Pick Up Postmodern Condition CB (Theory And History Of Literature) Authored By Jean-François Lyotard Listed As Script

من الاقتباسات :

السؤال الاستثيقي الحديث ليس : ما هو الجميل بل : ما الفن و الأدب

من السهل أن نجد جمهورا للأعمال التوليفة. فحينما يقوم الفن بالكيتش فإنه يغازل الفوضى التي تسود "ذوق" الهاوي.

في غياب المعايير الاستثيقية يبقى من الممكن والمفيد قياس قيمة الأعمال بالفائدة التي تجنيها.

البحث الفني والأدبي مهدد مرتين من طرف الثقافة السياسية من ناحية ومن طرف سوق الفن والكتاب من ناحية أخرى.

إن الإحساس السامي الذي هو إحساس بالسامي أيضا بالنسبة إلى كانط هو انفعال قوي وملتبس: يحمل في الوقت ذاته لذة وألما. أو بصيغة أفضل: هو اللذة التي تنبثق من الألم.

إن العقلانية لا تكون معقولة إلا حينما تقبل أن العقل متعدد مثلما يقول أرسطو عن الوجود أنه يذكر بعدة أشكال.

إن العمل الأدبي والفني يقبل وفي الوقت نفسه يلزم بأن يستمع له بجميع الأشكال الممكنة. إن العمل لا يعاني من فرض " منهج " للقراءة يحدد له معنى محدد ويسمح بتصنيفه لمرة واحدة دائمة. إن العمل على العكس ينتظر ما يسميه Harold Bloom بالقراءة السيئة قراءة معارضة للتقاليد الموجودة. This work, by Jean Francois Lyotard, is one of the signature works of postmodern theory, Say what you will of this perspective, this book is necessary reading in understanding the subject, This is not an easy work however, those who persevere will be rewarded with interesting insights, whether or not one agree with postmodern thinking.


Lyotard defines Postmodern thought in contrast to modernism, Modernism, he claims, is " any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse of this kind i, e. , philosophy: making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth.
" Postmodernism, in turn, is " incredulity toward metanarratives. "

Science and technology, especially information sciences based on computers, are increasingly an important commodity and the focus of worldwide competition, Knowledge and political power have become linked, Thus: " W:ho decides what knowledge is, and who knows what needs to be decided In the computer age, the question of knowledge is now more than ever a question of government.
"

A central issue then becomes who has access to the information, since access will produce power, Lyotard sees it as inevitable that bureaucrats and technocrats will be the ones to master this basic resource of power, information, This will strengthen their hand in political circles, Research is expensive, and the pursuer of truth must purchase equipment to make the scientific process work, Thus, wealth begins to set the agenda for the scientist scientists will go where the bucks are! The criterion for research becomes less the quest for truth and more "performativity," what is the immediate or intermediate payoff, performance value, of the scientific process and of technology.
Power helps to shape what research gets funded,

Lyotard argues that the Postmodern moment should emphasize "paralogy," or dissensus, He argues: " it is now dissension that must be emphasized, Consensus is a horizon that is never reached, Research that takes place under the aegis of a paradigm tends to stabilize it is like the exploitation of a technology, economic, or artistic 'idea.
'"

Postmodern science, in his view, encompasses: "The function of differential or imaginative or paralogical activity of the current pragmatics of science is to point out these.
. . 'presuppositions and to petition the players to accept different ones, The only legitimation that can make this kind of request admissible is that it will generate ideas, in other words, new statements, " Thus, new statements, new presuppositions maintain science as an open system of discourse, characterized by paralogy dissensus as individuals strive to generate new knowledge, not imprisoned by existing consensus on what one should study and how one should study it.


This book is difficult reading, but to understand postmodernism, this is one of the works that demands that readers confront its arguments, whether in agreement or not.

Things were a lot more optimistic in thes Donald Trump, the vilest president ever, instinctively knows of what this author was laying out in.
Trump successfully does everything in his power to sow doubts in goodfaith reality based news sources by declaring they are fake news and confusing us with alternative facts.
Hitler called it Jew Press, and would say if you could only read the Protocols of Elder than you would understand Trump will say climate change is a Chinese hoax, vaccines cause autism, or both sides have good points when Nazis drive cars into peaceful protestors.


The trick is to realize that belief comes from opinions and feeling and there is no controlling overriding authority except for the ones we choose to believe in our justified true beliefs knowledge are best formed by using our logic, empirical data about the world, analytical constructs and narratives tying them together, and they are least persuasive when appealing to authority alone.
This book shows how inthe world was realizing itself as postmodern and that it was what it was, The reliance on authority, tradition, cultural norms and imaginary friends in the sky are no longer our guiding lights and our reliance on ourselves as ourselves for meaning was becoming the new standard.
Hitler understood it in, Trump understands it today and this book explains the phenomenon as it was unveiling itself in,

Post Modernism literally means after modernism, It is not an affirmation in itself, It is only a negation of something that was and indicates nothing about what it is, This author adds a little structure to that which has no structure by making postmodernism being narratives absent of metanarratives, That is there is no narrative for the narrative itself, The world you are thrown into has no meaning beyond the meaning that you make of it through yourself and by your own devices from beingintheworld while being partoftheworld.
The ultimate word game of word games is that it is up to you to figure this out for yourself, The author will point out that any change to the rules of the game changes the game into another game,

If you want perfect knowledge with perfect rules, play the game of chess or baseball, In those games, there is an arbitrator for disputes within the definition of the written rules real life is not a game, The umpires in baseball or the stewards in chess are as the Supreme Court, they are right because they are last not right because they are last.


The real world has no controlling ultimate authority and justice is a word we use when we force our will onto others.
Socrates must

have known what he did when he asked what is justice as he was standing in line and bothering someone who just wanted revenge against his father.
The fact that somebody asks the question doesnt mean that the item under consideration exists, Asking the question presumes justice exists in the world, but that doesnt mean that justice is real or it will ever be realized,

The author does purposely conflate justice, truth and knowledge in order to show the paradox that we are in, Hell say something along the lines that as soon as we describe the world with a narrative we lose knowledge, He knows that we create the narrative while we leave Platos cave and that men yearn for narratives and fail to recognize knowledge, Knowledge is thus founded on the narrative of its own martyrdom,

Stephen Pinker in his most recent book put the postmodernist into theth circle of hell because they are deceivers according to him, a deeper level of hell than even the pedophiles.
He does that because he is an exemplar of someone who will do anything to defend his privileging of the privilege who reside within his class without an identity and believes that his brand of the truth is the only reasonable brand of the truth even if that means hell have to say you cant really be poor if you have a cell phone and he believes that his narrative is the universal, necessary and certain narrative.
Jordan Peterson crazily calls Marxist postmodernist not realizing that Marxist believe that history gives scientific truths through historicity a very not postmodernist thing to do.
Both Pinker and Jordan and Trump believe that their narrative is not a myth but worthy of being the part of the true overriding controlling authority narrative worthy of universality, and they are not aware that they would not be able to spout their myth if not for the postmodernist laying an ontological foundation allowing diversity of beliefs.


Postmodernist know that what people believe is a function of the narrative they have and that there is no metanarrative that makes our beliefs universal, necessary and certain.
There are multiple values in science that can conflict I call it the SPAWN system I made it up, Simple Occams razor, Predictive ability, Accuracy standard model good todecimal places, fits into the Web of knowledge in the way William Van Orman Quine would mean, and with a Narrative that is used to explain, understand and account for the world to the best of our ability until we inevitably explain the world differently with a new narrative.
Always, science will balance those multiple values and gravitate towards the narrative that seems to work best while never writing the narrative in stone realizing that our truths inmight not be the same in the yearas our truths in the yearmight be different.


This book is devilishly clever and is relevant to today, To fully embrace this book one needs to understand the author is telling you how the world is not how it ought to be.
Everyone wants to live in a just world and wants to believe the truth is out there and there is meaning beyond us but that doesnt make it so nor does it make it not so.
The world just is, and we will have morons like Adolph Hitler or Donald Trump take advantage of us because they know the truth for their foolish followers is what they tell them it is because their dimwitted followers want to believe it to be so.
Even though we live in a postmodern world, we still have to think for ourselves and determine what is true, what is moral and what is deserving of our attention.
.