Woodstock vs. Laugh In
Today Laurie was looking at videos of some pop guy from the sixties- in Europe. Peter somebody. He surfaced because his biggest 60's hit showed up in a movie recently. In 1968 he was in a suit on the stage. In 1969 he was in a field, with a poncho and long hair. Quite a change. I asked Laurie "What happened in 1969?"
My wife, who is no fan of fads, instantly replied "Woodstock".
Duh. Well, sorry.
"Where were you when Woodstock happened?" Uh.. at home. In Ontario. Not even that far away.
Well, SORRY. I didn't make it.
It is another moment that I remember- the first time I saw Rowan and Martin's Laugh In (also 1968). I didn't know the word "post-modern", but I knew something had just shifted big time.
The post-modern, nihilistic worldview is interesting. Nobody can sustain it very long. It's just too hard to keep floating all the time. People latch on to things- religion, hedonism, activism. Even cynicism is an abandonment of thoroughgoing post-modernism. You can't be cynical unless there is some good that is being betrayed, and there is no room for "good" and "bad" in post-modernism.
Well, will this ramble get some sort of response? Or does the impossibility of passing information between the reality-constructs of individuals mean my comment box will remain empty?
My wife, who is no fan of fads, instantly replied "Woodstock".
Duh. Well, sorry.
"Where were you when Woodstock happened?" Uh.. at home. In Ontario. Not even that far away.
Well, SORRY. I didn't make it.
It is another moment that I remember- the first time I saw Rowan and Martin's Laugh In (also 1968). I didn't know the word "post-modern", but I knew something had just shifted big time.
The post-modern, nihilistic worldview is interesting. Nobody can sustain it very long. It's just too hard to keep floating all the time. People latch on to things- religion, hedonism, activism. Even cynicism is an abandonment of thoroughgoing post-modernism. You can't be cynical unless there is some good that is being betrayed, and there is no room for "good" and "bad" in post-modernism.
Well, will this ramble get some sort of response? Or does the impossibility of passing information between the reality-constructs of individuals mean my comment box will remain empty?
posted by John Elliot | 12:08 AM
3 Comments:
I have probably latched on to all 4, hedoreligious-cynioactivism, or cynioreligious-hedoactivism (which ever you believe to be more realistic). I guess you could say thats justification for post-modern tergiversation.
out of curiosity, what could possibly come after post-modernism?
does the fact that I commented prove your point. But I suppose thats cheating because you knew that by writing such a comment I would have to comment.
I don't know if information can't pass between two different reality-constructs. Of course the message would be tweaked a bit, but I am sure someone would take the time translate the best they could.
(if not, I guess that explains why so many people fail at relationships)
Hmm. I thought I had commented already, but I guess I goofed. Thanks for your input, Nate. I would love to sit down and have a long discussion again- then I could ask you to explain all those long words!
What comes after post-modernism? Probably nothing. Most societies fade out around this point in their development. People who see no point to life are not well equipped to carry the weight of maintaining a culture.
As for communication, I think the problem is more a matter of being too lazy to try or too insecure to weigh another's point of view. Those sceptical of the possibility of communication seem to be able to find the bathroom- they should be able to figure other things out as well.
Post a Comment
<< Home