"Modernism, in its broadest definition, is modern thought, character, or practice. A salient characteristic of modernism is self-consciousness. This often led to experiments with form, and work that draws attention to the processes and materials used (and to the further tendency of abstraction).[4] The poet Ezra Pound's paradigmatic injunction was to "Make it new!" However, the break from the past was not a clean break"
--from here, I think the most important idea is Pound's "make it new!" This illustrates the conscious shift that was taking place, I think this is really an apocalyptic shift from prior movements that tended to wax and wane into one another gradually.
--Honestly, I'm not sure what to do with this one. What do we think postmodernism has to do with apocalyptic literature? How does this "concern" and awareness play into the revelatory nature of apocalysm?
"Apocalypse (Greek: Ἀποκάλυψις Apokálypsis; "lifting of the veil" or "revelation") is a term applied to the disclosure to certain privileged persons of something hidden from the majority of humankind. Today the term is often used to refer to the end of the world, which may be a shortening of the phrase apokalupsis eschaton which literally means "revelation at the end of the æon, or age". In the holy book of the Christians, the New Testament, the term apocalypse refers to a revelation believed by Christians to be of their God's will."
--I have to say that I really like this snippet; referring to an apocalypse as a "revelation" is much different from the negative end-of-the-world connotation many of us might have brought with us to the class. I think that by shifting our focus from negative to revelatory, we might gain many more insights into our critical theory perspectives.
Anyway, hopefully this will provide fodder for thought, something to ruminate on with our further readings.
Let me briefly tackle the term of apocalypse. I have to note a simple clarification that the term doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the world. It is an unveiling of knowledge. It is quite interesting to find that because by that definition, giving information to another is utterly ruining the way of life for someone.
ReplyDeleteAn example of this is in the story of Prometheus. In the myth, he was a Titan who stole fire from Zeus and gave it mortals. In return the Titan was punished by having his liver eaten by an eagle and having it regenerated only to be eaten the following day. The fire Prometheus stole helped humans develop technological advances and so on according to the basis of this tale.
This may not sound like a particularly troubling tale but in fact it is, particularly for Zeus. It is worrisome for the god because he and his brethren no longer possess the power over mortals they once had. They are forced to deal with mortals on a more even playing field than previously. This fear and threat that the gods are no longer in control is definitely an apocalypse for them. In most science fiction films that deal with the apocalypse the inhabitants are powerless: to change the unhealthy and tampered environment or to change society into a functioning and nonthreatening way. This fear is what the gods possess when Prometheus gives humans fire; he is giving away the power of the gods.
To have knowledge over another is to possess power over another. If one was led to believe a certain truth all their life and suddenly realize that this is belief is false it was world shattering. An example of this is to tell the world that aliens exist. Doing so would put people in an uproar, that uproar is disturbing because when a person believes they see a four walled room and that this room is the entire universe they accept it and deal with it. Next tell this person that this room is one of hundreds in a building of hundreds of cities in hundreds of countries in hundreds of planets in billions of universes. This is the case when Galileo explained that maybe the universe is a little bigger than we expected.
The universe is scary not because we know it’s going to be bad and we can’t stop it. The same is for the apocalypse. The universe and the apocalypse are scary because we don’t know either and are powerless in our ignorance to know it.
Leslie, thanks for following up on this class discussion. The wikipedia definitions are indeed helpful. But can you link to them in your post? That way, we can follow up if we want to. You are right about the 'revelatory' aspect of apocalypse being one that we sometimes miss. If there is a useful or productive dimension of apocalypticism, this is it: you can learn more and thus change the way you live. In this light, 'small apocalypses' could be these little nuggets of knowledge-breakthroughs.
ReplyDeleteJoe, I don't understand the force of this comment: "The universe is scary not because we know it’s going to be bad and we can’t stop it." What do you mean we "know it's going to be bad"? This sounds fallacious, because to place "bad" over the whole universe is to posit a set of values over and above the whole universe, thereby turning it into something knowable, conquerable—not so 'bad' after all. Do you see what I mean? Certainly, you can claim that human knowledge might not be able to fathom the universe. But A) this need not be "scary" (it could just be humbling) and B) it would never be a matter of 'stopping' the universe, but rather, perhaps, being content *and* active in our minor, limited role in this big space. Your focus on powerlessness and ignorance seems to leave out a lot of human thought and action, which is, on a different scale, a universe unto itself. The usefulness of terms such as "modern" and "postmodern" is that perhaps they can help us know more about thinkers in different times—even when that means grappling with the limits of thinking in time.