Is this a deconstruction of post-modernism?
I know it was just part of a whole website about feng shui, but the person writing here, uses lots of quotes and whatnot… making more of a philosophical thesis… and I thought it was a great way to write!
Please check it out n say.
This is interesting, but (despite the fact Laing is quoted,) this does not seem to be (at least substantially) postmodern or even about postmodernism…
But first, this argument isn’t deconstructive–if anything, it’s attempting to construct an alternate, legitimate basis for reasoning about other cultures’ beliefs.
So it’s not a deconstruction, since the perspective espoused here (“It is all a matter of difference in philosophy and scientific processes, not between civilization and superstition.”) is such that its premise presupposes what they are (allegedly) trying to prove, that is: that the repression of alternate belief systems without evidence is faulty, a priori.
Basically, it’s only asking us to examine the way the dominant ideology enforces certain kinds of belief based on certain kinds of legitimate truth-procedures; the argument is made that this sort of ideological indoctrination functions on the basis of repressing “primitive” non-science, i.e, the perspective of other cultures.
It’s not a bad point, it’s just not particularly deconstructive if we don’t consider the political import of the social and psychic oppression here implied.
The postmodern issue would likely be to make these political connections explicit between systems of knowledges and apparatuses of social control; but then, of course, the quandary of postmodernity: how do we found a basis for this new critical discourse, if not from the very sort of scientific (axiomatic) thought that we are now bent on deconstructing?
Thanks 4 reeding thatt, Joe.
U say smart stuf & I ususually like it.
thumbs up
