Post update

Considerable updates have been performed on this post, "'What the heck were they thinking' dept." concerning JetBlue Flight 292 and the issue of post-postmodernism, so if you haven't seen them or you read this blog via RSS feed, you may want to check it out again.

Comments

[Phoenix]

Oh, what fun! I like you - you woman-hater. hahaha. :) I looked up 'modernism' and here's what I got: "The modernist movement emerged in the mid-19th century in France and was rooted in the idea that "traditional" forms of art, literature, social organization and daily life had become outdated, and that it was therefore essential to sweep them aside and reinvent culture. It encouraged the idea of re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was "holding back" progress, and replacing it with new, and therefore better, ways of reaching the same end. In essence, the Modern Movement argued that the new realities of the 20th century were permanent and imminent, and that people should adapt their world view to accept that what was new was also good and beautiful." Look! It came from France. That is surely good news, doncha think? I really like that artists decided it was time to sweep stuff aside and 'reinvent' culture. As if that could be done. I mean, if that could be done by just nameing something cool like 'modern' to 'modernism' we could rename Islamofacists to post-Islamofacists and they would suddenly become reinvented - perhaps as really nice people who enjoy barbecues. I have no problem with the tenant of adapting, or readapting our thinking about progress. I'm having a fight just about that on another blog at the moment, so I am heated about that. Progress goes on despite us: We have to adapt, but not before we get to scream and yell hysterically that the sky is falling down. I had to cut & paste again: "In essence, the Modern Movement argued that the new realities of the 20th century were permanent and imminent, and that people should adapt their world view to accept that what was new was also good and beautiful." Pretty smarmy observation there. I'll comment despite the sounds of violins in my head..... What they missed, these wine-imbibing culture-challengers, is that 'new realities' keep on truckin'. So, they are 'permanent' and 'imminent'?? Yeah... they were when Alexander the Great was trying to find a better weapon to kill more people at one time. Oh, or in keeping with the source of this new reality hoo-ha, in France when they invented the guillotine. That was modern because it allowed the lopped-off head to know it was just a head for about four minutes before it croaked. It was really modern, too, to turn the head around to see its former torso spewing blood, and to watch the happy crowds out with the kids for a nice be-heading. The cheering crowd kinda gave the head the ultimate reality check,....if you will. (I'd like to write a dissertation on that moronic three-word nonsensical waste of oxygen) Anyway, I got lost in history and now I can't get back to my 'modern' thoughts. I guess I'll just say it again: What is modern is modern. There is no suffix or prefix designed to make it anything other than what it is - NOW. Leave it to some artsy guy who can't sell his paintings to come up with a semantic-word-play to try to get famous and rich. <---- Is that a Warholism? And look at us now....a prima donna comes off almost-crashed airplanes and says 'post-modern, if you will' and we all go... oooh, she must be really smart...... dang, I feel so dumb.