
In Part 1 of this series on the reawakening of Marxism in little Pomo - "The Lie at the Bottom" - we saw that at the basis of the covert strategy for spreading Relativist thought, lurks the lie of the Primacy of Consciousness, Subjectivism, or Relativism [1]. Make no mistake: it is the very basis of all Counter-Enlightenment thought, from Rousseau to Nazism and Communism to contemporary Pomo (see Chart I - The Straight Red Line): the aversity to reason. Which is why rational 'scientists' like Richard Dawkins, actually have no place being Leftists.

To Pomo, language is not about the transfer of information flowing from one person to another; to Subjectivists language communicates nothing more than perhaps the speaker's personal version of 'reality': all that is written ought to be in quotes and inverted commas, signifying the irony with which any 'meaning' should be taken.

Symbol to Western power stands the Oppressor, or the White Patriarch, embodying everything related to white supremacy, Christian hegemony and male dominance. The powerless minorities are everybody else, though preferably incorporating as many minority qualities as possible.

But back to language which, as said, is a mere weapon in an epic battle in which everything is allowed ... by Pomo, that is! The adversary - by the soft power of political correctness - is lumbered with as many 'handicaps' as possible: rules, that are taken to be universal, but in practice are far from 'cricket', rendering the interlocutor somewhat dazed over the exact location of the goal posts. We'll shortly come back about the rule book in another post. For now let's have a look at the interesting technique of reversed sophistry.
Stephen Hicks in his book "Explaining Postmodernism" worded it as follows: "The Sophists taught rhetoric not as a means of advancing truth and knowledge but as a means of winning debates in the rough-and-tumble world of day-to-day politics ... which ... requires ... not being concerned with truth or consistency in argument ... [which] can and often has been seen as part of a strategy for achieving political success." The reversal lies in the intent: while sophists used their rhetoric in the service of the powerful, Pomo hopes to advance the position of the various Oppressed.

Synonymous with Pomo are the contradiction, the paradox and the oxymoron, which I - in a fit of creativity have forged together in the neologism paradoxymoron [2], as it illustrates so poignantly that we find ourselves here in a realm, far removed from the banalities of the real world.

~ To be continued in Part 8, Hysterically Moving the Goal Posts: "Mass hysteria occurs when large groups of people engage in psychological dissociation; and political mass hysteria ... when all the emotional excitability and excess happen to serve a political function or ideological agenda." ~
Stephen Hicks in his book "Explaining Postmodernism" worded it as follows: "The Sophists taught rhetoric not as a means of advancing truth and knowledge but as a means of winning debates in the rough-and-tumble world of day-to-day politics ... which ... requires ... not being concerned with truth or consistency in argument ... [which] can and often has been seen as part of a strategy for achieving political success."
ReplyDeleteThat view of PoMo as modern sophistry seems partially accurate, though that might be a slightly reductive interpretation. Yes, Sophists--sort of ancient Toastmasters, were they not--- wanted to win arguments, according to tradition. Yet they did not win solely because of manipulation or use of logical fallacies (though that was probably a big part of their rhetoric): the greeks knew what valid arguments consisted of (well, at least in terms of classical logic, or elementary arithmetic--obviously any claims regarding physical science would have been a bit vague (Classics worship should not go too far).
PoMos are not primarily interested in argument, even of the sophistical, rhetorical variety (making use of ad hominems and various fallacies). I believe they are more akin to the "L'Art pour Le Arte" sort of thinking, in ways: Derrida sort of pretends at philosophy and language issues (tho' his writing is obviously overwhelming and exceedingly bizarre), but he also wants to discuss literature, aesthetics (as do his followers). Most PoMos are aesthetes, really: tho' the aesthetics follows from shaky Marxist and/or Freudian premises (not always--). And in some sense that has been the continental tradition for some time: Marx himself has a certain aesthetic sensibility (wrongheaded, I believe): "class struggle" being one example (simply lay a bourgeois label on someone, and their ideas are thereby discredited). IN a way, Nietzsche's view also is aesthetic, but sort of the opposite of Marx (however I am willing to grant the force of SOME Marxist analysis, without agreeing to his conclusions. Marx himself objected to the early communists, and it's questionable whether he would have supported the Bolsheviks....).
Bertrand Russell, whatever you think of his politics (I don't think many Randians care for him) took on the proto-PoMo's early in the 20th century (see his rather cutting remarks on Hegel in History of West. Phil for starters. He also had some words for Nietzsche), without sounding like a complete right-winger or fundamentalist.