Theos-Talk Archives (December 1996 Message tt00055)

MO:

>Thanks for your response.
>
>My questioning was motivated by my wish to understand what you
>mean by postmodernism and to what extent you are utilising
>what's generally known as the postmodern thought.

I'm packing to leave town today so I can't give a complete
response.  I won't be back until the first week of Jan.  But here
is a general response that might help:

What I mean about postmodernism changes as I learn more about it.
However, I did not intend the original interview with David to be
a pure postmodernist exposition--rather I was playing rough and
tumble with Postmodern concepts and TS politics.  I introduced
postmodernism to a group of Theosophists at a Coulterville get
together a couple of years ago.  By the time I got through the
initial presentation, I learned very quickly from the response
that the group was not going to be interested in getting into
postmodernism per se.  But there were certain aspects of it that
I think everyone sensed had positive potential for better
understanding the TS and improving the dynamics within it.
Therefore we adapted some postmodern concepts to group dynamic
processes.

> It's my observation that what's really implemented is not
> necessarily the original postmodernist philosophy.  Aside from
> such obvious things as postmodern architecture, art, literature,
> and uses of the poststructuralism in literary criticism etc., the
> postmodernism proliferated into such areas as education,
> technology, some sciences (especially cognitive science) etc.  In
> the process, the postmodernism, IMO, has changed into something
> more positive.

Yes.  I think we are on the same wave length.  I experimented
with postmodern ideas while teaching Freshman composition
classes.  When it is done right, it has the potential of
assisting the students to discover their own center of
creativity.


> I though there may be some connection between your thinking and
> Heidegger's thought, for two reasons:
>
> 1) Heidegger is in many respects a forerunner of postmodernism;
> and
>
> 2) he was much more ontologically oriented and sensitive to such
> issues as reality, being, and truth than French thinkers, which
> is a plus: it's evident that anyone seriously studying Theosophy
> cannot be content with a mere textual analysis of HPB's writings.

I haven't involved myself with Heidegger as yet, but through some
casual conversations with a philosophy professor here, I did get
this impression also.

> The idea of tolerating and celebrating all perspective is in my
> opinion the very strength and weakness of postmodernism. I
> have always personally questioned whether being devoid of value
> laden viewpoints is even possible.
>
> You may wish to know there is a guy who believes that it IS
> possible. His name is Tarthang Tulku, he is an accomplished
> Tibetan lama who wrote several non-Buddhist books on philosophy
> and psychology.

Great.  Can he do it? Can he teach it? I think Carl Rogers
demonstated a technique of celebrating all perspectives, but I
think it was done by him putting his own temporarly aside.  Even
compassion, a central concept in the Pure Land School, is value
laden.