[FRIAM] talk about rabbit holes ...

[uǝlƃ ☣]

Sorry for being unclear. I didn't intend to say that Frank Ramsey, who died in 1930, was the jerk. It's Jeffrey Ketland that I'm concerned about. And to be fair, it is traumatic to have an acquaintance commit suicide, regardless of the circumstances. Whether the "social justice league" who hounded afterward were right or wrong to hound him, it clearly biased his thinking from that point on.

Re: his entry on postmodernism - I think it's important to realize he didn't say the 3 (or 4) things were separate *definitions* of it, but that they contain those 3 main ingredients:

  • scepticism/incredulity at historical metanarratives.
  • Deconstruction of "hidden power structures"; social anarchism.
  • Intellectual obscurantism.

I like the way he frames them as ingredients because I vacillate to supporting it or criticizing it based on the other discussants. When someone writes off PoMo, I hold up bullets 1 and 2 to show how PoMo is in the tradition of good hard criticism. When someone advocates PoMo, I hold up bullet 3 to argue that they're silly mental contortionists.

As for "what comes after PoMo", *nothing*. To me, PoMo is an exercise in criticism. Period. They're just doing their duty and attempting to falsify unjustified beliefs. Any scientist should appreciate that as a component of critical rationalism. I mentioned a book awhile back by Mikhail Epstein: "The Transformative Humanities", which I think takes a good step toward "what comes after". But this isn't my domain. So, that's the only recommendation I have.

On 3/26/20 8:25 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Not just any ole rabbit hole but a very convoluted/complex (albeit interesting) one.
> 
> I dove into your last link (only) because I've been wanting to understand more better what YOUR view of postmoderism is...   on the whole I like what I read.   I don't have the focus nor bandwidth right now to begin to ask more questions or assert speculations for you to shoot down or bat around.
> 
> One thing I'm left wondering is what the species of post postmodernism are or are going to be. 
> 
> Especially right now when we are all going through a huge experiment/experience... in some ways it is as if there is a fast-moving battle (fire-fight) between free market capitalism and social democracy in this pandemic.   Both styles of socioeconomic structuring are being put to the test (as are totalitarian vs democratic governances) in a trial by fire/virus.  
> 
> Certainly the author's 4 definitions of postmodernism apply to this current goat rope:
> 
>  1. Non uniformity of progress is being demonstrated in our face at many scales... in the spirit of 3 steps forward and 2 steps back, a LOT of obvious things are in the 2 steps back phase.  Others we maybe can't see clearly for the smoke of our economy and TP supplies burning up might actually be 3 forward, or at least foreshadow the possibility.
>  2. Scepticism of the traditional metanarrative is definitely being trumped (Trumped?) by the urgent reality of the sky falling in so many ways... expedience and practicality are knocking holes in some of the old-school metanarratives. 
>  3. I'm not sure if hidden power structures are being revealed by deconstructionism, but the fat is melting off and leaving the bare bones behind to be seen?
>  4. Obscurantism:   This is more of a criticism of postmodernism I think than a definition of it.  I do find most self-identified po-mo's to engage in this.
> 
> I suppose a meta-question I'm pondering is what kind of post postmodernism does postmodernism bootstrap (or procreate if you want a tongue twister)?
> 
> 
> I don't have anything much to say about separating the man Ramsey from the behaviour Jerkiness.   This occurs a lot in my experience (mostly when reviewing historical or famous figures public/private lives).... I"m sympathetic with your preference for not accidentally reinforcing jerkiness by giving the vessel of it attention.

-- 
☣ uǝlƃ