pomo

[Terrance]

Dave Monroe wrote:
> 
> ... but I'll say what I said last time "postmodernism" came up here as a
> point of discussion, roughly, i.e., that I've no particular problem with
> the term, as it is ultimately no less difficult to define, as it is no
> less inclusive of seemingly heterogeneous aspects, and as it carries no
> less (of the expected, inevitable, and not necessarily undesirable)
> political baggage of most any other term in aesthetics, in aesthetic
> history, in history, in historiography, and, in particular, in
> historical periodization, than any other, esp. amongst the big ones, yr
> "medieval," yr "Renaissance," yr "Enlightenment," yr "modern" (that
> being an esp. contnetious term already, in my experience, and not to be
> conflayed with ...), yr "modernist," whatever.  Yr own objections to
> standard constructions of "modernism" attest to this, Terrence. 

All true, sure, and if we had a text that in common would
provide a common working definition  we wouldn't have as
much cross-talk, if I ever take the time to sit and read
Adorno, but POMO is a bit different than these others
because I doubt, it being so Modern, we can agree to accept
any working definition. Now,  Take the term Gnostic. There
is no doubt that gnostic themes are important to V.,
however, gnostic texts, references to gnosticism, allusions
to, symbolism, so forth, so essential to GR, are absent. So,
when Eddins says that V. is gnostic we need to establish a
common definition so we don't argue over terms again.
Fortunately, Eddins provides several terms, Gnosticism,
gnostic, existential gnosticism and so on.