Greetings Economists,
On Mar 11, 2008, at 8:26 AM, Sandwichman wrote:
Well, it stands to reason that if grand narratives, per se, are washed
up, then p-m can't really aspire to be the new grand narratives, can
it?
Doyle,
I think the point about 'grand narratives' makes sense in how I
understand doing media. There was from 1960 onward a sense of
something that eluded the modernists. The figure of promethean art
and artists was undermined by the sort of critical attitudes that
flowed through the meat of modernist thinking. They rejected a
certain degree of purpose that came from the nineteenth century. But
the grand part of modernists, Picasso, and the rest of the major
(grand) figures of modernism clashed with the sense of abstract
meaning they adopted.
I see a direction though in the culture Post Modernists (PMs) don't.
So the sense of loss that comes with the fall of 'grand narratives' is
to me how they (the PMs) rejected capitalist society. Since that
infers something else, a society of possibilities then why not go
there and do something else?
The way I see that is how we understand making information. PMs
always seemed muddled to me in how they spoke about the work process
of 'knowing'. Sure one could have said the same critique of 'grand
narrative' about writing since writing came on the scene three or so
thousand years ago. The very first writing was about rich people,
their epoch moments, their property. However, as writing advanced in
providing wider and wider information repositories to more people the
sense of how to make information a community resource grew more
telling. In my view the grand narrative is based upon publishing
methods of information distribution several hundred years old and now
collapsing, but as computing shows the distribution of information can
be a sort of network like constant re-use of information. Re-use by
everyone has greater value than single use concepts of publishing a
book. But that depends upon how well the technology can match up with
human cognition.
Ted Winslow writes,
that asserts that texts are necessarily "constructed" by the reader in
a way makes their meanings unknowable things in themselves.
Doyle,
This sort of statement is where PM foundered. This implies that
knowledge can't be managed in more complex ways. Even implies
knowledge is not real. since I see knowledge as accumulation of
information and manufactured it seems to me wholly not worth while to
claim meanings are not knowable.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
