Comments on: Let's ban postmodernism!

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:24:54 +0000

That might be a good note to leave things at.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:58:48 +0000

It’s probably redundant to point out that sockpuppetry for the purpose of evading LP moderation decisions is against the comments policy.
.
It was a more constructive sockpuppet than usual tho’ wasn’t it? That’s it. I’m going back to Uni to do my master’s thesis:

The Case of J. Greenfield v L Prodeo (2008): An Examination of Multicultural Management and Conflict Techniques in the Context of Differenct Ontolo-political regimes of Sub-hegemony.

Catchy title ‘ey? Should do great at the airports.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:19:34 +0000

Whoops I submit too soon. Sorry.
.
Smiley – Innerestin’ comment.
.
I’m not sure I understand your distinguishing between maths and philosophy so vigorously.
.
Yeah. I’m beginning to wonder what actually defines the contours of ‘philosophy’ these days. Originally philosophy just meant an intellectual forum on various matters outside the apparatus of organized religion. Aristotle wrote about matters ranging from physics to politics. Such polymathy is harder to accomplish when human knowledge has expanded so much and grown more complex consequently.
.
There people like Chomsky or Diamond who manage. Commentary on politics is generally accessible. Commentary on maths much less so. The post-tertiary aspects of mathematics are a mystery to most of us. However the application of science to philosophy and the ability of scientists to write about it shouldn’t be excluded. And if a philosopher uses science and maths s/he must understand those concepts and submit to the rigorous tests for that competence.
.
…such a distinction is precisely what postmodernist – especially Foucault and Deleuze try so hard to show are artificial
.
They’re all bloody artificial. After all we make ‘em. The ancient Greeks knew this, or some of ‘em did. That’s what Nietzsche’s trying to revive. This wholesale transmission that Deleuze (I wouldn’t know) is attempting to precipitate, would be done so by the revival of this simple concept. But it doesn’t happen by design it happens by the conscious efforts of associating individuals, the policies of institutions and the whims of economic fortuna. And it always results in the unexpected.
.
Funny how (post?)Marxists don’t appreciate the dialectic anymore.

By: Kim

Kim — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:05:14 +0000

But what I am sensing more and more is a Trotskyist really pissed off that the working class didn’t choose socialism after WW2, that 1968 failed, and the socio-political response to 1970s stagflation was not revolution but neoliberalism.

I can’t say I’m surprised that you think that, since there appears to be some evidence both from a shared IP address and writing style that you are in fact John Greenfield’s sock puppet.

It’s probably redundant to point out that sockpuppetry for the purpose of evading LP moderation decisions is against the comments policy.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:04:29 +0000

I’m not sure I understand your distinguishing between maths and philosophy so vigorously.

By: smiley

smiley — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:55:07 +0000

klaus

OK, I’ve read a bit more including a bit of Thousand Plateaus and the whole of chapter 14 – “The Smooth and the Striated.” Deleuze is most certainly not using maths as mere metaphor. His discussion of Riemann Sums seems to fold in with his whole rejection of what he sees as the discrete – indeed binary – nature of the dialectic, and by extension his fanciful delusions of the innate fascism of western metaphysics from Plato onwards. I am persuaded he does understand the maths very well, and that Sokal is a bit off in his critique. Having said that, I also detect Delezue has decidedly and strategically refused to explicate his use of maths a bit more. He is assuming a great deal of understanding for a readership he well knows will probably not be so on top a lot of what he assumes.

I’m not sure I understand your distinguishing between maths and philosophy so vigorously. In fact, such a distinction is precisely what postmodernist – especially Foucault and Deleuze try so hard to show are artificial. Also, most of history’s great philosophers were mathematicians.

As I said, I only started reading him last week, and have been surprised a few times already, so no doubt I will change my perspective over the next week and onwards. But what I am sensing more and more is a Trotskyist really pissed off that the working class didn’t choose socialism after WW2, that 1968 failed, and the socio-political response to 1970s stagflation was not revolution but neoliberalism. He seems to see no alternative than a thorough cognitive rewiring of western political thinking, which must start at the very base of western metaphysics – geometry. I am getting the hint this is where all his “deterritorialisation” is coming from, but I haven’t got into that yet.

I think that quote above is very powerful in tying Foucault and Deleuze to postmodernism, but as I said, there are many, may more.

Anyway, I’m on to rhizomes now, so I’d better go.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 06:03:11 +0000

Bene – as your comments are quite tl;dr for my American mind
.
Really. I’, sorry. I didn’t mean to be tl;dr. Why am I beig tl;dr? Considering your astute observaton that I’m tl;drist I have to say that my aside on the American education system is completely wrong. Obviously you people are still the brightest and the best .
.
Which is to say that if you don’t know enough about the issue to comment, e.g. if you’re getting all your ideas about how American history is taught solely from Christopher Hitchens, you end up looking like a moron to those who might be reading who have actually studied American history and its presentation in a postmodern cultural analysis.
.
And way to oversimplify? Oh I cite Hitchens who’s obviously a dope and suddenly I get all my ideas from him. But it’s me who’s oversimplifying. Okay. I cite book after book articulating and illustrating the substance of what is known as the culture wars and I’m simplifying. I add qualification and nuance when I quote. I put the arguments again and again, yet I’m told I’m not making them.
.
And of course people, such as yourself, who think that studying ‘postmodern cultural analysis’, such as yourself (does that include Derrida and Foucault or not today?) seem to think that making a statement that essentially says Quote [insert whatever author] and you’re an idiot. No considered argument refuting the meat of the polemic, no addressing of actual points, let’s forget the other 25 odd books I’ve cited. Let’s forget the points I’ve made – no you’re wrong. Why? Because I say so. I’ve studied postmodern cultural analysis. Gold clap.
.
If you’ve studied postmodern cultural analysis you don’t have to do any of that do you? After all it’s just patro-capitalist-eurocentric hegemony. Unlike me there’s no need to actually quote Foucault and Derrida, no you’ve studied postmodern cultural analysis.
.
Well so have I. But raising points as to its limitations and evidence that I may have (shock horror!) read others who criticize these means that I’m, ~~not an apparatchnik robot~~ not qualified.
.
The absence of substantial counter-argument here is telling. The reasons stated are – you’re not qualified, you’re over-simplifying, you don’t understand. But if that was true you’d be able to demonstrate that. If I’m such a moron it would be easy.
.
But no, nothing like that. And guess what? There’s heaps of people who agree with me. And those who don’t have an opinion would, if witnessing this sort of debate, have to come to the conclusion that someone doesn’t know shit and it ain’t me.
.
But have fun. It’ll be nice while it lasts. .
.
Long live the Tl;dr Revolution!

By: Paul Burns

Paul Burns — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:22:37 +0000

bene,
Already have both on my list of American Journals to go through up at UNE (University of New England) once I’ve been through all the books. Thanks muchly.

By: Bene

Bene — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:32:13 +0000

Paul: Sadly, I don't have access to academic journals or my class syllabi at the moment (and most of my studies dealt with 1865-present), but if you can get access, the Journal of American Studies and American Quarterly continually publish excellent scholarly works on both American history and American cultural studies. For how history is taught, The History Teacher could be a good journal to start with.

By: Paul Burns

Paul Burns — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 00:25:42 +0000

smiley,
thanks for that. Will check it out. (as a friend of mine currently doing his economic history Ph.D remarked – ‘There’s so much reading. It never stops.” Or words to that effect. And its the same when you’re working as an independent historian.
Bene,
would be delighted to have some references, especxially if relevant to the American revolution, despite my complaints of too much reading.