= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
siodine comments on A Kick in the Rationals: What hurts you in your LessWrong Parts? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (194)
Is there a good pomo vocabulary guide somewhere? (I'm assuming 'sovereign' and 'conjoining flows' are pomo jargon)
I'm not aware of any special meaning for "conjoining flow." I assumed it was a metaphor and interpreted it in light of the next sentence in the essay.
Post-modernism loves metaphor and hyperbole, for better or worse. I readily acknowledge that frequent use of those styles impedes readability.
Not pomo jargon. It just means the supreme authority, like the King or the State. Used extensively in Political Science.
~~What? That's not answering my question (at least, why ignore 'cojoining flows'?). And~~ I get what sovereign means in this context like I get what synergy means among management, but 'synergy' is still management jargon.
If you ask two questions in one comment, and someone knows the answer to one of the questions, what would you like that person to do?
My bad, I confused TimS with thomblake (because their names are so similar). I wrongly thought TimS was only explaining what sovereign meant even though they interpreted 'cojoining flows' somehow. But even so, sovereign could still be jargon unless thom is familiar enough with pomo to say otherwise--it's not enough that it's used in other contexts as well (I thought it might be jargon because I've heard continental philosophers using it often enough before).
But post-modernism is a type of political theory. Therefore, it borrows some jargon from more mainstream political theory.
It's also a type of literary criticism theory. As applied to literary criticism, it doesn't impress me, but most literary criticism doesn't impress me, so that's not a very meaningful statement.
Has there been much cross pollination between post-modernism and competing or parallel schools of thought (in say the last couple decades)? (I'd think there would be a language and tribal barrier preventing or largely limiting that.) If not, do you think the latest and greatest of post-modern thought ought to have a significant impact in other areas?
Is this a partial answer to your question?
Not really, but maybe. I think (could be a common misconception) you could have added that post-modern thought helped the sciences realize their prejudices (misogyny, ethnocentrism, and so on). And so when I take all those accomplishments together it starts look like post-modernism acts as a meta-critic for the practices or structure of various fields. Does this sound right? If so, has it had any recent accomplishments (i.e., is it decaying)?
It sounds like the ideal of what it should be. I think it's got some usefulness in this direction. But even when I defend PM as not being 100% bullshit, I have to take care to note that it's 99% bullshit. A lot of it is academic performance art.
I think that this is a very good first-pass definition of post-modernism, or at least of its goals.