Post-postructuralism – Where to now?

[yagecero]

Structuralists define language as signs that are interdependent. Through semiotics, we derive meaning by the interpretation of sign sets that are expressed through signifiers. In structuralism, spoken language is given preference over the written word, given that not all languages have an alphabet/pictographic set for historical record. With its focus on orality, structuralism is concerned with the here and now.

Postructuralists also define signs as being interdependent. Through the semiotics of différance, the written word is brought back to the fore, adding the dimension of historical/future time to the equation. The here and now is still just as important (it is concerned with what we perceive in this moment), but with the written word, we are able to revisit a text on any number of occasions, deriving a different personal meaning depending on the context, and what we have experienced since our previous reading (this still functions when we hear an utterance spoken numerous times).

We're talking temporal-spacial-socio-psycholinguistic realities here 8(

A good example of this is a ‘give way’ sign on the road. We know what ‘give way’ means generally, but how we interpret the sign changes depending on the time and space in which we find ourselves. We can visit the same intersection over and over, yet ‘give way’ means something different pragmatically, depending on factors such as time, traffic conditions, light, the car we’re driving, weather, etc., the list could go on.

So with words being our vehicle for communication (not entirely, obviously, there are other modes: body language, visible emotion, sounds, etc. [paralinguistic features] – which are still interpreted through signs), and semiotics deconstructing the supposed objective meaning of words, where do we go from here?

There is a tendency to deny meaning (of which I have been guilty), but I now think these ideas are merely a new beginning and not an end. Postructuralism has been critiqued by groups that rely on meaning/identity structures (gay/indigenous/women’s rights groups for example) from the perspective of social justice. Our approach to social justice, in my view, is, and always will be, the best measure of how well we are evolving as a species. Surely equality should be our goal?

So do you think a new paradigm could emerge in which we take a postructuralist view of the world as a base (where ambiguity reigns and anything is possible), and develop humility in regards to the communication of our personal, subjective experiences from the perspective of social justice?

Is it possible to have a world where everyone is both right and wrong at the same time, within the bounds of a sociocultural mutual-respect?

 

[derekseyes]

There is an evolution in consciousness after all!

 

[yagecero]

Fingers crossed.

 

[djzmo]

Post-modernism is a faux. Modernism existed until 1965, when Moore's law was postulated, since then we've lived in a proto-singularist paradigm. You are right when you talk about a world where everyone is both right and wrong at the same time, within the bounds of a technosociocultural mutual-respect, that is when the technological singularity happens.

 

[yagecero]

^interesting^

Care to elaborate?

 

[Josair]

technosociocultural mutual-respect, that is when the technological singularity happens.

Will it ever happen? Whatever Ray Kurtzweil says, I think we're nowhere near to the possibility of the Singularity happening in the next ten years. I also spoke with some alumni of Singularity University - they are all too keen to use technobabble in order to make money/launch startups. But noone was able to support the idea of a tech singularity if not by saying 'oh, don't you see? Technological advance is growing exponentially!'. Which is maybe true, but I feel we need a qualitative jump, not a quantitative one...

 

[djzmo]

I think it's possible that by gathering data through social networks & search engines some kind of intellect could be gestated. My uncle Frederick said what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end, and I think that Moore's law, plus the transhumanism tendencies in these ages (although somewhat primitive) are living proofs to where we are heading to. Some Huxley will happen in between, a little bit of Orwell too, add some Bradbury to the mix, a tad of Kurtzweil and maybe some Baudrillard... What I don't know is if this will happen for good or for bad, but be sure it will happen.