We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
This is a recent re-post.Why it popped up today I cannot tell, but perhaps there is a reason.
Dr. Sanity did a good job with the pomo logical contradictions a little while ago. She quoted Stephen Hicks:
In postmodern discourse, truth is rejected explicitly and consistency can be a rare phenomenon. Consider the following pairs of claims. - On the one hand, all truth is relative; on the other hand, postmodernism tells it like it really is. - On the one hand, all cultures are equally deserving of respect; on the other, Western culture is uniquely destructive and bad. - Values are subjective--but sexism and racism are really evil - Technology is bad and destructive--and it is unfair that some people have more technology than others. - Tolerance is good and dominance is bad--but when postmodernists come to power, political correctness follows.
Read her whole piece. Many of us have made these points before, but it doesn't matter. It's about Stalinist politics, not reason. Stalin remains popular in Russia - a folk hero.
Well, I like Derrida, and Levinas and Blanchot and Jabes and read them with pleasure. I think pomo is a little broad, probably. Their academic imitators aren't so good.
Derrida is a virtuoso reader, primarily. He's also very good at observations ; see if you like the talk (about minutes 5 to 25) about what prayer is here http://rhhardin.home.mindspring.com/derrida2.ram ; and notice that it is both true and contradictory.
It's that sort of thing he writes about, and is the reason for reading him.
He also wrote recently on terrorism http://home.att.net/~rhhardin/derrida.terror.txt , and writing as a leftist in a single sentence acknowledged and demolished every argument on the left.
My mother, no deconstructionist or academic, loved his Gift of Death. I don't know if people read slowly enough these days to handle him, though.
>> I would like to outline the basic features of this new epoch, which I call performatism. Since I've given more thorough descriptions elsewhere, I'll be very brief.
Basically, performatism reacts against the infinite regress, decentrification and subjectlessness peculiar to postmodern discourse by creating narrative, spatial or ethical frames which center and simultaneously constrict simple or "dense" subjects, who are induced to overcome the inhibiting frames around them.
As readers or viewers, we in turn are practically forced to identify with these characters, since a lack of identification forecloses access to the work as a whole. In this sense, the performatist work is a kind of a setup or trap: It forces us, within an aesthetically mediated framework, to experience how characters transcend boundaries in a manner whose premises are patently unbelievable but which move us nonetheless.
In other words, it forces us to believe in spite of our better knowledge. Summing all this up quickly, you could say that performatism's basic mode is theist and monist: It functions in a way similar to that in which a monotheistic God creates a world (a work-frame), places people (characters) in it and leaves them essentially on their own to transcend the confines of that world (the narrative).