<br>On 11/2/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Damien Broderick</b> <<a href="mailto:thespike@satx.rr.com">thespike@satx.rr.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
At 09:46 AM 11/2/2006 -0800, Jef wrote:<br><br>>My bottom-line and crude assessment is that postmodernism represents<br>>essentially a bottomless pit of navel-gazing, mental masturbation<br>>and academic in-fighting.
<br><br>The last-mentioned is crucial, especially when parsed as<br>"ladder-climbing" (into the professoriate). One should not<br>underestimate the sheer combative brilliance and mental agility of<br>the best deconstructors, the capacity to take a stone and wring not
<br>just water but sparkling fountains of multi-colored streams from it,<br>all without getting wet.<br><br></blockquote></div>From my perspective... Jef expresses it Damien translates it. (though Jef's expressions were pretty clear). :-; The complexity of the human mind dicates that one can generate something from nothingness.
<br><br>It would be extopic to clearly label shit as shit. You may be wrong from a generalization perspective, But is that knowledge or are those procedures extropic?<br><br>One can admire "generation", particularly "novel" generation -- it is the basis of much of "academia". The questions are whether it is productive or typical aspects of that thread?
<br><br>Inventing ideas is great. Inventing useless ideas isn't.<br>How do you distinguish them?<br>