Postmodernism is dead

[e]

 

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2011/07/postmodernism-is-dead-va-...

 

 

[Nicole]

"These three ideas, of specificity, of values and of authenticity, are at odds with postmodernism. We are entering a new age. Let’s call it the Age of Authenticism and see how we get on."

 

Really? Ambitious... I guess we shall see.

[e]

Those artists huh?! :-)

[Nicole]

:)

[Nicole]

In other words, the double negative that is a positive?

[Balder]

As the evident developmentalist among us, I agree...

 

There has likely been a misunderstanding.  Most folks here think in developmental terms, to my knowledge, though a few (like kela) are very hesitant to posit developmental stages beyond a certain point.

 

Post-metaphysical is itself a negative stance: there is no metaphysics...

 

This is not an accurate characterization of post-metaphysics, at least not in my view.

[infimitas]

Post-metaphysics doesn't literally transcend metaphysics in the sense of going beyond the need to seek truth about reality.  Rather, it asks what we can do now given that we are in an era where absolute epistemology is recognised to be a fiction.

[Balder]

You should love it then.  Or are you the only one who gets to embrace contradictions around here?  ;-)

 

Seriously, I define post- as 'beyond,' as indicating a developmental advance.  And I regard 'metaphysics,' not as a thing in itself that is the same for all or in all 'frames,' but as a particular epistemological approach or outlook that post-metaphysics exceeds, transcends.

 

Regarding developmentalism, please see my two recent posts to you on the Privileged Access thread.

[Balder]

Are you asking, is there any objection here to changing the name 'postmetaphysical' to something else, if it may not be the best descriptor for what we're up to?  Or are you asking, what's involved in the move beyond the 'postmetaphysical' approach to some other approach?  Or both, or neither?

[Balder]

I hear you.  I use 'integral postmetaphysics' now, and my movement to even using such a term marked a break in my life.  My first reaction to it -- and to Wilber's pointing in this direction -- was a series of objections and strong discomfort.  I'm not wedded to the term -- I adopted it from Wilber -- and we've discussed on numerous occasions the limitations of the term, so I have no objections to finding something better, but 'quantum paradigm' also doesn't seem full enough to capture what I think is involved.  So, I use this for now.

[Nicole]

That could work :)

Thomas said:

Just take a Beatles song title or something.

 

http://youtu.be/Hnrsqf33MXA

[Nicole]

That would be indeed... you wouldn't happen to know which Gregorian chants were used in this would you?

Thomas said:

Here's a good one: the Principles of Lust.  Now that would be a title.

 

The principles of lust
are easy to understand
do what you feel
feel until the end

the principles of lust
are burned in your mind
do what you want
do it until you find
love ...

 

Play me.

[Christophe]

Non-causal developmentalism says there is no such prediction of anything new.  Matter doesn't produce consciousness.  Past does not produce present.  Unconscious workings do not produce conscious workings. Deconstruction deconstructs itself. What comes after that negation?  Negation of negation. That makes sense.  Denied metaphysics returns to take its place.  Negation is negated.

 

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

This is insane

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and funny. If only it were not so regressive and pre-post-dazzled. Which is not a problem if you're a christian: Jesus loves regressive people. He loves you no matter (haha) what. O my. Too bad Bohr and Einstein were Jews, they didn't get that subtle kingdom of idiot supremacy. Blessed are the poor in academics. It's the monarchy of love, stupid. (Amen)

 

Yuk Yuk 8-/