Knew I couldn't trust you guys.
Comments
-
guilliano wrote:If they are such good writers why are they at The Mail??? It's as guilty, if not more so, of sensationalistic headlines as any other paper. I'll stick to The Times for their football pullout.
It's good you can pull it out and concentrate on something worthwhile.
To err is human, but to make a real balls up takes a super computer.0 -
I've only just stumbled across this thread, but feel the need to add my tuppence worth.
First things first, I will hold my hand up and state that I read the Guardian (I don't wear sandals, I'm not a vegetarian, but I do, err, ride a bicycle...)
What no-one's mentioned is what I strongly feel, from personal experience, is the single most evil thing about the Mail - which is the way that it plants the seeds of fear within the minds of its readers (or at least a significant proportion of them), then keeps playing on those fears.
Whether the issue be immigration, government policy on taxation, the state of the NHS, knife crime, teenage gangs, ASBOs, benefit cheats, the pensions crisis, property crash (conveniently ignoring the fact that the Mail did more than any other paper to talk the market up in the first place), the EU, etc, etc - you get the idea - I believe very strongly that the Mail has deliberately fostered a climate of fear among its readership and then plays on those fears through lurid headlines that help it sell newspapers to its audience.
In the last couple of years of her life, I'd try to get down to see my mother on the weekend, and without fail she would start talking about something she's read in the paper in an "isn't this terrible...?" kind of way which would leave me (or one or other of my siblings) with the task of explaining to her which aspects of the topic the Mail had conveniently decided to ignore and why things weren't as bleak as the picture being painted.
Now, my mother wasn't the kind of person to hide in the house all day - she was a pretty strong character, very outgoing, and got on amazingly well with people of all ages and backgrounds - but some of the stuff she read in the Mail genuinely unsettled her and made her fearful for the future, and if it could do that to my mum, it could certainly do it to a lot of other readers. And I am pretty certain that stoking those fears within its readership is very much part of the Mail's editorial agenda.
Sorry if that was a bit rambling - I just needed to get it off my chest. But I do think that it is an evil, narrow-minded, bigoted rag.Can\'t drive, won\'t drive0 -
A strangely familiar story there, Capo!
But let's not be too hasty - I have it on good authority that the Daily Mail is 'arguably the best newspaper in the world'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YllyBr_4KxkMaking a cup of coffee is like making love to a beautiful woman. It's got to be hot. You've got to take your time. You've got to stir... gently and firmly. You've got to grind your beans until they squeak.
And then you put in the milk.0 -
The Daily Mail is GMTV in newsprint. It is pants. It has a deliberate right wing, fear inducing, sensational aspect which is read and believed by people who then quote it as the unmitigated gospel.
Thing is though, it does have a good telly guide when you get it on saturday. I nick my mother in laws copy of the telly guide, she's too busy ranting about, immigration, hoodies and knife crime from the paper to notice.
Would never buy it. Ever.
0 -
Makes a good fly swat
Useful for putting under cats litter trays
Pretty poor for reading though0 -
Capo wrote:I've only just stumbled across this thread, but feel the need to add my tuppence worth.
First things first, I will hold my hand up and state that I read the Guardian (I don't wear sandals, I'm not a vegetarian, but I do, err, ride a bicycle...)
What no-one's mentioned is what I strongly feel, from personal experience, is the single most evil thing about the Mail - which is the way that it plants the seeds of fear within the minds of its readers (or at least a significant proportion of them), then keeps playing on those fears.
Whether the issue be immigration, government policy on taxation, the state of the NHS, knife crime, teenage gangs, ASBOs, benefit cheats, the pensions crisis, property crash (conveniently ignoring the fact that the Mail did more than any other paper to talk the market up in the first place), the EU, etc, etc - you get the idea - I believe very strongly that the Mail has deliberately fostered a climate of fear among its readership and then plays on those fears through lurid headlines that help it sell newspapers to its audience.
In the last couple of years of her life, I'd try to get down to see my mother on the weekend, and without fail she would start talking about something she's read in the paper in an "isn't this terrible...?" kind of way which would leave me (or one or other of my siblings) with the task of explaining to her which aspects of the topic the Mail had conveniently decided to ignore and why things weren't as bleak as the picture being painted.
Now, my mother wasn't the kind of person to hide in the house all day - she was a pretty strong character, very outgoing, and got on amazingly well with people of all ages and backgrounds - but some of the stuff she read in the Mail genuinely unsettled her and made her fearful for the future, and if it could do that to my mum, it could certainly do it to a lot of other readers. And I am pretty certain that stoking those fears within its readership is very much part of the Mail's editorial agenda.
Sorry if that was a bit rambling - I just needed to get it off my chest. But I do think that it is an evil, narrow-minded, bigoted rag.
Good point. It adds to the 'fear' of crime and society in general. It needs to give a more balanced picture.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
johnfinch wrote:teagar wrote:
If it was trully post-modern, everyone would understand that everything is relative...
And nothing is objective...
I think you need some quotation marks around "understand".
There's a difference between understanding and knowing.
I also forgot to say that to be truly post-modern you accept and embrace multi-culturalism and all its implications, according to the lecture I had today.Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
Don't forget the specific connations in terms of architecture and art. Lets face it, everyone who uses the term 'post modernism' has a slightly different emphasis. So much so that it renders it near useless. Oh it's all so subjective, unless you are a Daily Mail reader in which case you know 'the truth'.
Whilst we are on the subject and in a sociological frame of mind, is the DM a metaphor for 'structure' and does that make this forum 'anti-structure' through our communitas? Or is the DM so unpopular that our 'liminal' approach to it is actually not liminal or anti-structure at all, but rather normative? Hmmm...these thoughts will keep me busy for literally minutes.
Anybody read Victor Turner by the way? I get all my independent thoughts from his books 'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
-
johnfinch wrote:
or is it?0 -
passout wrote:Whilst we are on the subject and in a sociological frame of mind, is the DM a metaphor for 'structure' and does that make this forum 'anti-structure' through our communitas? Or is the DM so unpopular that our 'liminal' approach to it is actually not liminal or anti-structure at all, but rather normative? Hmmm...these thoughts will keep me busy for literally minutes.
Brilliant. I only wish I knew what you were on about.
Funny, really. Of all the philosophy and political theory I've read, I've always found that the most relevant texts have been written in clear, simple language. Unlike postmodernism, which simply seeks to be as obscure as possible, probably to avoid conflict which would show it up to be completely devoid of any original, useful ideas whatsoever.
I'm talking about the political side of it, BTW, not PM art or literature, some of which I enjoy.0 -
johnfinch wrote:passout wrote:Whilst we are on the subject and in a sociological frame of mind, is the DM a metaphor for 'structure' and does that make this forum 'anti-structure' through our communitas? Or is the DM so unpopular that our 'liminal' approach to it is actually not liminal or anti-structure at all, but rather normative? Hmmm...these thoughts will keep me busy for literally minutes.
Brilliant. I only wish I knew what you were on about.
Funny, really. Of all the philosophy and political theory I've read, I've always found that the most relevant texts have been written in clear, simple language. Unlike postmodernism, which simply seeks to be as obscure as possible, probably to avoid conflict which would show it up to be completely devoid of any original, useful ideas whatsoever.
I'm talking about the political side of it, BTW, not PM art or literature, some of which I enjoy.
Agreed. Post Modernism can be ignored with no consequences. Also I wish I knew what I was on about.......or do I (see above)??'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
passout wrote:
Agreed. Post Modernism can be ignored with no consequences. Also I wish I knew what I was on about.......or do I (see above)??
Post-modernism has its place, even if it just making people aware of the uncertainties of knowledge.
Ignoring it has no consequences, since it is a (still) new strand of thinking. The status quo is without post-modernism. That doesn't mean it is totally useless!
I would argue that some post-modern influenced ideas can have positive consequences...Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
teagar wrote:Post-modernism has its place, even if it just making people aware of the uncertainties of knowledge.
I agree with the principle that we need to be aware of the limits of human knowledge, but not that post-modernism is responsible for this awareness. Scientists have known that we can only improve our understanding, rather than perfect it, since day one. Which is why we still refer to the THEORY of evolution, Big Bang THEORY, etc.
Anyone ever read How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Wheen? It has a very funny chapter on post-modernism.0 -
johnfinch wrote:teagar wrote:Post-modernism has its place, even if it just making people aware of the uncertainties of knowledge.
I agree with the principle that we need to be aware of the limits of human knowledge, but not that post-modernism is responsible for this awareness. Scientists have known that we can only improve our understanding, rather than perfect it, since day one. Which is why we still refer to the THEORY of evolution, Big Bang THEORY, etc.
Anyone ever read How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Wheen? It has a very funny chapter on post-modernism.
I'm not quite sure you quite got what I meant by post-modernism making people aware of the uncertainties of knowledge.
Science is a bit of an odd example because it is a limited construction with very strict and defineable rules (usually). While in science, the actual science can be objective, post-modern theory tells us that the scientist who interprets the science cannot be (cultural bias, imbedded discourses, systems of knowledge other than science etc). Just take a look at Nazi or early 20th C colonial science. Particuarly in physics, where the construction is limited to very definable and transparant langauge - i.e. maths.
Even the notion that scientific objectivity is absolute and not relative is also called into question with post-modernism. Post-modern infuenced research (post-colonial history), has proved more or less beyond any reasonable doubt that scientific objectivity was another powerful epistemological construct (a construction in which things can be known in a particular way), in order to create a distance between Europeans and Africans, in order to allow the domination of Europeans over Africa. Just because the language appears universal and objective, doesn't mean it is! Of course, this is not to say that this is the only and absolute way to interpret the role of scientific thinking in the colonial context, but it provides an important and powerful explaination for the way in which particular ways of knowing shape both the perceptions and interractions with Africa. (This is my specialist course at university...)
The same example can be applied to democratic rights. The language of democracy is universal, but as we can clearly see in the middle east, especially in Iraq, democracy is not universally appicable, or indeed, even wanted.
It's not a question of what we do know and what we don't know, but more about illustrating the uncertainty with the things you do know. Things like "I am British", or, "Africa is poor". We feel that things things are absolute and "knowable", but they're not. They're constructions, which are shaped by a complex combination of political, cultural, psychological, social, etc etc, factors, which are difficult or indeed impossible to completley untangle.
That's what post-modernism tells us! Of course in day-to-day practice none of this really come up, but it is important to bear in mind. It would be great for politicians to be at least aware of these ideas. How many times have we criticised a politician for claiming he or she knows something when we feel they patently can't?
An understanding of the relativeness of everything, even types of knowledge and ideas which seem universal and absolute, can inevitably lead to a more understanding and inclusive way of thinking, which in an increasingly multi-cultural soceity, is surely beneficial.
In a lecture yesterday, we were told that post-modernism can be seen in part as a response to accomodate the experience of multi-culturalism.
I personally feel these ideas would be particularly powerful and useful in diplomacy and foreign affairs...[/i]Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
teagar wrote:johnfinch wrote:teagar wrote:Post-modernism has its place, even if it just making people aware of the uncertainties of knowledge.
I agree with the principle that we need to be aware of the limits of human knowledge, but not that post-modernism is responsible for this awareness. Scientists have known that we can only improve our understanding, rather than perfect it, since day one. Which is why we still refer to the THEORY of evolution, Big Bang THEORY, etc.
Anyone ever read How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Wheen? It has a very funny chapter on post-modernism.
I'm not quite sure you quite got what I meant by post-modernism making people aware of the uncertainties of knowledge.
Science is a bit of an odd example because it is a limited construction with very strict and defineable rules (usually). While in science, the actual science can be objective, post-modern theory tells us that the scientist who interprets the science cannot be (cultural bias, imbedded discourses, systems of knowledge other than science etc). Just take a look at Nazi or early 20th C colonial science. Particuarly in physics, where the construction is limited to very definable and transparant langauge - i.e. maths.
Even the notion that scientific objectivity is absolute and not relative is also called into question with post-modernism. Post-modern infuenced research (post-colonial history), has proved more or less beyond any reasonable doubt that scientific objectivity was another powerful epistemological construct (a construction in which things can be known in a particular way), in order to create a distance between Europeans and Africans, in order to allow the domination of Europeans over Africa. Just because the language appears universal and objective, doesn't mean it is! Of course, this is not to say that this is the only and absolute way to interpret the role of scientific thinking in the colonial context, but it provides an important and powerful explaination for the way in which particular ways of knowing shape both the perceptions and interractions with Africa. (This is my specialist course at university...)
The same example can be applied to democratic rights. The language of democracy is universal, but as we can clearly see in the middle east, especially in Iraq, democracy is not universally appicable, or indeed, even wanted.
It's not a question of what we do know and what we don't know, but more about illustrating the uncertainty with the things you do know. Things like "I am British", or, "Africa is poor". We feel that things things are absolute and "knowable", but they're not. They're constructions, which are shaped by a complex combination of political, cultural, psychological, social, etc etc, factors, which are difficult or indeed impossible to completley untangle.
That's what post-modernism tells us! Of course in day-to-day practice none of this really come up, but it is important to bear in mind. It would be great for politicians to be at least aware of these ideas. How many times have we criticised a politician for claiming he or she knows something when we feel they patently can't?
An understanding of the relativeness of everything, even types of knowledge and ideas which seem universal and absolute, can inevitably lead to a more understanding and inclusive way of thinking, which in an increasingly multi-cultural soceity, is surely beneficial.
In a lecture yesterday, we were told that post-modernism can be seen in part as a response to accomodate the experience of multi-culturalism.
I personally feel these ideas would be particularly powerful and useful in diplomacy and foreign affairs...[/i]
Did you just say that Pete was always jealous and always has been? You DID!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1180971/Pete-jealous-reveals-SECOND-dressage-rider-nightclub-Katie-Price.htmlMaking a cup of coffee is like making love to a beautiful woman. It's got to be hot. You've got to take your time. You've got to stir... gently and firmly. You've got to grind your beans until they squeak.
And then you put in the milk.0 -
mmitchell88 wrote:
Did you just say that Pete was always jealous and always has been? You DID!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1180971/Pete-jealous-reveals-SECOND-dressage-rider-nightclub-Katie-Price.html
Something like that!Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
I’d say the Mail isn’t alone in doing this. Several national dailys have an unnecessary amount of fear-inducing content, and the local evening newspaper also does pretty well at it too. Maybe the Mail just does it more or more blatantly or more biasedly (I don’t read the Mail so can’t compare).Capo wrote:What no-one's mentioned is what I strongly feel, from personal experience, is the single most evil thing about the Mail - which is the way that it plants the seeds of fear within the minds of its readers (or at least a significant proportion of them), then keeps playing on those fears.
... I believe very strongly that the Mail has deliberately fostered a climate of fear among its readership and then plays on those fears through lurid headlines that help it sell newspapers to its audience.
But this type of journalism isn’t restricted to newspapers either, TV news programmes are guilty too of reporting more doom and gloom than necessary and creating false perspectives.
A couple of years ago I saw an analysis of TV news reporting in the USA compared to several other lands – the UK, some continental European countries, Canada, Australia, etc. The analysis compared amount of time given over in TV news programmes to different topics – business, politics, crime, weather, sport, arts, science, human interest, foreign news, celebrity trivia, accidents/ disasters, etc.
In the USA, reporting concentrated about twice as much on crime compared European countries, mainly at the expense of foreign news and arts news. More than half the time, US news programmes also led with crime-related stories, even when not significant in the greater frame of things. In the analysis conclusion, the amount of time given to crime-reporting was judged excessive and fear-inducing.
If I remember right, in the UK, the amount of time given to crime reporting was lower than in the USA, but higher than everywhere else, mainly at the expense of foreign news and science news, and having crime-related stories as one of the main news items was also common. So one might come to the same conclusion about the amount of time given to crime-reporting in the UK.
(The UK was top in amount of news time given to weather forecasts!)0 -
My favourite feelbad headline that I saw (I think it was the Manchester Evening News) is below:
Paedophile Social Worker is Member of Real IRA
How many boxes does that one tick?0 -
fantastic - you could do a little venn diagram of fear on that one
peadophile
social worker
real IRA
and peadophile social worker
and social worker in IRA
and all three components together - that makes 6 fears !!!!"I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
teagar wrote:I'm not quite sure you quite got what I meant by post-modernism making people aware of the uncertainties of knowledge.
I wasn't really referring to what you said, more to post-modernism in general.teagar wrote:Science is a bit of an odd example because it is a limited construction with very strict and defineable rules (usually). While in science, the actual science can be objective, post-modern theory tells us that the scientist who interprets the science cannot be (cultural bias, imbedded discourses, systems of knowledge other than science etc). Just take a look at Nazi or early 20th C colonial science. Particuarly in physics, where the construction is limited to very definable and transparant langauge - i.e. maths.
Even the notion that scientific objectivity is absolute and not relative is also called into question with post-modernism. Post-modern infuenced research (post-colonial history), has proved more or less beyond any reasonable doubt that scientific objectivity was another powerful epistemological construct (a construction in which things can be known in a particular way), in order to create a distance between Europeans and Africans, in order to allow the domination of Europeans over Africa. Just because the language appears universal and objective, doesn't mean it is! Of course, this is not to say that this is the only and absolute way to interpret the role of scientific thinking in the colonial context, but it provides an important and powerful explaination for the way in which particular ways of knowing shape both the perceptions and interractions with Africa. (This is my specialist course at university...)
What you refer to are abuses of science, in which case objectivity didn't even come into it. Rationalism and objectivity are ways of looking at the world which became so widespread through their creative virtues - ie they enabled humans to improve material living standards and live longer lives. Of course once something is recognised as a "good thing", it will be co-opted by the powers that be to further their own interests.
This does not mean that objectivity is, in itself, flawed and racist. It could, in fact, be argued that growing awareness of humanity's shared origins, and how no culture has ever sprung up independently, is as good an argument against racism as any other that I've ever heard.
I would also like to know if any PMist has actually studied the natural sciences they claim can't be objective. I know absolutely zilch about literary theory and the history of art (other than it started a long, long time ago - please don't deconstruct this sentence ), so I keep my mouth shut on those subjects. I've read some highly critical writings on scientific method by PM writers, but none of them seem to have studied the sciences, and seem instead to prefer accusing scientists of being racists, sexists or whatever insult they've picked out of the dictionary at random. (Sorry, can't supply any references, the computer I'm working on can't handle two windows, but just search for post-modern journal articles on scientific method and you'll see what I mean.)
Anyway, I'm sure that you are not arguing against objectivity as a principle, so I'll leave it at that.teagar wrote:The same example can be applied to democratic rights. The language of democracy is universal, but as we can clearly see in the middle east, especially in Iraq, democracy is not universally appicable, or indeed, even wanted.
It's not a question of what we do know and what we don't know, but more about illustrating the uncertainty with the things you do know. Things like "I am British", or, "Africa is poor". We feel that things things are absolute and "knowable", but they're not. They're constructions, which are shaped by a complex combination of political, cultural, psychological, social, etc etc, factors, which are difficult or indeed impossible to completley untangle.
That's what post-modernism tells us! Of course in day-to-day practice none of this really come up, but it is important to bear in mind. It would be great for politicians to be at least aware of these ideas. How many times have we criticised a politician for claiming he or she knows something when we feel they patently can't?
An understanding of the relativeness of everything, even types of knowledge and ideas which seem universal and absolute, can inevitably lead to a more understanding and inclusive way of thinking, which in an increasingly multi-cultural soceity, is surely beneficial.
My argument against post-modernism isn't that relativism doesn't have it's place, it's more to do with the fact that this is not a particularly new idea, and post-modernists, from what I know of the subject, can take things too far. Have you ever read a post-modern critique of human rights? I don't think that these thinkers would have the same viewpoint if they'd been tortured. Now, this is obviously arguing the person, rather than the point, but I'm sure that no post-modernist would actually live by their own pronouncements. In harsher circumstances than a comfortable office in the Sorbonne department of whatever, they would quickly come to the conclusion that human rights are universal.teagar wrote:In a lecture yesterday, we were told that post-modernism can be seen in part as a response to accomodate the experience of multi-culturalism.
I'd only believe that if I thought that multi-culturalism were a) new and b) a synonym for multi-ethnic. In a way, PMism would exacerbate some of the problems of both societies. Instead of looking and seeing that both societies have something to offer the other, PM says that relativism precludes judgement, so let's no do anything as women from certain religions are forced into marriage. Or maybe domestic violence could be excused as part of working class culture...
I'm not saying that this is what PM writers want, but it is a very likely consequence.
By the way, I enjoy these exchanges over the forum. Since leaving university, the only person I've been able to discuss these ideas with has been myself....0 -
teagar wrote:johnfinch wrote:teagar wrote:Post-modernism has its place, even if it just making people aware of the uncertainties of knowledge.
I agree with the principle that we need to be aware of the limits of human knowledge, but not that post-modernism is responsible for this awareness. Scientists have known that we can only improve our understanding, rather than perfect it, since day one. Which is why we still refer to the THEORY of evolution, Big Bang THEORY, etc.
Anyone ever read How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World by Francis Wheen? It has a very funny chapter on post-modernism.
I'm not quite sure you quite got what I meant by post-modernism making people aware of the uncertainties of knowledge.
Science is a bit of an odd example because it is a limited construction with very strict and defineable rules (usually). While in science, the actual science can be objective, post-modern theory tells us that the scientist who interprets the science cannot be (cultural bias, imbedded discourses, systems of knowledge other than science etc). Just take a look at Nazi or early 20th C colonial science. Particuarly in physics, where the construction is limited to very definable and transparant langauge - i.e. maths.
Even the notion that scientific objectivity is absolute and not relative is also called into question with post-modernism. Post-modern infuenced research (post-colonial history), has proved more or less beyond any reasonable doubt that scientific objectivity was another powerful epistemological construct (a construction in which things can be known in a particular way), in order to create a distance between Europeans and Africans, in order to allow the domination of Europeans over Africa. Just because the language appears universal and objective, doesn't mean it is! Of course, this is not to say that this is the only and absolute way to interpret the role of scientific thinking in the colonial context, but it provides an important and powerful explaination for the way in which particular ways of knowing shape both the perceptions and interractions with Africa. (This is my specialist course at university...)
The same example can be applied to democratic rights. The language of democracy is universal, but as we can clearly see in the middle east, especially in Iraq, democracy is not universally appicable, or indeed, even wanted.
It's not a question of what we do know and what we don't know, but more about illustrating the uncertainty with the things you do know. Things like "I am British", or, "Africa is poor". We feel that things things are absolute and "knowable", but they're not. They're constructions, which are shaped by a complex combination of political, cultural, psychological, social, etc etc, factors, which are difficult or indeed impossible to completley untangle.
That's what post-modernism tells us! Of course in day-to-day practice none of this really come up, but it is important to bear in mind. It would be great for politicians to be at least aware of these ideas. How many times have we criticised a politician for claiming he or she knows something when we feel they patently can't?
An understanding of the relativeness of everything, even types of knowledge and ideas which seem universal and absolute, can inevitably lead to a more understanding and inclusive way of thinking, which in an increasingly multi-cultural soceity, is surely beneficial.
In a lecture yesterday, we were told that post-modernism can be seen in part as a response to accomodate the experience of multi-culturalism.
I personally feel these ideas would be particularly powerful and useful in diplomacy and foreign affairs...[/i]
I think I see what you mean. Science does have rules and theories some of which can be proved e.g. gravity. It is important to remember that science is used to answer questions and of course the question that is chosen reflects the person / society asking it, rather than science itself. In that sense it is just a tool and a construct as history is. Also there is a strong element of philosophy intertwined with science. At it's highest level Physics can overlap into Philosophy and even Theology. However none of these ideas are particulary new and are not particulary 'post modern' in origin I would argue. I think post modernism has not really challenged science significantly. Many scientists are positivists after all and tend not to take social sciences very seriously. The science ivory tower is some distance from the humaitiies one - they don't talk much. Of course there are some exceptions. Anthrolpology throw open lots of methodical questions too, but lets not go there.....
I think post modernism is significant when studying communication (especially the media), the social sciences/ humanities and especially art/achitecture. For me the concept of de-differentiation really sums up what post modernism is about (if that's possible). I also think the idea of a risk society helps explain much about the modern world - pig flu, global warming etc. Look up Beck and Risk Society - very interesting stuff and clearly tlined to any 'post whatever' theory.
On Africa and 'other' cultures. The West has always been Euro-centric. That hasn't changed. I agree that representations of Africa, Morecambe or any place is indeed a social construct with various labels attached. Sometimes negative (patronising even hateful), sometimes 'mostly harmless' (eg the idea of exotic places) but never representing the 'truth'. Basically the world is big and complex and people buy into such constructs because they offer an easy 'black and white' answer, which brings us back to the Daily Mail.....
Oneother point. Just because Modernism is now self aware and self critical (basically that's what post modernism is) , it doesn't mean that it is over. I personally think that we are still in the grip of Modernism and will be for a LONG while to come.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
johnfinch wrote:I would also like to know if any PMist has actually studied the natural sciences they claim can't be objective. I know absolutely zilch about literary theory and the history of art (other than it started a long, long time ago - please don't deconstruct this sentence ), so I keep my mouth shut on those subjects. I've read some highly critical writings on scientific method by PM writers, but none of them seem to have studied the sciences, and seem instead to prefer accusing scientists of being racists, sexists or whatever insult they've picked out of the dictionary at random.
In a previous life I was a chemist. Hey, I've got nothing against chems now - I was young and naive, didn't know what I was doing... :?
You make a serious point here - discussion of the scientific method does not require participation in scientific research itself. I've had plenty of 'discussions' where someone has written off science as 'simply another view of reality' while I have kindly begged to differ. You know where every one of those conversations went? Nowhere. They were, without exception, completely unproductive...unlike my scientific career which was so spectacular that it ended up with me joining an investment bank. :roll:
No-one ever mentions post-modernism at work now.Making a cup of coffee is like making love to a beautiful woman. It's got to be hot. You've got to take your time. You've got to stir... gently and firmly. You've got to grind your beans until they squeak.
And then you put in the milk.0 -
I don't think anyone has mentioned Sokal yet
And his paper
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity0 -
jimmypippa wrote:I don't think anyone has mentioned Sokal yet
And his paper
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
That's too good!Making a cup of coffee is like making love to a beautiful woman. It's got to be hot. You've got to take your time. You've got to stir... gently and firmly. You've got to grind your beans until they squeak.
And then you put in the milk.0 -
jimmypippa wrote:I don't think anyone has mentioned Sokal yet
And his paper
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
Oh, silly me, I was going to mention the Sokal affair, but forgot to.
Well done that man.0 -
And seconded of johnfinch's recommendation for Francis Wheen's "How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World"0
-
mmitchell88 wrote:jimmypippa wrote:I don't think anyone has mentioned Sokal yet
And his paper
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity
That's too good!
Very interesting. It makes more sense than alot of stuff I've been reading recently! Let me quote Levi-Strauss on the 'Totemic Operator' model:
"It can be seen that species admit firstly of empirical realizations: Seal species, Bear species, Eagle Species. Each includes a series of individuals..............These can be re-grouped first within each species and together by types of parts: all heads etc.........A final regrouping resores the model of the individual in his regained entirety." It's about how mankind classifys the world around him...fine, but does it need saying? Isn't it the obvious dressed up as the complex? I don't think it adds much to our understanding of the world or actually questions it very deeply.
I've had to read up on post modernism in connection with some research I am under taking at the moment (for a PhD). I have basically come to the conclusion that either: A) It exists but doesn't really matter or
I doesn't exist. I'm veering more and more towards ! I think it's pretentious to start writing the 'history of now'. They are naming this the post modern period rather than leaving it up to history. I mean we could just be in the second major stage of the Industrial Revolution? Persoanlly I think PMism is just a symptom of a backward looking society that is in decline....do they bother with it in India or Brazi!? At least scientists tend to look forward; they've done well to avoid post modernism in my view. I do think that science needs to be self critical but that is separate to the debate on post modernism - it's more a question of ethics & methodology. To be fair Western Science is very much concerned with Ethics these days. 'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
