Re: MD Ironic Metaphysics

From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sat Jan 25 2003 - 16:32:59 GMT

  • Next message: john williams: "Re: MD music"

    Platt,

    Serves you right for believing what you read in on the Internet :-) In any
    case, I am not so worried about postmodernist academics corrupting the
    young. For one thing, I am in partial agreement that undeconstructed
    language use does cover up societal sins, including power struggles, and one
    needs to learn not to trust it. When I refer to idiots, I am merely
    complaining that some (many?) just replace one not-to-be-trusted vocabulary
    with another, and do so because they are too busy making a political point
    to deconstruct their own selves. For another thing, I find modernist
    philosophy just as corrupting. Hence my appeal for ironist metaphysics. As
    the Firesign Theater album title has it "We're all bozos on this bus", and
    that's where I think we all need to start.

    My dictionary (New World, 2nd College edition) has 'salvific': "offering
    salvation". And I've read it here and there. I prefer it over
    'soteriological' since its ('salvific') meaning is more self-evident.

    - Scott

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 5:12 AM
    Subject: Re: MD Ironic Metaphysics

    > Scott:
    >
    > > Platt said:
    > > > I don't understand what you mean by the "instinctive sense demands
    > > > deconstruction as does SOM." The term "deconstruction" is a
    > > > postmodernist term whereby statements are examined to reveal their
    > > > underlying power base, usually attributed to Fascist white European
    > > > males.
    > >
    > > I somehow doubt that Nagarjuna's deconstructive efforts were to expose a
    > > power base, Fascist white European male or otherwise. Nor are Derrida's.
    > > Foucault's might be so characterized, and there are no doubt a lot of
    idiot
    > > academics who follow along. But I really have to wonder where you get
    your
    > > information on post-modernism and deconstruction, that prompts you to
    make
    > > such blanket characterizations.
    >
    > I get information on postmodernism and deconstruction from a variety of
    > sources. For example, a Google search of "deconstructionism" brought
    > up this entry right at the top:
    >
    > "Deconstructionism: A term tied very closely to postmodernism,
    > deconstructionism is a challenge to the attempt to establish any
    > ultimate or secure meaning in a text. Basing itself in language analysis,
    > it seeks to "deconstruct" the ideological biases (gender, racial,
    > economic, political, cultural) and traditional assumptions that infect all
    > histories, as well as philosophical and religious "truths."
    > Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human
    > history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to
    > various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor,
    of
    > homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds
    > concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore,
    > refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the
    > multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring
    > knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the
    > tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth
    > which must be accepted or obeyed by all."
    >
    > There are many things about deconstructionism I find illogical but it's
    > the "domination" part that's really wacko as you seem to agree by
    > characterizing "idiot academics." Unfortunately, these "idiots" have
    > wide influence on campuses today, infecting young heads with their
    > leftwing dogma.
    >
    > > As mentioned before, I see deconstruction as a salvific tool (in the
    > > religious sense). And as before I recommend Robert Magliola's book
    "Derrida
    > > on the Mend".
    >
    > Speaking of information sources, I looked up "salvific" in my Random
    > House unabridged dictionary and came up empty. So in turn I have to
    > wonder where you get your information that prompts you to use a word
    > that lacks a common meaning.
    >
    > Just tweaking you a bit, Scott. Generally we're on the same wavelength
    > regarding most issues discussed on this site.
    >
    > Platt
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 25 2003 - 16:33:32 GMT