[FRIAM] talk about rabbit holes ...

[Steven A Smith]

> 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.
I felt that I was parsing that wrong but because I was rather tired and
losing focus I rushed to respond without going back and double-checking
my referents...  I'm not sure you were particularly unclear... 
> 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

Once again, I probably read it too quickly/uncritically and projected
something onto it.   But to be clear, I *appreciate* them as ingredients
or perhaps qualities rather than definitions.

When I first encountered PoMo it was probably in the context of long
winded discussions with other young people when entered college.   It
was often a breath of fresh air with the first two points as you point
out, but it was the last one that probably bothered me the most... it
typified what I only knew then as "sophistry".


> 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.
like that.
> 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.

I think I can appreciate that...  maybe what I am seeking is more like
epi-PoMo than post-PoMo...  from my lame and limited perspective, the
link you offered was in fact a bit of that which is what drew me to
respond in this otherwise chaotic moment.

Any document or person (like yourself I believe) who can both embrace
and reject (criticize) PoMo in the same breath is welcome to me...  it
represents the creation/maintenance of a tension which itself is the
point... not the points of attachment to create the tension.

My own criticism (really resentment) of PoMo is when it is used as a
blunt (or ragged/rusty?) instrument to threaten or intimidate others, it
doesn't do itself any favors.

>  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.

I'll put that in my associative memory and look forward when it gets
reactivated again...

I haven't even begun to follow the earlier links/references but they
were bright shiny objects that I might get back to.

- Steve


>
> 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.