Hullo Erin, Scott, (Angus)
You say "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."
I am not the right person to give a detailed response to your request for a
critique of postmodernism, as I have not read enough in this area, and
frankly I have no great interest in reading Derrida et al in the original. I
found Scott's reply interesting, but I am not competent to judge his balance
and scope. However, with a little help from Wilber and others, I will add my
thoughts on postmodernism, both positive and negative. No doubt others will
correct my inadequacies. I'd like to dig a little deeper too; sorry about
that.
Postmodernism seems to be a fairly recent term. It is not mentioned in my
very inclusive 1979 dictionary, and so I am inclined to think it has evolved
as a term in common use since then. Taylor in his book 'Hegel' talks about
the shift to modernism when he says "The universe as a meaningful order of
qualitatively differentiated levels gave way first to a vision of
mathematical order, and then finally to the 'modern' view of a world of
ultimately contingent correlations, to be patiently mapped by empirical
observation." This is the objectified world of science without values that
Pirsig so deplores. It is what Wilber calls 'flatland', all span, no depth.
The question "What does it mean?" is replaced by the question "What does it
do?" Value becomes the greatest good for the greatest numbers, but there is
no awareness of, no way to register, the types or qualities of the 'good' to
be extended to the majority. The central problem of modernity becomes human
subjectivity and its relation to the world.
Postmodernism then broadly refers to any movement in recent times that has
challenged this modern view of the world by injecting notions of worth and
meaning into the equation. In this sense Pirsig is indeed postmodern. So is
depth psychology, multiculturalism and mysticism, in their own ways. It is a
move from surface to depth. It once again allows the differentiation of the
value spheres into truth (science), justice (morals) and taste (art). It
goes beyond mere observation of the empirical world. In moral terms, some
goods are more good than others. I have no problem with postmodernism at
this level.
However, for many people postmodernism has become associated with the
'postmodern poststructuralists', which include Derrida and Foucault, and who
have their origins in Nietzsche. Their theme, as summarised by Wilber is
"Meaning is context bound, but context is boundless." Hence truth became
relative to the context in which the question was asked, and no longer
absolute. A further stage in this development occurred when the
deconstructionists used this understanding, together with the dominant
linguistic consensus, the assumption that all knowledge "is a function of
the theories we hold and the languages we use", (Pols, Radical Realism, p5)
to construct a political doctrine that asserts that "the pursuit of power,
rather than truth, is not just a common failing of philosophers, as most of
us have supposed it to be, but rather the very essence of philosophy
itself." (Pols, p 58)
The problem with this brand of postmodernism is that it is a disguised
nihilism. Pols' book is an attempt to show that, "although language is
essential to our construction of theories and doctrines, it does not
function constructively, or constitutively, in other cognitive transactions
and so does not make a direct rational-experiential engagement with reality
impossible." This is part of the big question regarding what we can know.
Pirsig's answer is we can know quality. Mine would would be somewhat
different, but I think he is on the right track.
The form that postmodernism takes in popular culture reflects something of
this latter version of postmodernism, at least among my friends. In their
view, what is true depends upon your perspective, and so there is no point
asking about any absolute truth, or beauty, or morality. Such terms are not
only misguided, but profoundly wrong. They are elitist, which is the
ultimate term of abuse for those who are enmeshed in this worldview. To them
it is profoundly insulting to declare one person right and another wrong,
since each is simply pointing to the truth from their own perspective.
Angus, in his most recent post to me, echoes these values when he says "a
story is OPEN to interpretation by anybody and in anyway." Later, in
response to my comment that "Wilber makes clear that the appeal to quality
is elitist, inevitably", He responds "I consider it "spiritual racism" or
rather "spiritual colorism". The way he labels people as "orange" and
"red" is sickening in my opinion. And he sets it up so he can promote his
fascist political agenda which involves "second tier" people running
society."
Strong words! The problem with this view of things is that it actually rules
out any communication between people about a shared reality, though Angus is
ambivalent about this, when he says that Jung "rationalizes about archetypes
BECAUSE he wants to give a MESSAGE to people to WAKE up to their spiritual
nature". Angus is actually conceding that Jung might have something to tell
me about my spiritual nature. By Angus's norms I should respond "How fascist
of him to tell me about MY nature!" Never mind.
Pirsig tends to hold the view that communication between people is actually
impossible, as several times he says this in Lila (See especially the end of
Ch 22). This is actually a valid conclusion if you go along with
deconstructionism.
I think it is patently false, and almost laughable. It confuses the quite
valid observation that each person is an emergent universe of meaning,
separate to every other in that even the detailed meaning of any word will
differ between them, with the quite invalid assumption that there can
therefore be no shared meaning and communication between them. Bohm, the
English physicist, in a conversation with Krishnamurti, points to the root
meaning of intelligence as the ability to read between the lines, to make
meaning from your words. How else do children learn up to ten new words a
day for several years in a row?
Pols is arguing that while language is indeed contextual, our immediate
knowing of our world is independant of language, and therefore escapes the
slippperiness of language. Pirsig says that what we share is value, or
quality, and that there is a hierarchy of static values, as well as dynamic
value that over-rides any static value. However he has trouble explaining
just how we might distinguish between the saviours and the degenerates. I
argue that part of Pirsig's problem is his neglect of projection and
fantasy - he does not seem to appreciate that even my experience of quality
can be an inappropriate projection from past trauma, or a fantasy that does
not contact what 'is'. His is a naive view of quality, in this regard.
The mystic in his/her search for 'truth' has to grapple constantly with the
neurotic impulse to escape the present moment in which the reality of
contact occurs, and project from the past, or fantasise the future. And the
mystic learns that as I attend to all that is, moment by moment, then
quality takes a more inclusive cast. "Saviours" and "degenerates" become
rather meaningless terms, and our whole discussion on this forum is also
rather pointless, except for one thing. That is, in a world where "spiritual
nature" is poorly developed, the words of another can indeed be a "finger
pointing to the moon" for me.
The higher realms of spirituality are in many ways comparable to the higher
realms of mathematics. They do not arise spontaneously as I slouch in front
of the TV. They are learnt with effort from others who have already explored
before me, and my grasp of what I learn is tested against the community of
those who have already been down the path. Ultimately my understanding will
be unique, but it is a great mistake to assume that my uniqueness will
magically lead to great understanding.
This is why the nihilism of those who take postmodernism too far is evil. It
becomes a self serving ideology that is focussed on power, and neglects the
reality of contact and communication and shared values that make us human.
The mystic has always asserted that my soul is not different to the 'world
soul', and that fundamentally you and I are not two. If I am to experience
this reality for myself, it is because I recognise that there is indeed a
holarchy, that there are levels or degrees of excellence, of quality, and
that I can indeed learn from others despite the diversity of contexts in
which we construct language and meaning. While the quality that I experience
is uniquely mine, the developmental path is not unique, but can be shared
with others, and the surprise at the end is that the "uniquely mine" is a
fantasy, too.
Regards,
John B
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