April 18, 2017

Postmodernism and Its Discontents

Waferinos: two posts back, Julie sent in this link and asked me what I thought of the article:


My response follows below.

1. Deconstruction, including cultural relativism, has a long pedigree, and goes back to the Sophists--from which we get the word 'sophistry' (rhetoric as opposed to objective truth). Plato ridiculed this subjective approach to knowledge--that man was the measure of all things--in the Protagoras, a fabulous dialogue. Millennia later, Robert Pirsig defended the Sophists against Plato in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, arguing that it was myth and rhetoric that were true, and that Platonic logic was 'insane'. Both texts are definitely worth reading.

The crucial problem of postmodernism and deconstruction--that of self-referentiality--was also known to the Greeks. It was called Epimenides' Paradox: "A Cretan said, 'All Cretans are liars'. Was he telling the truth?" It has also been called Mannheim's Paradox. Karl Mannheim, a German sociologist, wrote Ideology and Utopia in 1929 (German edition), a cornerstone of what is known as the sociology of knowledge. All knowledge, he claimed, exists in a social context; pure objectivity is a myth. The paradox arises when the sociology of knowledge is applied to the sociology of knowledge: From what social context did it arise? Thus the deconstructors get deconstructed. This is the Achilles' heel of the whole postmodern game, and one that the pomos have been unable to convincingly answer. For in the end, what they are saying is, "All texts are relative--except ofr ours." (Shades of Orwell) They refuse to apply their methodology to their own methodology, because then the game would be up; the whole pm project would unravel. The truth is that in the process of attacking 'metanarratives', they have just created another metanarrative. In effect, what they did was take a small truth and turn it into a big lie. (Someone once said--it may have been me--that pm was basically nihilism masquerading as radical chic.)

2. Nevertheless, the small truth is there. My Reenchantment book draws on Foucault, and argues for epistemological relativism. It says that modern science is only one way of knowing the world, and that the sciences of premodern societies--alchemy, astrology, witchcraft, and so on--probably were valid in their own contexts; although I do assert the existence of transcultural truth (Galileo, not Aristotle, was right about projectile motion--it's a parabola, period). (Or, the Nazi claim that there was such a thing as "Jewish physics" was hogwash, unless Jewish atoms wear skullcaps). In addition, some pm notions are similar to Buddhism, which is a truly profound way of thinking about the world, in my opinion.

3. So the truth of this debate lies somewhere in between; the problem is that Americans in particular have to go whole hog; they have a difficult time with the word 'some'. It was embarrassing, in the 60s and 70s, when folks like Derrida would come to lecture at American universities, watching American academics swoon and fawn over him: "Give us the Word, Master!" This is clearly Eric Hoffer's True Believer syndrome. As noted, pm is just one more metanarrative, regardless of what the pomos claim. But American academics were/are not capable of saying, "postmodernism has some valuable aspects to it." Oh no; this was now the (latest, fashionable) Answer with a capital A. I have repeatedly stated on this blog that in the US, even the smart people are stupid. The American craze for pm is a perfect example of this. Thus, as the author of the article shows, for some pomos the difference in size between an ant and a giraffe is merely an "act of faith."

4. The author Charles Finch identifies how this, or any other, intellectual craze spreads through the culture at large. It starts (he says) with 15 readers of some obscure semiotics journal, spreads to 100 listeners at a dinner party, moves on to 10,000 readers in a popular magazine, and then to one million viewers on TV. Finally, the whole nation is engulfed in "political correctness." I saw this insanity in the early 90s, when I (foolishly) got involved in a distance-learning school that was caught in the grip of this nonsense. I didn't know who was dumber or more pathetic, the students or the faculty; but it was eerie for me to watch a brainwashing/groupthink camp in operation. You can read more about this in the Twilight book, where I call the place "Alt U." "Grotesque" was not too strong a word for this place, whose notion of education was embarrassing.

5. As the author of this article on pm observes, liberals are now authoritarian: only one (p.c.) version of events is allowed, and the liberals are happy to shout down visiting speakers rather than actually engage them. This is by now a nationwide phenomenon; Trump was the inevitable reaction to it.

6. A couple of illustrative vignettes (two among many I could furnish, in addition to that of Alt U.):

-(I need to preface this one by saying, I'm not kidding) A few years ago, a friend of mine retired from the English department of a major, and very respected, university in the Southwest. Shortly after that (this was relayed to him by a former colleague), the department was seeking to make a new hire to replace him (albeit at the junior level), and interviewed a number of candidates. All of them showed up in full-blown p.c. mode, but the most bizarre candidate was a grad student who declared that he hoped to found a "Department of Shit Studies." "Shit Studies," he told the faculty, "is the new intellectual frontier." I can't remember if this guy got the job; he may have (you wonder why such a distinguished faculty didn't tell him that his Ph.D. thesis was pure shit). Wafers, when I say that America is on its last legs, I know whereof I speak.

-Roughly 30 years ago I was invited to attend a two-day session of Ivan Illich's discussion group where he was then based, Penn State. They said they wanted my input on what they were doing, based on my forthcoming book, Coming to Our Senses, which Illich had read in manuscript form. There were about 40 or 50 people in attendance. The whole approach was pm: everything, from physics to the human body, was socially constructed. Illich himself had a rather large tumor growing out of the side of his head; I couldn't help wondering if he regarded it as socially constructed as well. (Perhaps it was a banana in some alternative universe.) In the face of incipient death, he was spouting bullshit. At one point I led the group in a meditation exercise, guiding their awareness through their bodies, step by step. The general reaction was confusion and anxiety; these folks were so out of touch with their bodies, that when reality hit them they didn't know how to react. They had very little interest in coming to their senses; safer to stay in one's head.

Later, Illich and I had a debate about transcultural truth, which for him didn't exist. I pointed out that a flying arrow really did describe the path of a parabola, as Galileo mapped out, and was not a case of discontinuous motion, as Aristotle had claimed. Illich replied, "Well in fact, it's not exactly a parabola, because of air resistance." "Ivan," I said, "you just said 'in fact'. So even you believe in a basic empirical reality, right?" He chose to ignore this.

On the last day of the conference, I talked obliquely about the problem of closed societies, and closed systems of thought, but I doubt they understood what I was saying. This crowd was as solipsistic as Alt U. Gilles Deleuze pegged it correctly when he referred to these sorts of groups as "microfascisms of the avant-garde."

Anyway, as all of you can see, I've been in the trenches with a lot of this stuff over the course of my career. I do think that pm offers us some valuable insights; the problem arises when scared human beings, desperate for existential security, turn a few valuable insights into a Totality, a System of Thought, which is swallowed whole. In Coming to Our Senses, I tried to explain why we tend to do this. People have told me (I don't know if it's true) that the most often-quoted line on the Internet is from that book: "An idea is something you have; an ideology is something that has you." Rather than wake up, we just keep changing paradigms.


April 17, 2017



As Trumpland gets darker and darker, this blog gets brighter and brighter. We have much to celebrate.


April 07, 2017

SSIG Is Back!

Good news, Wafers: Spinning Straw Into Gold is finally back online:


Given the vagaries of American publishing these days, it took forever, but it is at long last back in print. If you didn't buy it way back in 2013, here's an opportunity to purchase the new improved edition (with almost identical content).

One thing did, however, get lost in translation, and this is a first for me: the Customer Reviews got wiped out when the book went offline in 2013, and cannot be retrieved. There were something like 21 reviews; if I remember correctly, something like 18 were very positive, and something like 3 very negative. Since Amazon cannot restore this lost material, I want to make an appeal to those of you who did write a review way back when to rewrite and repost it again, if that's at all possible. I realize that you are not likely to still have your original review in your possession, but perhaps you could skim your copy of the book as a reminder, and then send in something to Amazon based on your memory or impression. I realize this is a strange thing to ask, but inasmuch as Amazon did permanently remove the previous set of Customer Reviews, there isn't much else I can do at this point.

I thank you all, and for the 1st or 2nd time--happy reading!


March 28, 2017


Well, Wafers, we can get all excited and blame Trumpi for the chaos and disaster that is engulfing the US, but really, Don is but a reflection of ourselves. There are so many articles on what we are doing to ourselves on a daily basis, it's hard to keep up. Here's just one (somebody cited this on the previous post):


Our future is riots, martial law, detention centers, and nationwide dementia. Meanwhile, there are two little words that the progs cannot absorb into their tender little brains: "It's over." I mean, come on guys: Is the Pope Catholic? Does a bear shit in the woods?


March 15, 2017


Well, Wafers, time for a new post. Only problem is, I have nothing to say. My mind is as blank as that of George Bush. But let's look on the positive side of things (despite my creeping senility). We are slowly coming up on post #300; on 11 years of blogdom (in April); and on 3 million--count 'em!--hits. Could anything be more splendid? When I 1st began this blog, everyone laughed. "Forget it!" they cried. "It'll never get up off the ground!" To which I replied: "But they told the same thing to the Wright Brothers. They mocked Galileo. And look at how history regards them today." "But you aren't the Wright Brothers," they countered; "you aren't Galileo." "No," I responded; "but I am a Wafer with a blog!" And as they say, the rest is history. Waferdom proved to be the only enduring force on the planet, the only--only, mind you--force for good. The highest form of consciousness. And in addition, after nearly 11 years of waging war with them, we defeated the trollfoons. Crushed them out of existence. They have crawled back under the rocks whence they first emerged, beaten and humiliated. So all in all, my critics proved to be wildly off base.

A salute, then, to us: the finest people on the planet (all 171 of us), the only ones working day and night in the interests of Truth and Beauty.


March 05, 2017



It's like there are these days when I wake up, and I think about Janis. I can't help it; I think about Janis. Jesus, it was a voice, and a decade, like no other:


For my parents, it was Enrico Caruso; for me, it was Janis.