Heartland

Dr. Moody wrote:are the sisters post-mortem

A far more fitting question, if you ask me...

million voices wrote:But for something to be "modern" with or without the "post" prefix doesnt it have to be current? - which the Sisters certainly aren't

Modernism and postmodernism are commonly perceived more as "ways of being" (sorry to sound like a Nance ) than historical eras. But modernism did come "first" and has an indeterminate time line of popularity according to some historians (roughly it began in the late 19th century and peaked in the mid 20th century), but I think it's still alive and well.

Is that post-post-modern or pre-future?

Post-Postmodernism is actually a term, sadly.

nick the stripper wrote: Andrew Eldritch seems to have no idea about what he is talking about when it comes to postmodernism.

Oh, I don't know. His critique is a very conservative critique. You may not agree with his read of postmodern thought, but he does seem to have some idea what he's saying.

nick the stripper wrote:
I can, off the top of my head, list several "postmodernists" who cared deeply about politics, to the extent of actually taking action. In philosophy, to name two names, there is Foucault and Deleuze. Both were classed postmodern (against their will, which seems to be the case with all postmodernists, as it is with certain people and the Goth label ), and both were ardent activists within Palestine liberation, gay rights and prison reform. In addition, Foucault seems to share Eldritch's respect for Anarcho-Syndicalism.

I don't know much of anything about Deleuze, but Foucault is a radical historical determinist (see his "stunning and barbaric" --his description, not mine--historical a priori). Foucault may "care deeply about politics," but he recognizes that such "caring" as you call it is a product of the historical a priori or power/knowledge structure or episteme (depending on which period Foucault you're talking about). He's a Hegelian historicist who denies that there is reason-in-history. History is a blind idiot god (thanks HP) determining all that we do and think, inescapably. Politics is baseless, and so, Foucault's own thought would suggest, are any and all political commitments. This is why Noam Chomsky, at Davos, called him "the most amoral man I've ever met." Human beings can't escape the power/knowledge structure or historical a priori or episteme, and even the illusion that they can is a result of that. That sort of historicism is what Von is rejecting; he's a modern insofar as he wants human rights to be based on something other than mere conventions.

nick the stripper wrote: Now postmodernism seems to me to be a pejorative categorization for (A) modernists who are far too critical of the Enlightenment for the likes of Sokal and Dawkins, (B) modernists who treat fragmentation and discontinuity positively rather than negatively, and (C) modernists who don't see fragmentation and discontinuity as something which can be transcended. An example is William S. Burroughs: in his notion of the habit and the fix is presented the impossibility of transcending irrational, economically imbued desires, and in his cut-up technique is found the affirmation of fragmentation and discontinuity. Of course, all three do not have to be internalized by an artist to be classified postmodern (you only need to pass A and be slightly sceptical to be classified postmodern by Sokal); after all, this makes it a lot easier to pigeonhole people.

I don't think you're being fair to Sokal; I don't think Dawkins has any place in a discussion of philosophy (sorry Mark ). I don't think I have any comments on B) or C).


I also wonder if this discussion isn't conflating philosophical modernity with artistic modernism. When Von says TSOM are modern, I take it to be a rejection of the historicism and relativism of postmodernity in favor of the possibility of a modern (not contemporary) liberal politics, i.e., a liberal politics that predates the Progressive view of history. But I'm not sure, since he's never been clear about how he reads Hegel.

sultan2075 wrote:I don't think you're being fair to Sokal

Surely you jest?

nick the stripper wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:I don't think you're being fair to Sokal

Surely you jest?

We're talking about the chap behind the Social Text hoax, right? He doesn't merely mean critics of the Enlightenment when he talks about postmoderns, but something else altogether (although critiques of the Enlightenment are often a part of it). As a Marxist, he already is a critic of the Enlightenment himself.

Blibble.

sultan2075 wrote:But I'm not sure, since he's never been clear about how he reads Hegel.

In Braille.

SINsister wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:But I'm not sure, since he's never been clear about how he reads Hegel.

In Braille.

That's probably for the best, really.

The difference? Very simple - Modernist still believe in progress while postmodernist just go with the flow. Considering TSOM current status I'd say Mr. Taylor is just going with the flow. And, really, having a pseudonym is soooo postmodernist. Look at Spice Girls (the postmod band par excellance).

I think you mean, it's never been clear IF Von reads Hegel, not how...He's never given any indication that I can think of of having read Foucault or Derrida or Lacan or any other supposedly post-structural theorist you could shake a stick at, either. He's aimed a couple of barbs at relativism, yes, and he's also made it clear that he has a very traditional view of the relationship between author, text and reader. But for all you know he could be copying some guy he heard in the pub, no?

Now, go back to the business of showing off how many books you've read, and leave poor Von out of it!

MrChris wrote:Now, go back to the business of showing off how many books you've read, and leave poor Von out of it!

Should I just list them all here or make a thread in General Chat?

I've always understood modernism to be concerned with hypothetico-deductive scientific methods and facts: ie everything is objective and testable; whereas post-modernism considers everything to be subjective, ie dependant on the viewer's perspective and background.

Anyhoo, modernist or post-modernist, the Sisters are just good ol' rock n roll!