# Death of Postmodernism and Beyond



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Here is some food for thought. Deals with a variety of issues.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond

It's reference to music later is interesting, suggesting music is all fragmented in the "pseudo-modern" society, beyond postmodernism.


----------



## Daniel Atkinson (Dec 31, 2016)

No, post-modernism is very much the heart of all mainstream culture in our world today. 


Daniel


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

This is perhaps not the best possible explanation, but it offers an additional perspective and I got something out of it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Interesting. Very interesting.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2017)

Interesting article...up to a point. The point is where he exemplifies the literature of Mum and Dad (wrong) and where he complains that none of the literature on the course is modern enough. The literature of this Dad (whose children were born after 1985) encompasses Chaucer and Eco, Ishiguro and Ionesco - and many points between and beyond. (He cites Fowles, actually the literature of my Mum and Dad!)

Unless someone has actually articulated a post-modern manifesto from which we can all agree a definition of post-modernism, we are in the same position as every other contemporary commentator trying to discern the paradigm of the times: we're too close to be able to see properly. This means that, of course the literature being studied is from the recent past, not from the present. I'm sure we could all make claims about modern trends if we pick and choose what we wish from the current bestsellers lists. But alongside that, we'd also have to choose the modern commentators who know what they're talking about, and they're only just setting out too!

I just wonder who we will look back on and say, "They got it right" in terms of showing us whether post-modernism was dead, alive in 2017, or never a thing in the first place .


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is some food for thought. Deals with a variety of issues.
> 
> https://philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond
> 
> It's reference to music later is interesting, suggesting music is all fragmented in the "pseudo-modern" society, beyond postmodernism.


I found Alan Kirby's article interesting. I also found that it is yet another confirmation of the correctness of Leonard Meyer and his promulgation of the New Stasis in the arts, as formulated in _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_ these many decades ago. Kirby makes clear, inadvertently, that Modernism, Post-Modernism, and Pseudo-Modernism all coexist simultaneously, along with every other artistic "ism", in this new era of instantaneous and global communication. Kirby clarifies our understanding of the New Stasis by emphasizing the role of the art consumer, but fails to display an understanding of the fact that now there is only addition (of new trends) but no subtraction--I will listen to, say, Bach, in a way that will never be exactly replicated (but which will be shrunk to insignificance by its very uniqueness).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> I found Alan Kirby's article interesting. I also found that it is yet another confirmation of the correctness of Leonard Meyer and his promulgation of the New Stasis in the arts, as formulated in _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_ these many decades ago. Kirby makes clear, inadvertently, that Modernism, Post-Modernism, and Pseudo-Modernism all coexist simultaneously, along with every other artistic "ism", in this new era of instantaneous and global communication. Kirby clarifies our understanding of the New Stasis by emphasizing the role of the art consumer, but fails to display an understanding of the fact that now there is only addition (of new trends) but no subtraction--I will listen to, say, Bach, in a way that will never be exactly replicated (but which will be shrunk to insignificance by its very uniqueness).


I agree with your view the most. This board is a great example how music of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and others is alive now as ever. Look at the HIP movement. Back then the "contemporary" composers and conductors then dictated more what you can listen to, now it is more in the hands of the consumer.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

These kinds of topics lead me to believe that the terms modernism and post-modernism are almost meaningless outside of just words used to reference art and culture from certain time periods. Whenever the attributes of these terms and what they are supposed to stand for are described I think there is a huge disconnect between those meanings and much of the art itself. 

In a way I think these terms can most accurately be looked at as an attempt to frame the way we think about social issues. How we think about ourselves.

Personally I believe in what could be termed natural law. I do think objective truth exists (like the law of gravity for example) and has always existed. None of these theories or philosophies will change immutable laws. Post modernism to me represents essentially just another attempt to obfuscate truth, to divide and conquer and to fragment society, to push people towards moral relativism. To make the truth appear as though it doesn't exist and that the world is far too complicated to ever understand. This creates a population that has no empowering knowledge because they have no real knowledge of themselves and no real principals. Post modernism in this sense can be looked at as social engineering and psychological warfare.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is some food for thought. Deals with a variety of issues.
> 
> https://philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond
> 
> It's reference to music later is interesting, suggesting music is all fragmented in the "pseudo-modern" society, beyond postmodernism.


An interesting and quite convincing article! BTW, I don't read that contemporary music is fragmented (it has been fragmented in modernism and postmodernism) but that the listener has become the author! I.e. the listener participates (he can mix musical pieces to make his own piece), uses music (decides what the music is for) and it enables him to escape the world completely (trance) beyond the modernist's metaphysics and the postmodernist's irony.

As Kirby reckons this is all but new but what is new is that it has become dominant. Philosophically the ideas remind me of some earlier thinkers. First of all, modern philosophers have always loved the idea of getting rid of the world completely (from Descartes' ego as the only thing that certainly exists to Husserl's neo-cartesian putting the world in brackets). The idea that reality is not something to discover as the modernists thought (they really liked debunking all facade and myths!) or something that doesn't exist as the postmodernists thought (as though the modernist's debunking debunked also every deeper hidden reality so all is mere facade!) but something we make to be true by our action is actually some kind of marxist or pragmatic thought. Yet new is the element of ephemeralness which is of course contrary to Marx' pseudo-christian communism as 1000 years of Christ's Kingdom on Earth: we make something to experience it and then it is already gone which is the impulse of capitalism. There is only the experience in the now without any consciousness of past or future.

Actually music has this epheremal characteristic by nature and Kirby's notion of trance as the typical emotional state of pseudo-modernism reminds me also of Romanticism of e.g. Schopenhauer (and Nietzsche): for them music was the superior art form precisely because music is not cognitive understanding (or an image we can look at) but pure experiencing and getting into the trance-like state which Nietzsche called Dionysian which is a reference to the god of getting drunk and have an orgy Dionysius. The world - and every art work besides music - is only our cognitive arrangement of our experiences; music takes us to the root of all being which is experience and (disruptive) movement - the _Urwille_ - itself.

In this way pseudo-modernism tells us that in our age all culture has become music-like: pure, ephemeral experience. But not as a passive listener: we participate, e.g. by dancing or clicking, so it becomes our music. In the thread "Was there a single "modernism" I wrote:

"In a way there is no rupture: since Romanticism it is really all about freedom in the sense that artists strived to become totally free as artists, to realize themselves as truly autonomous beings of which you also spoke in your post. Postmodernism is the result: 'anything goes'."

Pseudo-modernism really democratizes this sheer freedom: now we all - including the listeners - have become totally free. In the words of Kirby:

"There is a generation gap here, roughly separating people born before and after 1980. Those born later might see their peers as free, autonomous, inventive, expressive, dynamic, empowered, independent, their voices unique, raised and heard: postmodernism and everything before it will by contrast seem elitist, dull, a distant and droning monologue which oppresses and occludes them."

PS. So actually this post and your every post on this webiste is pseudo-modernist: now it is here, maybe you read it and then it disappears in the constant stream of new threads and posts. You can read it, react to it - then it is real for a moment - and if you don't it will be gone forever as if it has never been real.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is some food for thought. Deals with a variety of issues.
> 
> https://philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond
> 
> It's reference to music later is interesting, suggesting music is all fragmented in the "pseudo-modern" society, beyond postmodernism.


Thank you for posting that very interesting article. As it happens, it's a topic which interests me greatly. I note the essay is already 11 years old so may already be out of date!

Perhaps you might also be interested in this: a discussion between two leading North American academics/public intellectuals. Peterson is phenomenal and Paglia is his female approximate - though she doesn't have his poise and elegance: his sense of intellectual inquiry and rigour is stunning because he's principally a Clinical Psychologist and university lecturer who has a wide interest in philosophy. His "*Maps of Meaning: the Architecture of Belief*" is a difficult read but recommended:






I couldn't quite understand why Camille wanted to focus on the 1960s; Dr. Peterson didn't mention that, so he looks a bit confused at one point. But it gets better. This is only one part of a much larger discussion which you can find on U-tube if you're interested.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Unless someone has actually articulated a post-modern manifesto from which we can all agree a definition of post-modernism, we are in the same position as every other contemporary commentator trying to discern the paradigm of the times: we're too close to be able to see properly. This means that, of course the literature being studied is from the recent past, not from the present. I'm sure we could all make claims about modern trends if we pick and choose what we wish from the current bestsellers lists. But alongside that, we'd also have to choose the modern commentators who know what they're talking about, and they're only just setting out too!
> 
> I just wonder who we will look back on and say, "They got it right" in terms of showing us whether post-modernism was dead, alive in 2017, or never a thing in the first place .


Yes, this is a very pertinent point apposite to the entire understanding of why "postmodernism" seems to be a free-for-all. One of the things about it is that there are no real 'manifestos' or firm declarations in the way the 20thC modernists attempted to define their positions. It's everything and nothing at the same time, a morass, a never-ending supermarket shelf of ideas and claims and god-knows-what else. Understanding it substantially is definitely for the future.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

In re-reading Kirby's quite thought-provoking essay, I found myself wondering to what extent Kirby was familiar with Leonard Meyer's work. For it seems to me that Kirby has quite fleshed out one side of Meyer's argument proposing the New Stasis in the arts: that part that emphasizes the very fine granularity, the "white noise" randomness, the growing entropy and directionlessness of much of global culture. His discussion of pseudo-modernism is spot-on in that regard. Meyer himself was more balanced in his analysis, focusing fairly equally on both the random motion aspect of modern art/culture that Kirby emphasizes but also on the complementary richness of choice available to the modern audience--a constantly expanding richness that far exceeds the capacity of even the most voracious to experience; also a richness that speaks of the continuing relevance of all the earlier isms that Kirby tells us are now superseded by pseudo-modernism: modernism, post-modernism, Romanticism, whatever. In that regard, Meyer is more optimistic than Kirby--the intervening half-century perhaps darkening the outlook with the continuing rise of forces that could initiate a profound simplification of culture and replace the New Stasis along with its pseudo-modernist component with another stasis that is unpleasant to contemplate.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I don't think there is any 'new stasis'. It's much more like a culture-hedonism resulting from an inability to fully comprehend the enormous avalanche of information and access to culture as a result of the internet. I know you say Meyer points to this sort of thing, but I don't see why he calls it stasis, because it's anything but static. In one sense we can never really have the distance required to fully assess a cultural moment/epoch while it is occurring. A lot of useless books were written about e.g. the cold war while it was in full swing, with a much smaller number of gems still relevant to our broader understanding of what occurred.

What troubles me most about culture is the creeping effect of marketeers and other parasitic appropriators who want to box it up and shrink wrap it and sell it primarily as a consumer product. I'm convinced that a great deal of the claptrap written and spoken about contemporary culture originates from that quarter and it permeates the entire discussion like a colourless, tasteless, odourless poison. Even to the point that it gets repeated by those who imagine they stand opposed to such a thing.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^ I infer from your dismissal of Leonard Meyer's notion of the New Stasis that you have not read _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_. As I have on several occasions, I recommend this work as the best introduction to Meyer and his rather seminal work on several key issues in how music is perceived and also, as here, on a larger view of cultural trends. Meyer's prose is dense and difficult, and requires--at least in my case--very close attention and often re-reading, but the rewards are great. As an introduction, let's quote Meyer on stasis:

"...change and variety are not incompatible with stasis. For stasis, as I intend the term, is not an absence of novelty and change--a total quiescence--but rather the absence of ordered sequential change. Like molecules rushing about haphazardly in a Brownian movement, a culture bustling with activity and change may nevertheless be static. Indeed, insofar as an active, conscious search for new techniques, new forms and materials, and new modes of sensibility (such as have marked our time) precludes the gradual accumulation of changes capable of producing a trend or series of connected mutations, it tends to create a steady-state, though perhaps one that is both vigorous and variegated. In short......a multiplicity of styles in each of the arts, coexisting in a balanced, yet competitive, cultural environment is producing a fluctuating stasis in contemporary culture."


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper some of them- particularly verbs: they're the proudest- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^ I infer from your dismissal of Leonard Meyer's notion of the New Stasis that you have not read _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_. As I have on several occasions, I recommend this work as the best introduction to Meyer and his rather seminal work on several key issues in how music is perceived and also, as here, on a larger view of cultural trends. Meyer's prose is dense and difficult, and requires--at least in my case--very close attention and often re-reading, but the rewards are great. As an introduction, let's quote Meyer on stasis:
> 
> "...change and variety are not incompatible with stasis. For stasis, as I intend the term, is not an absence of novelty and change--a total quiescence--but rather the absence of ordered sequential change. Like molecules rushing about haphazardly in a Brownian movement, a culture bustling with activity and change may nevertheless be static. Indeed, insofar as an active, conscious search for new techniques, new forms and materials, and new modes of sensibility (such as have marked our time) precludes the gradual accumulation of changes capable of producing a trend or series of connected mutations, it tends to create a steady-state, though perhaps one that is both vigorous and variegated. In short......a multiplicity of styles in each of the arts, coexisting in a balanced, yet competitive, cultural environment is producing a fluctuating stasis in contemporary culture."


Becca has humorously parodied what seems like the relativism of Meyer's language and the point is it borders on saying nothing. Employing the above definition one could infer (or not infer!) that the history of most culture has actually been static..and also not static internally. It's also contradictory because things simply cannot be in a state of stasis and also in a state of change. '_Fluctuating stasis_' is getting rather close to being an oxymoron.

However, I'd like to know how and when Meyer thinks this peculiar stasis with 'internal change and variety' ever becomes change on a larger scale; effectively a complete culture shift? How does one even perceive it if the so-called stasis is characterised by 'change and variety'? How does one infer _stasis_ from 'change and variety' at all?

Stability in cultural epochs is not a new idea. That semi-stability of exploring new methods, techniques, materials is all forward motion, not stasis (immobility). I imagine Meyer has at the back of his mind the great 'cultural leaps' like Periclean Greece and the Renaissance/Enlightenment and that anything not like these is effectively static. This is simply false. Those - notably the latter - were reactions after being held back and thus a surplus of contained ideas fell like a huge waterfall.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think Meyer is referring to change and variety where the old is dressed up as new, like old sitcoms vs. new, the idea of Vivaldi writing the same concerto 500times, or even so-called contemporary classical music which uses same techniques as from 80 years ago. I tend to think of it as the term stagnation rather than stasis (which does seem to imply no activity)


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> Becca has humorously parodied what seems like the relativism of Meyer's language and the point is it borders on saying nothing. Employing the above definition one could infer (or not infer!) that the history of most culture has actually been static..and also not static internally. It's also contradictory because things simply cannot be in a state of stasis and also in a state of change. '_Fluctuating stasis_' is getting rather close to being an oxymoron.


Congratulations are due to our junior etymologists. They have freshly rediscovered the ancient and time-honored strategy of avoiding the necessity of actually reading a difficult treatise while seeming to be familiar with its arguments. By spurning Meyer's proffered definition of stasis right from the get-go, there is no need to delve further into the possibly deep waters of his central thesis. We could next turn to Mr. Darwin and quibble with his definition of so-called "evolution" and avoid his tiresome book entirely.

But Meyer's use of the term stasis to describe cultural/art phenomena very like Brownian motion, electronic static, "white noise", randomness is fully consistent with the nature of the state in question, and we further have the benefit of Meyer's explanation/justification of his use of the term. We can thus evaluate the degree of interest people have in determining the validity of Meyer's thesis by whether they actually scruple to read the book.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I get very suspicious when a philosopher (or that ilk) starts appropriating scientific terms to describe their theories. In the vast majority of cases it rapidly becomes clear that they don't understand the actual concepts that they are using and so end up effectively redefining them to the point that they are meaningless. If you want scientific concepts, I think that I could sum up the societal situation in three words ... chaotic and punctuated equilibrium.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Becca said:


> I get very suspicious when a philosopher (or that ilk) starts appropriating scientific terms to describe their theories. In the vast majority of cases it rapidly becomes clear that they don't understand the actual concepts that they are using and so end up effectively redefining them to the point that they are meaningless. If you want scientific concepts, I think that I could sum up the societal situation in three words ... chaotic and punctuated equilibrium.


Is stasis a wholly scientific term? I had no idea.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Is stasis a wholly scientific term? I had no idea.


Very funny ... he is talking about Brownian motion as an analogy.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Becca said:


> Very funny ... he is talking about Brownian motion as an analogy.


Exactly! As an analogy. To learn more, one can always read the book.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2017)

It's pointing out the obvious that reading a book (longer term activity) is not really compatible with the ebb and flow of an internet conversation (short term activity). I've tried it myself - both recommending a work and expecting others to read and digest it and come back for a 'proper' debate; and following a recommendation, trying to read it and coming back after everyone else has moved on.

Meyer may have plenty of valid things to say, but if we're not able to exchange them and absorb them more readily than actually reading the book for ourselves, we can only scratch the surface and, almost certainly, offer unsatisfactory (because incomplete) insights.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> It's pointing out the obvious that reading a book (longer term activity) is not really compatible with the ebb and flow of an internet conversation (short term activity). I've tried it myself - both recommending a work and expecting others to read and digest it and come back for a 'proper' debate; and following a recommendation, trying to read it and coming back after everyone else has moved on.
> 
> Meyer may have plenty of valid things to say, but if we're not able to exchange them and absorb them more readily than actually reading the book for ourselves, we can only scratch the surface and, almost certainly, offer unsatisfactory (because incomplete) insights.


I could not agree more! :tiphat:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> Congratulations are due to our junior etymologists. They have freshly rediscovered the ancient and time-honored strategy of avoiding the necessity of actually reading a difficult treatise while seeming to be familiar with its arguments. By spurning Meyer's proffered definition of stasis right from the get-go, there is no need to delve further into the possibly deep waters of his central thesis. We could next turn to Mr. Darwin and quibble with his definition of so-called "evolution" and avoid his tiresome book entirely.
> 
> But Meyer's use of the term stasis to describe cultural/art phenomena very like Brownian motion, electronic static, "white noise", randomness is fully consistent with the nature of the state in question, and we further have the benefit of Meyer's explanation/justification of his use of the term. We can thus evaluate the degree of interest people have in determining the validity of Meyer's thesis by whether they actually scruple to read the book.


I've had to read a lot of long, turgid and difficult books in my time. Quite a few of them were not worth the read because their argument(s) were stated early on...then re-stated and re-stated largely unchanged, with a warren of winding and unnecessary exegesis and a prose style that has come to be expected of academic writing and is enough to turn a person to drink. I'm not saying all books are like this, or that Meyer's book is like this, but like Becca I am highly sceptical of cultural theorists who seem to whip up an argument with a eye-grabbing title and stuffed full of appropriated jargon (in the strict sense of that word). Everyone wants to make their name on the back of a 'theory'.

Mr Darwin, on the other hand, pretty much whets your appetite to read further with his seemingly lengthy, but thorough chapter summaries proposing to explain no less than the origin of species by means of natural selection. Not by means of turgid or obfuscating prose either, it's a lesson in clarity. This man had no need to dress it up, it was already astonishing.

You offered a quote which was, I assumed, the central thesis in Meyer's book. I don't buy it, sorry. I also explained why. Perhaps I may get around to reading his book, but I don't see it for the near future, there's a lot of stuff out there.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^ Such delicious world-weariness--I am exhausted merely reading of it. Perhaps it is for the best that you avoid Meyer; too fatiguing entirely, and we are growing old.

MacLeod suggests another path: he hints that if one chooses not to read a book, perhaps it might be best to assume a discreet silence about its contents, rather than speculate on what it might contain. Just a thought.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'm sorry if you've been put out by this. It's not what I was aiming for. I had noticed that you had mentioned this theory several times in past threads, so I actually _had_ looked into it, not merely opined on the strength of your recent, brief quotation.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for me have a view about it; I can't help it if it has turned out to be the 'wrong' conclusion for you.

I'm now very tempted to read the book. After doing so I will be curious to discover whether my response will be afforded the requisite approval should I happen come back with the same conclusion.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2017)

This man is an absolute hero and is making inroads into cultural marxism, postmodernism, political correctness and identity politics. I dare you to watch his shattering lecture: he is like the little woodpecker - he's going to bring down the tree. Jordan Peterson, living legend.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> This man is an absolute hero and is making inroads into cultural marxism, postmodernism, political correctness and identity politics. I dare you to watch his shattering lecture: he is like the little woodpecker - he's going to bring down the tree. Jordan Peterson, living legend.


He's a complete twerp catering to other twerps.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> He's a complete twerp catering to other twerps.


Oh, he's hit a raw nerve I see. That's not an argument but a hysterical reaction, probably from someone who has (as Peterson says) a 'cain-like resentment of anybody who has ever acquired anything".

And this is gold: "if academics were paid the same as bankers they'd all be capitalists" (ergo; we wouldn't have postmodernism, identity politics and cultural marxism". Axiomatic.

As ever, it is the disinterested third party reading this who'll decide for him/herself.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> This man is an absolute hero and is making inroads into cultural marxism, postmodernism, political correctness and identity politics. I dare you to watch his shattering lecture: he is like the little woodpecker - he's going to bring down the tree. Jordan Peterson, living legend.


It seems this garbage has found its way to infect not only Youtube and Reddit but now it's on TC's main forum as well, nice...


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Oh, he's hit a raw nerve I see. That's not an argument but a hysterical reaction, probably from someone who has (as Peterson says) a 'cain-like resentment of anybody who has ever acquired anything".
> 
> And this is gold: "if academics were paid the same as bankers they'd all be capitalists" (ergo; we wouldn't have postmodernism, identity politics and cultural marxism". Axiomatic.
> 
> As ever, it is the disinterested third party reading this who'll decide for him/herself.


He's not hit a raw nerve, but the same tired old gong being hawked around and banged on you tube these days: to wit, that universities are hotbeds of seething "cultural marxism", a crackpot term whipped up by a right-wing obsessed with the idea that the 'wrong' ideas and values are being taught to people in universities.

That quote is amusing, because it is idiotic. You don't make a 'capitalist' out of someone by paying them a lot of money. When I see that these squawking fools use the 'politics of envy' argument as a reason for why people are not pleased with the economic system, then I know I'm not confronted with anything of substance.

This "cultural marxism" fad currently riding the waves with the populist right-wing is utterly vacuous.

This part of this thread may well be removed, but in truth I think it actually has great relevance in terms of explaining why one particular part of society harbours such great antipathy to "postmodernism". For them it is merely the degenerate usurper of "proper values".


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> He's not hit a raw nerve, but the same tired old gong being hawked around on you tube these days: to wit, that universities are hotbeds of seething "cultural marxism", a crackpot term whipped up by a right-wing obsessed with the idea that the 'wrong' ideas and values are being taught to people in universities.
> 
> That quote is amusing, because it is idiotic. You don't make a 'capitalist' out of someone by paying them a lot of money. When I see that these squawking fools use the 'politics of envy' argument as a reason for why people are not pleased with the economic system, then I know I'm not confronted with anything of substance.
> 
> ...


You don't seem to understand; there's a fast-moving train coming via the USA which is going to sweep away victimhood, identity politics and the like and phenomenal intellectuals like Peterson are driving it. Trump's election started it, but the toxic climate of victim culture is about to be re-calibrated if not entirely sent to the gallows where it belongs. He's one of the bravest men I've ever seen to fight back against a wall of (often) violent opposition from the Left. My links and comments are entirely in keeping with the OP. Deleting the comments or the thread won't make a scintilla of difference to that outcome.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> there is only addition (of new trends) but no subtraction--I will listen to, say, Bach, in a way that will never be exactly replicated (but which will be shrunk to insignificance by its very uniqueness).


I've been avoiding tangling with you on this topic, in part since I have no intention of reading a long book by Leonard Meyer (349 pages?). Alan Kirby has the immense advantage of brevity, so I'm glad his thesis has at least your partial stamp of approval. However, this idea that there is no subtraction of trends seems too far removed from reality to pass by, as does Phil loves classical's comment above that the existence of this internet discussion forum is proof of the continued popularity of Beethoven and Mozart, etc., when to me it is strong evidence of the opposite. Yes, Bach's music remains and will remain, but in the same way the art of Michelangelo, Rembrandt and Titian or the poetry of Chaucer, Dante, and Goethe remain: not as a trend, but (more or less) as a constant, so long as western culture remains.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2017)

Chronochromie said:


> It seems this garbage has found its way to infect not only Youtube and Reddit but now it's on TC's main forum as well, nice...


I'm sorry to say that response is standard issue from the left, but they usually accompany it with force. Sad to say. But also, I think, entirely consistent with their level of alarm.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> This part of this thread may well be removed, but in truth I think it actually has great relevance in terms of explaining why one particular part of society harbours such great antipathy to "postmodernism". For them it is merely the degenerate usurper of "proper values".


No-it's also dangerous, wrong and a bad joke, promoted by twerps catering to twerps.


----------



## Guest (Nov 14, 2017)

Improbus said:


> No-it's also dangerous, wrong and a bad joke, promoted by twerps catering to twerps.


Again, standard issue of the left to suppress - even suggesting a thread is deleted. This is precisely what Dr. Peterson is fighting against. The right to free speech without violence and suppression. A lot of people get that and that's why he's got millions and millions of supporters. Everything which challenges the Left is "dangerous". As I said, a train is coming....

I'm willing to bet there are plenty of people here on TC who agree but feel intimidated by tactics such as yours. Professor Peterson has inspired me to speak my truth- and face the consequences. I would urge others to do so. Turning a meaningful and valid discussion into vitriol - as I said, standard issue from the left. And calling it 'dangerous' is merely their own projections. The emperor has no clothes.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> You don't seem to understand; there's a fast-moving train coming via the USA which is going to sweep away victimhood, identity politics and the like and the phenomenal intellectuals like Peterson at driving it. Trump's election started it, but the toxic climate of victim culture is about to be re-calibrated if not entirely sent to the gallows where it belongs. He's one of the bravest men I've ever seen to fight back against a wall of (often) violent opposition from the Left. My links and comments are entirely in keeping with the OP.


That's riveting. You seem to have it all in hand. No need to send on the clowns, the circus is already in town. Trump-mania has energised a lot of blowhards to give "lectures" about their grievances, wrapped-up in a pseudo-intellectualism (watered-down for the Daily Mail/Telegraaf readership) which bears an uncanny resemblance to that supposedly personified by their "leftist" enemy.

Every angry and upset right-wing man/deluded working-class Tory is energised by it. Hoping for a future where again you can slap secretaries' behinds; throw your rubbish away in one big bag and not worry about where it goes; tell racist jokes and be patted on the head; not have to look at gays and boys dressed as girls and quietly accept it; tax dodge and pay workers peanuts and be praised as an economic force for good. All the jobs will come back to towns and villages and women will stop telling people what to do. The great right-wing populist fantasy. This is what's on the train.

Your links and comments don't really have much relevance to the discussion of postmodernism as a cultural phenomenon, save for peddling the view that it is somehow a "leftist" plot to undermine "proper values".

There's no challenge here, just a circus.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Again, standard issue of the left to suppress - even suggesting a thread is deleted. This is precisely what Dr. Peterson is fighting against. The right to free speech without violence and suppression. A lot of people get that and that's why he's got millions and millions of supporters. Everything which challenges the Left is "dangerous". As I said, a train is coming....


I didn't suggest it be deleted. I expressed the assumption that the moderaters would find it off-topic, but that I hoped it would be left alone for the reasons I stated.

You need to read before responding.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> I didn't suggest it be deleted. I expressed the assumption that the moderaters would find it off-topic, but that I hoped it would be left alone for the reasons I stated.
> 
> You need to read before responding.


And it's definitely VERY RELEVANT to the topic of post-modernism and beyond. Almost the entire lectures of Peterson and a gathering army of academics and others are addressing just exactly that; based on study, research, logical argument and intellectual rigour. Isn't that frightening?

That's where I'm leaving the discussion; let Dr. Peterson speak on my behalf. And cheers to those on TC who like him too!!


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> And it's definitely VERY RELEVANT to the topic of post-modernism and beyond. Almost the entire lectures of Peterson and a gathering army of academics and others are addressing just exactly that; based on study, research, logical argument and intellectual rigour. *Isn't that frightening*?


Not really, except perhaps its facile attraction for disgruntled people who don't like thinking.

I left a university job because I was tired of educational establishments I'd worked at being run as corporations with only a profit being considered above all alse. All public institutions are riddled with this right-wing mentality and then the likes of this you-tube clown go around "warning" us about the complete opposite.

Faux news indeed.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Here is some food for thought. Deals with a variety of issues.
> 
> https://philosophynow.org/issues/58/The_Death_of_Postmodernism_And_Beyond
> 
> It's reference to music later is interesting, suggesting music is all fragmented in the "pseudo-modern" society, beyond postmodernism.


That is so last decade. 11 years ago dude.


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Not really, except perhaps its facile attraction for disgruntled people who don't like thinking.
> 
> I left a university job because I was tired of educational establishments I'd worked at being run as corporations with only a profit being considered above all alse. All public institutions are riddled with this right-wing mentality and then the likes of this you-tube clown go around "warning" us about the complete opposite.
> 
> Faux news indeed.


Then can you please explain why it's NOT those you identify as disgruntled who are resorting to the violence, intimidation and consistent attempts to shut down any discussion from Peterson and his followers. It seems starkly self-evident who is disgruntled here. And the angry tone of the antagonists even here tells me the level of anger which discussions about the social consequences of cultural marxism and postmodernism have fostered. Again, the left projects its own perfidy when challenged, which is sad for them and bad for everybody.

Listen to what Jordan and his confreres are saying about the origins of postmodernism and cultural marxism before you start ranting. It's all based upon phenomenal reading and research and profound insight. Bravery indeed.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Then can you please explain why it's NOT those you identify as disgruntled who are resorting to the violence, intimidation and consistent attempts to shut down any discussion from Peterson and his followers. It seems starkly self-evident who is disgruntled here. And the angry tone of the antagonists even here tells me the level of anger which discussions about the social consequences of cultural marxism and postmodernism have fostered. Again, the left projects its own perfidy when challenged, which is sad for them and bad for everybody.
> 
> Listen to what Jordan and his confreres are saying about the origins of postmodernism and cultural marxism before you start ranting. It's all based upon phenomenal reading and research and profound insight. Bravery indeed.


What are you talking about? There's plenty of violence, intimidation and attempts to suppress discussion online and in real life running in the opposite direction.

I'm not "angry", I'm merely tired of hearing the term "cultural marxism", it means nothing. It's a catch-all term using two words bolted together that represent the shallow views of its users: that culture has been hijacked by the people whose views they despise (though there's no real understanding of why) and that anyone not right-wing must be a 'Marxist' and that Marxism is de facto synonymous with evil. Right-wing populists delude themselves that they represent a suppressed truth consisting of decent honesty and traditional 'normal' values. That's the joke.

I don't quite know when you picked up this silly term, but I've heard it doing the rounds in various guises for over 20 years. It's not new. It's just the latest brand identity for the same old complaints.

I find it rather telling that you are complaining about suppression and freedom of speech when all these anti "cultural marxist" types are trying to do is suppress whatever it is _they_ don't want to hear or see. You've not even thought it through.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm not "angry", I'm merely tired of hearing the term "cultural marxism", it means nothing. It's a catch-all term using two words bolted together that represent the shallow views of its users: that culture has been hijacked by the people whose views they despise (though there's no real understanding of why) and that anyone not right-wing must be a 'Marxist' and that Marxism is de facto synonymous with evil. Right-wing populists delude themselves that they represent a suppressed truth consisting of decent honesty and traditional 'normal' values. That's the joke.


Cultural Marxism generally refers to the application of Marxist ideas of class relations to matters of culture, race, gender and sexuality as a memetic evolutionary adaptation to a world wherein class struggle has been rendered next to irrelevant. In this world view non-Westerners, non-whites, women, transsexuals and homosexuals are considered collectively oppressed and wronged and must rise up against the collectively privileged and favored Western, white, male, 'cis-gendered' and heterosexual majority (whether or not it's actually the majority). It's fallacious, dangerous and a problem especially in my home country Sweden.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Improbus said:


> Cultural Marxism generally refers to the application of Marxist ideas of class relations to matters of culture, race, gender and sexuality as a memetic evolutionary adaptation to a world wherein class struggle has been rendered next to irrelevant. In this world view non-Westerners, non-whites, women, transsexuals and homosexuals are considered collectively oppressed and wronged and must rise up against the collectively privileged and favored Western, white, male, 'cis-gendered' and heterosexual majority (whether or not it's actually the majority). It's fallacious, dangerous and a problem especially in my home country Sweden.


Spoken like a western, white male ... try being one (or more) of those 'oppressed and wronged' groups, then come talk to me.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Improbus said:


> It's fallacious, dangerous and a problem especially in my home country Sweden.


Here too. The other day there was a leaked e-mail from the DNC, which is looking to better secure their computers (as well they might). They were going to hire some additional IT personnel. The lady in charge of such things wrote, don't send me any cis-gendered white males, we have too many of those already.

I had to look up "cis-gendered." BTW these are the same people who are professionally outraged at any hint of prejudice in hiring with respect to gender, race, or sexual orientation… :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Improbus said:


> Cultural Marxism generally refers to the application of Marxist ideas of class relations to matters of culture, race, gender and sexuality as a memetic evolutionary adaptation *to a world wherein class struggle has been rendered next to irrelevant*. In this world view non-Westerners, non-whites, women, transsexuals and homosexuals are considered collectively oppressed and wronged and must rise up against the collectively privileged and favored Western, white, male, 'cis-gendered' and heterosexual majority (whether or not it's actually the majority). It's fallacious, dangerous and a problem especially in my home country Sweden.


Class issues have certainly not gone away.

The rest of your paragraph is the same tired complaint I addressed before. You and your fellow "freedom fighters" are the ones who see this problem, other people just see a changing world with a lot of issues under discussion. I realise that a lot of frightened, bewildered and deeply unimaginative conservative types will be panicking. Be calm though, they're just shadows. Sleep with the light on if you must.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Becca said:


> Spoken like a western, white male ... try being one (or more) of those 'oppressed and wronged' groups, then come talk to me.


Individuals of all groups are subject to and perpetrators of oppression, injustice and violence, no specific or entire group. Individuals are to be held accountable and pitied, not groups.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Improbus said:


> Individuals of all groups are subject to and perpetrators of oppression, injustice and violence, no specific or entire group. Individuals are to be held accountable and pitied, not groups.


They'd like to be individuals, but you will insist on grouping them together as a common enemy.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Class issues have certainly not gone away.


Not entirely, but Marxists can no longer rely on them completely in order to remain relevant.



> The rest of your paragraph is the same tired complaint I addressed before. You and your fellow "freedom fighters" are the ones who see this problem, other people just see a changing world with a lot of issues under discussion. I realise that a lot of frightened, bewildered and deeply unimaginative conservative types will be panicking. Be calm though, they're just shadows. Sleep with the light on if you must.


It's at least logically problematic and unjust, and potentially harmful if only the problems of certain groups are taken seriously. The multicultural problem in much of Europe is nourished by it and is certainly not just another right-wing, Trumpean lie.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> They'd like to be individuals, but you will insist on grouping them together as a common enemy.


Who? White people? The patriarchy? The Jews?


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Here too. The other day there was a leaked e-mail from the DNC, which is looking to better secure their computers (as well they might). They were going to hire some additional IT personnel. The lady in charge of such things wrote, don't send me any cis-gendered white males, we have too many of those already.
> 
> I had to look up "cis-gendered." BTW these are the same people who are professionally outraged at any hint of prejudice in hiring with respect to gender, race, or sexual orientation… :lol:


That's business as usual in Sweden, and the result of white, heterosexual men being collectively labeled as privileged and oppressive and of paying too much attention to such irrelevant categories.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The thread is temporarily closed. The discussion only mildly included music but now focuses solely on politics. If we open the thread, the discussion must focus on music rather than how stupid, silly, and ignorant conservatives and liberals are.


----------

