[1/98] What is ‘after modern’? ‘Post-modern’ implies some meaning for and involvement with ‘modern’. At issue is paradigm decay. All paradigms – being human constructs -- must be subject to questions and criticism in order to avoid idolatry. The erosion of a paradigm does not in and of itself undermine the paradigm until a certain threshold of decay is recognized. ‘Post-modern’ points to deficiencies in the understandings of ‘modern’, but does not yet provide direction re what is beyond ‘modern’.
[Note: As several journal entries re ‘post-modern’ indicate, I struggle with the term – both ‘post’ and ‘modern’. ‘Post’ strikes me as too detached, too categorical, too dismissive. Otherwise, how could ‘pre-modern’ fundamentalists be emboldened by ‘post-modern’ postures against ‘modern’? Otherwise, how could political operatives such as those who have been driving the Bush administration be so unrestrained by facts and true debate, choosing instead to ‘create reality’? And is not every dominant paradigm ‘modern’ in its time/place? Perhaps ‘Imperial/Colonial’ or ‘Scientific’ or ‘Cartesian’ or ‘Capitalist’ or ‘Holocaust’ or . . . would be more to the point re the ‘modern’ in ‘post-modern’. Some innovations in method and interpretation since the eleventh century in Western Europe continue to be revised and used; others have been tested and discarded. And since the end of World War II, a monopoly on political voice/power has steadily slipped away from the presumptive Western nations. I would argue that the future of humankind depends on an unconditional commitment to critical reasoning. Would ‘post-modern’ proponents agree?]
[Note: As several journal entries re ‘post-modern’ indicate, I struggle with the term – both ‘post’ and ‘modern’. ‘Post’ strikes me as too detached, too categorical, too dismissive. Otherwise, how could ‘pre-modern’ fundamentalists be emboldened by ‘post-modern’ postures against ‘modern’? Otherwise, how could political operatives such as those who have been driving the Bush administration be so unrestrained by facts and true debate, choosing instead to ‘create reality’? And is not every dominant paradigm ‘modern’ in its time/place? Perhaps ‘Imperial/Colonial’ or ‘Scientific’ or ‘Cartesian’ or ‘Capitalist’ or ‘Holocaust’ or . . . would be more to the point re the ‘modern’ in ‘post-modern’. Some innovations in method and interpretation since the eleventh century in Western Europe continue to be revised and used; others have been tested and discarded. And since the end of World War II, a monopoly on political voice/power has steadily slipped away from the presumptive Western nations. I would argue that the future of humankind depends on an unconditional commitment to critical reasoning. Would ‘post-modern’ proponents agree?]
