I think that pagans are artists, that is, they can move from one game to another, and in each of these games (in the optimal situation) they try to figure out new moves.  And even better, they try to invent new games.

Now that my mother has died I should have more time to compose this newsletter, but, let me tell you, there are now a number of time consuming things that press me.  I must finalize her death.  Thre are so many loose ends!  So, it will be several weeks, I suspect, before I can write this newsletter in a more routine fashion.

In the meantime, if you have a book review, or an article, that you would like me to publish, please submit it to me and if it is appropriate for the PMTH Newsletter, I will give it a place here.

I should say that your articles are likely to be read now by people who are not PMTH subscribers.  Many of our links are now in the search engines, especially excite and infoseek.

I would also appreciate you discussing on the list the nature of the newsletter.  I will try to be responsive, at least somewhat responsive, to your suggestions.  Remember that Manfred Straehle  suggested that I construct a link of references, that I have now constructed (click here to see). I will listen to your suggestions.

Also, I would be particularly interested in learning how PMTH subscribers read the newsletter.  Could you write me about that?  Do you read the new articles daily?  Or do you pick and choose which articles you read once a week?  Do you glance at it only occasionally when it is mentioned in a post?  What kind of articles do you prefer?  I want the newsletter to serve you in an optimal way.

Remember, too, if you are a frequent poster (even an occasional poster, actually) please send me a blurb about yourself if we do not have one in our archives.

On the other hand, if you are not a frequent subscriber and do not want to post your answers to my questions to the whole list, please do write me privately.  (Just click here to do so.)
 
 

Most of the readers of this newsletter know the story of my mother being diagnosed with cancer a couple of months ago and her short predicted life, and you know also that I am taking care of her.

For a long time I was able to get away from caring for her to write messages and articles.  At this point it seems much less possible.  I think it won't be long before she dies. She can't talk and movement on her right side seems extremely compromised.  But she enjoys frequent sips of water even though she completely refuses food.  And she still flashes her winning smile  I think she is content, at least mostly.

Thanks to all of you for your kind wishes.  What a wonderful community we have here!  I look forward to rejoining you in our conversation.

When Tom Strong wrote his recent review of Newman and Holzman's book, The End of Knowing, he wondered how they would deal with the power problem.  I wondered that, too.  Strong asked:
 

Holzman and Newman said:
 

So, whereas Parker is saying, it seems, that we must talk ourselves into certainty if we are to get anywhere in reforming the world,  Holzman and Newman are saying that by undermining certainty of all kinds, and participating in that mood of "not-knowing" we are, in fact, undermining existing authority --  the authority  that is the scaffold for an unchanging world that needs aggressive revolutionary efforts in order to create change.

My inclinations go with Holzman and Newman, but isn't it interesting that both sides make a kind of sense?
Yesterday's article on Newman & Holzman
 
 

So, what about Parker?  What does Parker do?  Is he more influential in a redistribution of the wealth?

Parker  is a professor at Bolton in Britain where his speciality is discourse analysis.  Discourse analysis follows after the work of Foucault and attempts to analyze historical practices to see how our language styles have introduced distinctions that make certain practices seem natural or real.  Deconstructing these language traditions  is meant to expose the power relations in society that determine a society's ideology.

At one point Parker was aligned with postmodernism, but he came to feel its not-knowing approach undermined discourse analysis.  For discourse analysis to prove itself, apparently, it must prove that its deconstructions uncover the truth, and  it has difficulty dealing with the question of whether its own deconstructions of past practices has uncovered the truth.

And, so, Parker sees that the fate of discourse analysis, is highly related to the fate of postmodernism (1992, p.79).  He says Reflexivity, in the sense of our theorizing ourselves as historically situated and biased, is particularly dangerous in that:
 

Wouldn't traditional psychology be surprised that postmodernism is protecting it in just this way?
 

It was Manfred Straehle who suggested I put together a reading list of references relevant to our study on PMTH.  I do this anyway for my own work, so, after thinking about it a little while, I decided to do what Straehle suggested.

What I am doing is putting together a sometimes annotated reference list.  I have not read everything on the list.  Sometimes my annotations are taken from my readings of secondary sources.  And it goes without saying that, for publication purposes, you should not rely on my annotations without checking the article out yourself.  However, maybe my notes will help you decide what articles to check out.

The reference list can be accessed by linking here.  Eventually, I will find some permanent place to tuck it on this PMTH NEWS page.  And the reference list will grow and grow.  If you have something to contribute to it, please do so.  I intend, to put some of my own writings on the list with appropriate annotations when I can get to it, and I encourage you to submit references to your own work to me, with appropriate annotations of course.  Also, please contribute to our community resources by submitting  annotated references for relevant works you read.  These annotated references will not be signed.  They can be done casually and briefly.
 

This is a deep philosophical problem because if a fact is what our words refer to,  then facts exist whether we talk about them or not.  But if the "fact" is the statement itself that is true, then  if there is no language, there are no facts.

This dilemma is a confusing mess and because some people define terms one way and some the other, a differend can emerge, that is, a dispute that goes round and round without end unless you can deconstruct the problem.

And, perhaps a differend is occuring in the fascinating discussion right now between our own Nick Drury and Jerry Shaffer.  Follow the links in the article you are reading and see what you think.  I'll guide you to and through the source documents and try to provide you with definitions as links to terms that you might not be familiar with.

Start with Shaffer in his recent PMTH Review of Searles. Shaffer said that Searles refers to "brute facts" and it seems that what he means by "brute facts" is what occurs beyond language.  I point to the tree and say "tree".  The brute fact for Searles, then,  is that tall wooden living pole over there with green leaves on it, not the words "That is a tree."  At least that is what I read Shaffer as telling us about Searles.

When you finish reading Shaffer's  review of Searles, look over at the dialogue between Drury and Shaffer on what Searles means.  In this exchange,  Drury wants to  get a a clearer picture of how Searles 'account of things relates to early Wittgenstein's "picture theory of langauge"
Shaffer gives us a helpful answer to Drury's question.

Now, move to the next exchange.  Here I think Drury is trying to deconstruct (or at least forestall) a potential differend between he and Shaffer, at least what he thinks is a differend.  (I suspect he is right.)  Drury seems to think that Shaffer is using the word "facts" to mean the world beyond langauge  and Drury is inclined to see facts  as the statement that conceptually organizes the world beyond language.  You look at their exchange and see if you agree that a differend  is imminent between these two, a differend  that will hinge on this difference in their  definitions of "fact."

But whether there is a differend or not will depend on their ability to negotiate a common definition between them.  For the most part people can use langauge similarly, following clues of context, but sometimes not and when they use words differently and do not notice, that is when we are likely to have differends, arguments that go round and round without end.

Don't underestimate Shaffer.  He may like to define "fact" as what exists beyond language, but he sometimes recognizes that we can define words as we will.  This is Shaffer's postmodern side.  He is willing to define terms locally and provisionally at times.    Sometimes, however, he has a sense of a correct definition of things and he is tempted to insist on them.  This, I would say,  is his modern side.

We must await for Shaffer to see how he answers Drury, or what Drury will do if Shaffer insists on Searles definition of "fact" as the correct one.

Or, if you like,  you could enter the scene and tell us what you think.  Want to ponder related issues before you join in?  Both Drury and Shaffer are congenial guys who will likely interact with you in a thoughtful way.  If so, I suggest you look first at the definition of "fact" in our PMTH dictionary.  It will take you to some quite relevant links.
 

Let me share with you an idea, even a plan, that I have cooking in my brain.  Then, if it excites you, you can think about it and submit a proposal to me when the time seems right.  There is no rush.  You will submit your proposal confidentally and my evaluation of it will be confidential.

My idea is that people here will put together their own columns for PMTH NEWS.  As I imagine it, somewhere on the PMTH NEWS front page (such as the page you are reading at the moment) will be a list of columns written by PMTH subscribers.  Readers who learn that a particular subscriber writes an interesting column will learn to click on that link when they look through PMTH NEWS.

You need to know how to write a simple web page to do this.  You can use whatever format you want, however, as long as it is highly readable, blue characters on black text not acceptable, but blue text on yellow is.  Also, if you wish, I will give advice as to how to approach the construction of a simple webpage, as best I can.

Think of your column as your own newsletter analogous to the PMTH NEWS being my newsletter.  You can publish stuff that other people submit to you if you like.  But the front page, like the front page of PMTH NEWS, should be freshly edited at least once a month (although that number is fungible at present).  The link to your column will be dated so people will be able to decide not to look at it unless you have published a new edition since they last visited your site.

As I am thinking of it, the column would be stored on your server.  That means you need to have a certain amount of disk space available to you from the people you pay for your Email privilege.  Some servers  provide this free, even if you're not currently using it.

Your column can be very brief, even a couple of paragraphs.  Or it can be quite long. However, and here's the catch, it should be relevant to PMTH concerns.  I would like it to express your opinion about various topics that have been discussed during the period since your last edition of your column.  You can mention names and link them to the PMTH list of names.  I will show you how to do that.  If you use terms in the PMTH dictionary, you can link to those terms, or to any other place within PMTH NEWS and its links.

If you have a website currently, you can construct your column as a front page to your website, with a lnk that takes people into your website.  It should increase the traffic to your website.

If you like, you can put your column out as a newsletter separately from PMTH NEWS without linking to PMTH NEWS.  What I mean is that although a PMTH NEWS reader could link to your column, someone else might access your column directly without you providing a link back to PMTH NEWS, if you want that.

And you can express any controversial opinions that your heart desires.  You can justify your opinions by argument, evidence, or by saying that you hope it furthers discussion (paralogy) on PMTH (or elsewhere).  You can be critical of PMTH positions, but if you are, you must observe the same netiquette that is observed on the PMTH list, no personal attacks allowed.

I would be surprised if anyone wants to do this immediately, (but I would be delighted).  Take your time to think about it, and let me know if this vision speaks to you.

But, feedback on the idea of extending PMTH NEWS in this way would be very welcome.  As a reader, would you like this?
 

The controversy between Holzman and Newman versus Parker has struck a chord on PMTH.  In his paper, Against Postmodernism, Parker critiqued Holzman and Newman saying that their postmodernism did not address the redistribution of wealth that concerns Marxist Parker.  Last Wednesday, Holzman and Newman posted a PMTH response to that critique.

And since then been 28 posts on this topic, about 7 a day. There have been posts from Lois Holzman, Judy Weintraub, Val Lewis, Jerry Shaffer, Tom Hicks, Tom Conran, Carol Drury, and myself, Lois Shawver.

A major theme in this discussion, not surprisingly, is whether postmodernism fosters a redistribution of wealth and strength.  Both Holzman and myself said we thought postmodernism did foster a redistribution of wealth,  but no one seemed to make much of that point.  A more popular view was that postmodernism probably does not foster such a redistribution of wealth, but so what?  As Val Lewis said sarcastically, "Why stop there? Perhaps [postmodernism]  should also overcome AIDS, el nino and death too?" and Judy agreed.  Tom Conran responded to Parker's call for more activism and urged us all to talk about the good things we do for society on PMTH.

Shaffer and Hicks wondered if Parker was concerned with the "relativism" or "reflexivity" of postmodernism.  Having thought about this for a day, I believe this is the case -- but I also believe that Parker confuses relativism with postmodern "not-knowing" or agnosticism.  He says, specifically,
 

Is it this simple:  To get things done politically, Parker tells us, we cannot allow ourselves to waver in our beliefs?  Maybe so.  Look, Parker warns us about pernicious postmodernism:
 

Are you "not-knowing"?  Then Parker would likely think you are dangerous, too.

Click here to read a previous article on this topic.
 

It was Manfred Straehle who suggested I put together a reading list of references relevant to our study on PMTH.  I do this anyway for my own work, so, after thinking about it a little while, I decided to do what Straehle suggested.

What I am doing is putting together a sometimes annotated reference list.  I have not read everything on the list.  Sometimes my annotations are taken from my readings of secondary sources.  And it goes without saying that, for publication purposes, you should not rely on my annotations without checking the article out yourself.  However, maybe my notes will help you decide what articles to check out.

The reference list can be accessed by linking here.  Eventually, I will find some permanent place to tuck it on this PMTH NEWS page.  And the reference list will grow and grow.  If you have something to contribute to it, please do so.  I intend, to put some of my own writings on the list with appropriate annotations when I can get to it, and I encourage you to submit references to your own work to me, with appropriate annotations of course.  Also, please contribute to our community resources by submitting  annotated references for relevant works you read.  These annotated references will not be signed.  They can be done casually and briefly.
 

Yesterday, Carol Drury read one of my postings on paralogy and was reminded of the writing of David Bohm.  Interesting association!  And I would like to invite you and Carol to ponder the relationship between Bohm's concept of dialogue and Lyotard's concept of paralogy.

What I have done to facilitate our collaborative study of this issue is to locate a paper that Bohm published with co-authors.  Bohm was the senior author.  Apparently, one of the authors got permission for this paper to be distributed on the net.  Great!  It is attached here

I am not sure how this paper on "dialogue" relates to the many other things Bohm has written.  Some things may be closer to what Lyotard has in mind by paralogy than is evident in this paper.  Still, this is a place for us to begin.
 

Judge for yourself.  I think a relevant question here is "what is strength"?  Does Parker have more strength than Holzman and Newman?  And, if he does, what is his point in complaining about the postmodern power grabs?