Joseph Campbell and Postmodernism

Joseph Campbell believed that "...each of us has an individual myth that's driving us, which we may or may not know." This forum is for assistance and inspiration in the quest to find your own personal mythology.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato » Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:17 am

Is pomo nothing more than dressed up monism ... thoughts anyone?
Our viewpoints of monism differ significantly Romansh. So in my opinion, monism doesn't appear to play into this discussion. Pomo appears to be a mindset of structured beliefs absent of any mindfulness of oneness of life.

Yes, I'm a tree hugging dirt worshiper. And proud of it. :D
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:47 am

Neoplato wrote:
Is pomo nothing more than dressed up monism ... thoughts anyone?
Our viewpoints of monism differ significantly Romansh. So in my opinion, monism doesn't appear to play into this discussion. Pomo appears to be a mindset of structured beliefs absent of any mindfulness of oneness of life.

Yes, I'm a tree hugging dirt worshiper. And proud of it. :D
Neo
Our views on the validity of monism definitely differ. :) But do our views on the substance of monism differ?

Well monism is more the oneness of the universe.
So I too worship trees and dirt, but I would also include the chainsaw and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Curra ... line_3.JPG
Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. » Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:54 am

noman wrote:But dth-dth-dth-dth WHY!!! [waving my hands frantically in opposite directions in front of me palms facing up] – from a pomo perspective - would there be any interest or need or concern in alleviating human suffering and conflict?
noman,

It's been said time and again in this thread, and here goes again--"postmodernism" is not black-and-white. Not all "postmodernists" worship at the feet of Lyotard, Derrida, Foucalt, Baudrillard, or the others who early on offered the most radical perspectives and on whom you rely to form your arguments. And along this line I would encourage you to check out critical postmodernism and post-postmodernism.

Nope, I'm not trying to convince you of anything or offering a personal point of view, but I am encouraging you to look outside the box for the rest of the story. :wink:

Cindy
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
Cindy B.
Working Associate
Posts: 4719
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:49 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Cindy B. » Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:03 am

romansh wrote:Is pomo nothing more than dressed up monism ... thoughts anyone?
Short answer--no. It's hard to pigeonhole given the usual connotations of "monism, dualism, pluralism" as bandied about JCF, but pluralism is the nearest fit and in the literal sense of "the condition of being multiple or plural."


Neoplato wrote:...Is this example typical of the pomo attitude?
There is no "typical pomo attitude," Neoplato, what I and a few others have tried to get across in this discussion, and with all due respect for noman and his point of view, his is a single point of view and characterization. Your best bet to learn about "postmodernism" and its many influences--self-study and decide for yourself. :wink:


Cindy
Last edited by Cindy B. on Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
If the path before you is clear, you’re probably on someone else’s. --Jung
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:23 am

And back to the regularly scheduled programming; before a mod accuses us of having a chat
...

Heh, heh. A new idea? A new tool? A disingenuous one? Sounds like red meat for a new thread to me.

Coming soon, in a thread near you....
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:53 am

Cindy B. wrote:
romansh wrote:Is pomo nothing more than dressed up monism ... thoughts anyone?
Short answer--no. It's hard to pigeonhole given the usual connotations of "monism, dualism, pluralism" as bandied about JCF, but pluralism is the nearest fit and in the literal sense of "the condition of being multiple or plural.
Thanks Cindy
@tout le monde
OK do we have a consensus here (in the peanut gallery) that pomo resembles pluralism the most, at least as used @jcf.org?
clemsy wrote:Heh, heh. A new idea? A new tool? A disingenuous one? Sounds like red meat for a new thread to me.

Coming soon, in a thread near you....
A request ... if you do open up a thread on ignosticism make it broad enough to include agnosticism ... my bliss so to speak.

thanks ... rom
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Sat Jan 02, 2010 5:00 am

romansh wrote: No .. really I'm a beginner when it comes to this philosophy lark and you obviously are more familiar with what appears (to me) a very nebulous philosophy. Having said that pomo would appear to be old ideas dressed up in new rags. Updating the metaphor so to speak
Yes sir: I tend to think of Postmodernism as old sophistry in new rags.
Evinnra wrote:
Must admit, the difference between the notions of prejudice and judgement is clear only to those who wish to make the difference clear. For instance, I can say I am clearly prejudiced when it comes to evaluating my family members. Though I try to judge them according to their actual and objectively discernible merits I am often literally blind to see their faults/achievements. Never the less, sooner or later I will stumble upon an objective judgement regarding their real merits, simply because I am not alone in this Universe. :lol:


If you are literally blind to faults/achievements of your nearest and dearest, you are by definition (I would say) NOT prejudiced. Full stop. How could you have passed judgement on the "faults if you have not seen them? Of course I personally am in a bit of a bind here, in that I'm prejudiced against the concept of prejudice.
Well, my thinking was that being prejudiced means being predisposed to make a particular judgement - good or bad. Judgement is an act. Prejudiced is the person who IS judging. If I am blind to the faults of my loved ones, I am being in a predisposed state to make judgement about them. This predisposed state is based on previous informations and judgements BUT information is keep coming. my way When I hear reports from others about the way my loved ones act I switch into a mode of active judginng that must incorporate the new information. My predisposition and my blindness induced by my prejudice can therefore change. In all this, my judgement was active at all times, though it was hampered for a while due to my prejudiced state .Time will always tell.

Evinnra wrote: We live in times when we can no longer afford to dismiss the metanarrative as something 'relative'. So much corruption in governments, so much pain in the third world, so many ugly buildings, paintings, sculptures, music bombarding our sense of aesthetics, SO MUCH POLLUTION destroying our Environment, the list goes on and on .... :cry:
Exactly who is (are?) the "we". What exactly is a metanarrative ... funnily enough it's not in my Concise either. :) Should we (I) not evaluate differences between the possibly historically and the almost certainly mythical, and find a metaphor that suits us (me) best?
Interesting question. Are you under the impression that people can't make a judgement about what they see/hear/feel/smell/understand? Do you actually think that sentient beings can go without having an opinion or at the very least a preference? My cat does not speak human languages but I am quite well aware of his opinion on a particular brand of cat-food. :wink:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:04 am

Cindy B. wrote:
Clemsy wrote:But this ignosticism business seems to plug a conceptual hole in the God schema. It follows from the idea of the Divine as being, as Campbell liked to say, beyond all categories of thought.
My understanding of ignosticism is that unless one can define the concept of "god" in such a way that the proposed existence of God can literally be proved or disproved, well, there's simply nothing to talk about--the concept is meaningless--and no position on anything can be taken so, in a sense, why bother. In contrast, theists, atheists, and agnostics agree that the concept of "god" is meaningful given that they find plenty to talk about despite their differences and an inability to define the term in a way that all can agree on. I would suggest that Campbell does not fall into the ignosticism camp since he clearly found the concept of "god" to be meaningful and had plenty to say about it.

Personally I find the ignostic postion to be disingenuous and no more than linguistic hair-splitting.

Cindy
Couldn't agree more! I get the impression that pomo thinkers are like the navel gazing hippy who's vision gets blurred and only comes to realisation of the meta-narrative when a mosquito bites him/her. :lol:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:19 am

I get the impression that pomo thinkers are like the navel gazing hippy who's vision gets blurred and only comes to realisation of the meta-narrative when a mosquito bites him/her.
You know Evinnra, I really hope that comment isn't directed toward anyone in particular. I really do hope so.
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:35 am

noman wrote:
There’s an existentialist story about a guy who saw a ‘FOR SALE’ sign planted in the lawn in front of a house and knocked on the door to inquire. The owner answered the door and then asked him why he thought the sign referred to the sale of a home - or anything else. Modernists always think there is some meaning behind the text. Pomo’s say there is only the text and one's interpretation of it.
This is prescious, NoMan! :lol: 8)
Not only do I believe in a universal humanity, but also in meta-narratives. It’s one of these asinine pomo terms, Romansh, used to obscure and sound exclusively intellectual. It means worldview or ‘meta-theory’ – the grand scheme of human life. Most religions teach that human beings are players in a grand drama. But it doesn’t have to be religious in that sense. It can be the Enlightenment Project that believes in progress through reason and the scientific method, and that we should continue our efforts to alleviate suffering and conflict. Pomos say these ‘meta-theories’ are no longer acceptable.
Come to think of it, why do we teach history to our young if there is no valid meta-narrative? Teaching myths and legeds would be far more effective in sharpening their minds rather than telling tales of battles past from the winning side's perspective. :idea: Ahh, I forget, we CAN expect our young to make sense of what we say, who would have thought! :wink:
The rhetoric of postmodernism is dangerous for it avoids confronting the realities of political economy and the circumstances of global power. The silliness of Lyotard’s ‘radical proposal’ that opening up the data banks to everyone as a prologue to radical reform (as if we would all have equal power to use that opportunity) is instructive, because it indicates how even the most resolute of postmodernists is faced in the end with either making some universalizing gesture (like Lyotard’s appeal to some pristine concept of justice) or lapsing, like Derrida, into total political silence. Meta-theory cannot be dispensed with. The postmodernists simply push it underground where it continues to function as a ‘now unconscious effectivity’

The Condition of Postmodernity, David Harvey, 1989
Exactly! Thank you NoMan for finding this quote . It seem the meta-narrative of our time is that so many of us fell for postmodernism but lived to tell the tale about it. :D
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:50 am

Clemsy wrote:
I get the impression that pomo thinkers are like the navel gazing hippy who's vision gets blurred and only comes to realisation of the meta-narrative when a mosquito bites him/her.
You know Evinnra, I really hope that comment isn't directed toward anyone in particular. I really do hope so.
:roll: Oh dear, not again. :oops:

Clemsy, this comment was not directed at anyone in particular, it was to make a gesture of appreciation - by reference - to old Buddhist and Hindu teaching. The Buddhists and Yogis hold that if one gets troubled by insects during meditation, one is not in the right state of mind to meditate. My point was that we usually do not stay in one and only one state of mind, hence experience will kick in. Postmodernists seem to think that they can remain in their self-induced ambivalence towards common sense values forever, but the world actually goes on its merry way. :wink:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:04 am

Evinnra wrote:
Cindy B. wrote:
Clemsy wrote:But this ignosticism business seems to plug a conceptual hole in the God schema. It follows from the idea of the Divine as being, as Campbell liked to say, beyond all categories of thought.
My understanding of ignosticism is that unless one can define the concept of "god" in such a way that the proposed existence of God can literally be proved or disproved, well, there's simply nothing to talk about--the concept is meaningless--and no position on anything can be taken so, in a sense, why bother. In contrast, theists, atheists, and agnostics agree that the concept of "god" is meaningful given that they find plenty to talk about despite their differences and an inability to define the term in a way that all can agree on. I would suggest that Campbell does not fall into the ignosticism camp since he clearly found the concept of "god" to be meaningful and had plenty to say about it.

Personally I find the ignostic postion to be disingenuous and no more than linguistic hair-splitting.

Cindy
Couldn't agree more! I get the impression that pomo thinkers are like the navel gazing hippy who's vision gets blurred and only comes to realisation of the meta-narrative when a mosquito bites him/her. :lol:
This pomo thread is becoming positively weird!
What has ignosticism have to do with post modernism?
Was Rabbi Sherwin Wine a post modernist?
Please, someone help me here?
User avatar
romansh
Associate
Posts: 2277
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:25 am
Location: In the woods, BC, near US border
Contact:

Post by romansh » Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:26 am

Evinnra wrote: Interesting question. Are you under the impression that people can't make a judgement about what they see/hear/feel/smell/understand? Do you actually think that sentient beings can go without having an opinion or at the very least a preference? My cat does not speak human languages but I am quite well aware of his opinion on a particular brand of cat-food. :wink:
Hi Evinnra
Sure I make judgements all the time. There many brands of cat food I won't eat out of choice as well. But I'm aware (well some of the time) that the choices/judgements I make come from my environment, of which I am just a reflection. (Indra's net again).

There is nothing at fault with that cat food.
Just don't make me eat it.

But the "we" I was asking about is, who is the we the dualistic world view that thinks a particular kind of meta narrative is necessary.
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:27 am

romansh wrote:
Evinnra wrote:
Cindy B. wrote:
Clemsy wrote:But this ignosticism business seems to plug a conceptual hole in the God schema. It follows from the idea of the Divine as being, as Campbell liked to say, beyond all categories of thought.
My understanding of ignosticism is that unless one can define the concept of "god" in such a way that the proposed existence of God can literally be proved or disproved, well, there's simply nothing to talk about--the concept is meaningless--and no position on anything can be taken so, in a sense, why bother. In contrast, theists, atheists, and agnostics agree that the concept of "god" is meaningful given that they find plenty to talk about despite their differences and an inability to define the term in a way that all can agree on. I would suggest that Campbell does not fall into the ignosticism camp since he clearly found the concept of "god" to be meaningful and had plenty to say about it.

Personally I find the ignostic postion to be disingenuous and no more than linguistic hair-splitting.

Cindy
Couldn't agree more! I get the impression that pomo thinkers are like the navel gazing hippy who's vision gets blurred and only comes to realisation of the meta-narrative when a mosquito bites him/her. :lol:
This pomo thread is becoming positively weird!
What has ignosticism have to do with post modernism?
Was Rabbi Sherwin Wine a post modernist?
Please, someone help me here?
You introduced the new word ' ignosticism', Romansh, was it a red herring? Or did we make it into a red herring? :?
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:34 am

romansh wrote:
Evinnra wrote: Interesting question. Are you under the impression that people can't make a judgement about what they see/hear/feel/smell/understand? Do you actually think that sentient beings can go without having an opinion or at the very least a preference? My cat does not speak human languages but I am quite well aware of his opinion on a particular brand of cat-food. :wink:
Hi Evinnra
Sure I make judgements all the time. There many brands of cat food I won't eat out of choice as well. But I'm aware (well some of the time) that the choices/judgements I make come from my environment, of which I am just a reflection. (Indra's net again).

There is nothing at fault with that cat food.
Just don't make me eat it.

But the "we" I was asking about is, who is the we the dualistic world view that thinks a particular kind of meta narrative is necessary.

:lol: :lol: :lol: God bless you Romansh, I needed that! :lol: 8)

Now I'm speechless. :roll:
Last edited by Evinnra on Sat Jan 02, 2010 11:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
Locked