Hello fellow philosophers, What I learned to be over the summer

[Dr. Zaus]

Hello fellow philosophers,

The following defines me and my perspectives; of course post modern and post structuralist ideas defy such modernist categorizations, so how DARE YOU try to define me so simplistically!


http://www.horsesenseatwork.com/psl/pages/postmoderndefined.html

A rhizomatic understanding of our social polyphony avoids the McPostModernism on which earlier work that was critical of the cowboy-Anglo American imperial hegemony was based; thus allowing for a ante-narrative (bet-narrative on one of many penitential outcomes) that can then help the aware individual deconstruct the grand narrative of the oppressor while not ignoring those grand narratives that are of benefit. The grand narratives of Anglo-cowboy hegemony and environmental-destruction as justified by the supposed impending apocalypse would be ante-narratives that need to be deconstructed.The demands of a polyphonic understanding require that we diminish the volume of the established grand narrative, look for the contradictions intrinsic in the narrative and then give voice to those formerly repressed by said grand narrative.

So what perspectives did you change or more fully define in this past year?

 

[Schadenfreude]

. . . what the hell

uh . . . sure.

 

[xSauronx]

cliffs?

 

[Krynj]

cliffs?

...to jump off

 

[Dr. Zaus]

cliffs?

I am now a post modern hippy.

How's life changed for you recently?

 

[artikk]

I hate philosophy, if this isn't a troll, for precisely this-using big words to say nothing while spending half the time 'defining' terms.

 

[linuxboy]

I don't follow how you can plainly state that a rhizomatic understanding necessitates the abandonment of McPostModernism, when McPostModernism is is a valid repressed form within your supposed grand narrative. Or is your pre-supposition that, a priori, there has been some clearly defined hegemonical approach that has singlehandedly dominated the common polyphony?

Because if the latter, isn't that, well, hegemonical of you, and shouldn't my oppressed views hold precedence? In other words, go in the kitchen, and make me a sammich, you oppressor.

Cheers ! 🙂

 

[Moonbeam]

I hate philosophy, if this isn't a troll, for precisely this-using big words to say nothing while spending half the time 'defining' terms.

You are known to be mentally lazy and feel very inferior about you lack of linguistic ability and small vocabulary. You don't have to announce that fact over and over when you find a word you don't understand in somebody's post. Move along. It is better for folk to think you are a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

 

[kinev]

"rhizomatic"?

Like ginger?


...congratulations?


😕


Ooops. I just removed all doubt that I hate myself.

 

[ussfletcher]

Copy/Paste..

 

[artikk]

You are known to be mentally lazy and feel very inferior about you lack of linguistic ability and small vocabulary. You don't have to announce that fact over and over when you find a word you don't understand in somebody's post. Move along. It is better for folk to think you are a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Huh? Did I post text diarrhea about self hate in every post like someone we all know? Oh that's right, that was you.

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe that opposites are integrated at a higher level of understanding. But as to who is aware and how awareness is obtained, that is a different issue. Despite the evidence that I think exists to the contrary, I think most folk think they are aware. This assumption is a killer because nobody looks for what they think they already know.

 

[Moonbeam]

Huh? Did I post text diarrhea about self hate in every post like someone we all know? Oh that's right, that was you.

Sounds like you hate yourself. Build a good vocabulary and show an interest in ideas. It will do wonders for your self image. I am now actually able to get out of bed some mornings without my meds. I could never spell diarrhea on my own though.

 

[Cattlegod]

Postmodern is the new modern. I hardly know any orgs that do the things in the left column. The real question is what is post post modern?

 

[mrjminer]

I'm premodern.

 

[IronWing]

Sadly, I understood the OP's post on the first read. Being a white man in modern America is kind of like being an old timey banjo picker. There is always some musicologist watching you take a wizz and trying to derive meaning from the experience.


Also, reading the OP's linked listing of modern vs post modern virtues I note that there is one important distinction missing from the comparison: MODERNISTS ACTUALLY GOT SHIT DONE.

 

[chusteczka]

Wikipedia - Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a movement away from the viewpoint of modernism. More specifically it is a tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the problem of objective truth and inherent suspicion towards global cultural narrative or meta-narrative. It involves the belief that many, if not all, apparent realities are only social constructs, as they are subject to change inherent to time and place. It emphasizes the role of language, power relations, and motivations; in particular it attacks the use of sharp classifications such as male versus female, straight versus gay, white versus black, and imperial versus colonial. Rather, it holds realities to be plural and relative, and dependent on who the interested parties are and what their interests consist in.

Wikipedia - Post Modern Constructivism

Post-modern constructivism is a variant of constructivist thinking that claims that there is no neutral viewpoint from which to assess the validity of analytical and ethical knowledge claims.[1] It is often contrasted with a more mainstream version of constructivism called 'modern constructivism'.

Wikipedia - Metanarrative

a metanarrative is an abstract idea that is thought to be a comprehensive explanation of historical experience or knowledge.
...
In postmodern philosophy, a metanarrative is an untold story that unifies and totalizes the world, and justifies a culture's power structures.

Wikipedia - Rhizome (philosophy)

Rhizome as a mode of knowledge and model for society
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari use the term "rhizome" and "rhizomatic" to describe theory and research that allows for multiple, non-hierarchical entry and exit points in data representation and interpretation.
...
As a model for culture, the rhizome resists the organizational structure of the root-tree system which charts causality along chronological lines and looks for the originary source of "things" and looks towards the pinnacle or conclusion of those "things." A rhizome, on the other hand, "ceaselessly established connections between semiotic chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to the arts, sciences, and social struggles."

A rhizome appears to be an attempt to understand a concept, issue, or situation without the limitations of a cause or result.


Wikipedia - Antenarrative

Antenarrative is defined as “non-linear, incoherent, collective, unplotted, and pre-narrative speculation, a bet, a proper retrospective narrative with Beginning, Middle, and End (BME) can be constituted” (Boje, 2001: 1). Antenarratives are “in the middle” and “in-between” (Boje, 2001: 293) refusing to attach linear BME coherence. Whereas, most BME narratives and narrative fragments are retrospective (backward-looking) antenarratives are more often prospective (forward-looking). BME Narratives must achieve coherence, developmental plots required by narrative theorists

Dictionary.com - Hegemony

1. leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others, as in a confederation.
2. leadership; predominance.
3. (especially among smaller nations) aggression or expansionism by large nations in an effort to achieve world domination.

===================
It seems that postmodernism strives for a comprehensive understanding of society from all angles in four dimensions. A rhizomatic understanding seeks to consolidate the many potential results from the current moment into a single dimension where any occurrence is accessible to all other occurrences, similar to finding the common factors in an algebraic equation, depending on an individual's perspective.

It seems the statement mentions to use the viewpoint of the oppressed to deconstruct the viewpoint of the oppressor as a method to find any common factors between the opposing view points that may then be used to construct a solution for everyone to the perceived problem of an impending apocalypse due to environmental destruction caused by America and its policies.

It seems to be an attempt by the oppressed to obtain a logical solution that may be presented to the oppressor in an attempt to reach an agreement beneficial for all.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

It seems to be an attempt by the oppressed to obtain a logical solution that may be presented to the oppressor in an attempt to reach an agreement beneficial for all.

yep; though of course this would just be my view... many others much more radical than I.

MODERNISTS ACTUALLY GOT SHIT DONE.

QFE

I'm premodern.

critical post modernism integrates the premodern and takes many movements from modernism as well. I would say that there's no distinct post modern/pre modern/modern so much as a an interplay between them as post modernism respects the transcendental nature of human aesthetics;

Postmodern is the new modern. I hardly know any orgs that do the things in the left column. The real question is what is post post modern?

Often post modern movements are absorbed by the modern in order to further generate a grand narrative of oppression. TQM, for example, is labeled worker empowerment, when in fact it is a means of forcing the worker to exploit himself in ways management couldn't come up with.

But as to who is aware and how awareness is obtained, that is a different issue. Despite the evidence that I think exists to the contrary, I think most folk think they are aware. This assumption is a killer because nobody looks for what they think they already know.

I don't want to go social constructionist... but have you considered that for the individual that thinks he or she is aware that awareness encapsulates the entirety of his or her reality? I suppose that the a level of awareness, that an awareness of a single reality is ignorance, requires an integration of conclusions that are outside of pure positivist empiricism.

I don't follow how you can plainly state that a rhizomatic understanding necessitates the abandonment of McPostModernism, when McPostModernism is is a valid repressed form within your supposed grand narrative.

as i mentioned such movements are often co-opted by modernism in-order to further exploit and the modern grand narrative; further simple derision fails to reconstruct an ante-narrative of value to finding a solution that may be presented to the oppressor in an attempt to reach an agreement beneficial for all.

That said, I think a polyphonic, post structuralist, point of view allows for all movements. But being critical of the critical is still part of critical thinking ;-).

 

[Albatross]

If one examines expressionism, one is faced with a choice: either accept postcultural narrative or conclude that sexuality serves to disempower the underprivileged, given that Lyotard’s analysis of precultural deconstruction is invalid. Therefore, Sartre uses the term ‘materialist rationalism’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity and society.

“Language is meaningless,” says Derrida. Bataille suggests the use of precultural deconstruction to analyse society. But Buxton suggests that the works of Pynchon are not postmodern.

Lacan uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote not discourse, but neodiscourse. It could be said that many theories concerning a mythopoetical paradox may be revealed.

The premise of postdialectic discourse states that narrativity, paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning. But Bataille promotes the use of postcultural narrative to deconstruct class divisions.

If precultural deconstruction holds, we have to choose between postcultural narrative and the constructive paradigm of reality. Therefore, Baudrillard uses the term ‘Sartreist existentialism’ to denote not theory, as postcultural narrative suggests.

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

 

[brainhulk]

dixycrat and moonbeam in same thread

/headasplode

 

[Dr. Zaus]

A lot of wrong statements in this post, like a total misrepresentation of Derrida, but this is a point:

we have to choose between postcultural narrative and the constructive paradigm of reality.

Or we could look not at the post-cultural narrative paradigm as a monolithic paradigm like that of the social constructiveness or naive realists, but rather consider an integration of what Bakhtin calls polyphony (as exemplified by Dostoevsky). While this may seem like a simple appeal to semiotics as a replacement for or transubstantiation of the narrative paradigm, the truth is that the polyphonic perspective allows for a post modern understanding that is rhizomatic; this is done through a focus on the dialogic and the avoidance of monologic;

This, in terms of sense making, means that what happens during impacts our perceptions of what happened before and that before will impact our understanding of what happens in the future; as such a beginning-middle-end mono-logic understanding of sense-making and the progression of knowledge can transcend the narrative v. social constructionist dichotomy.

dixycrat and moonbeam in same thread

/headasplode

OH, how my wife lawlzed.... She's pregnant and had to potty because of the lawlz found in this thread "reason for editing: self hate" oh.... so good...

I honestly thought "My God.. Moon beam, defending me... I must be doing the wrong thing with my life"

Then I realized that MoonBeam's just been more enlightened than me this whole time and I couldn't tell. The man with mirror-ray vision looks a fool to the fool.

 

[brainhulk]

You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant.

As I was saying, you stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly ninety-nine percent of the test subjects accepted it provided they were given a choice - even if they were only aware of it at a near-unconscious level. While this solution worked, it was fundamentally flawed, creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that, if left unchecked, might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those who refused the solution, while a minority, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.

Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the formulation of the problem. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.

 

[yhelothar]

I don't follow how you can plainly state that a rhizomatic understanding necessitates the abandonment of McPostModernism, when McPostModernism is is a valid repressed form within your supposed grand narrative. Or is your pre-supposition that, a priori, there has been some clearly defined hegemonical approach that has singlehandedly dominated the common polyphony?

Because if the latter, isn't that, well, hegemonical of you, and shouldn't my oppressed views hold precedence? In other words, go in the kitchen, and make me a sammich, you oppressor.

Cheers ! 🙂

Cheers ! 🙂rz
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Dr. Zaus]

and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.

You can't correct me when you don't address what I've said directly. You can only label something wrong without addressing the causality related to that improper mode of thinking if you offer a mode of thinking that supports such conclusions. You have not.

Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant.

Those two are the opposites of each-other and there's nothing transcendental about contradicting yourself simply for the sake of satirically reinforcing your previous sentence regarding parts that will and won't be understood. Further your use of SAT vocabulary words reflect only that your reflection upon what I said is more shallow than simply re-posting something from someone else's blog; but to dwell on these points is to miss what you are truly saying: (or as Derrida would say, there is nothing outside of context)

I understand that using words that you have to look up to understand makes you feel like i'm just being pretentious and condescending: so you've responded in kind. This was, of course, not my intent;

chusteczka did a great job of doing exactly what I did the first time I ran across a similar dense pile of crazy (as I called it at the time). But now I've come to understand the ideas and I've also come to the smartest forum I know to hear differing views on said points.

Such as LinuxBoy's pointing out the contradiction inherent in the repression of the oppressor's narrative for the benefit of the oppressed voices; an point well made and only weakly defended by my appeal to the inclusiveness of a polyphonic perspective.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

dixycrat and moonbeam in same thread

/headasplode

just missing nemesis