Or. . .pomo introduces complexity into the definition process -- it's not
as easy as it used to be. Same with the Truth process. It still exists,
but it's not so easy any more. I think it's possible to see pomo linked
to science, and the philosophical tradition that science is a part of --
constructivism. It's not the usual way of seeing it, but I think it works
better than some of the usual ways.
As an experiment, I'm replacing the word "postmodernism" with "science" to
try to bring the othewise airy pomo critter down to earth. For
example, does science "disrupt" definition? I think so. Or think about
Einstein saying/demonstrating the equivalent of "the truth is relative" --
what he's done is state a complex, if not paradoxical proposition, the
same kind of proposition that drives pomo.
Because we're mostly in the world of letters, I think we tend to forget
that science is an ideology that is the behind-the-scenes crew for the
dance of pomo. Science is the invisible "means of production," the engine
if you will, for the postmodern and all its fine, club-car traceries.
Science has been pomo/constructivist all along in its basic orientation
and picture of Truth -- letters is just now catching up, I think. As a
culture we're deeply uncomfortable with science in some ways, and those
ways match up pretty well with our uncomfortableness with pomo. . .
Bob