/lit/ - Literature

>>21805515
it is but a word

>>21805515
>“Techniques of escape depend on attaining the unbelief of assassin-magician Hassan i Sabbah: nothing is true, everything is permitted. Once again, Kaye cautioned that this must be carefully distinguished from ‘postmodern relativism’. Burroughs-Sabbah’s ‘nothing is true’ cannot be equated with postmodernism’s ‘nothing is real’. On the contrary: nothing is true because there is no single, authorized version of reality – instead, there is a superfluity, an excess, of realities. “The Adversary’s game plan is to persuade you that he does not exist” (WL 12).”

― Ccru, Ccru: Writings 1997-2003

>>21805515
You seeing the ban screen

>>21805515
It’s the thing that when you truly understand it it’s too late for you. Also misused by trannies and feminists who need 50 more iq points to understand it.

innovating a media to the point where it is in a complete state of chaos (often results in the media being no longer enjoyable) Such media does not possess traditional techniques, values, ideals, etc. It has no message or aesthetic
used by pseudointellectuals and money laundering businessmen

>>21805515
>Well, the best way to conceptualize is it to imagine that every canonical text has an infinite number of possible interpretations and it's like - well, yeah, that's right - that's exactly right and that's a problem. So the postmodernist claim is itself correct, but the solution to the problem is not to demolish the hierarchy that 'privileges' certain interpretations over others. They can't even escape this problem themselves, eh? All the postmodern Neo-Marxists make this really insidious sleight-of-hand move where they recognize this problem and then revert back to the grand narrative of Marxism, because it's like you need a narrative to give direction to yourself, man.

>It's these snide postmodernists, okay, with their careerist attitudes, okay, these are NOT genuine children of the 60s revolution, okay? The 60s revolution was a turn to the body, to the senses, to cosmic consciousness, okay? When they claim that the only frame of reference for understanding the world is language, okay, this is INSANITY. I have students who study pottery and dance, okay? Who experience the world through the body and make art, okay, this is not this snobbish, preening challenge to disturb the childish notions of the 'hoi polloi', okay? The avant-garde died with Andy Warhol, okay?

https://ualuealuealeuale.ytmnd.com/

>>21805643
oh yeah? well...
https://rainbowstalin5.ytmnd.com/

>>21805635
>So if I've understood correctly - and correct me if I'm wrong - when we're dealing with postmodernism, I mean the usual tricksters like Foucault, Lacan and Derrida - and I've read Foucault and the results seem fairly obvious to me if you've studied any sort of history at all. It's like, yes, we are forcibly robbed of some degree of autonomy as children because it is necessary to integrate us into society so that we're not stabbing each other to death in the streets. It's like, you learn, ok, there are rules to this game and the game is only worth playing if you learn and follow the rules...

>>21805677
>Let me just say one thing about Foucault and the other French theorists, okay? Foucault is USELESS before the Renaissance, okay? This was a profoundly uneducated man, ok? Not ONCE in any of his works does he survey the great works of antiquity, okay, I mean how on EARTH to you expect to produce an accurate account of Western civilization if you know NOTHING about Greco-Roman antiquity, okay? And this turgid French prose style that so many student tried to imitate, okay? It was necessary for the French language which needed to break free of the shell of flowery Romantic trelliswork, but we have no need for it in English, okay? It's students trying to imitate a style of writing that isn't sensible or even NEEDED in English. And about Derrida and Lacan - these were not serious thinkers, okay, these were manicured careerists, these people could have run companies, okay? Listening to them was like hearing high priests to each other. They are midgets, intellectual midgets ...

>>21805677
the problem with people who are mad about postmodernism is that you can't blame it on some text or personality. postmodernism is a thing because of the failure of modernism. if you want to turn back the clock you have to defend modernism not attack postmodernism, but no one is doing that because modernism is sadly bunk.

>>21805703
>I mean how on EARTH to you expect to produce an accurate account of Western civilization if you know NOTHING about Greco-Roman antiquity, okay?
i guess she didn't read history of sexuality volume 2 or 3 then?

>>21805708
>Who the hell are you? Dr. Paglia and I are in the middle of a civil discussion.

>>21805716
i'm heckling you from the audience, the dean of dei let me in the side door.

>>21805721
>As moderator, I kindly ask you to leave the auditorium.

>>21805570
>innovating

>>21805515
If you actually want to know instead of listening to braindead Jordanites
https://youtu.be/mGCiqqT9uo8

>>21805708
this. postmodern art and philosophy are reactions, not causations.

It is what comes after the modern.

That is to say, when the modern has stabilized and there is no longer any need to struggle for its maintenance. At that point, new possibilities open due to the new conditions established by the acquisition of the modern.

The common fuzz about the postmodern is that the new conditions are precisely those where conditions are not supposed to determine what you do. So, in a way, you end up needing what you struggled to get rid of... which means you either go back (thus denying modernism) or remain stuck without being able to do anything relevant (facing the fact that modernism has unexpected negative aspects that undermine it).

The hope is that something unknown will come up and solve the dilemma.