Temporary but Unrepentant Umbilical to Furthur Thought-Insanity, Part XXVI
Carlos-O(1): “ We have a positive result now? This conversation was to be about the Enlightenment, not postmodernity. Now it is the postmodern which comes to the fore, and threatens to remain there. It is your turn to explain.”
Orla-O(1): “ Yes, I admit the turn of events is odd. There has not been a single one of us who likes or would have chosen to make postmodernity the subject of discussion. There is, moreover, every indication we made the return to Enlightenment because of our dislike of postmodern thinking, especially such prominent elements of it as radical subjectivity and relativism. I am not now suggesting we take such 'doctrines' seriously or as ‘the truth’. I am suggesting something has happened to us historically which we cannot turn our backs on.”
Carlos-O(1): “Postmodernity is repugnant to me.”
Orla-O(1): “ It isn’t ours to reject. It isn’t ours to affirm. By postmodernity we are referring to something which happened to us which made us be us. If it had happened differently it wouldn’t be us discussing us discussing this, but it is.”
Carlos-O(1) “ That’s far from convincing. You’re making it seem as if the postmodern is in some way objective or somehow a necessity or otherwise a necessary condition for our thinking. If so, you’re going to have to argue hard for that—I’m not giving this away.”
Orla-O(1): “ I don’t expect you to acquiesce, but I will point out you never produced reasons for the conversation being on the subject of Enlightenment…At the very least I can turn tables on you and ask you to show us the Enlightenment is objective or somehow a necessity or otherwise a necessary condition for our thinking. I believe I can do much, much more than turn tables, however. I assume you agree with me whichever way we go, towards the Enlightenment, the Postmodern, etc. we not follow our identifications...
...I can show that your original theory rests on nothing more than your identifications, but the more recent version has reasons.”
Orla-O(1): “ Yes, I admit the turn of events is odd. There has not been a single one of us who likes or would have chosen to make postmodernity the subject of discussion. There is, moreover, every indication we made the return to Enlightenment because of our dislike of postmodern thinking, especially such prominent elements of it as radical subjectivity and relativism. I am not now suggesting we take such 'doctrines' seriously or as ‘the truth’. I am suggesting something has happened to us historically which we cannot turn our backs on.”
Carlos-O(1): “Postmodernity is repugnant to me.”
Orla-O(1): “ It isn’t ours to reject. It isn’t ours to affirm. By postmodernity we are referring to something which happened to us which made us be us. If it had happened differently it wouldn’t be us discussing us discussing this, but it is.”
Carlos-O(1) “ That’s far from convincing. You’re making it seem as if the postmodern is in some way objective or somehow a necessity or otherwise a necessary condition for our thinking. If so, you’re going to have to argue hard for that—I’m not giving this away.”
Orla-O(1): “ I don’t expect you to acquiesce, but I will point out you never produced reasons for the conversation being on the subject of Enlightenment…At the very least I can turn tables on you and ask you to show us the Enlightenment is objective or somehow a necessity or otherwise a necessary condition for our thinking. I believe I can do much, much more than turn tables, however. I assume you agree with me whichever way we go, towards the Enlightenment, the Postmodern, etc. we not follow our identifications...
...I can show that your original theory rests on nothing more than your identifications, but the more recent version has reasons.”
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 3:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home