Thursday, August 24, 2006

Post Post Modern

It's offical I'm Post Post Modern.

- Peace


kris said...

At some point someone needs to think of a new name rather than just adding "posts" :-)

Nevertheless, congratulations. Do you still mingle with moderns?

Calvin said...


PS: I'm post-soul.

Kevin said...

Let w be the first infinite ordinal.

Assuming time has countably infinite subdivisions, I think I can make a case that I am at least post^w-modern. If uncountable, post^(2^w)-modern. Etc.

(Although actually I would like to point out that I have always thought that Popular PostModernism's narrative, especially its description of "Modernism", is yet another bogus attempt to condemn previous generations while carving out a supposedly new philospohy where these mistakes will be corrected. Hence in certain circles, "modern" is simply a synonym for "bad", while "postmodern" means "good". In reality it's all part of the coming-of-age experience where youth learn to dissociate their values from those of their parents. A difficult time to be sure, which is why there is a need to universalize and mythologize these concepts; it's much easier to justify value changes when it seems that everyone else is doing it too - or at least those in your chosen peer group. The cycle continues, and you can be sure that the most ardent supporters of "postmodernism" today will ardently fight whatever buzzwords the next generation comes up with to describe their maturation processes. Any description of this situation is inescapably ironic, which is why I prefer the maths and sciences where at least I can be sure my statements are true rather than merely serving my current emotional needs.)

Michael said...

I believe the difference is that beginning with post-modernism successive culture shifts have refused to label themselves possibly in an attempt to avoid having their worldview dethroned by intentionally refusing to define it. (You can't categorically say you are NOT X if X represents a set that has undefined boundaries)

Dave King said...

Kris, yes though only after lecturing them about it.

Calvin in many ways you've got more soul than anyone I know.

Kevin: Modern Bad, Post Good. That sums up my review of a new kind of Christian. I do think the death of Christiandom is a change that is more than just one generation reacting to the previous one, though the generation thing gets mixed in too. I do think some people are too quick to draw sharp lines around things that take place in many dimension over hundred of years. We do live at a unique time in history just as everyone has always lived in a unique time.

Michale if we draw neat lines the moderns will have won :)

Richard said...

Kevin, my knowledge of ordinals and uncountability is quite rusty but...

I can't escape the nagging feeling that although you could do union and cartesian product to represent addition and multiplication for ordinals AND cardinals, the power set operation could only be applied to cardinals. And so how does one define 2^w?

Or are you simply referring to the natural order of the "real" contiuum (2^aleph-nought) when you speak of 2^w?

As for countably infinite subdivisions in time, I'm starting to think that time is finitely quantized by the Planck-time and that a finite past implies the existence of a Creator.

Umm... how can you be "sure that the statements are true" in maths or sciences? Science suffers from the problem of induction outlined by Bertrand Russell (and in fact prides itself on the falsifiability of everything and the verifiability of nothing).

Maths suffers from the Godel Incompleteness Theorem and the Tarski Representation Theorem. I knew I used to lie awake at night wondering if the Peano Axioms were inconsistent.

Though the most ironic thing about the first infinite ordinal is that mathematicians call it omega and it has no predecessor. But isn't the Son, who calls himself the omega, the heir (successor) of the Father?

Richard said...

Kevin, I think we are both wrong

Exponentiation is well defined for ordinals (making me wrong) except that 2^w = w and hence countable (making you wrong too).

In any case, I think I would like to get to know you better.