Snappycrossdresser

[Paul Nightingale]

> 
> What kind of work would deconstructing the supernatural be for a
> postmodernest? That was something the Enlightenment did and without
the
> help of post-structuralism. If P is the kind of postmodernist he is
> often assumed to be wouldn't he be on the side of at least mildly
trying
> to counteract the rationalism of modernism by introducing some modicum
> of enchantment back into the world?
> 
Are you therefore equating something called 'the postmodern' with
something called 'the premodern'? Given that we can't undo knowledge,
how then does this version of the postmodern deal with rationalism: is
it, eg, antirationalist or nonrationalist? It seems to me that the
antifoundationalism that is often characterised as, so to speak,
fundamental to postmodernist methodologies simply denies the primacy
given to one kind of rationalism over another. It asks who will get to
define what is and isn't rational at any given time: as observed here
many times, Pynchon's work asks how we know something (aka 'how we come
to occupy the position of a reading subject'). To define X as (belonging
to the realm of the) supernatural is simply to deny the knowledge base
that supports (the allegedly, but by definition, irrational) belief in
X. As I see it, the supernatural (or even a "modicum of enchantment")
isn't an ingredient in a postmodern recipe: to define/label something as
supernatural is to occupy a position defined as rational(ist).