An experiment

[wigngown]

Gut

Got it and replied,

Best regards.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;376752]Pierre,

Now that you have declared yourself to be a "postmodernist historian",

Hi John,

1) You make serious mistakes when you read.

I have not written "postmodernist" historian. I wrote the exact phrase "postmodern historian". And I have not "declared" anything.

2) You also make serious mistakes when you interpret what you read.

You make the interpretation that my phrase is a "declaration about myself". That interpretation is totally wrong. It is exclusively a well established fact I express here; that people living in the postmodern society are postmodern people.

This makes me, like everybody else, even if they are "declared fundamentalists" postmodern historians / researchers and so on and so forth.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;376933]

Pierre,



Hi John,

1) You make serious mistakes when you read.

I have not written "postmodernist" historian. I wrote the exact phrase "postmodern historian". And I have not "declared" anything.

2) You also make serious mistakes when you interpret what you read.

You make the interpretation that my phrase is a "declaration about myself". That interpretation is totally wrong. It is exclusively a well established fact that people living in the postmodern society are postmodern people.
This makes me, like everybody else, even if they are "declared fundamentalists" postmodern historians / researchers and so on and so forth.

Regards, Pierre

Dear Pierre

Sorry you are completely wrong

Postmodern is a philosophical view point and approach, it is not a FACT as you say. It is a viewpoint .

If you are trying t apply it to a future society that is perfectly ok. but you cannot apply it to today without reference to some other time.

You obviously have a different understand of the word to both myself and many others. However that does not surprise me at all given the content of most of you post.

From Merriam-Webster.

Full Definition of postmodern

1
: of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one <postmodern times> <a postmodern metropolis>

2
a : of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature) b : of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language <postmodern feminism>

[Pierre]

To the extent that reference is supposed to support the folded clothes I think it's a dud. Checking my records, it appears that MEPO 3/140, f225, 226 is no more than an extract from the Daily Telegraph of 13 November 1888 of the inquest proceedings (contained within the police file on the Kelly murder) and this report doesn't mention any folded clothes. From just having a quick look around this evening I'm wondering if the folded clothes are actually a myth that gets repeated until it has the appearance of fact. In any event, a better reference is needed.

Hi David,

Thanks for helping John with this question and thanks for your work on it.

As long as we do not have more reliable sources I agree with you that the idea of the folded clothes might be a myth.

I would also like to point out that the origin of the myth may be connected to the report of the clothes left by Harvey in room 13.

Myths are sometimes connected to real events, and this is the only event (that I know of anyway) that resembles the idea of clothes lying in the room.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;376935]

Dear Pierre

Sorry you are completely wrong

Postmodern is a philosophical view point and approach, it is not a FACT as you say. It is a viewpoint .

If you are trying t apply it to a future society that is perfectly ok. but you cannot apply it to today without reference to some other time.

You obviously have a different understand of the word to both myself and many others. However that does not surprise me at all given the content of most of you post.

From Merriam-Webster.

Full Definition of postmodern

1
: of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one <postmodern times> <a postmodern metropolis>

2
a : of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature) b : of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language <postmodern feminism>

Steve,

You do not have the ability to make a distinction between "postmodern society" and postmodernism, or "view" and "era". You say: "Postmodern is a philosophical view point and approach, it is not a FACT as you say."

And yet, you have posted the definition of it yourself, as being: " of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one".

And era is an established fact.

And if you are having problems with the word "fact", or the expression "established fact", this is only because you do not understand what a social construction is.

An established fact is a social construction.

I very highly recommend this book for you. It is being read at universities all over the world. And it is fun to read!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soc...ion_of_Reality

You can also actually find the concept "postmodern society" on any simple website.

" Postmodern Society Concept

In the historical sense, postmodern society is simply a society that occurs after the modern society.
...
Many of the elements of a society like this are reactions to what the modern society stood for: industrialism, rapid urban expansion, and rejection of many past principles.

As such, historically postmodern societies favor examination or rejection of these principles, such as an examination of the social characteristics of industrialism, urban expansionism, and principles of earlier eras."

http://study.com/academy/lesson/post...sson-quiz.html

I am really not trying to belittle you or lecture you, Steve. I just want to help you with the right definitions. I hope you can understand this.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre,


Given that there is debate as to when the "Post Modern Society" began,
some say 1945 after the second world war, others say the 70' or 80's with the growth of unfettered capitalism in the western world, I find the term meaningless and without substance. The fact that is taught and people understand what it applies to does not change that view.
Depending on where I am when writing this post I may or may not be in a Post Modern Society, therefore we are not all post modern as you Claim.

Pierre I do understand having been in politics for 35 years it would be almost impossible not to. I just don't see the term having any value.

Please do not make assumptions about people and their abilities, it is plan rude.

It would be perfectly acceptable to say:


"you do not understand the differences,"

or

"you do not seem to appreciate the differences."


it is not however ok to say:

"You do not have the ability to make a distinction between"

that is unacceptable!

what comes next post post modern - that’s a joke by the way

I am not post modern, end of debate.

s



[QUOTE=Pierre;376941]

Steve,

You do not have the ability to make a distinction between "postmodern society" and postmodernism, or "view" and "era". You say: "Postmodern is a philosophical view point and approach, it is not a FACT as you say."

And yet, you have posted the definition of it yourself, as being: " of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one".

And era is an established fact.

And if you are having problems with the word "fact", or the expression "established fact", this is only because you do not understand what a social construction is.

An established fact is a social construction.

I very highly recommend this book for you. It is being read at universities all over the world. And it is fun to read!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soc...ion_of_Reality

You can also actually find the concept "postmodern society" on any simple website.

" Postmodern Society Concept

In the historical sense, postmodern society is simply a society that occurs after the modern society.
...
Many of the elements of a society like this are reactions to what the modern society stood for: industrialism, rapid urban expansion, and rejection of many past principles.

As such, historically postmodern societies favor examination or rejection of these principles, such as an examination of the social characteristics of industrialism, urban expansionism, and principles of earlier eras."

http://study.com/academy/lesson/post...sson-quiz.html

I am really not trying to belittle you or lecture you, Steve. I just want to help you with the right definitions. I hope you can understand this.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre,

Given that there is debate as to when the "Post Modern Society" began,
some say 1945 after the second world war, others say the 70' or 80's with the growth of unfettered capitalism in the western world, I find the term meaningless and without substance.

So just because Steve finds a concept "meaningless and without substance" the concept should be universally discarded?

The fact that is taught and people understand what it applies to does not change that view.

As usual I hear you love your view.

Depending on where I am when writing this post I may or may not be in a Post Modern Society, therefore we are not all post modern as you Claim.

Haha, now you are being amusing, Steve! So your position when writing on a forum thread should decide the construction of the concept for historians and social scientists worldwide!

Pierre I do understand having been in politics for 35 years it would be almost impossible not to. I just don't see the term having any value.

?

Please do not make assumptions about people and their abilities, it is plan rude.

But you are the one making assumptions of people and their abilities and you are being rude, since you try to lecture me, a sociologist and historian, on a sociological and historical subject you know nothing of. Your assumption is that you now everything about the concept, and I do not know anything about it. Please do not do that.

I have also, by the way, asked you what your science is/was, have you given an answer to that question?

It would be perfectly acceptable to say:

"you do not understand the differences,"

or

"you do not seem to appreciate the differences."

And now you are trying to dictate my choice of words. I find this rude.

it is not however ok to say:

"You do not have the ability to make a distinction between"

that is unacceptable!

How can it be "unacceptable" when you clearly display that you are not able to make the theoretical distinction? It is you yourself who show everyone here that you do not understand the distinction.

what comes next post post modern - that’s a joke by the way

OK, but jokes aside, I could try an hypothesis for that question. Usually there are revolutions, which go back on old ideas and old values. So we might see a return to modern ideas. I think a very obvious observation in this context is the classical tradition. It is often picked up time and time again, changed and revolutionized. An example of this in modern and postmodern thinking is the ideas in Greek philosophy about stability and change, and the different schools of thinking represented by Plato (stability) and Heraclitus (change) or the relativistic thinking of the Sophists. This revolutionary function is also present in art.

I am not post modern, end of debate.

s

Then you are living outside of your society and time.

But if you mean you are not a "postmodernist" that is a correct description. You may be a total fundamentalist (preferring stability). I don´t know.

By the way, I am not a total relativist myself. I prefere the stability of scientific methods, but realize that "panta rei" at some levels or in many dimensions. But as you understand, we loose overview of society if we become total relativists. We loose scientific "laws", tools and patterns, because they are systematic. And in a world with no reference point, there will be no systematical knowledge. In ripperology, there is often such a lack of methods which give stability and systematic results to the object of study. Then there is certainly "panta rei". Like in the unscientific and unnecessary work of Patricial Cornwell, and in a lot more ripperology.

So perhaps you really should stick to your view. It might be better than panta rei.

"πάντα χωρεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει" καὶ "δὶς ἐς τὸν αὐτὸν ποταμὸν οὐκ ἂν ἐμβαίης"

Panta chōrei kai ouden menei kai dis es ton auton potamon ouk an embaies

"Everything changes and nothing remains still ... and ... you cannot step twice into the same stream"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracli...thing_flows.22

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

From Pierre

"I have also, by the way, asked you what your science is/was, have you given an answer to that question?"


Once I believe yes, must have slipped my mind.
Natural/Medical science.

And you have been asked to give examples of your Academic works many times have you not? still no reply.

[John G]

There is an interesting article on postmodernism and historiography. The author, Professor Hayden White, argues that, "postmodernist treatments of the past and history...are typically criticized by historians (when they deign referring to them at all) for such beliefs that the past has no reality, that history is (nothing but) a text, that the principal problem of historical representation is that of narrativization, that, when it comes to representing the past, there is no important distinction between fact and fiction and that, finally, historical phenomena are best made sense of by storytelling rather than by model building and casual analysis of chains of events."

See http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/gr/gsc...2_repo_0-e.htm

[Pierre]

From Pierre

"I have also, by the way, asked you what your science is/was, have you given an answer to that question?"


Once I believe yes, must have slipped my mind.
Natural/Medical science.

And you have been asked to give examples of your Academic works many times have you not? still no reply.

I thought so.

No, I will not give my whole name to this forum. At some point they may get to know it. Or not. The past will decide.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Errata]

I thought so.

No, I will not give my whole name to this forum. At some point they may get to know it. Or not. The past will decide.

Kind regards, Pierre

I think you slipped into your inner monologue there...

[Elamarna]

I thought so.

No, I will not give my whole name to this forum. At some point they may get to know it. Or not. The past will decide.

Kind regards, Pierre

Why what are you worried about?
The truth will out as Will said.

s

[Pierre]

Why what are you worried about?
The truth will out as Will said.

s

Of course it will!

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Yes, but of course your postmodernist doesn't believe in an "absolute truth." He thinks truth is subjective and should be determined by the individual.

[Robert St Devil]

Yes, but of course your postmodernist doesn't believe in an "absolute truth." He thinks truth is subjective and should be determined by the individual.

Virtual reality could do much to challenge the postmodernist version of truth since it provides a historian with a 360 degree visual elaboration of the truth, which opposes some of the drama that has been written into history. I saw it here on Casebook with the model reconstruction of Mary Jane's apartment, which allowed you to rotate about her room. [And then, relate it to the photos.]

Visually, the postmodernist truth appears imaginatively, meaning that if you went back in time, you could only view each murder from one angle & one distance. You would view history as a witness so you would be subject to the same faults. You could visually confirm Schwartz' interview; however, Jack the Ripper would still be a blur running down the street.

It's a challenge because it requires the removal of journalism from history [as well as all the other -ism's that cause historical schisms].

- - - - - - - - - - -
{On a side: I'm looking for the thread where it was suggested that Catherine's uterus may have been removed after her corpse was taken from Mitre Square. I wanted to question if Catherine and Ann were taken to the same location & whether or not the morgues were ever implicated in this case.}