Subject:
|
Re: Is this an overreaction and a violation of rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 20:57:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
820 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > It may be a good start to discuss what people think the differences between
> >
> > Introvert and Extrovert
> > Intuitive and Sensing
> > Feeling and Thinking
> > Perceiving and Judging
> >
> > Though, looking at it now, it probably isn't because even these global ideas
> > are subjective, why these 8 and not others?
> >
> > Though if I were to analyse me, INFP does fit.
>
> Deeper and deeper...
>
> In an English course a few years ago we discussed that bane of rational
> thought: Postmodernism. In a clever ploy to make PM seem like the thing to
> be, the author of one of our texts assembled list that I will paraphrase:
>
> CATEGORY A CATEGORY B
> Dynamic Static
> Flexible Rigid
> Becoming Being
> Proactive Reactive
> Anticipatory Responsive
> Expansive Limited
>
> and on and on. Then the reader is urged to reflect on how these traits
> apply, respectively, to Postmodernism and to non-Postmodernism (ie,
> everything else). Well no kidding! Who wouldn't want to support a thought
> process charaterized by List A? The deck is so unashamedly stacked to make
> PM seem cool and holistic and vital, since only a pedantic idiot would seem
> willing to label himself as limitd, rigid, and static!
<snip>
> Dave!
Now here's a debate I'm so moveable on is not really funny--my girlfriend,
taking the courses at the Institute of Christian Studies, expounds the
ideals that come with PM--that there is literally no one "right way" of
doing things, that everything we do is based on our little worldview and
that there is no right or wrong answer.
She goes on to say that the Modernity view, based on the imperial, colonial
foundation, is wrong because look at how evil colonialism turned out to be,
look how insiduously evil science is and how the modernists believe in the
god of science...
So we get into a debate...
Now I'll be the first to admit that a colonial POV has lead to certain
atrocities, and that yes, maybe we should have the Peters Projection map
hanging up in the classrooms around the world instead of the
whatever--Mercatur map... because maybe we do inherently equate bigger with
better, even though the bigger is just drawn bigger and Greenland isn't
close to being bigger than South America.
I don't know what to think. Post modernists are vieing for center
stage--they say their time has come and that modernity is an archaic and
inherently wrong way of looking at things. Whatever, I don't know.
I'm reading 'Truth isn't what it used to be...', and it's all about the hows
and whys of post modernity and how it's the phoenix of the modern world.
I'll let you know when I'm done.
But here's something I read a few years back--in Star Trek:The Original
Series (TOS) (from 1966-1969) it was logic and science (in the form of
Spock, and the doctors and the engineers) which solved the issues at hand,
whereas in Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) (1987-what, 94?) logic and
science (in the form of Data) was regulated to the same plateau as other
things, such as emotions (Deanna Troi--the empath) and human intuition and
guile (Riker), and even 'non-human' ideals (Worf, et al.). They were all on
the same playing field with logic and science to solve the dilemmas the crew
faced weekly--no worse, but definitly no better.
Just throwing it out there.
Dave K.
-who still appreciates Star Trek in all its many forms.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
62 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
