suspended

Well-known member
> “I think we were so happy to develop all this critique because we were so sure of the authority of science,” Latour reflected this spring. “And that the authority of science would be shared because there was a common world.”

Same thing

Yeah I mean that's sometimes how it feels, like leaning into being interesting means not re-iterating NPR talking points. But it's weird cuz all the grounding for what's "interesting" or a hot take or whatever is the immediate social context. Murray Davis says "Interesting theories are those which deny certain assumptions of their audience, while non-interesting theories are those which affirm certain assumptions of their audience." So boringness is a kind of redundancy, a predictableness.

In information theory, any data that doesn't give you more insight, that you can't actually learn anything from, is not even considered information. Information "a difference that makes a difference," something that changes how you understand or (more accurately) act.

There's a ground, and there's a correction. Speech is situated. People are trying to twist the stick around in the mud.
 

suspended

Well-known member
> If anything, our current post-truth moment is less a product of Latour’s ideas than a validation of them. In the way that a person notices her body only once something goes wrong with it, we are becoming conscious of the role that Latourian networks play in producing and sustaining knowledge only now that those networks are under assault.

Not a terrible take honestly
 

version

Well-known member
Modernist literary experimentation started stunningly (Eliot, Pound etc) but went off the rails quite quickly (Finnegans Wake). That derailment had a fateful impact on theory, the Left being strongly influenced by modernist literary innovation. Just look at Derrida, Deleuze etc.

Thoughts?
 

woops

is not like other people
deleuze/foucault/derrida etc etc developed "post" modernism, but only recapitulated the innovations of modernism. post-modernism is not an advance on modernism. it's an enmeshment in the modernist movement.
 

luka

Well-known member
i dont know. post modernism understands itself as a kind of rut. which seems to reflect soemthing real about our situation
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
deleuze/foucault/derrida etc etc developed "post" modernism, but only recapitulated the innovations of modernism. post-modernism is not an advance on modernism. it's an enmeshment in the modernist movement.
I still see a parallel between structuralism and post-structuralism, but that is one where the latter seemingly instantly followed the former, chronologically.

In terms of conceptual advancement, the post- in post-structuralism seems to mean an abandonment (or moving-on from) of the premise of structuralism, which could perhaps be expressed as "to know something, you must know its context" which is clearly a numbingly far-reaching premise.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
But its interesting to say that theory is the inheritor of literature, as mediums for the metanarrative.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Cause otherwise, if you find the equivalent of post-structural theory in literature, you get, what, some kind of maximalism?
 

version

Well-known member
we all agree time doesnt exist any more. time exists for modernism. clues in the name
You could argue that time does exist, but someone or something's tricked us into thinking it doesn't. The term 'postmodernism' itself could well be a trap as it prevents us from ever truly moving on from modernism.

That being said, maybe it's modernism that's the trap. Once you decide modern stops meaning modern and just refers to a specific period then you've unmoored yourself. It's like saying new doesn't mean new anymore.
 

woops

is not like other people
. The term 'postmodernism' itself could well be a trap as it prevents us from ever truly moving on from modernism.
more like it's a trick that suggests postmodernism is a legitimate advance on modernism, let's assume it ain't
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
But perhaps the assertion isn't that time doesn't exist, but that it isn't the prime (edit: or only) dimension along which to trace out these evolutions.

Like how we conflate the development of the metanarrative along a historical/chronological dimension, with the development of the metanarrative along a more purely conceptual dimension.

You can have figures in history, like several who come up in conversation frequently here, who progress conceptually at a rate that exceeds the historical/chronological, thus resulting in their being "ahead of their time".
 
Top