Arlo, On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 7:56 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: > [Ian had asked] > You've had Post-structuralism. You've had Post-Modernism. Thus side of the > pond, we've even recently had Post-Christian. What about Post-Intellectualism? > > [Arlo replied] > This has been done, no? Donald Wood wrote "Post-Intellectualism and the > Decline of Democracy: The Failure of Reason and Responsibility in the > Twentieth Century" in 1996. > > [Dan] > Having not read Donald Wood's book I cannot comment on it other than to note > it was written some 18 years ago and so might well be outdated. > > [Arlo] > To be clear, I have not read Wood's book, nor was I making any connection > between his use of "post-intellectualism" and Pirsig's philosophy. I was > simply pointing out that the term "post-intellectualism" has appeared in the > literature, and quite a while back. Any attempt to appropriate this term to > describe Pirsig has to account for how the term is used in the literature.
Dan: Yes, agreed. I merely mentioned the book might be outdated, what with the advancement of technology since 1996, particularly the Internet and smart phones. >[Arlo] > There are many "post-" philosophies out there. "Post-technological", > "post-consumerism", "post-industrial" (of course)... I've been reading some > articles lately on "post-postmodernism" (which has its own Wikipedia page: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-postmodernism). Overall, I think the use of > "post-" to demonstrate an initial cleave with a dominant ideology is an > appropriate first-step, but its a definition by negation; defining "this" as > "not that". It provides a point of departure, but not a point of destination. Dan: I was under the assumption that the prefix 'post' normally connotes 'after' just as 'pre' designates 'before.' I've read numerous articles concerning post-industrialism as applied here in the States where the service sector becomes the predominate source of employment rather than factories. >[Arlo] > Anyway, for an interesting article on post-postmodernism, check out Alan > Kirby's "The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond" > (http://philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond). Dan: Thank you for the article. I've read it but find it wanting in several aspects. I've copied and pasted one (dissected) paragraph below to better elucidate my thoughts: "By definition, pseudo-modern cultural products cannot and do not exist unless the individual intervenes physically in them. Great Expectations will exist materially whether anyone reads it or not." Dan: If no one read it, how would anyone know that it exists? Isn't this just an assumption on the author's part? "Once Dickens had finished writing it and the publisher released it into the world, its ‘material textuality’ – its selection of words – was made and finished, even though its meanings, how people interpret it, would remain largely up for grabs. Its material production and its constitution were decided by its suppliers, that is, its author, publisher, serialiser etc alone – only the meaning was the domain of the reader." Dan: Great Expectations is not an object existing separately from the reader. Its meaning (value) is neither objective (if it were, everyone would agree upon its meaning) nor subjective (if it were, no one could agree upon its value) but instead it is composed of patterns of value... inorganic paper, biological readers, and cultural mores (social and intellectual patterns). "Big Brother on the other hand, to take a typical pseudo-modern cultural text, would not exist materially if nobody phoned up to vote its contestants off. Voting is thus part of the material textuality of the programme – the telephoning viewers write the programme themselves. If it were not possible for viewers to write sections of Big Brother, it would then uncannily resemble an Andy Warhol film: neurotic, youthful exhibitionists inertly bitching and talking aimlessly in rooms for hour after hour. This is to say, what makes Big Brother what it is, is the viewer’s act of phoning in." Dan: I'm guessing Big Brother must be some type of television program. The author seems to be using it as an opposing view to Great Expectations but if it were not possible for readers to write the book (in a very real way that is exactly what happens when someone reads a book... they write it upon their memories) then Great Expectations would not exist either. This seems to be where the author's argument breaks down though of course I could well be wrong. Thanks, Dan http://www.danglover.com Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
