>On Jul 21, 2006, at 5:06 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>>Part of this comes from an etiolated survivor of the fake
>>radicalism of "Postmodernism."
>
>Pissing on "postmodernism" is pretty lazy stuff.
>
>Dou
sorry about misattribution earlier btw.
I see what CGE means. He was using big words and I'm too dumb. It took me three different dictionaries before I got it, plus I"m a youngin' on this list (phew! In bloglandia, I'm ooooooooooold) so I'm too fucking something to get it. unable to respect my elders as bearers of da troot!?
I love ya CGE, but I still don't get the point of attributing psychological motivations.
"I fell for Pomo once. Now I've seen the light. Therefore, I hate anyone who saw the light before me and I'm going to kill the father." Or somesuch.
Not an answer. Where is the vaunted love of Chomsky's use of logic!?
http://chronicle.com/free/v46/i37/37b00401.htm
(berube's essay, i personally don't read this as him saying he's a postmodernist. Rather, I see him as a lot like me and Doug, willing to examine the ideas and question them and use them were possible, etc. I don't think that means you're a postmodernism.
I am unclear, though, what's wrong with being pomo if all that means is that there are no foundations.
The Stanley Fish essay right after 911 was a "pomo" (antifoundationalist) analysis of how to think of the terrorists and the US that a lot of people applauded. He was drawing on antifoundationalism of the sort that is here labeled pomo.
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org