Postmodernism and Critical Theory. Or why the Empress has no clothes.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

A timid boy doesn't comply, he avoids actual participation however habituated he is into going along to get along.

Boys are meant to participate in life, in conventions; but how so is the perennial question.

[noddy]

A timid boy doesn't comply, he avoids actual participation however habituated he is into going along to get along.

Boys are meant to participate in life, in conventions; but how so is the perennial question.

right but that requires a cohesive culture, not the crazy multiculture we live in.

I find that bit of the modern anglosphere very confusing to talk about - a multiculture requires you to have your own workable culture, the system as a whole will provide nothing , which leaves you in the Mr P, Maggie Thatcher world of "their is no society, just a collection of individuals with friends/family/workplaces/churches"

which is fine for have that, but then we have the people born with wide eyes and useless parents, who demand a society... and a culture.

[Typhoon]

Commentary Mag | How Alan Sokal Won the Battle but Lost the ‘Science Wars’

A brilliant parody was the harbinger of a dreadful future

[noddy]

on one side we have the scientism folks injecting science into religion and on the other side we have the post modern folks injecting religion into science.

hopefully both sides lose.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

on one side we have the scientism folks injecting science into religion and on the other side we have the post modern folks injecting religion into science.

hopefully both sides lose.

Alex, I'll start with Auto-Cannibalism for $200........

[Doc]

on one side we have the scientism folks injecting science into religion and on the other side we have the post modern folks injecting religion into science.

hopefully both sides lose.

Alex, I'll start with Auto-Cannibalism for $200........

"He wrote multiple science fiction books"

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

What is....... Harry Harrison??.......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

[Typhoon]

UnHerd | Privilege is the new original sin

Today's zealots demand an orgy of punishment

[noddy]

https://quillette.com/2022/01/18/bitter ... fake-news/

McLuhan taught the Boomers that journalism was not a source of truth, but an instrument to help them get what they wanted. He preached that young people did not have to accept the reality described by journalists. Instead, they could construct their own. And so, journalism became indistinguishable from propaganda. Danny Goldberg, a fan of McLuhan during the 1960s, interpreted his hero’s message as follows: “The media was an indispensable tool for social change. It was certainly what got to me as a teenager.”

McLuhan shared with the Boomers a longing for something better than the imperfect version of truth found in the newspapers and on the TV screens of the 1950s and ’60s. An unforeseen consequence is that, 60 years later, we live in a divided society. Rival tribes, sealed in their own bubbles of information and certainty, are today unable to talk to each other. Climate change believers and climate change deniers, pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers, Democrats and Republicans all trade insults, abuse, and threats on social media. Each tribe has its own journalism and its own preferred set of narratives. Each rejects the journalism of the other as misinformation, fake news, lies, or hate speech. McLuhan’s search for perfection did not turn out quite the way he envisaged. What grew out of the rubble of the old journalism was not a garden of beautiful flowers, but a tangle of thorny weeds bearing a harvest of bitter fruit.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

From McLuhan:

[Nonc Hilaire]

From McLuhan:

BS served with Bernays’ sauce.

[Typhoon]

McLuhan: the Canadian Derrida.

Although to his credit, I don't think he identified with any 20th century school of spunkology, er, philosophy.

He developed his own unique brand of bs.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

https://quillette.com/2022/01/18/bitter ... fake-news/

McLuhan taught the Boomers that journalism was not a source of truth, but an instrument to help them get what they wanted. He preached that young people did not have to accept the reality described by journalists. Instead, they could construct their own. And so, journalism became indistinguishable from propaganda. Danny Goldberg, a fan of McLuhan during the 1960s, interpreted his hero’s message as follows: “The media was an indispensable tool for social change. It was certainly what got to me as a teenager.”

McLuhan shared with the Boomers a longing for something better than the imperfect version of truth found in the newspapers and on the TV screens of the 1950s and ’60s. An unforeseen consequence is that, 60 years later, we live in a divided society. Rival tribes, sealed in their own bubbles of information and certainty, are today unable to talk to each other. Climate change believers and climate change deniers, pro-vaxxers and anti-vaxxers, Democrats and Republicans all trade insults, abuse, and threats on social media. Each tribe has its own journalism and its own preferred set of narratives. Each rejects the journalism of the other as misinformation, fake news, lies, or hate speech. McLuhan’s search for perfection did not turn out quite the way he envisaged. What grew out of the rubble of the old journalism was not a garden of beautiful flowers, but a tangle of thorny weeds bearing a harvest of bitter fruit.

If I rolled my eyes any harder, they'd fall out of my head.

It's a bad article which unchartiably misconstrues [and unnecessarily smears-- he not only ruined the tabloids, he was a nazi too!] McLuhan and avoids the big elephant in the room when it came to his celebrity and those kids he led astray:

a lot of those 60s kids were ellis island fanatics who promoted any catholic or jew as a way to punch at protestant america.

mcluhan was a catholic convert who had academic doors shut on him, as the practice at the time; so he went on a crusade to dismantle the protestant dialectal world (my words obviously).

[noddy]

post modern reinterpretation of boomer philosophy might be silly but we are soaking in it.

dzmTtusvjR4

----

for all the who said/meant/ what stuff, the main thing I found amusing in the article was it was yet-another rant on the breakdown in the belief that more cultural is better, this time from a vaguely right wing blog.

unionists and capitalists squabbling over the different balances of our industrual commerical society is the old political left/right and they both had enough common ground to find somewhat workable compromises.

we can call that the boomer era.

now, we have carnivores and vegans squabbling over the dinner menu and compromise looks less viable.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Genesis and Jacque Derrida

Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) focused on the ontological status of criticism and he established himself as a leading figure in deconstructionism. His analysis of the Western philosophical project employs important descriptors such as: logocentrism, phallogocentrism, the metaphysics of presence, ontotheoloy and metaphysics. “Logocentrism” emphasizes the primacy of logos or speech in the Western tradition.

“Phallogocentrism” points to the patriarchal sources of this primacy. Derrida's “metaphysics of presence” borrows from the work of the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. Heidegger maintains that Western philosophy has always granted primacy or “privilege” to presence itself. That is to say, something is because it can be and something can be because it is.

We might add that "something isn't" is also about metaphysical presence. Derrida is familiar with the apophaticism of eastern thought. (For more on this, go here.)

While Derrida loved to play with words and poke fun at conventional interpretations of texts, he was never very far from Plato's essentialism when he spoke of ontological presence. He regarded the center as absolute, eternal and immutable and believed that the philosophical project in the West has reached a dead end because of the abandonment of essentialism. (In reference to this, I recommend J. Jeremy Wisnewski's essay "An Antirealist Essentialism?" which is available to read online.)

His understanding of the mystery of gender reversal comes from his recognition of the fixed nature of binary oppositions. In subordinating the dominate entity to the subordinate entity we discover not only a different perspective, but also extended meaning derived from the relationship of the opposites.

“Ontotheology” was one of my favorite Derrida terms because it speaks of “the center” to which we inevitably must return and there we find different names, including “God” and “Logos”. As Derrida said, “It would be possible to show that all the terms related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the center have always designated the constant of a presence, ... essence, existence, substance, subject, ... transcendentality, consciousness or conscience, god, man, and so forth.” Derrida demonstrates that language is unstable and plays havoc with the concept of a transcendental, self-evident logos. That said, it is important to remember that Derrida never denies the existence of “the center”, or that there is something there. He regards the center as a function, not a being, but to which we must return in search of being.

Deconstruction dismantles the underlying assumptions upon which a metaphysical argument is based. It requires detailed reading of a text, parsing of terminology, and language “freeplay” on the part of the critic. Derrida’s method involves exploration of contradictions, oppositions and reversals and hangs on a binary framework. He sees that Western metaphysics rather consistently grants privilege to one side of an opposition and marginalizes the opposition. Studying Western philosophy, one would have to agree with him. Aristotle has won the day and Plato has been exiled from the picture.

Derrida ascribes to objects a less substantial existence than the shadow they cast, or their trace. His reversals are a strategic intervention within the bounded Western philosophical system whereby he attempts to break out of that system.

As Derrida suggested: "Deconstruction cannot limit itself or proceed immediately to neutralization: it must, by means of a double gesture, a double science, a double writing, practice an overturning of the classical opposition, and a general displacement of the system. It is on that condition alone that deconstruction will provide the means of intervening in the field of oppositions it criticizes" (Metaphysics).

This reversal of the subordinated term of an opposition is no small aspect of deconstruction's strategy. Derrida's argument is that in examining a binary opposition and reversals, deconstruction brings to light traces of meaning that cannot be said to be present, but which must have metaphysical existence. This is not a new idea or even a new approach to meaning. As I will demonstrate in this essay, it is consistent with the mystical approaches of the Semitic peoples and we must remember that Derrida was a North African Arabic-speaking Jew. In a real sense, Derrida’s contribution to Western Philosophy has been to re-introduce the Semitic interpretive approach to meaning.

Let us now examine a case in point to understand the value of Derrida’s method.

Genesis 12: 8 says that Abraham proceeded “to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the Lord and called upon the name of the Lord.”

This sentence is full of meaning because of the reversal that it represents. Bethel means “House of God” and is associated with the east, the direction of the sunrise. Yet we are told that Abraham pitched his tent with Bethel to the west and Ai to the east. This orientation represents a reversal and point to a mystery. The word Ai in Jewish mysticism is great Mother. The feminine principle has moved to the positon of priority in the east, signaling a gender reversal.

In Jewish mysticism Ain soph is associated with north and the number 1 and represents the Hidden God, the Cause of all causes. Aima is associated with south and the number 3. Because the house of Ain (Bethel) has moved to the west, south has moved to the position of north. We have a reversal of directional poles that places south in the position of priority. South also presents marriage and reproduction. Then in Genesis 12:9 we are told that Abraham’s next journey takes him to the south, to the Negev. It appears that this was when he took Keturah to be his second wife. Now with Sarah in Hebron and Keturah in Beersheba, Abraham was able to establish control over a territory on a north-south axis, following the pattern of his forefathers.

We have further confirmation of the association of 1 with north and 3 with south in I Kings 7:23-26 and II Chronicles 4:1-4. Here we read that the altar in Solomon’s temple was to rest on 12 oxen: 3 facing north, 3 facing west, 3 facing south and 3 facing east. We note that north heads the list, having the position of priority. Then comes west (associated with the numbers 9 and 10) and then in the third position we have south.

The logic of “supplementarity” (Derrida’s term) shows that what is conceived as the marginal object does in fact define the central object of consideration. We have seen this in the complementarity and supplementarity of gender roles. So the binary polarities of the Afro-Asiatic worldview that assigned priority to north and east (those being associated with God) are reversible, bringing south and west to the position of priority. This reversal of south and north interpreted for Abraham the direction he was to go.

With south at the position of priority, Abraham knew to head in that direction. There, at the well of Sheba, he took his second wife, Keturah, his patrilineal parallel cousin. Just as he had worshiped between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 12:7), so Abraham worshiped in Beersheba. Genesis 21:33 tells us that, “Abraham planted a tamar tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God.” The tamar is a date palm that was a symbol of fertility among the peoples of ancient Arabia and was used in the installation of priests and kings.

[noddy]

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/th ... roster?s=r

You could be forgiven for thinking that we’re witnessing the end of the era of the white man. Headlines saying such are not hard to come by, after all, and media and academia are captivated by the notion that we white men must soon give way to women and people of color and, like, gray ace demisexuals or some such. So funny, then, and so profoundly American, that some of the most successful self-marketers of the 21st century are white men. They are, in fact, Good White Men.

These are the guys who have carefully crafted personas as ALLIES, as the good ones, as the right kind of white guy

[Typhoon]

Genesis and Jacque Derrida

Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) focused on the ontological status of criticism and he established himself as a leading figure in deconstructionism. His analysis of the Western philosophical project employs important descriptors such as: logocentrism, phallogocentrism, the metaphysics of presence, ontotheoloy and metaphysics. “Logocentrism” emphasizes the primacy of logos or speech in the Western tradition.

“Phallogocentrism” points to the patriarchal sources of this primacy. Derrida's “metaphysics of presence” borrows from the work of the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. Heidegger maintains that Western philosophy has always granted primacy or “privilege” to presence itself. That is to say, something is because it can be and something can be because it is.

. . .

The logic of “supplementarity” (Derrida’s term) shows that what is conceived as the marginal object does in fact define the central object of consideration. We have seen this in the complementarity and supplementarity of gender roles. So the binary polarities of the Afro-Asiatic worldview that assigned priority to north and east (those being associated with God) are reversible, bringing south and west to the position of priority. This reversal of south and north interpreted for Abraham the direction he was to go.

With south at the position of priority, Abraham knew to head in that direction. There, at the well of Sheba, he took his second wife, Keturah, his patrilineal parallel cousin. Just as he had worshiped between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 12:7), so Abraham worshiped in Beersheba. Genesis 21:33 tells us that, “Abraham planted a tamar tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God.” The tamar is a date palm that was a symbol of fertility among the peoples of ancient Arabia and was used in the installation of priests and kings.

The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game.

~ Jacques Derrida

I have no idea what this is intended to mean.

~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate - Physics

Aside from the purposeful obfuscation one encounters in their writings, the main issue I have with the deconstructionists is the assumption that everything, including reality, is purely a society construct.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Genesis and Jacque Derrida

Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) focused on the ontological status of criticism and he established himself as a leading figure in deconstructionism. His analysis of the Western philosophical project employs important descriptors such as: logocentrism, phallogocentrism, the metaphysics of presence, ontotheoloy and metaphysics. “Logocentrism” emphasizes the primacy of logos or speech in the Western tradition.

“Phallogocentrism” points to the patriarchal sources of this primacy. Derrida's “metaphysics of presence” borrows from the work of the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. Heidegger maintains that Western philosophy has always granted primacy or “privilege” to presence itself. That is to say, something is because it can be and something can be because it is.

. . .

The logic of “supplementarity” (Derrida’s term) shows that what is conceived as the marginal object does in fact define the central object of consideration. We have seen this in the complementarity and supplementarity of gender roles. So the binary polarities of the Afro-Asiatic worldview that assigned priority to north and east (those being associated with God) are reversible, bringing south and west to the position of priority. This reversal of south and north interpreted for Abraham the direction he was to go.

With south at the position of priority, Abraham knew to head in that direction. There, at the well of Sheba, he took his second wife, Keturah, his patrilineal parallel cousin. Just as he had worshiped between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 12:7), so Abraham worshiped in Beersheba. Genesis 21:33 tells us that, “Abraham planted a tamar tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God.” The tamar is a date palm that was a symbol of fertility among the peoples of ancient Arabia and was used in the installation of priests and kings.

The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game.

~ Jacques Derrida

I have no idea what this is intended to mean.

~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate - Physics

Aside from the purposeful obfuscation one encounters in their writings, the main issue I have with the deconstructionists is the assumption that everything, including reality, is purely a society construct.

But It is Above All Not True: Derrida, Relativity and the 'Science Wars'

Hyppolite’s and Derrida’s critics in the scientific community not only cite their comments out of context but virtually disregard the minimal relevant norms of intellectual and, especially, scholarly exchange. Derrida’s statement appears in the transcript of an improvised response to Hyppolite’s question following an oral presentation of his essay. The essay does not mention relativity and the statement itself makes no substantive scientific claims. Relativity and “the [Einsteinian] constant” are brought in by Hyppolite, not Derrida, who responds to Hyppolite extemporaneously, in the context of his just-delivered paper. Given these circumstances, a responsible commentator–scholar, scientist, journalist, or other–unfamiliar with Derrida would be hesitant to judge Derrida’s statement without undertaking a further investigation of his work, beginning with “Structure, Sign and Play.” The conclusions may of course be different from those reached by the present analysis, but no conclusion would be ethically, intellectually, or scholarly responsible short of such an investigation.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Aside from the purposeful obfuscation one encounters in their writings, the main issue I have with the deconstructionists is the assumption that everything, including reality, is purely a society construct.

Agreed, construct is so very much 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' at this point.

Many people who use the word merely mean 'big/large' (with some sort of connotation for something hard to track, chaotic or unwieldy) and would be much better off not using it; if not for the attempt at some sophistication.

The many who use it as a term of abuse do so to harm people's self-perception by dividing the self between a mythology of a conscious-individual and an unconscious-social where the latter is acts akin to a gravitational pull on the latter.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

I don't know how exactly I want to articulate this point, so bare with me:

The elephant in the postmodern room is always going to be the humorless nazi Heidegger in whom all these epigone owe as much a debt to as they do Husserl or anyone else for that matter.

I think it more than fair to make mention of it considering the amount of information we have now to say that not only was Heidegger a true-blue Nazi but a furnace of ambition to be the most cogent expositor of Nazism intellectually; to exist as more nazi than all the party combined.

It's pertinent to deconstruction because the hidden premise is that there is a volk [in the sense Heidegger would've recognized] at the end doing all the deconstructing (no matter how far removed or unacknowledged).

To be a volk, for Heidegger, was to labor and sentimentalize and life itself was employment. Everyone is an employee but few are volk or retain it.

[Typhoon]

Genesis and Jacque Derrida

Jacques Derrida (1930-2004) focused on the ontological status of criticism and he established himself as a leading figure in deconstructionism. His analysis of the Western philosophical project employs important descriptors such as: logocentrism, phallogocentrism, the metaphysics of presence, ontotheoloy and metaphysics. “Logocentrism” emphasizes the primacy of logos or speech in the Western tradition.

“Phallogocentrism” points to the patriarchal sources of this primacy. Derrida's “metaphysics of presence” borrows from the work of the German philosopher, Martin Heidegger. Heidegger maintains that Western philosophy has always granted primacy or “privilege” to presence itself. That is to say, something is because it can be and something can be because it is.

. . .

The logic of “supplementarity” (Derrida’s term) shows that what is conceived as the marginal object does in fact define the central object of consideration. We have seen this in the complementarity and supplementarity of gender roles. So the binary polarities of the Afro-Asiatic worldview that assigned priority to north and east (those being associated with God) are reversible, bringing south and west to the position of priority. This reversal of south and north interpreted for Abraham the direction he was to go.

With south at the position of priority, Abraham knew to head in that direction. There, at the well of Sheba, he took his second wife, Keturah, his patrilineal parallel cousin. Just as he had worshiped between Bethel and Ai (Genesis 12:7), so Abraham worshiped in Beersheba. Genesis 21:33 tells us that, “Abraham planted a tamar tree at Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the Lord, the Everlasting God.” The tamar is a date palm that was a symbol of fertility among the peoples of ancient Arabia and was used in the installation of priests and kings.

The Einsteinian constant is not a constant, is not a center. It is the very concept of variability -- it is, finally, the concept of the game. In other words, it is not the concept of something -- of a center starting from which an observer could master the field -- but the very concept of the game.

~ Jacques Derrida

I have no idea what this is intended to mean.

~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate - Physics

Aside from the purposeful obfuscation one encounters in their writings, the main issue I have with the deconstructionists is the assumption that everything, including reality, is purely a society construct.

But It is Above All Not True: Derrida, Relativity and the 'Science Wars'

Hyppolite’s and Derrida’s critics in the scientific community not only cite their comments out of context but virtually disregard the minimal relevant norms of intellectual and, especially, scholarly exchange. Derrida’s statement appears in the transcript of an improvised response to Hyppolite’s question following an oral presentation of his essay. The essay does not mention relativity and the statement itself makes no substantive scientific claims. Relativity and “the [Einsteinian] constant” are brought in by Hyppolite, not Derrida, who responds to Hyppolite extemporaneously, in the context of his just-delivered paper. Given these circumstances, a responsible commentator–scholar, scientist, journalist, or other–unfamiliar with Derrida would be hesitant to judge Derrida’s statement without undertaking a further investigation of his work, beginning with “Structure, Sign and Play.” The conclusions may of course be different from those reached by the present analysis, but no conclusion would be ethically, intellectually, or scholarly responsible short of such an investigation.

Quite the wanker.

If nothing else, the postmodernists / deconstructionist have a remarkable ability to churn out pages of content-free text.

The Sokal Hoax exposed them for the pretentious bullsh*t artistes that they are.

No sympathy.

“What is called "objectivity," scientific for instance (in which I firmly believe, in a given situation) imposes itself only within a context which is extremely vast, old, firmly established, or rooted in a network of conventions … and yet which still remains a context.”

― Jacques Derrida

I have no idea what this means.

~ Typhoon, anonymous OTNOT forum member

A distinguishing feature of the US was that it was a mostly practical nation with little time for the philosophical / intellectual manias that periodically swept Europe resulting in massive damage.

So it is a bit ironic that the nonsensical musing of once obscure Continental philosophers, such as Derrida, Foucault, Marcuse, Horkheimer, and Gramsci, should come to dominate the beliefs of American academics, ruling elites, and the chattering classes.

[Parodite]

It seems to me deconstruction is an art. A competition in who creates the best word salads. What is the best word salad? Arguably one that can mesmerize whole populations for the longest period possible.

An unfair but necessary question: is Jordan B. Peterson a deconstructionist? One would think not, as he opposes Derrida with all his might.But JBP lives by the word... using his verbal conceptual toolbox to slice and dice reality and reconstruct it with words, sentences, stories. I would argue deconstructing-reconstructing is what all philosophers do, hoping to create the ultimate word salad. A better word to describe what they do is maybe intellectualism. To the point of self-hypnosis, hypnotizing others around them.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Postmodern thought is a lousy analytic but a decent heuristic. It can suggest new ideas out if old data because there are an infinite number of narratives that can be drawn from a single observation.

Most are impossible, unlikely, or impractical but still, I think the concept is mostly misapplied. It’s not postmodernism’s fault people are more interested in solid answers instead of posing better questions.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

Postmodern thought is a lousy analytic but a decent heuristic. It can suggest new ideas out if old data because there are an infinite number of narratives that can be drawn from a single observation.

Most are impossible, unlikely, or impractical but still, I think the concept is mostly misapplied. It’s not postmodernism’s fault people are more interested in solid answers instead of posing better questions.

It may not be its fault but its it's problem.

There is something about the approach which misjudges how and why people talk to one another.