heretic888
Senior Master
My apologies. I may have mispoken (although, at the moment, I'm not sure which quotation of mine you may or may not be referring to), as I was in somewhat in a rush when I formulated my first post since you last spoke... err, typed.
*blinks* Ummm.... ok. And did I ever claim otherwise??
*raises eyebrow* That certainly doesn't sound like essentialism as I've generally come across the term. Then again, you may have a different context in mind here.
In any event the Campbell/Jung system has quite a few subtle, although very important, differences between the Platonic (and Neoplatonic) one. Namely, the Platonic Forms are essentially transrational in nature --- with similar notions found in other philosophical systems, such as the dharma-forms of Mahayana Buddhism.
The majority of the Jungian archetypes are, however, prerational in nature --- often referring to biological instinctual drives or tribal power/safety needs.
However, such a mistake of confusing the two is fairly understandable. Particularly if one is not familiar with the particulars of the transpersonal structures, or the 'pre/trans fallacy' made famous by Wilber.
In any event, Plato most certainly did not claim that day-to-day human behavior was being actively and consciously molded by the Forms. In fact, he made it quite clear these existed solely in an etherial or 'otherworldy' context, and could only be contacted via contemplation or similar activities. Jung and Campbell, however, most definately claimed that their mythic archetypes were influencing human behavior, instincts, and thoughts in day-to-day mundane interactions.
I find it humorous that you necessarily preclude that a 'problem' that I am supposedly making in this discussion is something Wilber also does in his books. Not too surprising though, considering some of the other claims you have made on this thread thus far concerning Wilber.
In any event, I did not intend to 'collapse' all the ideas together, as you put it. I am well aware that there are many differences and distinctions between the various postmodern writers. However, I am just aware that postmodernism itself (and its many associated subcategories) derives from a common consciousness structure, in much the same way that other consciousness structures throughout history have generated similar, although distinct, philosophies and theories (take, for example, Deism juxtaposed to Positivism).
The source, Robert, was your own mouth. Or, fingers, rather.
I directly quoted you several times (a few of which you paraphrased Derrida himself, I do believe), and debunked many of the exclusivistic claims you were making. Your shifty evasion, as noted in the quotation above, does not change this.
The point I have been trying to make, and which you have been actively ignoring for some time now, is that the entire extreme (not moderate) postmodern complex is performatively contradictory --- whether we are talking about deconstructionism, cultural relativism, social constructivism, radical epistemological pluralism, and so on.
Namely, the deconstructionist will take great joy in deconstructing the 'truths' of history without ever applying his tools on his own system. The cultural relativist never considers that his own philosophy may itself be culturally relative. The social constructionist will claim all cultural paradigms are arbitrary constructions, without ever considering this rule may apply to his own paradigm as well. The epistemological pluralist is confident no point of view is any more 'correct' than another, excluding his own system from that very 'fact'.
But, hey, just for the hell of it, let's look at what you actually said again:
Once again, the problem with Derrida's (and your) viewpoint here is that he claims that there is no "Outside, privileged position" or "zero degree" that "all subjectivies [i.e., viewpoints] are to be measured" from.
EXCEPT!! For the viewpoint that there is no "Outside, privileged position" or "zero degree" that "all subjectivies [i.e., viewpoints] are to be measured" from. Y'see, this nice little viewpoint that Derrida (and yourself) just conveniently cling to sees itself as the Outside, the privileged position, the zero degree. And you sure are "measuring all other subjecitivies" from this position, with great frequency, I might add.
Translation: No subjective viewpoint is any more correct or truthful than another, except for the subjective viewpoint that claims this is so.
Further translation: I am right, everybody else is wrong.
Even further translation: Nobody can tell me what to do.
Coincidence such philosophies were openly embraced by the 'Me Generation'?? I don't think so, cap'n.
Once again, the problem here is that the extreme postmodern is claiming exclusively for himself what he explicitly denies to everyone else. If thats not hypocrisy, I sure as hell don't know what is.
Think about it. Laterz.
