modernism and post-modernism

[Eric the Green]

Quote:post by Captain Genet 
1985 Xennial
***

Quote:(06-18-2021, 12:49 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
Myself, I don't think of post-modern as a fad, or even a philosophy, but a condition of our times for which the word is used. Modern progress as our most important product has lost its lustre for many people, because it threatens the environment and impairs the spirit by turning us into machines.

You yourself believe in this philosophy, so you don't recognize it as a specific set of ideas.

A rather curt comment, and I don't really know what it means.

Related to this comment: "I suspect the tech obsession became a thing because humanities were overrun by postmodernism and other crazy Leftist/Inclusivist stuff, so rational people wanted to keep out of it."

Rather hasty conclusions drawn.

The tech obsession, I would answer, became an obsession because tech has been so overtly and overly-promoted. It is good business for big engineering firms, and there's a lot of money in tech generally. The general attitude of modernism mostly continues, and it created the tech obsession, despite some post-modern moods and ideas that have come along since the sixties. But the media and our education system have instilled in us the value of tech. And it works for a lot of things, so this obsession has become acceptable.

The tech obsession was never that much a part of "humanities" that I can see. Humanities is the study of classics, mostly from centuries ago. Unless you mean sociology and subjects like that.

Many rational people are leftists and inclusivists, so the assumption that rational people wanted to keep out of sociology because of leftists and inclusivists doesn't make much sense.

Of course some leftists etc. may take things to some crazy extremes. But just what is crazy, in your opinion? Throwing out slogans does not mean much. Define your terms.

Some late 20th century philosophers have described themselves as post-modernists, and some people think they are influential. French philosophers such as Derida are post-modernists. I didn't study him so I don't know exactly what he says, and I am certainly not a believer in his philosophy. Outside of that, I am not sure there is "a specific set of ideas" called post-modern; I mentioned the general attitude that is described as post-modern. 

The philosophy I have heard of or vaguely remember as "post-modern" involved higher social freedom, as you mention, and general opposition to hierarchical attitudes (feminism for example), combined with a questioning or disposal of absolutes and substituting relativity, and the idea that labeling anything as great or superior or more ethical is arbitrary, and is insulting to those who say tolerance of all views is the proper attitude. This may go along with a drive for political correctness and making sure people call others by the right names and titles.

But I don't know if this is what you mean by post-modern. I might like some aspects of it because I am an "inclusivist", and want freedom to question outdated authority and oppression and acceptance of diversity, and I am a green, and green is closely related to post-modern in spiral dynamics too. But I don't go along with such "relativity" ideas as there's no such thing as great art, or correct ethics, or the idea that narratives or stories are useless, or ideas like that. Freedom from authority is not my only value. I am not a big proponent of political correctness either. That does get taken too far to crazy extremes at times.

Quote:Captain Genet

Quote:Eric the Green
But, I think there will always be technology and new developments. The question is for how much longer will it be seen as the definition of "progress"? In the post-modern view, real progress means greater freedom from authoritarian conformity. That has been part of the idea of "progress" since its beginning in the 18th century, anyway. Social progress and spiritual or artistic development are more important than tech progress, and toward the end of this century I predict this will dawn on more people. So in that sense, post-modernism is just a gateway to increased awareness of the limits of tech progress. But tech has its needed uses as well, so it's not going away.

I believe there are three ideas of progress, each flourishing in a specific period:

Enlightenment Idea of Progress - late 18th century. Challenged monarchy and organized Christian Churches, which worked together in what I call the Constantinian system, and fought for social freedoms and free markets (classical liberalism). Voltaire would be the most outspoken proponent of this kind of progress, which lost currency after the French Revolution horrified European public opinion.

Victorian Idea of Progress - 1870-1914. Focused on spreading civilization throughout the world and eliminating barbarism and superstition. Compared with the Enlightenment idea of progress, it was less interested in social freedom, and saw some behaviours like overusing alcohol, using illegal drugs and having extramarital sex as typical for uncivilized peoples and the underclass. Lost currency after the world wars, through some supporters like Prince Phillip remained until recently.

Millennial Idea of Progress - since the late 2000s, with forerunners since the 1980s. Unites enthusiasm for technology (especially microchips) with high social freedom. In a way it is similar to the Enlightenment idea, though it's less likely to involve support for the free market.

It looks like Dionysian saeculums produce an idea of progress involving high social freedom, while Apollonian ones produce an idea of progress involving eradication of uncivilized behaviours.

Quote:Captain Genet

Quote:Eric the Green: Humanities did not go away because of Leftist/Inclusivist stuff, and such stuff is perfectly rational. It's the best area on your diagram, and most academics these days are predominantly progressive because the alternative out in red rural America is so horrific. In any case, the reason humanities has declined is precisely the tech obsession, so you got that backwards. Politicians and pundits no longer view higher education as a place to develop the ability to express, create and debate ideas or to learn to read, write, speak, understand society, investigate or draw, etc., but to get a good tech job or get a business and finance career going.

In a way tech companies today are like drug dealers, making people addicted to the Internet and digital gadgets to make money on them. Being a drug dealer, or a tech dealer, is a fast way to get rich.

Agreed.

Quote:Captain Genet

Quote:Eric the Green
I think space travel will definitely become a tourist adventure for those who can afford it. It will never be cheap, and probably never fully safe, but many more people will afford it than can do so today. But fun, thrilling and spectacular as it is, is this really what makes the Apollo program the greatest thing since the invention of agriculture and writing, as you suggest? Without ET contact and knowledge of The Other Side, space travel and exploration yields few other benefits.

The route to a sustainable and prosperous future on Earth lies here on Earth-- in progressive politics, conservation, innovative eco-tech, human and civil rights, urban planning, reform of agriculture, support for culture, and lifestyle arrangements here on Earth, and those who study humanities and general higher education grasp this fact much better than those who don't, as election polls and returns clearly show.

It is possible space colonization will prove unfeasible. In this case, we might expect some thousands of years of the millennial saeculum, increasing stagnation until a natural catastrophe destroys us. It can be the fate of all intelligent species in the Cosmos. But I like the perspective of interstellar adventures better. If we colonize a few solar systems, we are practically immortal as a species. This is what makes space travel such a breakthrough.

Of course space travel requires elimination of some uncivilized behaviours. You cannot make a crew out of junkies or porn addicts.

The millennial saeculum has only 8 years left, so why do you call it "some thousands of years?"

As I mentioned, there will be no possible interstellar adventures within the current scope of physics as you accept it. It is not a possibility within the philosophy of modernism with its physical tenets. The speed of light barrier can't be broken in your view. So I don't see it as a great breakthrough, unless our worldview drastically changes, possibly through the influence of ETs and adoption of their technology and we achieving the same level of maturity that they have, likely including knowledge and utilization of the realms of being beyond physical life and beyond the limits of sense-bound space and time.

Uncivilized behaviors will continue in the modernist world, because it alienates us from life, and people seek an escape. In order to be mature as a species, we must go beyond modernism, and post-modernism.