From: kcalder@blueyonder.co.uk
[Another resurrection. Actually I make a point of not replying to
alienthe's until at least 8 months after he posts them :)]
>From: Alienthe (Alienthe@hotmail.com)
>Subject: Re: Cyberpunk vs. Postmodernism
>View: Complete Thread (19 articles)
>Original Format
>Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
>Date: 2003-04-14 14:42:02 PST
>OK, a late answer but the thread is too fun to leave alone.
Yep!
>Kevin Calder wrote:
>> In message
>alienthe@hotmail.com writes
>[snip]
[Snip of sokal throwing marx bros. style pies in pomo faces]
>> Cmon, you know how perverse postmodernism is! It relishes this kind
>> of stuff! Postmodernism is self-critiquing pretty much from the
outset, >> by the time Groucho turned up Derrida had smacked himself in
the
>> face with innumerable pies!
> Groucho had a sense of humor, does Derrida? Or the other POMOs?
> Just to be clear: I am thinking of intentional humor here.
Sokal clearly had a pretty pomo sense of humor, wouldn't you say?
In fact I hereby claim Sokal's work as postmodernism's greatest triumph!
Refute my claim if you dare!
And pomoism is well known for validating humour, parody and pastiche,
which tend to be marginalised by other standards and more generally its
so damned sceptical about everything that it can't possibly take itself
to seriously, unlike every other approach to appraising literature I
think of.
>> And if the Emperor has no clothes then what it suggests to me is that
>> the method for determining whether the Emperor is clothed or not is
>> inherently unreliable. Some people can see the clothes, some can't.
>> *None* of them can produce a truth table to validate their
perspective.
>Alternatively the emperor is a streaker and those who claim to see the
>clothes are just wanting to see some nudity.
>>> Others had called them
>>> charlatans before but Sokal made it amusing.
What is exactly is pomoism guilty of pretending?
And what is wrong with pretending?
Why should we feel guilty?
Isn't fiction at least a bit about pretending?
>> What is wrong with reading Sokal's text as one worth interpreting?
>> What
>> is it about it that makes it 'bogus'? Authorial intention? Cmon,
that
>> argument hasn't been especially tenable for almost a century now. It
>> got discredited long before postmodernism! Whether Sokal likes it or
>> not, his text isn't demonstrably, intrinsically, and without a doubt,
>> 'bogus'.
>When in doubt bring out Occam's Razor and start slicing. To me Sokal
>appears genuine while the POMOs appear to be short of a skeleton >which
I guess they hid in the cupboard.
We both agree that Sokal's text is valuable, its just that I, coming at
it from a pomo-type perspective, am not hung up on whatever Sokal's
intention was, or what he thought his intention was, or what he wanted
us to think his intention was or whatever! From a pomo perspective the
value of Sokal's text is more or less insensitive to his particular
allegiance or intention. Isn't that a powerful \ interesting way of
approaching it? Doesn't that suggest that pomoism has more to it than
the absence of a skeleton?
>>> What gains have humanity gotten from POMO?
>> Well, if you are measuring gain on the 'John Hiltman Gain Scale', as
I
>> assume you are, then, by my calculations, I make it about 6.7 gains
>> per square meter.
>I am getting a positive reading on my bogosity-meter, at least 5.8
>spurions per bogon squared.
>> You might want to check the figures yourself though.
>Right on!
Consensus!
--
Kevin Calder
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
