Andrew, thanks for this explanation that is within the reach of a non-philosopher limited in English philosophical terminology

What you describe is what here in France we call “mai soixantehuitard” or “May 1968″ philosophy: anti-consumer society, forbidden to forbid, imagine all those people… just living their lives, an taking a puff when life becomes stiff…

….. via email to the USNSA

With joyful hearts we announce the appointment of the members of the International Teaching Centre for the five-year term beginning 23 May 2008: Uransaikhan Baatar, Stephen Birkland, Stephen Hall, Joan Lincoln, Juan Francisco Mora, Rachel Ndegwa, Zenaida Ramirez, Ayman Rouhani, and Penelope Walker. We are profoundly grateful to Rolf von Czekus and Violette Haake for the outstanding contribution they have made, during so critical a period in the fortunes of the Faith, to the development of this vital institution.

The Universal House of Justice

I bet, since I can gamble again, that Stephen Birkland will be on the UHJ in the next 5 years? Any takers?

Much love… Bird

Mavaddat, thanks. For such an “amorphous” (as you put it) thing, since Andrew introduced it first in critiquing a point I made, don’t you think it might have been useful if He had clarified what he meant? Why should I have had to ask him?

I used Mills, Chomsky, Sokal, et al as illustrations that there is a measure of disatisfaction with postmodernism and not to dismiss it altogether. If you read my very first comment in reply to him you will note I stated:” I don’t have to deal with it although, as I said, it has some value.” I was clearly not dismissing ALL of postmodernism as you suggest or I would not have said it has some value! I don’t see how you could possibly infer my example of Sokal in th eoverall context of my statements.

However, when Andrew or anyone else invokes postmodernism and does not clarify what he means I have the right to point out that this is problematic and he should clarify and defend his position without my having to ask him what he means. This is particularly important when, as you rightly point out, he has invoked “a catch-all that really means very little concretely.”Sorry, but the Maher film does not convey what he only now says was a context of skeptical philosophy.

Andrew failed to clarify what he meant by using such a catch-all that means very little and I don’t see why theo nus was on me to ask him to clarify what he meant. He could easily have done so more than a week ago in response to my Mills quote.

Carmen

p.s. I find that Andrew is easily peeved when he is challenged by “Baha’i apparatchiks.” He makes comments and expects them to be accepted without a critical response. For example, he asserted that atheism is the fastest growing belief movement in the world but he has not yet produced any data to support his assertion in reponse to my challenge to do so.

That sounds a bit like existentialism. If you don’t mind, how would you distinguish your definition of post-modernism from existentialism? I ask this because I’m fond of existentialism but the mere mention of the word “post-modernism” sends me running for the medicine cabinet.

-Dan

“It would have been far more productive to ask Andrew what he meant by post-modernism, and specifically what philosophy within post-modernism he thought leant itself best to his thesis (which, by the way, seems to be the rather radical and outrageous idea that we should actually hold religious people accountable for their professed beliefs–insane!).”

That’s it!

Hence my references to Bill Maher’s upcoming film “Religulous.” See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRO-LVi1FKU

I place post-modernism in the context of skeptical philosophy …

“Who is a post-modernist, and what is post-modernism? Post-modernism can be defined as the thoughtful study of scientific inquiry, the origins and reputation of unreasonable prejudices, and the ambiguities of language. Some predominant element of post-modernist writing are an obsession with ‘low culture,’ this being things such as television, movies, and sex. Some other elements characteristic of post-modern writers are an obsession with text, rejection of the ‘grand narrative,’ and the critique of modernity. In contemporary literature there are selected authors who use ‘low culture’ as a basis for their writing. Authors such as Kathy Acker express their post-modernistic attitudes by making things such as sex and violence a major component in their writing. This fascination with controversial societal issues highlights the post modernist resistance of societal standards.”

The central tenet of post-modernism (as defined by Lyotard) is the rejection of the meta-narrative: an essentially anti-foundationalist and anti-essentialist account of the world. That is, because of semiotics and the nature of language, the world is utterly liquid, we cannot pin down concepts well enough, particularly in the absence of governing narratives which define truth and falsehood. Religion in general rests on a series of essentialist and foundationalist assumptions about the world: the existence of God, the divinity of (fill in the blank). These can most probably be never really compatible with a post-modern worldview. Additionally post-modern suspicions towards the exclusion of The Other (i.e. Atheism) might not allow for most religions to be postmodern.

“Postmodern existence occurs where individuals are able to surmount repressive modern forms of identity and status to become desiring nomads in a constant process of becoming and transforming.” (Tim Woods, “Beginning Postmodernism”)

As for the rest … I have no further desire to argue with Baha’i apparatchiks. For these I recommend the film “Innocence” by Lucile Hadzihalilovic: “Obedience is the only path to happiness.” This might have been a Baha’i horror film … er … I mean “instructional video.”

I actually had the honour of meeting and talking to Prof. Dawkins a few days ago, at a reception following a sold-out lecture he gave on my campus. My friend whom I was with asked Dr. Dawkins how he felt about Thomas Kuhn’s theory of the subjective element in scientific revolutions. Here I was witness to Dawkins’ analysis of what he termed “post-modernism”:

Dawkins to my friend: Have you ever had anyone tell you what ‘post-modernism’ is?My friend: No.Dawkins: Then if someone talks to you of post-modernism, you can tell them to “Fuck off”.

Although it was indeed an honour, Dawkins’ lumping of any disagreeable philosophy into the term ‘post-modernism’ left something to be desired…

The problem is, you are using the phrase “post-modernism” as if signified one coherent school of thought. But in reality, it refers to a mish-mash of disconnected and unrelated methods and ideas. Some post-modernism is logical and analytic (like William James, W.V.O. Quine, Richard Rorty, Paul Feyerabend, etc.) and some is unstructed and aimed at undermining logic (like Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, et al).

So the path you’ve trodden (invoking the Sokal affair as a refutation of all of post-modernism) is silly.

It would have been far more productive to ask Andrew what he meant by post-modernism, and specifically what philosophy within post-modernism he thought leant itself best to his thesis (which, by the way, seems to be the rather radical and outrageous idea that we should actually hold religious people accountable for their professed beliefs–insane!).