Postmodernism is evil

This is your brain on postmodernism. Tom Chivers has a good post excoriating the fetid creationist nouveau Virginia Heffernan , who thi...

This is your brain on postmodernism.
Tom Chivers has a good post excoriating the fetid creationist nouveau Virginia Heffernan, who thinks that science and religion can be treated as social "text."

I cannot think of an insult too low for that intellectual whore and her creationist bullshit. But, in the words of Leslie Nielsen, that's not important right now.

Instead, I wanted to use Heffernan's tripe and Chivers sage rebuttal to highlight just how vacuous postmodernism is. Postmodernism is a reductionist (which they call "deconstructionist") perspective on - well, pretty much everything - but seen through the lens of the arts rather than the sciences.  It's just the kind of semantics-free babble you get when some well-educated artists get science-envy and create their own, utterly baseless perspective of the universe.

Postmodernism originally served as a new means for people to spout nonsense about the classics of literature, which they could not have done otherwise because there's just not much left to say about them.   This ensured countless publications, essays, speaking engagements, conferences, debates, popular texts, and interviews - and the prestige and income that come with them.  Had it remained confined to the arts, postmodernism might have been an amusing lemma in humanity's search for truth - which is all it has ever deserved.

Instead, postmodernism has spread like cancer through society, providing ample ammunition to all manner of whack-jobs - including assorted religious apologists and deluded creationists. Reality doesn't exist, they say, because it's all a "text" to be interpreted.

You can see why postmodernism would appeal to anti-science groups like creationists: it gives them the means to argue against the truth of, say, evolution without having to present any evidence at all.  They can, paraphrasing Chivers excellent words, simply claim "that the meaning of science and of the bible is not something fixed and eternal but the product of the reader’s mind in conjunction with the author’s."  That's exactly what Heffernan did - she equated the two through the demented calculus of postmodernism.

Why is the postmodernist view wrong?  Because it tries to fill what postmodernists think is a gap in our understanding - when the only real gap is in their understanding.

The whole concept of "the meaning of a text" is flawed, because there is no singular meaning of the kinds of texts that postmodernists think are universal.  Meaning, in the sense of works of literature and fiction (including the bible), is a function of time, and can be quite well modelled by systems theory and by various types of logic.  Not perfectly modelled (yet), but well modelled - better modelled in any case that what is on offer by the intentionally opaque rantings of postmodernists.  For an expert in literature to assess science from a postmodernist view is about as absurd as a lawyer assessing brain surgery from a deontic view.

The "text" is just a model of a thought; it's like a grainy, underlit polaroid of a thought, a snapshot, an instant in time.  "Thought" itself is an artificial concept, a subjective experience only.  What's really going on in the brain is a dynamic, constantly changing process, only part of which we are conscious.  Talking of "thought" as if it really existed is contrived, a convenience, but meaningful only so long as it remains grounded in the facts. Psychologists, neuroscientists, and other specialists can do it.  Lit majors who claim postmodernism will save humanity cannot; they're simply not equipped for it.  Text, being static, cannot possibly truly capture thought.  Furthermore, the meaning of any text is grounded in context.  And since we cannot transmit all the necessary context with a given text, the text itself becomes a relatively poor conductor of thought and of meaning.

Still, no matter what happens to the mind of the maker of a text, the text itself is grounded in whatever the maker was thinking when he made the text. And the meaning of the text is what it meant to its maker at the time of its making.  That's all there is to it.

Now, the receiver of the text is given a crappy snapshot of a thought and no context in which to ground it.  Naturally, the receiver will take a different meaning from the text than the maker may have intended.  But we can predict what that meaning will be: it will be the meaning that is grounded in the receiver's context.  We can even conceive of a mapping between the maker's and receiver's meaning, in the simplest first order logic.  The problem quickly becomes intractable, but that only means that the mechanisms we have with which to deduce are not sufficient for this task - it does not mean there is no solution, just that we haven't found it yet.  We can demonstrate it with sufficiently simple mappings and contexts.  There is no magic here, no psycho-babble incantation that captures the profundity of it.  All that complexity is just layers of bullshit liberally applied by the postmodernists who, lacking the necessary education and expertise, confound their own subjective ignorance with an objective gap in the larger body of knowledge.

I refer you to the image in Chivers's article of a lizard.  The caption reads: "See this? Evolved. Not developed in a textual reconstruction of the world etc." That's it in a nutshell.

If postmodernism were today an authentic and legitimate school of thinking, its adherents should be enraged at how their movement has been co-opted by the duplicitous and the intellectually dishonest - by people like Virginia Heffernan - who seek to apply it beyond its scope.  But they are not enraged; and silence gives consent.  They are privately content with this development.  Of course they are - postmodernism has become a globally recognized "thing" - from which its adherents will obviously benefit personally and professionally.

And that's why postmodernism is evil.



academia activism admin aesthetics affect ageing AI analogy android anthropology anticipation app architecture art arts Asia assistive technology balance biology biomimetics book branding building business CAD Canada care case cfp change revision children codesign cognition collaboration colonization commercialization commonplacing communication design competition complexity computation computer science computing concept map conference constructivism conversational analysis craft creative arts creativity CSCW culture cybernetics dementia design design thinking digital digital media digital reproduction digital scholarship disability dissertation drawing economics education effectiveness efficiency emotion engineering environment ergonomics ethics ethnography Evernote evolution exhibition exoskeleton experience experimental studies fail fashion featured film food function modeling futurism gender studies Germany globalization grantsmanship graphic design Greece HCI health heritage history housing human factors humanism identity image inclusivity industrial design informatics information innovation interaction interior design internet of things iphone journal journalism language law library life life cycle lifehack logistics luxury making management manufacturing material culture materials mechanics media method migration mobile motion design movie new product development Nexus 6 olfaction online organization packaging paper participatory design PBL pengate performance PhD philosophy planning policy politics practice predatory preservation prison proceedings productivity project management public space publishing reading Remember The Milk reproduction research resource-limited design review Samsung scholarship science science fiction semiotics senses service design simplicity society sociology software space strategic design student sustainability systems tactile tangibility technology textile theatre theory Toodledo Toronto tourism traffic transhumanism transnationalism transportation tv uncertainty universal design urban usa usability user experience visualization wearable well-being women workshop writing
The Trouble with Normal...: Postmodernism is evil
Postmodernism is evil
The Trouble with Normal...
Not found any posts VIEW ALL Readmore Reply Cancel reply Delete By Home PAGES POSTS View All RECOMMENDED FOR YOU LABEL ARCHIVE SEARCH ALL POSTS Not found any post match with your request Back Home Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat January February March April May June July August September October November December Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec just now 1 minute ago $$1$$ minutes ago 1 hour ago $$1$$ hours ago Yesterday $$1$$ days ago $$1$$ weeks ago more than 5 weeks ago Followers Follow THIS CONTENT IS PREMIUM Please share to unlock Copy All Code Select All Code All codes were copied to your clipboard Can not copy the codes / texts, please press [CTRL]+[C] (or CMD+C with Mac) to copy