Re: virus: Simulacrum

Bill Godby (
Fri, 17 May 1996 11:22:09 -0400

At 01:38 AM 5/17/96 +0000, Ken Pantheists wrote:
>Bill Godby wrote:
>> Hopefully this clarifies to some extent the workings and relationship of
>> semeiotics and deconstruction to postmodernism, and I hope that a defintion
>> of postmodern has emerged from this, combined with the previous post
>> regarding simulacrum.
>WOW! excellent work Bill. I have never met anyone who could whip off a
>definition of postmodernism as succinctly and as eloquently as the one
>you posted.

Thanks, it took a while. It's very hard to simply these ideas and have them
make sense.

>For most people it's either a slippery slope leading to an abstract,
>a-lingual trance or it's an arguement in a box.

What's unfortuante is that a great deal of work is created that assumes
knowledge of postmodernism. Walk into any museum of modern art and you are
confronted with this dialogue, and if you don't understand you are alienated
from it.
>I agree with your definition and would add the following. Discourses not
>only include works of art, literature and historical texts, but also the
>conditions, environment under which they are read *and* the people who
>are reading them. This takes into account the re-telling of a text and
>the re-reading of a text.

Absolutely. What your refering to are "meta narratives" narratives about
narratives. This gets a bit difficult to completely understand, but once you
get the basic idea it makes sense.

>Discourse can also refer to any conversation, series of gestures, series
>of images.....uh-oh.....slipping....down....the......slope........*
>Richard Shechner calls this re-remembering. (kind of a silly word,
>really) in his book "Between Theatre and Anthropology"
>"We are all here on earth to help each other,
>but what the others are here for, God only knows."
> - W.H. Auden
>Ken Pantheists
Bill Godby