[Tzqowwyt]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I actually agree that what language you have determines what thoughts you can (easily) think..

That doesn't stop new thoughts/words/etc from being developed.

That also doesn't stop things from being reality, language only restricts what parts of reality you can (easily) grasp, it doesn't mean that reality is dependent on language.

JM I think you're describing the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, or something like it. It's been pretty thoroughly discredited. For example, even peoples whose language lacks words for linear time can still understand the concept perfectly well. It has to be suggested to them first, and in awkward language, but to suggest that such a thing occurs because of language limitations is to turn the situation on its head. Rather, they have no words for such a concept because their way of thinking about time without it never made a word necessary. When they develop new ways of thinking about time, they develop new words for it...as you suggest.

WRT the other stuff: My culture affects the way I perceive the world, yes, but to conclude based on that premise that all points of view are equally valid is absurd. That's like saying that, because I can only photograph any given subject from one angle at a time, all photographs of that subject are equally good.

The "framework of their ideas" is, so far as I can tell, nonexistent. It's a mess of empty jargon based on random prejudices. You can make any statement Postmodern (provided it is sufficiently stupid and left-wing) by:

1. Replacing as many simple words as possible with more obscure terms which mean the exact same things. My favorite is "larger contemporary discursive networks" instead of "what his peers were saying about the subject at the time." This ensures that, instead of your reader not understanding your point because it's nonsense, your reader will not understand your point because it's too arduous to decode. As a result, most readers will conclude that your statements are too profound to be understood, where they might have just realized you're full of crap.

2. Adding quotation marks to whatever simple words you cannot or do not eliminate, in order to indicate that you are at least sufficiently trendy to doubt the existence of simple concepts. It's not a text, it's a "text." Remember, once you stop quibbling over the limitations inherent in human language, you'll be forced to actually discuss the ideas themselves. And no postmodernist is equipped to handle actual ideas on their own merits.

3. Adding modifiers and corollaries, et cetera, wherever you see a solid and definitive statement which might otherwise be verifiable. The modifiers in question should be as vague as possible, because the purpose of this step is to cover your butt from people sniffing for BS. Instead of claiming "Mount Rushmore is a giant clitoris," you should assert that the monument "contains strong clitoral subtexts in the context of Derrida and [other name drop]'s dynamic." If pressed to pin down what you mean by "strong subtexts," spin off a dissertation on the problematic nature of tasks to define "meaning." The idea that there might be something intrinsically ridiculous just in associating two such utterly disparate elements can be suppressed by leaving the exact nature of their ostensible relationship undefined.

4. Following the example of pulp novelists and continuously dropping terms related to sex and violence, even if they appear completely out of place in the current discussion. Freud set the precedent for this sort of thing, after (correctly) inferring that people have a tendency to read anything that gives them an excuse to think about sex or violence. Your readers' appreciation for the intellectual charade you maintain to hide the basic sensationalism of your argument will drive them to overlook the silliness of what you're actually saying in it.

5. Adding cynical references to oppression and censorship, with the implication that all communication is under threat from tyrannical overlords. It helps to continually cast the hypothetical as straight, rich, white and male, in order to tap into our culture's collective guilt problems on the one hand and the victim mentality prevalent in minority studies on the other. It's also beneficial in that any ideas involving conspiracies and secrecy will sell due to pure sensationalism, regardless of their independent merits. Just look at "The DaVinci Code."

6. Finally, remembering this cardinal rule: the longer, the better. The linchpin of good PoMo writing is a bombardment of tangents and contexts so massive as to paralyze the reader's ability to analyze it. Ideally, said reader should be stuck in a neverending process of trying to untangle the vast web of ideas. Since the ideas are connected to one another in an extremely dubious fashion (see #3 above), just keeping straight what exactly it is you're saying demands all mental energy. The reader should not be able to step back and examine your argument without forgetting half of it. The only way out is to give up and call it genius, or else play chicken with a massive academic establishment.