Chris


 * 12.16.07:** I found some good notes on Greenberg's //Modernist Painting// [|HERE]


 * 12.15.07:** I know it is late, but attached below are my unfinised and unedited notes for both Habermas' and Lyotard's essays. Hope they are helpful.


 * 12.15.07:** Here is a semi-awkward lecture I found on Lyotard's philosophy. The title of the video is the same as the title of the essay we read by him, but this lecturer goes into greater detail of Lyotard's philosphical works. Enjoy.

PART 1 media type="youtube" key="d9EsvykB8sY&rel=1" height="355" width="425"

PART 2 media type="youtube" key="GIvbV_eAlfw&rel=1" height="355" width="425"


 * 12.03.07:** Today during our meeting Richard brought up an interesting article that I wanted to bring up for discussion; however we ran out of time...so here it is. I cannot remember both the magazine’s name and the title of the article (Richard, if you read this try and post the source!), however I will try and use the basic theme an example about Humanist and Posthumansist philosophies.

In the magazine article, it appears that there is a man, maybe even a pirate that attacks boats that are fishing for rare and important sea creatures. If I am correct, the motivations of the pirate were based on ideologies that were anti-humanism. It is not that he is against the existence of the human species, but he is discontent of the egocentric views brought by the humanist doctrine inspired by the Renaissance. The argument is this: we humans have become so bound and caught up in our own cultural habitats that we have lost touch with the wider sphere of nature. It is not that nature and culture are two distinct or alien worlds, but it seems that humanity prioritizes and cherishes their own created culture over a dominated nature. Culture does in fact have a very real effect on nature, and vice versa, however humans have become so anthropocentric that we do not giver recognition to how our actions holistically attribute to the nature of the ecosystem we inhabit. We are not alien from nature, but alienated from it.

There is a chance that our alienation from nature does not attribute negatively to the ecosystem, but there is a massive amount of evidence that suggests otherwise. In the past two hundred years, the acceleration of consuming natural resources has now taken a drastic toll. Natural oils and gases are becoming scarce, the list of endangered species is expanding, and even the atmosphere of earth seems to be warming at an alarming rate. Yet, forgive us, for we know not what we do. We have been districted from this symbiotic relationship we share with the ecosystem by our excessive engagement with human culture. The good news though is that since the 1960's (the spawning of Postmodernism) there has been developing ideas that are evolving the Humanist philosophy. And I believe that everyone can guess the name of this enhanced philosophy, humanism has now branched off into //posthumanism//.

Posthumanism is quite simple. Taking the idea from humanism that all humans have the right of equality and to live free from parochial treatment of each other, posthumanism takes it one step further and believes that this ethic should apply to all life forms. It is no longer a concern between only human to human relationships, but the relationships between humans and other living species. With our increasing alienation from nature, it is obvious that we have oppressive attitudes towards many of the species we have evolved with. Rats and monkeys are used for scientific experiments, a diverse amount of animals are caged up in zoos solely for the pleasure of our gaze, elephants are killed off to make a profit of their ivory tusks, and the list goes on. As for our pirate, it seems his focus is on the poaching of endangered sea life. We are not having a mutual relationship with our ecospecies, but us humans are in fact dominating and imperializing the earth we (all organisms) all share. To change our approach to a more equal one, humans must give all other species equal recognition and bring closer ties to the natural world.

I would argue that this pirate is heavily influenced by posthuman ideologies, but I did stigmatize him as anti-humanist in the beginning of this essay. I said this because he believed that the only way the ecosystem could be sound again is through a massive human population drop from six billion to one billion. Furthermore, he is willing to injure or even kill those who are hunting certain sea life in the name of the posthumanist doctrine. It is no question that this man is an extremist, considerably a terrorist, and his views have been skewed to justify the sacrifice of human life in the name for all other life. This pirate is lead by the nostalgic belief that with a massive world population drop of humans, this pre-modern state would resolve the complex issues of the environmental damage we are bringing upon earth. It even seems he is willing to kill off people in order to achieve this goal. Although his intentions lie in the posthumanist sphere, he is anti-humanist because all he did was switch the roles between humans and other species. Instead of prioritizing humanism over all other life (like the humanist doctrine), the pirate now prioritizes all other species over humans. In this sense, humans are expendable for the benefit of other life forms. This role reversal most likely will solve many of the environmental issues caused by human activity, but it will not tend to the alienated relationships humans have with the planet.

In the theme of this article and the ideas of humansim/posthumansism, we can see many ties to the themes in our reading group on Modern and Postmodern culture. Grossly put, humanism=modern, and posthumansism=postmodern. I would type out more relationships between the two; however I am getting lazy and have to clean up my room. These are very interesting topics to look into, and among these I have some other suggested links to look into below. Enjoy! [|Humanism] [|Posthumansism] [|Gaia Hypothsis] [|Deep Ecology]

AND here is a quick video from an interview with Jacques Derrida, one of the most influencial postmodern philosophers. media type="youtube" key="Neu4kI_Yi0A&rel=1" height="355" width="425"


 * 11.13.07:** I found some good notes on Lyotard's essay //Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?//. Check out the [|LINK HERE] I also found a essay comparing and contrasting both Habermas' and Lyotard's essays [|HERE]

media type="youtube" key="_FtzHwkdhas" height="355" width="425"
 * 10.24.07:** As I was on Youtube looking for videos about the theoriests fro this meetings readings, I ran into one that makes many references to Raymond Williams. some professor is talking about how the word culture emerged and changed through the Modern era. We got a college lesson for free, unless you guys pay me $900 per hour. I expect the payments by Sunday.


 * 10.24.07:** Attached below are my notes on Greenberg's essay __Modern and Postmodern__ and Foster's __Repost: 1982__.


 * 10.22.07:** Hey all, I was about to open my yahoo email account when I came across this Howstuffworks article about parallel universes and quantum physics. This "scientific" practice is so abstract that these scientists can only study and experiment on this subject through thought experiments. Quantum physics would be poo-pooed by positivist thinkers. Very po-mo. Anyhow, enjoy, here is the link: http://science.howstuffworks.com/parallel-universe.htm


 * 10.19.07:** Hey everyone, in this post I am downloading the Powerpoint presentation I made on the Adorno piece. Check it out, it may be helpful in interpreting his essay. Also, check out Vasanth's blog, he is taking incredible notes and deconstructing every little bit that comes out of the essay.


 * 10.19.07:** As I continue to think back about last week's meeting, several of the themes and situations we ran into keep on running back into my head. The point of these essays posted below are to further address them in order to clarify some of these topics both for me and everyone else in general.

First thing first, I would like explain and justify why I have chosen these essays to read for the next several meetings (meetings 2,3, and maybe 4). The most apparent and important reason I've chosen these essays is the fact that they all act as a great synopsis in breaking down these paradigms analyitically, comparatively, and historically. Furthermore, with all of these essays bunched up, it allows a variety of perspectives on the topics pertaining to Modernism and Postmodernism. At times all the essays will articulate many of the same ideas in different fashions, or they will completely contradict each other when discussing the same topic. This will of course help us highlight several themes and ideas that repetatively come up by a variety of authors. Additionally, the topics that are highly debated or are subject to many clashing perspectives will shed light on the themes that remain in theoretical limbo-which- will allow us to become aware of the ambivilant or weak aspects behind the ontology that structures both the Modern and Postmodern paradigms.

This large quanitiy of essays we will read in the first several meetings will round out a firm representation of both Modernism/Modernity and Postmodernism/Postmodernity for us in the same magnitude that a textbook could. Yet, I will argue that this mode of learning is superior to the use of a textbook because each elected essay was picked directly from these paradigm's canon, and there is far less generalizations and simplifications found in primary sources when compared to the standardized textbook model. To begin investigating these histories of ideas within this thick and bulky book lies a overly-schematic and homongonized picture of our past and contemporary society.