Erin,
enoonan wrote:
>
....
>
> ERIN: Actually the problem I have is nobody will say uncomplimentary things
> about postmodernism even with repeated requests. I WANT to hear a critique of
> postmodernism ...but not a waterdown distorted version of it.
>
An interesting challenge. Overall my take on postmodernism is that it is
a step in the right direction, so the uncomplimentary things I would say
are (a) that they don't go far enough, that they (excuse the
over-generalization) don't fully appreciate what "going beyond SOM"
entails, and (b) that many who call themselves postmodernists are mostly
just being trendy or deliberately provocative. But to be at least a
little bit specific, I'd better be more long-winded.
First, I regard modernism as, more or less, SOM. So the postmoderns
include those who are trying to overcome SOM, I suppose starting with
Kierkegaard and Nietzche and the pragmatists (esp. James), and with
another attack on modernism from a different direction from Freud. (One
should also include quantum mechanics as also being a major attack on
SOM, but that is a field too far to deal with now).
So, definitely I regard Pirsig as a postmodernist, in the (a) category
(though in his case I think his "not going far enough" is more a matter
of his having pulled his punches somewhat, especially in Lila.)
Another of my favorite (a) category folks is Rorty, who at least has the
decency to write intelligibly (as opposed to those French folks). I can
agree with his take on regarding phrases like "objective reality" or
"things in themselves" or "clear and distinct ideas (or self-evident
first principles)" as philosophically empty. But he remains a
secularist, and a Darwinist, which I think one can only maintain by
keeping a belief in "things out there" from which, somehow,
consciousness emerged. I regard this as inconsistent. And, I think, his
philosophy is, in the end, nihilist, since it pretty much says that
everything we do is a game, and is ultimately meaningless. (He would, I
imagine, respond that "seeking meaning" (or anything "ultimate") is my
problem, i.e., a disguised theism. I would respond that I am seeking
Meaning, not meaning in any particular object, and most particularly not
in a God-object, that I only expect to "find" it when there is no longer
a "finder"). Sort of like (well, actually exactly like) Quality.
I can''t really comment on Derrida. I think he is having fun, which is
fine, but it's no fun for me to try to keep up, so I suppose one can
take that as an uncompliment.
Where all this is valuable, as I indicated, is in taking the postmodern
step, and then seeing how it is a necessary step on the way to a
philosophy of emptiness. My favorite image for this is that sequence in
Yellow Submarine where the sucker monster is sucking up all the objects
it sees (SOM), including the submarine, then sucks up the backdrop
(postmodernism), leaving only itself in an empty background, then sucks
up itself (achieving no-self), and out pops the submarine, but now in a
land of Imagination (or True Reality).
Robert Magliola's *Derrida on the Mend* is recommended, both for its
description of Derridean deconstruction, but mainly for how to go beyond
it.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:10 BST