Okay, I'll just jump right into my thoughts on this article:

While the intial title of this article is to me a tad misleading, I do agree with the message of the article. I myself have experienced the same ADD-like symptoms that Nichola Carr and others described. "Media are not just passive channels of information. They supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought. And what the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation."

And perhaps the trade-off for this internet age will be worth it. The gains in knowledge, progess, and efficiency may benefit our generation in ways that far out way any criticisms. However, I agree with Carr that it is changing us and we have to consider what these changes mean for us as individuals.

I also found Carr's discussion of Friedrich Nietzsche and how the method through which we communicate affects what we communicate. I know that I much prefer to write 1st drafts of my creative writing by hand and in cute notebooks; my mind feels far more relaxed and able to let ideas flow. (In fact, I've begun to consider writing the first draft of my academic essays by hand before typing it) Prior to reading this article, I had not been willing to take seriously the fact that how you do something can affect what you are doing, but why not?

Done! I think...

“What does it mean?”—Well, since you asked…

“The Death of Postmodernism.” A dramatic title, to say the least.

Unfortunately, as with most of my blogs, I am writing this with a slight sense of uncertainty. I’m afraid my mind has not completely absorbed all of Dr. Kirby’s article—not to mention that video (which I re-watched)—so forgive me if I only comment on aspects of both that immediately piqued my interest. I also apologize if there are a lot of typos (there will be) and I seem to jump from topic to topic.

One of the first things that struck me in both the video and the article was how much information is being not only transmitted, but created. Entirely new things, that have never been tested by prior generations, are being thrust into our lives now. For me, this provokes the concerns that I’m sure every respectable lab rat has encountered, as well as a slightly more philosophical question: As we need to absorb more and more new knowledge just to survive in this increasingly technological world, will the human brain have to “make room” for this info? And if so how? I believe Dr. Kirby might have that answer, as he talked about the “technologised cluelessness [that] is utterly contemporary…He or she can direct the course of national television programmes, but does not know how to make him or herself something to eat.” This fusion of power and helplessness kind of puts the human race out on limb. As we become increasingly dependent on technology to accomplish menial tasks, nuclear winter looks less and less desirable…

Another thing that stuck out to me, this time in just the article, was Kirby’s commentary on the “desire to return to the infantile” that he sees in pseudo-modern society. The entire final paragraph of the article, all I could think of was Brave New World. At the point in the novel when John Savage is addressing the Deltas awaiting their soma ration when he askes them if they “like being babies?…Mewling and puking.” This is a reference to a monologue in Shakespeare’s As You Like It where the character is talking about the seven stages of a man’s life; “mewling and puking” is used to describe the infants. Will/has this rapid influx of information and technology actually had the effect of suspending the human race, rather than advancing it?

The pseudo-modern turn towards primitivism is , to me, not terribly unexpected. Theoretically, postmodernism becoming such a specialized Discourse (in both content and language) that it gradually alienated the common man, widening significantly the gap between the intellectuals and the common man. (see Cat's Cradle Ch 11: Protein) As a result, when Joe Average once again gained hold of the reigns of pop culture through pseudo-modernism's penchant for interactivity, content naturally verred in the direction of the primal; the masses were undergoing artistic/intellectual denegration while postmodernists where busy talking Grand Narratives.

I think I’ll end it here. Thanks for reading, Reader!

Caution! Postmodernist at work.

Well,  here we are again, I suppose. Another blog; another attempt to make sense. Let us begin…

Cat’s Cradle, to me thus far, just screams postmodernism. The random hops from topic to topic seem in keeping with postmodernism’s lack-of-structure theorums. Additionally, the characters that have been mentioned are more than a little unconventional, and Vonnegut clipped, witty writing style serves to highlight everyone’s absurdities.

More specifically, there is the character of Dr. Felix Hoenikker; both he and John (or should I call him “Jonah”) are posterboys for postmodernism. Felix is completely indifferent to any set moral code. Why, when one scientist says to Felix following the first atomic bomb’s explosion, “Science has now known sin”, Felix glibly replies “What is sin?” (p.17) Now THERE’S a postmodernist question if I ever saw one! After all, in order for one to judge right from wrong , one must hold some truths to be self-evident; one must have some sort of moral center against which one can compare shades of gray—a metanarrative of some kind. The postmodernist notion that there is no such thing as absolute truth, that metanarratives can only be trusted to marginalize lesser narratives aligns quite nicely with Felix’s refusal to subscribe to a moral code.

Then, of course, there is Bokononism, revealed through the eyes of John (Jonah). It seems perplexing, almost impossible that a religion that admits to being false can still gain followers. This deeply reflects, in my mind, the postmodernist ability to hold two contradictor thoughts at the same time, rather like double think. (ie: There are no more metanarratives. P.S. This is a metanarrative. –-Love, Jean-François Lyotard)  Bokononist know that their religion is made of lies, yet they live by it’s rule’s and feel secure in the sense of purpose it gives their lives. I believe Vonnegut is making commentary on both religion and the human race through this religion. First, he is saying that all religions are equally false and founded on lies—anything, I suspect he is saying, that claims there is sense in this madness we call life must be founded on lies. But on the other, I believe he is also saying that human beings need a sense of purpose in this world to keep from going crazy. Bokononism admits to being false, bypassing the fanaticism that would spring from a religion that its follower’s believed to be true, while giving its believers the illusion of something solid to rest their feet on. Add the concepts of “karasses” and “sinookas” (p.6), and you’ve got Postmodernist religion at its best, I presume.