RE: Re: Re: Re: postmodernism?

["Brownson, Jamil" <JBrownson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

very interesting post, of course it is obvious, but at the same time
invisible. Like Chomsky's concept about the frame of reference to contain
acceptable dissent, beyond which all thought is rejected, hence invisible.
We live among the most binary thinking imaginable, us - them, etc., without
thinking to deconstruct either us or them into an ecosystemic like
multiplicity and polyvalent parts. That was my initial point about
afghanistan or taliban as objects, which they are not, rather a multiplicity
of totally fluid, polyvalent segments.

jb

-----Original Message-----
From: Carrol Cox [mailto:cbcox@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 7:08 AM
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [PEN-L:20066] Re: Re: Re: postmodernism?




Rob Schaap wrote:
>
>
>
> centre = middle point - of which one entity may have a maximum of but one.
>

Some metaphors are _really_ dead and can't be wrenched back to life like
this. In all but the narrowly (euclidean) sense of the word there can
clearly be many centers. Whether that is such an astounding or
paradigm-changing discovery or not is anothe question. The main
difference between "polycentric" and "many-centered" is that the former
conceals implied analytic assumptios that may not hold or even be
formulable. Any group existence (even of a totalitarian state or
"party") is clearly many-sided -- e.g., some analyses of Germany in the
1930s could be profoundly true and interesting even though they
abstracted wholly from Nazism as party or state.

Carrol