Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 16, 2017 - 03:36pm PT
|
I re-read my post. After all, there it is!
I was clear and explicit that I was referring to Christian fundamentalist literalist types whom BASE104 typically addresses. You know, those fundamentalist literalist types who ACTUALLY believe in Creationism, ghost in the machine, etc..
Good day!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 16, 2017 - 06:39pm PT
|
HFCS, Thank you for the share! I am ordering a copy of Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief.
Yes, meta-myths - the recurring themes...
...beginning with Zarathustra?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 10:33am PT
|
Why you shouldn't major in literature if you love literature...
Don't Major in Literature
http://quillette.com/2017/05/02/dont-major-literature/
pathetic scholarly debates over methodology
Somehow participation on this thread and another kind of prepared me it seems for this piece.
...
Mark, good to see you're something of a fan of Peterson too.
He's got a lot of great ideas. He's great for reinforcing ideas
you already have or suspect, too.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 10:58am PT
|
Finally found one, a postmodernism generator.
Example: Postdialectic Constructions: Subconstructive narrative and textual
narrative
"It is based on an algorithm that uses the jargon you hear in modern Literature classes. Every time you refresh the page, you get a new essay! For more fun, Google the Sokal Hoax."
http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
...
Interesting...
"If you want to understand myth in literature study psychology and read Freud and Jung..."
"You were doing so well until that point. After mocking irrelevant, pretentious French philosophy, you opted for the two biggest pseuds the humanities ever shat out.
Freud and Jung have as much to do with modern psychology as Nostradamus has to do with astronomy. They are steam-age practitioners of a field that had barely entered the Here be Dragons stage of knowledge.
Nobody has taken them seriously since the Fifties. They barely register as footnotes in modern psychology text books. Their reputations are only kept alive in by the literature departments you rightly mock because they have long since been laughed out of the psychology department." -Commenter
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 11:17am PT
|
I like to keep in mind that it's dangerous to believe everything I think.
One of my favorite quotes -
"Truth has nothing to do with the conclusion, and everything to do with the methodology."
~ Stefan Molyneux
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 12:27pm PT
|
--Commenter
Source it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 12:46pm PT
|
Source it.
http://quillette.com/2017/05/02/dont-major-literature/
Comments section.
Actually the entire comments section is revealing, informative, reinforcing. You should read it, reflect on it, and maybe take it to mind and heart?
Curious, did either of you TWO read the article, I had you BOTH in mind when I posted.
Really I wanted to quote a) the entire article and b) much of the post-article commentary - they were THAT relevant and spot-on, IME.
PS
Wait, I thought I was....... Tvash.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 01:15pm PT
|
Wait, I thought I was....... Tvash.
Ha! Only since he had his stroke.
Sorry, cheap shot... beg forgiveness.
If you think deconstruction is the new academy you're mistaken. Read Bloom who stands in complete opposition to that notion and stands by the canon, a canon explicated by Freudian and Jungian notions that have nothing to do with material and chemicals but everything to do with thought and remain efficacious.
If you think art has somehow become meaningless in a post structuralist world read "Nothing if Not Critical" by Robert Hughes.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 01:28pm PT
|
But what of the article, Paul? Could you relate? Did it articulate any truths or validities?
Explain the aforementioned to me, please.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 01:33pm PT
|
Those are a lot of words...
...the best words...
...put together by the smartest people...
...I'm sure it's really important...
...because I don't understand a sh#t bit about it...
...and that must mean - right? - that who wrote it...
...is smarter than me...
...so I should just trust...
...that the know what the f*#k they're talking about...
...and it's important because...
...those are big words after all...
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 01:43pm PT
|
The paragraph reads like graduate school garble, but what he's saying is the structure of culture (read art) is a function of power. That the imposition of cultural taste is not a function of natural phenomenon (read beauty) but rather an imposed structure by one class upon another for the sake of control. That all aesthetics are functions of ideology. He's extolling what Hughes calls the "Culture of Complaint" and what Bloom refers to as the "School of Resentment."
Did you read the article? your "he" is Judith Butler.
Sorry, didn't catch the name. Only read your paragraph. Assumed the rest of the article was similar. Give me the link and I'll read it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 01:45pm PT
|
but what he's saying...
Did you read the article? your "he" is Judith Butler.
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 01:53pm PT
|
Sorry, but unless you were there at the beginning you don't really know how this all came to be!
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 02:06pm PT
|
Post-structuralis and Deconstructionist notions promote the idea that social constructions are far more ubiquitous than we might imagine and that those social constructions are instruments of power. It's a kind of hyper Marxism that sees a conspiratorial control in those things we take for granted or as nature such as gender: that gender is an artifice which insures male superiority and so on. Has it touched literature? Yes. Has it acheived hegemony in that field? No.
Should folks study literature? Yes. Oh, and that includes the Bible.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
May 18, 2017 - 05:31pm PT
|
"In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the concept of pretextual
truth. Baudrillard’s essay on Sontagist camp suggests that **consciousness,
perhaps ironically, has intrinsic meaning**, but only if neosemioticist feminism is invalid; if that is not the case, Bataille’s model of dialectic desublimation is one of 'Baudrillardist simulation', and therefore part of the genre of reality. However, any number of discourses concerning Sontagist camp exist."
See What is Mind? thread.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 19, 2017 - 06:01am PT
|
HFCS: Actually the entire comments section is revealing, informative, reinforcing. You should read it, reflect on it, and maybe take it to mind and heart?
I did. There’s not much there.
Your notion of what counts as considered expertise or thoughtful authority is almost trivial, IMO. Anyone can, and does, have an opinion about just about anything. The author of the article has a BA in English Literature from Reed College. The commentator whose words you posted is anonymous. The complaint is an old one.
It’s this sort of thing that makes research on the internet not only almost useless at times, but downright misleading (forget “fake news” for the moment). I can’t begin to explain what it means to be involved in the research game; one must really leave his or her beliefs aside and look at data.
Your post also shows the difference between information and thought. You seem to have a lot of information.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 19, 2017 - 06:13am PT
|
Paul: Post-structuralis[t] and Deconstructionist notions promote the idea that social constructions are far more ubiquitous than we might imagine and that those social constructions are instruments of power. It's a kind of hyper Marxism that sees a conspiratorial control in those things we take for granted or as nature such as gender: that gender is an artifice which insures male superiority and so on.
Accurate understanding.
jgill: See What is Mind? thread.
Insightful connection.
Look, as soon as one begins to see that there are bases for social construction, then talking about anything becomes hopelessly complicated and unclear. The research in numerous fields, physical as well as more intangible / mental ones, suggest that there is no there there. Not exactly in any objective sense. It’s become increasingly difficult to tease apart clearly what is real and what is not real (objective, subjective, noumena, phenomena, measurable, unmeasurable, etc.). Philosophical issues aside on the matter (is that possible?), we can’t even say or describe what we know most or best—ourselves. Everything else after that is almost irrelevant. How can one talk about anything in the rest of the universe, if one is clueless about themselves?
Literature, either from a post-modern view or a more traditional view, presents conversations that explore what and who we think we are or could be.
I guess that idea is a bad one, huh?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 20, 2017 - 11:52am PT
|
HFCS: One interpretation is good as any other, right MikeL?
How could one say if one recognizes that any interpretation is incomplete, not final, and somewhat inaccurate?
What you’d need to say that an interpretation or claim is "good" or not is some form of translation system that could quantify a qualitative event and then a measurement system to follow up with for testing purposes. Then you’d be able to say. Unfortunately, we’ve not yet found either of those. What we do is create a model or an abstraction and then basically run that through a statistical comparison with an equally inviting interpretation or a straw man “no change” comparison. In any event, what we end up with is small, almost inconsequential and arbitrary metric that is hardly certain or unambiguous. That is, the unexplained variance among a sample (if one can really get a sample that will pass a Beta Power Test) is small. An R-squared of .30 or above would generally be considered stellar and worthy of publication.
One needs to get into the weeds of the details to begin to see just how little we really know. We are somewhat high on speculation, replicability, logic, and processes that are seen as legitimate.
If things occur in people’s minds, then they are real—albeit idiosyncratic. One cannot create objectivity out of subjectivity. Everything you’re aware of (or think you’re aware of) shows up in your consciousness.
I”ve chided you on your sourcing and presentations, but there is no source other than your experience and the expressions of it that you provide. Legitimacy as social consensus would seem to be somewhat suspect in every instance.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!