[ilds] baboonism

Michael Haag michaelhaag at btinternet.com
Sat Jul 7 04:44:09 PDT 2007


I would have thought that a postmodernist would reject labels of any  
sort whatsoever.  Labels are like definitions and standards, and how  
can you have definitions and standards when there is nothing but  
'discourse' or, as James explained Durrell once, 'whim'.  How indeed  
can you have reasonableness?  Who decides, and how, whether one whim is  
more reasonable than another?  And under such circumstances what does  
reasonable mean anyway.  More whimable, perhaps.  Durrell strikes me as  
having had standards, a definite point of view.

:Michael



On Saturday, July 7, 2007, at 07:49  am, Pamela Francis wrote:

> The wikipedia list of postmodern authors demonstrates that the border
> between modernism and postmodernism is leaky at best and sometimes
> completely disolved; William Faulkner, Saul Bellow, Flannery  
> o'Connor--John
> Updike?  as postmodernists?  i can see the case for each (if I look
> hard)--and I certainly read the Quintet as postmodern.  So what does  
> really
> distinguish the mod from the postmod?  And do we really have to have  
> the
> distinction? What purpose can such labels--esp.since they are only
> nominal---serve?
> Just wondering--Pamela
>
>
>> From: "Vittorio Celentano" <vcel at ix.netcom.com>
>> Reply-To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>> To: <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
>> Subject: Re: [ilds] baboonism
>> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 00:32:19 -0400
>>
>> Pamela and others:
>>
>> Lawrence Durrell is listed as a postmodern author in
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_literature
>>
>> Vittorio
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Pamela Francis" <albigensian at hotmail.com>
>> To: <ilds at lists.uvic.ca>
>> Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 10:46 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ilds] baboonism
>>
>>
>>> Though I can't completely disagree with Lincolnshire's equating of  
>>> Xnty
>> with
>>> those who believe in the man in the moon, he and Surrey have  
>>> illustrated
>> the
>>> common misconception of postmodern thought--and not without some  
>>> reason,
>> as
>>> that is how it is quite often presented to the Great Unread Public.   
>>> But
>> the
>>> case of David Irving (Holocaust Denier par excellence)  
>>> demonstrated--to
>>> those that were paying attention--that postmodernist thought must be
>> based
>>> on REASONABLE debate.  Even though, as postmodernists, we may  
>>> question
>> who
>>> has written history and from what location--in other words, we must
>> question
>>> metanarratives--we also must question the questioning.  In this  
>>> case, it
>> is
>>> clear that questioning the metanarrative--with all its repercussions  
>>> for
>>> current prejudices and acts of ethnic cleansing--cannot be questioned
>> for
>>> any other reason than hatred, that is, the continued perpetuation of
>>> violence against certain ethnic and/or cultural identities.  If the
>>> questioning of Holocaust metanarratives cannot bring about anything
>> other
>>> than more hatred, it is an unreasonable debate, one which brings  
>>> justice
>> to
>>> absolutely NO ONE.
>>>
>>> On the surface, this tends to support the politically liberal point  
>>> of
>> view,
>>> which many of the Great Unread Public equate with
>>> nambypambyloveandpeaceforeveryoneness.  But I find considerable  
>>> logic in
>> the
>>> argument that the "questioning", i.e., the denial of the Holocaust
>> cannot
>>> bring about any hidden injustices to those who (I, and I think most  
>>> of
>> you
>>> as well) believe perpetuated the mass murder of Jews, Poles,
>> homosexuals,
>>> and gypsies (to name only a few of Hitler's victims).  In other  
>>> words,
>> thi
>> s
>>> denial redeems no one.  In that sense, then, it is not reasonable,  
>>> and
>>> therefore is not an example of postmodern theory in praxis.
>>>
>>> Having said all that, it is sometimes very tempting to tell confused
>>> undergraduates that postmodernism is the idea that all ideas are  
>>> valid.
>>> It's just so much easier than being, well, reasonable...
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Michael Haag <michaelhaag at btinternet.com>
>>>> Reply-To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>>>> To: ilds at lists.uvic.ca
>>>> Subject: [ilds] baboonism
>>>> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 03:05:53 +0100
>>>>
>>>> From the Questions Answered column in The Times, 6 July 2007:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can anyone define what postmodern thought is?
>>>>
>>>> Postmodernists believe there is no knowledge or truth, only
>> "discourse".
>>>> However, they also tend to hold that modish left-wing views are
>> absolutely
>>>> true and that anyone who opposes these should be persecuted.
>>>>
>>>> Andrew M. Chisholm, Thames Ditton, Surrey
>>>>
>>>> I was recently told that Modernism was the age of reason, in which  
>>>> any
>>>> religious beliefs were decried as being irrational. Postmodern  
>>>> thought,
>>>> however, takes things to the opposite extreme, in that it regards  
>>>> all
>>>> values as being equally valid. In other words Christianity is  
>>>> placed on
>> a
>>>> par with those who think there is a man in the moon, which is made  
>>>> of
>> green
>>>> cheese.
>>>>
>>>> Tim Mickleburgh, Grimsby, Lincolnshire
>>>
>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ILDS mailing list
>>>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
>>>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> ------
>> ----
>>
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ILDS mailing list
>>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
>>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ILDS mailing list
>> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
>> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ILDS mailing list
> ILDS at lists.uvic.ca
> https://lists.uvic.ca/mailman/listinfo/ilds
>



More information about the ILDS mailing list