An Emergent Order

[luka]

Writing isnt the only way to access it. But znore is talking about writing and where hes encountered these ideas in dick and joyce and so on

 

[pattycakes_]

What cleared this up form me was reading Niklas Luhmann where he really convinced me that the last proper break in the smooth continuum, the last qualitative change in mode of existence, was going from stratified society - with identity being completely tied to the class you were born in, sustained within family and morally grounded by religion - to society where the identity roles are determined by functional systems (economy, law, mass media, science, politics, education etc.). But there hasn't been any further change, but if you use a description like "postmodernity" it creates an impression that something else happened, something extra, as if we went from stratified society, to society dominated by functional systems (modernity) to some other or different state, but we didn't.
Dunno, maybe I'm wrong, but I find the Luhmann view much less confusing, more Occam's razor.

Compelling for sure but the rapid and drastic changes in environment in the last 200 odd years have to have changed the psychology and perspective of people to such an extent that the old world and ways become a separate entity. The arts have expressed this profoundly. So while his definition makes sense, it seems a bit reductive.

 

[sus]

But when we're alive everything talks back.

It's different but I was thinking today about how in Christian iconography traditionally. You don't look at the Saints the Saints look at you. Archaic Torso of Apollo etcetera

 

[sus]

And our own writing tells us things we dont know, even things we cant know

Do you have recommendations for this? How to make this happen? Under what conditions you've observed? Where I might learn more? Other than perhaps an intense concentration altered headspace and careful scrutiny of my own work?

 

[thirdform]

But when we're alive everything talks back.

Now, in which of these two ranks do we revolutionaries want to place
ourselves? Naturally, we cannot proceed by intelligence, because only a society
free of class domination and the legacies of these unfavourable and painful
epochs will be able to use its intelligence to build the science of tomorrow and
will be able to climb to the top of the ladder of knowledge. Indeed, it will climb
much higher up the ladder than ever before. But that does not detract from the
fact that we also make use of intuition. And perhaps in order to define the
artistic movement, this monstrosity that stands outside society and matter, can
we accept such a delimitation? To establish that there is a profound difference in
nature between art and science?
No and then no. We deny the existence of products that are part of a
cognitive activity of a particular nature, which is art, in which is affixed an
eternity denied to scientific works, to scientific achievements. First of all, this is
not accurate, because there are certain works of science that will certainly
remain as eternal as Homer's verses and those of Dante: for example, Euclid's
Elements, or Galileo Galilei's The Assayer and Dialogue on the Greatest Systems,
or Newton's Philosofiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, because the elegance of
these works is complete. They are works that contain elements of science and
art; they achieve the patient, analytical laboriousness of the scientist and the
powerful synthesis of the artist. And of many other works the same could be
said; but we will not dwell on that. So art and science meet at certain moments.
Art and science are two analogous aspects of human knowledge, and we can
state with certainty [that they are both part of the more general process of
production and reproduction of the species].
The difference should therefore not be made between art and science,
between intuition and intelligence. It is with intuition that humanity has always
advanced because intelligence is conservative and intuition is revolutionary.
Intelligence, science, knowledge originate in the advancing movement (let us
abandon the vile term ‘progressive’). In the decisive part of its dynamics,
knowledge takes its start in the form of an intuition, of an affective,
non-demonstrative knowledge; intelligence with its calculations, its accounts, its
demonstrations, its proofs will come later. But novelty, the new conquest, the
new knowledge does not need proof, it needs faith! it does not need doubt, it
needs struggle! it does not need reason, it needs force! its content is not called
Art or Science, it is called Revolution!

 

[thirdform]

Do you have recommendations for this? How to make this happen? Under what conditions you've observed? Where I might learn more? Other than perhaps an intense concentration altered headspace and careful scrutiny of my own work?

Luke is saying first you must die to be truly understood and recognised.

 

[thirdform]

maybe you can start with castration.

 

[thirdform]

it is imperative that one possesses an intuitive hatred of culture. that's how you can begin to access the zone. no more attestation of the verbal diarrhoea of brooklynites.

 

[sus]

I am slowly growing to disdain but it is good when young to track the timely

 

[thirdform]

I am slowly growing to disdain but it is good when young to track the timely

you are no longer young.

 

[thirdform]

in actuality you were never really young past the age of 16, but you succumbed to yankie indie-iritus and didn't get disciplined.



this should have been your swan song.

 

[germaphobian]

Compelling for sure but the rapid and drastic changes in environment in the last 200 odd years have to have changed the psychology and perspective of people to such an extent that the old world and ways become a separate entity. The arts have expressed this profoundly. So while his definition makes sense, it seems a bit reductive.

True, he is very dry and very reductive, but his answer would be that he's focusing on the aspects that are truly important and eschews what's trivial; for example, psychology and human perspectives themselves are sort of trivial in his scheme, not too important; it's very anti-humanist approach really.
It has its own problems, but there is a great explanatory power compared to most postmodernists in general, because they do get sidelined all the time, which is mostly because they fall in love with their own linguistic constructs. But even mores so, Luhmann - as far as I Know- is the only one whose theory contains its own self-criticisms, that is something postmoderns just totally failed to do.

 

[germaphobian]

I'm mentioning him because it's perfect for someone who feels mental and informational overload. It kind of helped me in a similar situation, almost like a zen thing or something like that.

 

[version]

For version and @sus what znore is saying is that embedded in (some? all?) texts is a voice which is not the authors own, it's ALP, its the plasmate, it's the living word, it's the manifestation of divine wisdom

He was only referring to postmodernism in terms of literature then and not postmodernism at large, or does he take the 'everything is a text' view?

 

[version]

It arbitrarily introduces some sort of break or divergence in what is essentially pretty straightforward continuum.

That goes for periodisation in general.

 

[version]

The term itself is kind of confused and confusing; and now people are going even further talking about metamodernity, post-post-moderntiy, liquid modernity or whatever. But there is only modernity intensifying and no reason or basis for those prefixes. That was another thing that was just a bad linguistic choice, bad framing.

Yeah, I've often felt this. Once you situate whatever comes next as simply being some sort of addition to or degradation of the previous period then you trap yourself in this strange limbo where you can't ever move forward.

 

[sus]

you are no longer young.

I'm young at heart

 

[thirdform]

I'm young at heart

no you are not. this is what @luka and znore haven't taught you.

 

[version]

@thirdform, do you see postmodernism as a useful term or idea? Do you think it corresponds to something material?

 

[thirdform]

Yeah, I've often felt this. Once you situate whatever comes next as simply being some sort of addition to or degradation of the previous period then you trap yourself in this strange limbo where you can't ever move forward.

If you changed your name to darstellung you may acquire the propensity to abscond from this predicament.