Hi, Just want to point out I've taught and published and lectured on postmodernism, and videos I co-created with Dawja Burris dealt with the subject in El Paso and Ciudad Juarez and I have no idea how you're using the word or attacking it - it wasn't facetious, it was concerned among other things, with informal economies and South America favelas etc.It's a complex socio-economic subject and its effects cover issues such as migration, homelessness, around the world. I just don't think you've read deeply into the subject; for example scientific methodology was an integral part of the discussion.
- Best, Alan On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 11:01 AM Max Herman via NetBehaviour < [email protected]> wrote: > > +++ > > The modern world has problems. No longer ancient and starting sort of > from scratch, no longer medieval with short lifespans and a simple > church-state duopoly, and certainly no longer indigenous in direct mutual > dialogue with nature like a woven fabric, our problems are unique enough to > have their own name: "modernity." > > An idea, rather facetious, cropped up over fifty – yes, fifty – years ago > to call European culture "post-modern" instead of modern. This idea > suggested that although modernity may have had many serious problems they > no longer mattered because their "time" had passed. The time of > constitutions, including democratic ones, a public sphere of communication > (with greater or lesser freedom of speech), the idea of rights codified by > laws which were often upheld even when some official or strongperson didn't > like it, and the reality of biological nature and scientific method, well > those things were all passé. Not only did they no longer require any > effort or attention, they had never warranted it, being nothing more than > rewritings of the tooth fairy tale. There is no quarter under your pillow, > they said, only lies. > > We shouldn't be surprised now that in 2024 the USA is fairly likely to > vote an autocrat into the presidency and democracy is being routed like > yesterday's news the world over. Autocrats from Tallahassee to Budapest > crow about being post-truth, their PR consultants throwing terms like > post-Enlightenment around like confetti, and the general mass of ordinary > people – the only force that has ever allowed democracy to function – has > nothing to go by except tired populism and hyper-specific outrage. Susan > Neiman explains how Foucault carried this "who cares" attitude forward from > Schmitt, who did so for Nietzsche, who is from – well, who? Neiman's book > explains why the millions of factions within the left and center can only > blame each other for being not left enough, too left, or left in the wrong > way, and cannot reliably organize political coalitions capable of defeating > autocracy in elections. Paul de Man is dancing under a giant disco ball in > his grave. > > The boring view of Habermas that democracy is still real and matters, as > do rights, constitutions, laws, and the public sphere of communication that > articulates them all, that he pointed out very early on with Foucault – who > he called way back in the 80's "a young conservative" and basically a > hypocritical con artist like Freud or Bernays – well this practical > reality-based view is now defined mainly by its incredible confusion and > hopelessness. How could democracy deteriorate so badly, everywhere, when > we thought we were way past it? I guess the European mind thought by > ignoring democracy and pretending it didn't exist it would be protected > forever, like a bee in amber. > > +++ > > Paul de Man, who championed postmodernism so effectively out of Yale early > on, was, we now know, a terrible fascist sympathizer and anti-Semite. He > knew very well, just as every bully on every playground knows, that if you > confuse the people who are supposedly guarding ethical norms, the grown-ups > and goody-goodies, you can get away with a lot more terrible shit. A > super-confusing, pretentious, hyper-abstract rhetoric on which to base the > thousands of PhD's being handed out in the post-civil-rights era that could > out-compete Marxism for clever ambitious scholars' affection was badly > needed and postmodernism was it. It has, moreover, worked like a charm. > > One can argue it was so crucially necessary, and therefore worthwhile, to > nullify Marxism (also riddled with flaws, delusions, and outright lies) > during the Cold War of 1948-1991 that any amount of duplicity or even > violence was justified. Even if you grant that, by a stretch of utter > contortion, there is no escaping the brutal fact that a spited face still > needs a nose both to smell and not frighten the neighbors' kids or everyone > at the dinner party much less watching TV. Autocracy, not the Marxist with > a PhD, was the real adversary; and that lovely principle has not gone > anywhere despite the wall falling and big business celebrating its myriad > perfections in Beijing. We poisoned our own democracy thinking we had to > in order to defeat the autocrats of 20th century and now we have very > little left with which to oppose our greatest adversary as reconstituted in > the 21st. > > Even if the autocratic party of the USA, led by a predictably effective > postmodern demagogue who by the power of lying and graft has leapt straight > off the TV screen into the corridors of power, loses this November > democracy will still have to preserve and maintain itself under terribly > adverse conditions. If the autocrats win, they will still have to be > opposed and hopefully weakened by democratic means; and if by some chance > the demagogue manages to cancel the constitution and put everyone who voted > against autocracy to death in a giant bonfire those who survive will still > have to think about democracy, what its problems are, and what to do about > it. Even if the word democracy was struck from every paper book and > internet web page the idea of it would have to be dealt with. So how > should one do that? > > +++ > > The modern world, trying to birth itself Athena-like after medievalism, > has always had two basic versions: autocracy and democracy. This battle is > present from the earliest times, even the ancient ones. In ancient > conversations, they talked about whether there was such a thing as right > and wrong, or justice, outside of simply what the strongest person forced > other people to say was right. Entire civilizations in Greece and Rome, > not to mention Egypt and Mesopotamia, rose and fell on the fundamental > ground of this question. Religions discussed it for literally thousands of > uninterrupted years in antiquity and even in prehistory, and the discussion > of what divinity was and which humans it deemed worthy of life or freedom > was of course the basic economic function, outside farming, of the Middle > Ages. Today we are still stuck in it, this conversation, you might even > say up to our necks. > > Does might make right, with the autocrat as divine enforcer, or does right > make might through a democracy of laws? > > Plato wrote about this topic, as did basically most other ancients, hoping > that right makes might. In the real world of street violence and royal > dungeons of course we know it isn't always the case and right making might > is often aspired to rather than experienced. Still, even after ancient > Rome and Athens were well and duly sacked once and for all the question > lingered like ash nutrients in fertile soil; and the reborn religions of > the medieval age centered on it too. At first the claim was made that > monotheism answered the question: since the monodeity created and loved all > humans, all were of value under divine law. Various failures to apply the > spirit of such equality did occur, sometimes in great volume, but so did > efforts to reform such corruption grow with time. Reformation was built > into the DNA of medieval institutions even to the dismay of many rulers > thereof. > > Dante is just one example of thousands of reformers, across every > continent, who both imagined and created the modern age in which art and > science emerged as often equal peers to reform the church-state duopoly and > rescue it from the fungal logic, which tends to afflict any moribund tissue > of the body politic, that might makes right. Ethical art and science, > Dante wrote, were the engines of adaptive change that could turn the > institutions of church-state authority away from corrupted autocracy back > onto the path of democracy, rights, and the rule of law, thus restoring the > ethical status of both temporal and ecclesiastical authority away from > might makes right, the abyss of destruction which has always threatened > every human relationship since humans began. > > +++ > > Yet without Hope there can be no Hopelessness, and modernity was as > certain to forge paths to might-makes-right as the prehistoric, ancient, > and medieval times were. In the Renaissance, the first modern stretch of > history in Europe, some like to posit, Machiavelli, who is often called the > first modern philosopher and the inventor of political modernity, set forth > such a path indelibly in *The Prince* and *Discourses on Livy*. These > two books in which force is the parent of all things laid the foundation > for all might-making-right to follow, through Hobbes to every > proto-autocrat including Marx and Nietzsche, and thence to yes Schmitt and > Foucault. It's the same ugly lineage all the way back. It's the > hopelessness that drinks the poison wine of violence hoping to piss > perfume. It has whispered sweetly into the ears of > mass-slaughter-aficionados from Mussolini to Stalin, and Mao to Putin. > There is no moral code worth following, no rules, no arbiter in the sky to > pass judgment, there is only you killing or being killed. > > Who has fought to keep democracy alive thus far? People whose names start > with L, like Lincoln and Leonardo da Vinci, and others whose names do not > start with L like Hamilton and Tokarczuk. Kondiaronk, the great Native > American author and diplomat, arguably reminded 17th century Europe more > than any European (ancient, medieval, or modern) that democracy matters. > In today's world and all over the internet we have both people trying to > protect democracy in 2024 and people trying to put it out of its misery. > We are all in the game, invested one way or another, even in how we happen > to fondle our phones on any given day. > > +++ > > For simplicity and energy, and considering the towering importance of > Machiavelli in this saga of modern might vs. right, let us focus our > wandering eyes on an unlikely interlocutor: Leonardo, fatherless child of > the town of Vinci in Tuscany, born about two months before slavery (only of > non-Christians of course) was declared legal *Dum Diversas* i.e. "until > otherwise" by the ecclesiastical authorities of Europe. Leonardo was > smarter than you and me, or at least as smart, and very perceptive too, and > he knew Machiavelli personally and worked with him on both canal-digging > and espionage projects as fellow public servants of the government of > Florence, Italy. Leonardo favored Dante, from whom he learned to read and > write the only language he could, Italian, and he knew an autocrat when he > saw one. (They were all over Renaissance Italy like flies on a turd, you > might say.) > > So Leonardo, who loved lists and recipes, as well as phrases and drawings, > created his counter-mechanism. He did it so well it was not destroyed by > over 500 years of autocracy and even autocrats like Napoleon have > worshipped rather than burnt it. Like an early form of genetic > engineering, Leonardo has provided us with the benefits of his own > immuno-response in the form of ten letters spliced into the conversations > of today, 10 February 2024: E-X-P-E-R-I-E-N-C-E, or in Italian, > E-S-P-E-R-I-E-N-Z-A. It's the story by allegory of right making might over > might making right in his portrait of the Mona Lisa, showing in perfect > subtlety how art and science can serve and nourish all life and nature, > including humans, in defiance of and victory (*vinci*) over those who > would enslave and slaughter by said instruments in their hate, rage, pale > ire, envy, and despair. > > Yet Leonardo did not end his painting life there. He painted one more > after, a much darker work, indeed almost black: the *Gran Giovanni*. > Leonardo knew the "monster" of humanity could and likely would kill all > life on earth due to the simple bad habit of incontinence, or compulsive > appetite, which Dante had depicted as a starving wolf which "mated with all > things." There is no guarantee, as it were, and as we can all attest to we > are not, most certainly not, out of the woods yet. Leonardo explained > clearly how in their cruelty, unbounded, humans would soon dig up and > despoil every natural life-form, throughout the land and under the land and > in the sea, for consumption, and then bring war and hate and violence and > labor and fury to every living thing, all from appetite escalated by > cruelty. We are not out of the woods. > > +++ > > Some have written of what is likely autocracy's worst, most violent, and > most pathological modern example, German Fascism, by ascribing to it "the > banality of evil." Just people doing their work, following orders, filling > out paperwork, calculating formulas, and so forth, thereby making possible > a descent into horror, destruction, and atrocity previously unimaginable. > There is some truth to this, to the smallness and meekness of bureaucratic > slaughter. However, on the flip side, all that fiery German rhetoric ( > *Feurigeworter*) and those rallies and banners and ritualized pogroms > egged on by radio and film were quite dramatic, volatile, spectacular, and > boisterous. It was these most vehement "exhortations to evil" driven by > lust, blood, and hyper-erotic sadism as well as insipid clerical duties > which changed Germany from a relatively normal group of people into a > nation of mechanized psychopathy overnight. It wasn't just banality: much > of the motive force was theatrical, exaggerated, amplified brutality of the > most public, transgressive, and fevered character possible. > > What it was, however, this attempt to subject the whole planet to some > Germano-Roman fantasy of might making right, above all else was mediocre. > All of its leaders were crass, second-rate, and in a word, loser slobs. > Their sadism and luxuriation in bloodletting was not banal by any > definition, but it was the height of mediocrity in ethical, cultural, > political, and psychological terms. They were like middle-school bullies > with tank divisions and gas chambers, who hadn't outgrown their own > humiliation (by parents, the newspapers, other bullies, or morbid and > stunted self-talk) nor had they been sickened by their own early taste of > cruelty the way most decent people are. Their own standards for human > right and wrong were incredibly mediocre – like Schmitt, a laughable idiot, > and Heidegger, little if any better – and so was the conscience of both the > general populace and the wealthy. Their society's institutions and laws > for the protection of rights and legality itself were worse than middling > in quality and effectiveness, and their culture was often little more than > bigotry, kitsch, tuxedos and brandy, or cheap maudlin taverns. Such > mediocrity run amok was all the human appetite for cruelty needed to seize > power and destroy peace in the twentieth century and perhaps forever given > the toxic human and chemical waste left by the Fascists' war and its > aftermath. > > All this is Machiavelli, walking in the blood-soaked trenches as if an > officer in a greatcoat, surveying his handiwork and glorying in the success > of his prophecy, all throughout he is there. > > +++ > > Yet Leonardo: he is still the stronger, yes by excellence but not of an > autocratic sort to indulge his own love of power to kill. Leonardo is a > servant-warrior, who loved all life and took his own power to live from > this love of nature. He had and was conscience free of the allure of cruel > appetite, a freedom he had to fight hard from a young age to gain and > keep. So, in keeping with his own nature, which was part created by him > and part the gift of circumstance, he built for us the means of destroying > Machiavelli's new Prince and in so doing sustain the planet as a living one. > > Just a simple portrait, it hangs (if spattered with pumpkin soup) in the > grand museum of the pyramids at the heart of Paris, France, home of this > year's Olympic games in which despite the doping and souvenirs and crass > bluster the world aspires to something better than its worst – a flame of > hope, you could say, for excellence of effort to help right make might. > The portrait will be there, in the heart of all this hope, not far from the > once-charred skeleton of Notre Dame cathedral rebuilt as another gesture > toward the second most-divine virtue. > > Can the portrait speak, over the din of the new Prince marching > everywhere, and will it? > > The portrait has never stopped speaking, and likely never will even if > autocracy defeats democracy forever in nine months (because even autocrats > need excuses). All we have to do is listen, and repeat; hear a word, then > speak a word; hear a word, then speak that word in our own little voice. > It's as achievable, you could say, as breathing, and just as powerful. > Nothing can stop it if you choose to let it happen, nothing on earth or > above the earth, before, during, or after. And who teaches this simple > fact? Saint Genevieve, who has a bridge I painted once in 2006, in the > city of Paris, while I floated on a boat (a barge) that had a little table > and patio on top and a funny apartment in the hold, all moored along the > left bank close to Pont de Sully. > > Genevieve is the saint who saves France, and is the patron saint of > Paris. She saves it in different ways for different times, eras, and > contexts, but she saves it almost always by hoping and speaking hopefully, > as one of many in a large group. She is definitely a defender not a > crusader; she appears at the time of greatest need and danger like that > which constitutional democracy faces this very year, on the very streets of > Paris France. Someone will even cross her bridge to see the Olympic games > this summer or visit the rebuilt cathedral, or just have coffee with a > friend or a stranger or even alone. > > Someone might even whisper that little word, that one word, to a visual > image of a portrait of an idea, hoping. > > +++ > > Max Herman > February, 2024 > ExperienceDemocracy2024.org/experience-democracy-is/ > > +++ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- *=====================================================* *directory http://www.alansondheim.org <http://www.alansondheim.org> tel 347-383-8552**email sondheim ut panix.com <http://panix.com>, sondheim ut gmail.com <http://gmail.com>* *=====================================================*
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] https://lists.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
