalism.

One, of course, can argue that postmodernism took place before WW2, as seen in works like Joyce's Ulysses and dada art. In which case, postmodernism as a philosophical position can go on indefinitely, as any medium can be used to depict art as fragmented, etc. Unfortunately, the same argument may be applied to any philosophical position.

But postmodernism dependent on social mobility and in light of aspects such as virtual reality, transhumanism, etc? Probably not.

[Arrowni]

I thought that the postmodernists related postmoderism to everything, regardless of the root of the relationship. Apparently you think otherwise.

I'm just saying that the argument could exist if you accept freely whatever definition of post-modernism you can get, it can be as much as a contradiction or as much as a logical implication depending in yous system of thought.