• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Postmodernism

Piscivore said:
...snip...

In this same vein; what, if anything, does your skepticism mean to your emotional life?
Click to expand...

I hate using the label "sceptic" and applying it to myself as a descriptor, even though I consider myself to be a sceptical person. For me being sceptical is just one of my personality traits, it's part of what I am, not what I am.

Saying that my attitude of questioning, being willing to change my mind depending on the evidence available, accepting that my knowledge is at best provisional has always impacted on my "emotional life" in at least some ways.

For a start although I can be very romantic in terms of not forgetting birthdays and trying to do things to make the other person happy and feel wanted and loved I tend to be very unromantic when it comes to talking about stuff.

I remember once during a "romantic" moment in front of the fire just talking and I put my foot right in it. I was asked "Do you think we'll be doing this in 40 years time?" to which I answered "That's not very likely is it? We are both young and it’s probably more likely that we won't be." Talk about lowering the temperature! I don’t think I was ever quite forgiven for that off-the-cuff remark.

Is that the sort of thing you mean?


Piscivore said:
...snip...


Lastly, "Anagnostopoulos" does not seem that daunting, only I'm not sure where the stresses go!
Click to expand...

Very easy - it's pronounced "Paul the bloke with the funny Greek name".
 
Dr Adequate said:
If you've shown that it's unhelpful, why not just throw it away, instead of playing word games with it?
Click to expand...


Because it is "sedimented", it has deep roots in cultural or personal thought-space. You can't just ignore it, because it is foundational to their thought processes.

Derail their negative thoughts before they reach critical threshhold. Derailing is also a deconstructionist favorite.

Yes. Boolean logic is hardly postmodernism, is it?
Click to expand...

No, and as Derrida has written, deconstruction is a way to think set-theory.

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?
Click to expand...

That the negation of X is Not-X in a set-theoretic way as a way of deconstructing dichotomies which have some degree of truth and have some degree of falsity -- that's not the way most people think. Most people think in rigid dichotomies they believe are entirely true; and foundational.

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.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard someone say something of the form: "If I don't X, I'll have to Y." In other words, NOT(X) = Y. Knowing about the possibilities, the ways people represent their capabilities, possibilities, etc. can be useful. There's no assumption, just an awareness that it's one form of vocalized thought that is useful to notice.

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

..... confirmation bias .......

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?
Click to expand...

What I have described is not a "therapy" by itself; it might be called a "technique". It might be compared with RET (Albert Ellis), and his (and Maultsby's) use of rational thinking to eradicate pathological thinking.

Individuals are unique in many ways. What works for one person may not work for another. The therapist should be eclectic enough to change what they are doing, when it is not working, and do something else. Knowing about a variety of techniques should be encouraged.

De Shazer has produced some studies, may have been published in Family Process or something; I'd have to go get a couple of his books from home to give you the specifics. But he doesn't use exactly what I've described here. His techniques are more hypnosis-inspired; though he doesn't use formal hypnosis, as far as I can tell.
 
I had posted an earlier reply, but it seems to have not made it to the server. Oh well, life moves on, and so has this conversation.

Paul, I love you definition of postmodernism. I may steal it for use in class discussion.

But back to therapy, in what way is the XOR different from Adler's "Basic Mistake"? It seems very similar to me.

Also, the ubitquitous Gerald Corey (Jeff, any relation?) who writes just about every text book I have to buy, refers to "Postmodern Approaches" rather than theories. They consist of Solution Focused Brief Therapy and Narrative Therapy.

And he goes on to say that problem with this approach, is that ""may glorifiy a technique and make it an end in intself."
 
Do adherents of "postmodernism" take it seriously? 'Cause some of thsi stuff seems to have a sort of "dadaist" quality, as though it is intentionally stupid.

You know like,
"Must all materialists subscribe to supervenience physicalism as a minimum?"
 
If Logical Positivism had to eat itself because it didn't meet its own criteria, I think it only sensible that the metanarrative of Postmodernism should be deconstructed out of existence as well.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
If Logical Positivism had to eat itself because it didn't meet its own criteria, I think it only sensible that the metanarrative of Postmodernism should be deconstructed out of existence as well.
Click to expand...

The first deconstruction would probably center on the assertion that nothing is true. If that isn't Postmodernism eating itself...
 
Jeff Wagg said:
If Logical Positivism had to eat itself because it didn't meet its own criteria, I think it only sensible that the metanarrative of Postmodernism should be deconstructed out of existence as well.
Click to expand...

Remember that "deconstruction" is not the same word as "destruction". So "out of existence" is misapplied as qualifier.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
I had posted an earlier reply, but it seems to have not made it to the server. Oh well, life moves on, and so has this conversation.

Paul, I love you definition of postmodernism. I may steal it for use in class discussion.

But back to therapy, in what way is the XOR different from Adler's "Basic Mistake"? It seems very similar to me.
Click to expand...

Either-Or thinking is handled by a number of therapeutic approaches. Deconstruction is only one way. It can also be diminished with an appeal to rational thinking as in RET (Albert Ellis); and other ways.

But Deconstruction has a high "fit" for Either-Or; and single-solution (one answer, as opposed to multiple answers; to a certain problem a person has); thinking errors. And others.
 
"Postmodernism" - a theory which explains, by it's very existence,
why a letter that cost 1 penny to deliver on the day of posting in 1898 now costs 1 pound to deliver two days later.

- from Soapy's Big Book of Bull. Vol I.
 
Suggestologist said:
Remember that "deconstruction" is not the same word as "destruction". So "out of existence" is misapplied as qualifier.
Click to expand...

You're right.
de·con·struc·tion (dkn-strkshn)
n.

A philosophical movement that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: “In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, ‘virtual texts’ constructed by readers in their search for meaning” (Rebecca Goldstein).
Click to expand...
Once again, a simple term is made complex. This movement is nothing if not obfuscatory.

How does Postmodernism differ from Solipsism and Nihilism?
 
Jeff Wagg said:
You're right.
Once again, a simple term is made complex. This movement is nothing if not obfuscatory.

How does Postmodernism differ from Solipsism and Nihilism?
Click to expand...

Like I wrote earlier in this thread about communications/rhetoric college classes; they tell you that words don't mean anything; it's the individual person who gives words meaning. And there's no possible way for different people to read or hear the same thing and have exactly the same meanings. One cannot read without misreading. This should be self-evident.

Postmodernism is concerned with the substructure. Concerned with the unconscious/subconscious/whatever-you-want-to-call-it and what better topic than language -- which works unconsciously -- you hear red and you see red -- your unconscious provides it seemingly without effort. At least that's how I mis-read postmodernism.

Solipsism says I'm the only real thing.
Nihilism says no thing is real.

I don't see the basis for comparison.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
If Logical Positivism had to eat itself because it didn't meet its own criteria, I think it only sensible that the metanarrative of Postmodernism should be deconstructed out of existence as well.
Click to expand...
LP ate itself on a technicality, I think. Sure, the verifiability principle is not itself verifiable, but can anyone propose a method of verifying a statement other than empirically or logically? Why not just proclaim the verifiability principle as an axiom?

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
LP ate itself on a technicality, I think. Sure, the verifiability principle is not itself verifiable, but can anyone propose a method of verifying a statement other than empirically or logically? Why not just proclaim the verifiability principle as an axiom?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I agree, I always thought it was a lame critique.
 
Suggestologist said:


Solipsism says I'm the only real thing.
Nihilism says no thing is real.

I don't see the basis for comparison.
Click to expand...

Postmodernism says it's impossible not to mis-read something. Therefore, the meaning comes ONLY from within. This is the same as the outside not existing, so essentially, you are the only real thing. Solipsism.

If Paul (for example) makes a statement, and you and I have no choice but to mis-read it, then Paul's statement cannot have any "real" meaning. Indeed, nothing can have any meaning because meaning cannot be transferred from one person to another. Nihilism.

How is it that we all know to stop at red octagonal sign that has the lettters S-T-O-P on it?

BTW, I'm actually in strong agreement with the notion that no two people can read "The hills are beautiful" and come away with the same EXACT meaning, but there is still meaning being transferred. Everyone who reads that will know that I think the hills are beautiful, even if their vision of those hills looks nothing like what I've seen.
 
Jeff Wagg said:
Postmodernism says it's impossible not to mis-read something. Therefore, the meaning comes ONLY from within. This is the same as the outside not existing, so essentially, you are the only real thing. Solipsism.
Click to expand...


decOnsTructiOn is not the same as essentialist. "But first let's step back and try posing the essentialist question, 'What is film?' - and hope to answer it in a less essentialist, more 'deconstructive' manner." (Deconstructions: A User's Guide, p.121) We might be interested in first overthrowing the power status for real over illusion (or real over artificial; or real over whatever); and show that artificial can do the job as preferred-of-the-opposition-pair just as well as real; and then enter the play-cloud around the opposition and show that the binary opposition is itself only one of a number of possible power status centers revolving around 'realness' -- or, moving meta, to the individual's purpose/need of/to hav/ing a conc/ept of realness at all.

a...nd so if the simulacra is as real or even more real -- hYperreal -- than what traditiOnally is UnderstooD as real -- where dOes that leave us? It leaves us iNvesTigating oUr owN conceptual processes and their origins. DERSTAND.

If Paul (for example) makes a statement, and you and I have no choice but to mis-read it, then Paul's statement cannot have any "real" meaning. Indeed, nothing can have any meaning because meaning cannot be transferred from one person to another. Nihilism.
Click to expand...

Meaning is not "transfered" either physically, like a piece of fruit, nor legally like a piece of real estate. Meaning is always an evokation, an induction in another person; like magnets to electrons to motors; by classical and operant conditioning (and whatever other kinds of conditioning there exist here; vicarious conditioning) people learn and understand; and to understand people attach meaning; causal and emotional and identity-shifting.

How is it that we all know to stop at red octagonal sign that has the lettters S-T-O-P on it?
Click to expand...

Conditioning, not property-type transference; but emotional psychoanalytic-type works. Pass a red go-light; and you get injured -- maybe -- negative emotion induces avoidance by vigilence.

BTW, I'm actually in strong agreement with the notion that no two people can read "The hills are beautiful" and come away with the same EXACT meaning, but there is still meaning being transferred. Everyone who reads that will know that I think the hills are beautiful, even if their vision of those hills looks nothing like what I've seen.
Click to expand...

Of the Other: Their idea of beauty; their idea of what a hill is; their idea of your purpose in telling them; their idea of what you are looking at; their idea of what you are feeling, touching; their idea of memory/reminiscence/sensation; their idea of your poetic potential (are you really describing a woman's breasts? buttocks? shoulders?); etc.; the Other is ever-a-mystery;
 
phildonnia said:
Do adherents of "postmodernism" take it seriously? 'Cause some of thsi stuff seems to have a sort of "dadaist" quality, as though it is intentionally stupid.

You know like,
"Must all materialists subscribe to supervenience physicalism as a minimum?"
Click to expand...

A sensible post-structuralist/deconstructionist might begin responding by challenging the preffered status of serious over "dadaist"; or serious over silly; deconstructing the binary opposition; and then allow the concepts and their fragments some "play".

A poignant criticism of deconstruction is that it leaves the field at play; the cloud of fragments remains swirling -- undecided -- at play beyond the average person's tolerance for ambiguity. In counseling applications this can be deleterious; and clients should be resituated into solid conceptual frameworks (though perhaps less rigid than the ones they had before) before couseling is over -- for most people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom