Reign yourselves in

twoply

is getting way overused right off the bat. Mike is a genius, let's not make his work pedestrian.

coselmed

is getting way overused right off the bat. Mike is a genius, let's not make his work pedestrian.

Dude, I totally used it correctly whilst deconstructing gender in the transvestite thread.

twoply

"Whilst" is also way overused.

DOR

is getting way overused right off the bat. Mike is a genius, let's not make his work pedestrian.

Kinetic

is getting way overused right off the bat. Mike is a genius, let's not make his work pedestrian.

Dude, I totally used it correctly whilst deconstructing gender in the transvestite thread.

Actually, if you were deconstructing in terms of Derrida's use of the term, then that's poststructuaralism, not postmodernism!

coselmed

is getting way overused right off the bat. Mike is a genius, let's not make his work pedestrian.

Dude, I totally used it correctly whilst deconstructing gender in the transvestite thread.

Actually, if you were deconstructing in terms of Derrida's use of the term, then that's poststructuaralism, not postmodernism!

Actually, "Post-structuralism and deconstruction can be seen as the theoretical formulations of the post-modern condition."

Kinetic

I don't know about 'the post-modern condition', but i do know that these terms get thrown around far more often than they get used accurately.

coselmed

See also, "It is also often claimed that "post-structuralists" are also more or less self-consciously "post-modernists."

I'm not really into labels, though.

DrWu

Actually, if you were deconstructing in terms of Derrida's use of the term, then that's poststructuaralism, not postmodernism!

NERDS, NERDS, NERDS!!!!!!!!

coselmed

i do know that these terms get thrown around far more often than they get used accurately.

I totally agree that this is the case on this message board, but to divorce Derrida's work completely from post-modernism and pigeonholing his ideas exclusively within the framework of post-structuralism is short-sighted, and undermines its relevance in how we think about post-modernism beyond its linguistic influence.

mannybolone

T**ya,

I agree but was anyone really saying the two things are separate? You can't really get to post-structuralism without first accepting the basic tenents of post-modernism. Anyone who suggests otherwise is most definitely in their thinking.

But I agree with the initial post. I'm sure people are throwing around without really grasping the concept, sort of like how people think everything is "ironic" when they actually mean something other than what "ironic" means (yes, I'm up on my Eggers.)

To all you vocab abusers -

i do know that these terms get thrown around far more often than they get used accurately.

I totally agree that this is the case on this message board, but to divorce Derrida's work completely from post-modernism and pigeonholing his ideas exclusively within the framework of post-structuralism is short-sighted, and undermines its relevance in how we think about post-modernism beyond its linguistic influence.

rape_donkeys

you guys are really smart

twoply

Even used correctly, these graemlins can lose their zest.

Odub, does GR still sell those shirts? I still wear mine on weekends, but it's at least six years old and poor Bruce's face is completely worn off.

Kinetic

Yeah... um.

Look, there are obvious and dstinct similarities between poststructuralism (Derrida, Foucault, and the other guy who's name escapes me, beginning with L), and postmodernism. But what often happens, in non-philosophical talk, is that people confuse one with the other, or use them as synonymns, which they most certainly are not.

Related yes, the same thing - no.

That's pretty much all I was trying to say.

mannybolone

Yeah... um.

Look, there are obvious and dstinct similarities between poststructuralism (Derrida, Foucault, and the other guy who's name escapes me, beginning with L), and postmodernism. But what often happens, in non-philosophical talk, is that people confuse one with the other, or use them as synonymns, which they most certainly are not.

Related yes, the same thing - no.

That's pretty much all I was trying to say.

Kinetic, no doubt. I think me and T**** are just having fun being uber-fucking-theory-nerded -out.

And I think you're talking about Lacan. Ugh, I hated trying to read that dude. Derrida can get the dils too. Foucault isn't that much easier to read but I like his ideas better.

That said, I'd much rather read Stuart Hall's analysis of all these dudes (plus Gramsci).

coselmed

T**ya,



I agree but was anyone really saying the two things are separate?

I was thinking about you as I was typing; I'm about five years removed from any heavy duty cultural studies analysis and I know they didn't give you that Playa Hater Degree for nothin'...;)



Anyway, I understood Kinetic's post to mean that the way I was using "deconstruct" included post-structuralism but excluded post-modernism. That's the issue I was trying to contest.



And to your point, some might argue the other way around: that is, you must embrace the basic tenets of post-structuralism to get to post-modernism (although I'm not in that school of thought).





Edited to say: Okay, I posted that too late and I'm also guilty as charged with nerddom.

phono13

Kinetic

Yeah... um.

Look, there are obvious and dstinct similarities between poststructuralism (Derrida, Foucault, and the other guy who's name escapes me, beginning with L), and postmodernism. But what often happens, in non-philosophical talk, is that people confuse one with the other, or use them as synonymns, which they most certainly are not.

Related yes, the same thing - no.

That's pretty much all I was trying to say.

Kinetic, no doubt. I think me and T**** are just having fun being uber-fucking-theory-nerded -out.

And I think you're talking about Lacan. Ugh, I hated trying to read that dude. Derrida can get the dils too. Foucault isn't that much easier to read but I like his ideas better.

That said, I'd much rather read Stuart Hall's analysis of all these dudes (plus Gramsci).

Yeah, Lacan is the guy I was thinking of. I read Derrida and Foucault but didn't get much into Lacan because at the time psychoanalysis wasn't an interest of mine.

For sure, you can't begin to understand these guys (and these ideas) by reading the original texts; even for my honours thesis i relied pretty heavily on readers about these guys in order to best utilise their ideas. It's some heavy shit.

And just to clarrify: as I understand it, postmodernism and poststructuralism are two separate (albeit related) schools of thought, deconstruction forming part of the later. I'll give aquick example: postmodernist thinking tends to value any and all opinions and perspectives as having roughly equivilent value, but poststructuralism basically shits on experience and would suggest that it is the meaning you make with experience that matters, rather than the experience itself.

Ok, I'm officially all nerded out now.

You guys should know that I really do wear glasses, though ironically, I don't need them for reading!

twoply

you guys are really smart

I think RD needs a "Shut the fuck up, Timmy" graemlin.

mannybolone

And to your point, some might argue the other way around: that is, you must embrace the basic tenets of post-structuralism to get to post-modernism (although I'm not in that school of thought).

I can accept that. I'm a little too linear in my thinking (modern, not post) so I think of how schools of thought developed chronologically and I always think of post-modernism preceding post-structuralism but I hear what you're saying. In order to believe in a post-modern condition, you have to accept some of the basic tenets of post-structuralism since I suppose one would argue that you can't conceive of the world without language to describe it in to begin with.

*laugh* This is a big reason why I found myself becoming less and less enamored with cultural studies while in grad school and ended up cozying back up to ethnography and sociological analysis. It's not like I think PM and PS is pure bullshit, but at the end of the day, they just feel too distanced from the material world for me to have the passion to really pursue a methodology built on 'em. I mean, no disrespect to literary criticism scholars but I just don't get what about that discipline gets people up in the morning.

Kinetic

Yeah, PS got me up in the morning. I found it an infinitely more interesting methodology than the more traditional methods of inquiry.

mannybolone

Yeah, PS got me up in the morning. I found it an infinitely more interesting methodology than the more traditional methods of inquiry.

Sun_Fortune

Isn't it kind of to use the graemlin in a self-cosnscious wrong way? It is but not the post that some of our more refined memebers come to expect -- although that type of post ism is almost the opposite as ism. So they are both wrong. I travel in reality not hyperreality.

mannybolone

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not sure why we even have a graemlin to begin with except for the fact that it's a genius graemlin.

Sun_Fortune

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm not sure why we even have a graemlin to begin with except for the fact that it's a genius graemlin.

True dat. Its bound to be overused.

MikeFreedomRock

Since postmodernism is really a rejection of metanarratives, maybe the gremlin should have an X through the post modern part. I think what we really need is a metagremlin.

Sun_Fortune

Since postmodernism is really a rejection of metanarratives, maybe the gremlin should have an X through the post modern part. I think what we really need is a metagremlin.

Way to Lyotard these folls. But yo, the X is more of a modernism thang.

MikeFreedomRock

Since postmodernism is really a rejection of metanarratives, maybe the gremlin should have an X through the post modern part. I think what we really need is a metagremlin.

Way to Lyotard these folls. But yo, the X is more of a modernism thang.

Very true. Or a black power thing.

BeardedD

mannybolone

Metagraemlin = very .

But really, wouldn't a metagraemlin be the absence of a graemlin?

Sun_Fortune

Metagraemlin = very .

But really, wouldn't a metagraemlin be the absence of a graemlin?

it could be the graemlin in our collective mind.......

Im done with this, there's some blood dripping out of my ear.