Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:13:47 -0500
From: Bob hitching <hitching-AT-citizen.infi.net>
Subject: Re: Warhol/sci-fi/turnips


Julian Thomas wrote:
> <Answer to Mark snipped>
> 
> thanks for the discussion.
> Anyone else care to chip in?
> 
> Julian
> 
> I think your succinct and lucid portrayal of the points were excellent and they really helped me enormously to create an understanding of 
 some of the thoughts that have been posted recently.

I do think that the idea of Post modernity is simply a parenthesis to or within a supra 
modernity but in some senses the isues are more connected to clarifying what "is" 
modernity. It seems as if Lyotard and if you like the French school see modernity as an 
era with the aspirations of the enlightenment as that eras's distinctive. Whereas  
Berger talks about the process and consequence of institutional change expedited by what 
 he calls carriers ie. urbanisation, pluralisation etc  if in fact it is Bergers 
definition that is closer to actuality then there simply is no such thing as post 
modernity or past modernity. It is rather a clash between "ism" and "isation"

I wrote a book that was published this year in which I grappled with that idea as it 
relates to Islam and was quite strongly critcized by some very credible minds so I am 
open but the whole issue of the metaphysical that you were grappling with does to some 
extent rise and fall on the premise that is driving the debate whether such a thing as 
post modernity can exist.

Just some thoughts,

Bob
-- 
Bob and Nancy Hitching
Gaudium et specs, luctus et angor
hominum huius temporis