Postmodernism

[Jeff Wagg]

You are clearly better read than I, but I'd like to focus on the idea that "There is no reality without perception."

Does that mean that Mars didn't exist until someone saw it? Isn't that a bit anthropomorphic?

And then you have to answer if the first person who saw Mars was the one who created it, since it didn't exist before.

Or for that matter, you didn't exist until this morning because I didn't perceive you until then. What happens if I forget about you? (Not an attack, I assure you.)

I'm much more interested in exploring this issue than arguing who is right or wrong.

I have so much to learn...

 

[Suggestologist]

You are clearly better read than I, but I'd like to focus on the idea that "There is no reality without perception."

Does that mean that Mars didn't exist until someone saw it? Isn't that a bit anthropomorphic?

Yes, reality is itself a human concept, reality is anthropomorphic. Mars did not exist as a concept until someone saw it. It did influence things that affected people very peripherally before someone saw it. Mars was only a hypothetical possibility before that.

And then you have to answer if the first person who saw Mars was the one who created it, since it didn't exist before.

The first person to create it as a concept, created it as a concept to explain the shared reality the first person conceptualized as Mars. The next person the first person shared the concept with, reconceptualized it to fit this next person's own mental associations.

Or for that matter, you didn't exist until this morning because I didn't perceive you until then. What happens if I forget about you? (Not an attack, I assure you.)

I did not exist as a concept you could utilize symbolically to plan your future activities. I was only a hypothetical possibility, as far as you were concerned.

I'm much more interested in exploring this issue than arguing who is right or wrong.

I have so much to learn... [/B]

In the mental field, what is negotiable is the meaning, not the concrete thing about which the meaning revolves. If someone has experienced the conditioning that tells them that when someone reaches out a hand toward them -- that means they will soon be attacked -- one may want to recondition that person that the meaning of someone reaching out a hand toward them may be the other person's desire to shake hands. So it is not the hand reaching out toward a person that can be negotiated; but the meaning that the person attaches to a hand reaching out toward them can be negotiated -- and that is negotiable reality.

 

[Hastur]

Yes, reality is itself a human concept, reality is anthropomorphic. Mars did not exist as a concept until someone saw it. It did influence things that affected people very peripherally before someone saw it. Mars was only a hypothetical possibility before that.

I would disagree with you there. The concept of a planet called Mars had to be invented, but the planet was always there. It could have been called a lot of things by a lot of people.

 

[Suggestologist]

Paul Wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can clearly see that there is no bi-univocal correspondence between linear signifying links or archi-writing, depending on the author, and this multireferential, multidimensional machinic catalysis. The symmetry of scale, the transversality: all these dimensions remove us from the logic of the excluded middle and reinforce us in our dismissal of the ontological binarism we criticised previously.
---Felix Guattari, "Chaosmosis"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


and also

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The excrementalization of alterity as the site/sight of homelessness, of utter outsideness and insubiatable dispossession figure(s) in ... Hegel's metanarrational conception of Enlightenment modernity as the teleological process of totalization leading to absolute knowing.
---Calvin Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I fully admit that I'm throwing out any possible baby with the sewage.

~~ Paul

I fully admit that this is my personal interpretation of the purpose of the style of writing often associated with postmodernist philosophers.

People are uncomfortable with ambiguity, skeptics in particular seem to have a very low ambiguity threshold. At the same time, people think that there is less ambiguity in clear writing -- but there is just as much ambiguity in clear writing, the ambiguities are just hidden behind what appears to be simple language. What the postmodernists are doing is opening up some of those hidden layers, offering them up for consideration.

If you think you know what I'm visualizing when I communicate the concept as simple as "cat", you may as well claim to be a psychic -- you cannot see into my mind and tell me what color, age, size, activity, expression, position, and so on that the cat I'm seeing in my mind's eye can be described.

By the same token, some of the best minds have a high ambiguity threshhold; Einstein almost had a mental breakdown while coming up with some of his earlier concepts -- if biographies of him are to be believed.

The neologisms of the postmodernist philosophers are no less definition-poor than the simple concepts of simpler communicators. And that is the point of their written performances, mixed with others.

Exoticise the familiar; familiarize the exotic.

As Derrida has described deconstructionism: it is a way to think (in) set-theory. It's also very hypnotic to break apart one's conceptual systems.

 

[Suggestologist]

I would disagree with you there. The concept of a planet called Mars had to be invented, but the planet was always there. It could have been called a lot of things by a lot of people.

Yes, others could have called something a different name than "Mars". And later they could have come to the realization that their name and "Mars" have the same referent.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

it is not the hand reaching out toward a person that can be negotiated; but the meaning that the person attaches to a hand reaching out toward them can be negotiated -- and that is negotiable reality.

I would call that "negotiable perception."

I fear that all conversations about philosophy end up being a disagreement on the meanings of the words used.

That said, I agree with Hastur. The planet had to be there before anyone could perceive it. [Second thought: We perceive things that don't exist all the time. Hmm.]

Now if I had a client who had a phobia concerning Mars, I would work to change his perceptions about Mars. They are indistinguishable to him from reality, but not to me, an outsider. This places a lot of burden on the therapist to be aware of the limits of his/her own perceptions.

I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of having the client change his reality about Mars.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses thusfar.

 

[Suggestologist]

I would call that "negotiable perception."

I fear that all conversations about philosophy end up being a disagreement on the meanings of the words used.

That said, I agree with Hastur. The planet had to be there before anyone could perceive it. [Second thought: We perceive things that don't exist all the time. Hmm.]

I'm not disagreeing that something was there before that something was conceptualized and given a name as Mars.

Now if I had a client who had a phobia concerning Mars, I would work to change his perceptions about Mars. They are indistinguishable to him from reality, but not to me, an outsider. This places a lot of burden on the therapist to be aware of the limits of his/her own perceptions.

Very good. Now add in the interactional aspect of human behavior. The way you respond, affects the way the person you're interacting with responds back, affects the way you respond back, ...

If a person frowns at you, does that mean you have to feel bad? does that mean you're a bad person? Does it make you feel bad that you don't want to feel bad about a person frowning at you? but you can't help yourself? This is more of the kind of thing you'll encounter, not phobias about Mars.

I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of having the client change his reality about Mars.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses thusfar.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

If a person frowns at you, does that mean you have to feel bad? does that mean you're a bad person? Does it make you feel bad that you don't want to feel bad about a person frowning at you? but you can't help yourself? This is more of the kind of thing you'll encounter, not phobias about Mars.

Yep, "restorying," got you there. And the Mars example was rather silly, but nicely material.

I have no problem with restorying. I have learned that making someone sad is bad, so therefor if I do that, I'm bad. I can unlearn my assumptive behavior, or relearn it a different way. I can change my perceptions by adding new information, or at least by analyzing the information I have in a different way. And I can do those things while maintaining the same values I had.

But what does that have to do with reality? I don't find the therapeutic techniques of the Post-Modern theories so onerous as their premise that reality is completely subjective. I feel like I'm missing some fairly obvious connection. Either that, or it's all a bunch of hooey...a construct of linguistics alone.

 

[Suggestologist]

Yep, "restorying," got you there. And the Mars example was rather silly, but nicely material.

I have no problem with restorying. I have learned that making someone sad is bad, so therefor if I do that, I'm bad. I can unlearn my assumptive behavior, or relearn it a different way. I can change my perceptions by adding new information, or at least by analyzing the information I have in a different way. And I can do those things while maintaining the same values I had.

Actually, you have learned that sadness = badness. If you're sad, mommy will get angry at you, and tell you that you're being bad.

Adding information doesn't help unless it's integrated into the old system. That's why "insight" therapy doesn't work often, knowing why you do something, doesn't automatically stop you from continuing to do it. Same for learning. Unless you change the reference experience that automatically pops into your mind in a certain context, you'll still be fighting yourself when it happens, rather than allowing things to happen -- as your old habit was allowed.

And I don't know which type of values you're indicating above.

Let me offer an example from my memory of How Real Is Real?. Acid rain had become prominent in the news, and people began reporting that they had dents in their windshield because of the acid rain. As news of this spread, so reports of windshield dents rose. So the problem became epidemic. There were congressional investigations -- if I recall the book correctly.

But what had really happened? The dents had always been there, when news spread about dents people became more apt to see them. As more people reported them, there were more news stories about them, more word of mouth, more fear of acid rain, vicious cycle.

How is this useful in counselling? Raising awareness (availability and salience) and linking it to something which may or may not be the "real" cause? Could it be useful to link something to a hypothetical cause, you're not sure of? How real is the result?

But what does that have to do with reality? I don't find the therapeutic techniques of the Post-Modern theories so onerous as their premise that reality is completely subjective. I feel like I'm missing some fairly obvious connection. Either that, or it's all a bunch of hooey...a construct of linguistics alone.

If you've taken a communications class in college, you may have been told that words don't mean anything. It's the person who creates the meaning when you encounter words. Everyone's meaning-making process is necessarily different.

That thing that people have come to call Mars changed when people called it that; or rather - people changed the way they interacted with it. It acquired associations that it simply could not have acquired without a name. A co-referent to what Mars refers to will have a different set of associations, more or less. Is it real that people refer to Mars as the God of War? Is it real that this has influenced the way people think of Mars? By another name, the referent of Mars would have different associations; and that has implications for how people communicate and interact with the concept on hypothetical-cognitive and actual levels of behavior.

 

[roger]

Yes, reality is itself a human concept, reality is anthropomorphic. Mars did not exist as a concept until someone saw it. It did influence things that affected people very peripherally before someone saw it. Mars was only a hypothetical possibility before that.



The first person to create it as a concept, created it as a concept to explain the shared reality the first person conceptualized as Mars. The next person the first person shared the concept with, reconceptualized it to fit this next person's own mental associations.
[/B]

I'm not trying to be rude here, but in plain English, isn't that all just a fancy way of saying the rather banal statement "We don't know something until we know it"? Or, to reword your two paragraphs:

"Yup, we perceive reality. No one knew about mars until they saw it. And they couldn't have, could they?

Then that person told another person about it. He didn't get it, so he explained it in a way so he could."


Is there any additional intellectual content in what you said? I emphasize intellectual - the issue is not whether I left out some small aspect of one of our statements, a common problem with translation, but is there any fundamentally different/new way of understanding the world that I missed?

Because that is how post-modernism reads to me. If it is not deliberate gibberish (which your writing absolutely is not), it is just a rewording of what we already know into a specialized jargon.

I admit jargon can be useful for professionals - having 10 narrowly defined alternative ways to say "he knows it" can be used to communicate something more precisely. After all, there is a big difference between knowing something in the sense of perceiving it with our senses (seeing mars) and knowing something as in a body of knowledge (how to solve elliptic integrals analytically).

But I just haven't seen language used that precisely in the post-modernist I've read.

I welcome correction/clarification.

 

[Suggestologist]

I'm not trying to be rude here, but in plain English, isn't that all just a fancy way of saying the rather banal statement "We don't know something until we know it"? Or, to reword your two paragraphs:

"Yup, we perceive reality. No one knew about mars until they saw it. And they couldn't have, could they?

Then that person told another person about it. He didn't get it, so he explained it in a way so he could."

The second person "got it", but Person2 had to get it in relation to the associations and maps of "reality" Person2 already had. In other words, every person has a unique understanding (set of associations, maps, attitudes, etc.) of any shared concept. The referent of "Mars" the planet by another name would take on different cultural associations, different words might rhyme with it; the mental-trace would be different when you encountered the word.

People have the illusion of understanding others; but the counselor should realize that their understanding is full of holes and mis-associations. De Shazer likes the idea: you cannot read without misreading.

Is there any additional intellectual content in what you said? I emphasize intellectual - the issue is not whether I left out some small aspect of one of our statements, a common problem with translation, but is there any fundamentally different/new way of understanding the world that I missed?

Because that is how post-modernism reads to me. If it is not deliberate gibberish (which your writing absolutely is not), it is just a rewording of what we already know into a specialized jargon.

Yes, postmodernism asks people to consider different punctuations of reality, than the one's they've grown up with; and they want this to come from the deepest conceptual levels.

I admit jargon can be useful for professionals - having 10 narrowly defined alternative ways to say "he knows it" can be used to communicate something more precisely. After all, there is a big difference between knowing something in the sense of perceiving it with our senses (seeing mars) and knowing something as in a body of knowledge (how to solve elliptic integrals analytically).

But I just haven't seen language used that precisely in the post-modernist I've read.

I welcome correction/clarification.

I'll quote from Deconstructions: A User's Guide edited by Nicholas Royle; Derek Attridge on p. 107: "The pure expression of truth if there were such a thing, would be immediate: it would not rely on anything external to it, since the utilization of some outside aid would always threaten to contaminate its purity. But the utterance of the truth - or of a statement making a truthclaim - is in fact always mediated by language, language which has its own sedimented history, structural properties and figurative potential. The truth in language is never simply present; it always has to pass through space and time, and this means that the context in which it is produced is always different than the one in which it is received."

What deconstruction asks is for people to take a look at the sedimentation (cultural and personal associations), the structure, the figurative potential of language and notice how it impacts upon perceptions of reality. And try on other punctuations (the way you split something up into pieces and units) of reality.

Before Mars was punctuated as its own entity; it was part of the tapestry of the sky. Before a personal problem is punctuated out as its own entity; it is part of the flow of personal experience.

 

[Rob Lister]

The Circular Key: Subcapitalist objectivism in the works of Spelling
Hans Z. Wilson
Department of English, Carnegie-Mellon University
1. Spelling and Sartreist absurdity

If one examines patriarchialist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject predialectic semiotic theory or conclude that government is capable of intent. Marx's essay on neocapitalist semioticist theory implies that the purpose of the poet is social comment. Thus, if predialectic semiotic theory holds, we have to choose between subcapitalist objectivism and the precultural paradigm of narrative.

The main theme of Humphrey's[1] critique of Lacanist obscurity is the difference between society and sexual identity. But in The Heights, Spelling denies predialectic semiotic theory; in Melrose Place he deconstructs subcapitalist objectivism.

De Selby[2] suggests that we have to choose between Sartreist absurdity and posttextual appropriation. It could be said that Lyotard uses the term 'subcapitalist objectivism' to denote a mythopoetical reality. Bataille suggests the use of Sartreist absurdity to analyse society. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a materialist theory that includes truth as a whole.
2. Predialectic semiotic theory and Sontagist camp

In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the concept of neotextual language. A number of constructions concerning the bridge between sexual identity and society exist. In a sense, Lacan promotes the use of subcapitalist objectivism to challenge hierarchy.

"Culture is meaningless," says Debord. The primary theme of the works of Eco is a dialectic reality. It could be said that if predialectic semiotic theory holds, we have to choose between subcapitalist objectivism and posttextual narrative.

The main theme of Brophy's[3] model of Marxist class is the difference between class and sexual identity. Thus, Sontag uses the term 'subcapitalist objectivism' to denote the role of the participant as reader.

Bailey[4] holds that the works of Eco are postmodern. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a predialectic semiotic theory that includes language as a whole. Subcapitalist objectivism suggests that sexual identity has objective value, given that the premise of capitalist narrative is valid. However, the primary theme of the works of Eco is the fatal flaw, and some would say the absurdity, of subdialectic art.

The subject is contextualised into a subcapitalist objectivism that includes consciousness as a totality. It could be said that the characteristic theme of la Tournier's[5] critique of predialectic semiotic theory is the role of the poet as participant.
3. Eco and semioticist discourse

"Culture is fundamentally used in the service of outdated, elitist perceptions of class," says Bataille; however, according to Humphrey[6] , it is not so much culture that is fundamentally used in the service of outdated, elitist perceptions of class, but rather the meaninglessness, and eventually the rubicon, of culture. An abundance of desituationisms concerning Sontagist camp may be found. But Foucault's essay on deconstructive theory holds that truth serves to exploit the underprivileged.

Lacan suggests the use of Sontagist camp to attack and analyse class. Therefore, in Foucault's Pendulum, Eco denies postdialectic appropriation; in The Island of the Day Before, although, he affirms subcapitalist objectivism.

If Sontagist camp holds, we have to choose between subcapitalist objectivism and capitalist prepatriarchialist theory. In a sense, the example of semiotic feminism intrinsic to Eco's Foucault's Pendulum is also evident in The Name of the Rose, although in a more self-justifying sense.
1. Humphrey, T. B. H. ed. (1979) Predialectic semiotic theory and subcapitalist objectivism. Schlangekraft

2. de Selby, U. (1992) The Expression of Rubicon: Predialectic semiotic theory in the works of Eco. And/Or Press

3. Brophy, G. J. ed. (1980) Subcapitalist objectivism and predialectic semiotic theory. Cambridge University Press

4. Bailey, F. (1977) The Stasis of Society: Predialectic semiotic theory and subcapitalist objectivism. Yale University Press

5. la Tournier, Y. N. A. ed. (1996) Subcapitalist objectivism and predialectic semiotic theory. Schlangekraft

6. Humphrey, C. G. (1987) Subcapitalist Theories: Subcapitalist objectivism in the works of Lynch. Panic Button Books

The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

I have to admit that the Postmodern Essay Generator makes about as much sense as much of the Postmodern theory I've read.

Why do they have to create new definitions for old words, and completely destroy the grammar of existing words? Sedimentation? Discourse? Story-ing?

Back to the topic though..what does Postmodern theory say about human development? At what point was our "reality map" completed and when did the cartographers quit the job? I honestly don't think I'm finished with my map..I'm always perceiving new features that I never saw before.

I do feel like the minority though..all the 20-something year old students in the class think I'm crazy when I talk about reality as being real. They've never heard such an idea.

 

[Suggestologist]

I have to admit that the Postmodern Essay Generator makes about as much sense as much of the Postmodern theory I've read.

Why do they have to create new definitions for old words, and completely destroy the grammar of existing words? Sedimentation? Discourse? Story-ing?

Denominalizing a thing into a process: story (thing); storying (process). Analogy: sedimentation -- has layers, foundational, etc.

Neologisms (new words) can be useful because they have no history, no baggage; they're almost a blank slate onto which you can attempt to define something new, or more clearly than an existing word's connotations might allow.

Back to the topic though..what does Postmodern theory say about human development? At what point was our "reality map" completed and when did the cartographers quit the job? I honestly don't think I'm finished with my map..I'm always perceiving new features that I never saw before.

I do feel like the minority though..all the 20-something year old students in the class think I'm crazy when I talk about reality as being real. They've never heard such an idea.

Those new features are always perceived through the filter of a person's existing maps, attitudes, associations, etc. Oppositions form a low-level conceptualizing filter. An opposition is: cold-hot, alive-dead, written-spoken(Derrida's favorite), true-false, black-white, sane-insane. If you're not one, you're the other (as long as the class of the opposition is the universe of discourse). Deconstruction attempts to show that the opposition does not necessarily hold as the best way to understand something, or that the priviledged of the opposition pair (truth is priviledged over false, alive is priviledged over dead) is not necessarily as good as people see it to be; that's not the only thing in deconsctruction, but it's prominent.

For example what thing/animal/person in what context/condition could be both free and enslaved at the same time? I'd appreciate your thought on this before your answer.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

For example what thing/animal/person in what context/condition could be both free and enslaved at the same time? I'd appreciate your thought on this before your answer.

First, I agree about the neologisms (Id, Ego come to mind), but the Post Modernist movement has done a poor job of it, mostly because they are hijacking other words. I absolutely hate that I can't use the word "discourse" anymore because the meaning has been muddled.

As for your question, I can't think of anything that doesn't meet those conditions. They're relative terms, not absolutes. Nothing is ever absolutely free or absolutely "enslaved," though I'm not sure that's even the opposite of free.

If we need an example, we can use my cat. It's free from the need to hunt for its own food, yet it's not free to leave the house. It's free to live a longer and healthier life than nature intended, but it's not free to reproduce.

Is this what you're looking for?

 

[Suggestologist]

First, I agree about the neologisms (Id, Ego come to mind), but the Post Modernist movement has done a poor job of it, mostly because they are hijacking other words. I absolutely hate that I can't use the word "discourse" anymore because the meaning has been muddled.

Sometimes muddling up an unhelpful idea can be useful.

As for your question, I can't think of anything that doesn't meet those conditions. They're relative terms, not absolutes. Nothing is ever absolutely free or absolutely "enslaved," though I'm not sure that's even the opposite of free.

In set theory, the opposite of "free" is anything in the universe of discourse other than "free". NOT(free) = U minus "free"; [NOT(free) = U - free]. Of course people tend to fixate on two opposing ideas within a particular universe of discourse.

If we need an example, we can use my cat. It's free from the need to hunt for its own food, yet it's not free to leave the house. It's free to live a longer and healthier life than nature intended, but it's not free to reproduce.

Is this what you're looking for?

Yes, exactly. Now how does deconstruction of oppositions make sense in counseling? Let's say the client has created for themselves a pathological opposing pair: Either I'm hopelessly unlovable, "or" everyone always treats me well. That's an exclusive-or (XOR). Do you see the problem this opposition pair would cause? Do you understand how deconstructing the opposition could be therapeutic?

They're unlikely to give you the XOR statement directly; but you can uncover their map with conversation and questions.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Postmodernism was instantiated by a band of academics frustrated by the hegemonic status of the scientific program. In reaction to it, they adopted a neo-Hegelian dialectic that includes the generation of novel word meanings at an astounding rate, in a hopeless attempt to emulate what they see has a fundamental facet of the scientific process. They are incapable of cognizing the essential facets, and so adopt this ludicrous transversality as the sola scriptura of their project.

~~ Paul

 

[Jeff Corey]

Postmodernism was instantiated by a band of academics frustrated by the hegemonic status of the scientific program. In reaction to it, they adopted a neo-Hegelian dialectic that includes the generation of novel word meanings at an astounding rate, in a hopeless attempt to emulate what they see has a fundamental facet of the scientific process. They are incapable of cognizing the essential facets, and so adopt this ludicrous transversality as the sola scriptura of their project.

~~ Paul

Isn't that Neopostmodernism? It's post post-Kant, innit? The transverbalisations are more cunninglinguistic than Noam Chimpsky.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Sometimes muddling up an unhelpful idea can be useful.

If you've shown that it's unhelpful, why not just throw it away, instead of playing word games with it?

In set theory, the opposite of "free" is anything in the universe of discourse other than "free". NOT(free) = U minus "free"; [NOT(free) = U - free].

Yes. Boolean logic is hardly postmodernism, is it?

Of course people tend to fixate on two opposing ideas within a particular universe of discourse.

Now how does deconstruction of oppositions make sense in counseling? Let's say the client has created for themselves a pathological opposing pair: Either I'm hopelessly unlovable, "or" everyone always treats me well. That's an exclusive-or (XOR). Do you see the problem this opposition pair would cause? Do you understand how deconstructing the opposition could be therapeutic?

But in what way is identifying a false dichotomy as a logical fallacy postmodern?

Oh, because you called it "deconstruction of oppositions". The jargon, of course. But what else? The idea that the negation of X is not-X is suddenly an achievement of postmodernism? Did you guys invent the wheel as well?

They're unlikely to give you the XOR statement directly; but you can uncover their map with conversation and questions.

Splendid. The therapist is to have a preconceived notion of what they're thinking, which the therapist will then "uncover" although the patient won't say it "directly". (See also the "Oedipus complex", "recovered memories" etc.) Huge alarm bells have just begun ringing in my head. The therapist starts off by assuming that the problem is a false dichotomy? Why not petitio principii or assuming the antecedent? After all, even if the problem arises from an error in logic (and why in the world should we presuppose that?) there's more than one logical error in the world.

This all sounds very very reckless. I shall stay away from postmodern therapists. (I was going to anyway...)

Is there any empirical evidence whatsoever that people who adhere to this curious theory make better therapists than people who don't? Or at least, that they're no worse? Where are the scientific studies that show efficacity compared to other therapies? Is there any reason why we shouldn't think this just another crank therapy based on a weird, unproven psychological theory?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Corey said:
Isn't that Neopostmodernism? It's post post-Kant, innit? The transverbalisations are more cunninglinguistic than Noam Chimpsky.

Yes, it is possible that by not paying attention for six months, I missed some French person christening a new Postmodernism.

~~ Paul