Ummh

Omnirizon · #18 April 5th, 2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

moderation said:

Quote:

Omnirizon said:

Quote:

moderation said:

Quote:

Omnirizon said:
another way of looking at it would be along the lines of what edratum suggested. it is pure marketing forced by capitalist endeavor. I don't want to open that can of worms. But while some Pmod critics claim that modernism is more of a 'counterfeit culture' than an actual 'counter culture' (similar to Sombre's position), others claim that fault lies not with modernism or Pmodernism, but with capitalism. Capitalism creates the necessity for the boundlessness reflected in modernism.

Oh by the way, can someone translate this into English?

Just for the sake of exploring postmodernist theory, which I'm somewhat interested in, does Dominions 3 challenge the accepted order / master narrative in any meaningful way however it is advertised? I mean it's a fun indie game, but like you're conquering the world in Dom 3 just like every other 4X. I would love to see fighting for global domination in Dom 3 as cool and subversive, but I can't see how that could be.

I think I used modernism/postmodernism somewhat confusingly, but that is because I was presenting two different viewpoints in one. I will break it down:

1. modernism is the result of modernity. Modernity is the result of the enlightenment (order and reason, that there is a thing such as reason, everything is knowable, everything is orderable; perfection is both possible and desirable).

1a. modernism is both a reaction against the enlightenment ideals of modernity, but rooted in them. It was a rage against order, but a celebration of individuality, freedom, and mass culture. These things are all the result of "universal man". Modernity, the enlightenment, created "universal man" in opposition to "situated man". Situated man is the non-universal, entrenched in tradition and the past; things the enlightenment believes corrupt true Reason. So modernity creates "universal man", a man of pure reason and universality. But now universal man is above the order that created him, he is universal, he has no reason to be beholden to whatever created him. He reacts against order using its own ideals of universality and freedom. Thus: Modernism.

2. Postmodernism is the result of postmodernity. Postmodernity is the result of modernism. It is the crass, limitless, fragmented, mass culture that modernism created, and that we are all comfortable with today.

2a. Some authors blame 'modernism' for the boundlessness of contemporary culture. They say capitalism worked just fine, it was the raucous modernism activity, the beatniks, the hippies, the radical movements, the permissiveness, that caused modernity to decay into postmodernity. These authors say modernism is dead, and it is time to return to the ordered ideals of the enlightenment. The enlightenment didn't fail, modernism did.

2b. Some authors blame 'capitalism' for the boundlessness of contemporary culture. They say modernism was a solution to mass growth of urban life and culture. But that capitalism, not modernism, created and encouraged the permissiveness and boundlessness of contemporary culture. Capitalism had an unquenchable need to accumulate, accumulate. Make more and more. Sell more and more. Everyone buy buy buy. This lead to capitalism creating permissiveness in culture; which leads us in postmodernism.

Because of these two different perspectives, you will see 'modernism' used to refer to both the belief in order, and the reaction against it. 'Postmodernism', whenever it is used, is a reference, sometimes celebration, of the fragmentation of life, of self, of the society we have today.

Whenever someone uses the term 'Postmodernism', they will always then refer to 'Modernism' as the belief in order and reason. They see modernism and postmodernism as a coherent dialect, the first caused the other. These are people who argue that capitalism, not modernism, caused postmodernity. Capitalism is the root of fragmentation.

Those who believe modernism is to blame for postmodernity, do not often use the term 'postmodernism'. For them, modernism turned into postmodernism, there really is no difference between them. Modernism was the fragmentation all along.

Hmm... it took me a while to read this. I guess I need to read a few more books later instead of playing Dom 3.

I wonder then if it's possible to relate this back to Dominions 3. To me the game seems like one more shiny toy amid all the other shiny toys provided to us by our culture.

I'd suggest "Postmodernism is not what you think", by Charles Lemert. My definition of Pomo is actually very crypto-Marxist, which many Pomo thinkers regard with suspicion. The crypto-Marxist ignores all cultural creativity of race, gender, even age. Everything is reduced to class.

Lemert's title is a play on words getting at the root of postmodernism, that every definition, every abstraction, every truth and reality, is only a gloss. Everything is something other than what you can think about it. So my own definition of Pomo is a gloss of what it really is; it is an abstraction that cannot capture Pomo. By trying to capture it, the definition even becomes the opposite of what Pomo theory is all about. Pomo is something you can't think about. There is no way to grasp reality, it is too fractured. There can never be an overarching grand theory or definition. Everything, every person, every situation, must be engaged on its own terms, and cannot really be related to anything else.