The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The postmodern left: part one > Comments

The postmodern left: part one : Comments

By Niall Lucy and Steve Mickler, published 28/3/2007

On what pages is it written or implied that the aim of postmodernism is 'the neo-Marxist conquest of Western cultures by stealth'?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
If anything, this article suffers from multiple personality disorder, spewing forth a bunch of contradictory and emotive statements, for no discernible reason.

What are we supposed to take away from this article? Is it trying to distance postmodernism from "the left"? Is it trying to ridicule the ALP or defend it? Is it trying to resurrect old Marxist philosophy? Or is it simply a brilliant postmodern piece? :)

Actually, on re-reading the article, I just figured it out. It's an advertisement for Lucy and Mickler's book. All is revealed!
Posted by Gekko, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 5:14:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed you can almost see these two chaps rambling into the night over numerous bottles of cheeky reds, as they draft and redraft their semiotic twaddle into their iMac ...
Posted by stormont, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 6:13:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Couldn't understand what they were getting at, and still don't really.

Except the bit at the end they got about right - postmodernism is actually anti-Marxist - it was a reaction to Marxism.

A fundamental premise of Marxist philosophy is that there is an objective truth (i.e. something which exists outside of our subjective thoughts about it) about which we can gain knowledge (however not necessarily know the absolute truth). Postmodernism attacks this fundamental premise by denying that there is objective truth.

Of course if you subscribe to postmodernist theory you must contort your argument, and mind, because it basically says there is no truth and you are therefore subscribing to a theory which can't be true - but you say it is true.

However because there is no absolute truth, you can have your "truth" and I can have my "truth". The rich can have their "truth" and the working class, well, who cares what their "truth" is?

Postmodernists, and probably the wakademics who wrote this article, spend so much time formulating nonsense in order to justify their cushy little positions. They used to adapt to the Stalinists in the ALP, because that was where the funding came from, now they are sucking up to the neo-cons.

I could be wrong about the authors because as I said, I can't understand what they are trying to say, and can't be bothered trying because it is such gibberish.

The article is a load of garbage.
Posted by tao, Wednesday, 28 March 2007 11:38:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it hard to disagree with the posters on article. I thought the authors were struggling to differentiate between measures of LEFT and what is Conservative politics wanting to fold in cultural Marxism. I don't personally see where post modernism exist in Left or Conservative thinking. Obviously each has extremes stretched along the political balance beam and that in itself argues any post modernist "the being of the not being relative thought" crap. There is far too much of the Left (particular Left) that distills and perpetuates cultural Marxism, and this has indeed brought into our collective psyche a moral and ethical dissatisfaction. A committed self depreciation. Everyone is blaming someone for their not being according to their expectations rather than their merit. What is lacking is personal ownership of choice and effort applied to individual life decisions. Way too much time spent peeking over the fence at what the Jones have to enjoy what they really could have. Pity really but, not post modernism. There is no post modern era in effect. We are still dealing with the modern era and a hang over of the Industrial Era.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 29 March 2007 12:01:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Post modernist thinking makes as much sense as one hand clapping makes sound.

I won't even bother with the article. Tao expressed it... everyone has their own truth.

The book of Joshua says it differently "In those days there was no judge in Israel, and each man did what was right in his own eyes"

Bottom line, we need a reference point in life.
1/ Love God
2/ Love your neighbour.

Dispute '1' for all ur worth, but then try to give me a valid reason for '2' :)

Without '1' we may as well make it up as we go, and today "Yes..I'll be nice to Smithy next door" but tomorrow "Screw that Smithy, he had his sound system too loud last night, I'll dump rubbish at his front door"
And the next day "Hmmm.. I'd be much better off materially if I had Smithies car, so I'll just take it, and kill him"

Oh ? I hear you say "But the law will stop me annoying or hurting Smithy" yes.. correct :) but will it stop my desire to do so ?

Jesus said "If a man looks at a women with lust in his heart, he has comitted adultery with her"

Matt 5:21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment.

Nothing other than spiritual renewal will take away our basic fallen humanity. "Unless a man is born again he will not see the kingdom of heaven"

Postmodern thinking, is like being tossed around in a washing machine. This way..then that.. and back.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 29 March 2007 6:12:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cheryl, without actually checking my books, i think that passage is from Deleuze's book _The Logic of Sense_, isn't it? Or it could be from his essay "How do we recognise Structuralism?" written around the same time as _TLoS_.

What is fantastically ironic about you quoting from this text is that Deleuze discusses the relationship between nonsense and sense, and specifically how sense emerges in the nonsense of language. (The incoporeal movement of sense [singularity-event] between at least two series -- signifier and signified.) If you actually tried to understand Deleuze's philosophies then you might think twice about quoting from the _TLoS_ in particular to demonstrate what you think is nonsense. lol
Posted by glen_fuller, Thursday, 29 March 2007 11:49:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy