In response to Vagabond, Post-Class (2-14-10)

Vagabond expressed in one of his posts on Wednesday that (s)he is somewhat confused on the proposed question in Lyotard's article: "What is postmodernism." What I respect is that Vagabond still attempted to find a definition for postmodernism; to borrow a line from your post: "I personally think postmodernism is so whimsical because of we can only define it by comparing it to modernism." That's absolutely right. Modernism is the closest we know to postmodernism and its so difficult to explain postmodernism because we are living in it as I type out this post on a completely digital blog. Just as a hypothetical analogy, Guiglielmo Marconi, inventor of the first wireless communication device (essentially the earliest radio known to humankind), probably had only a small grasp on the significance of his invention during his lifetime. Little did he know his wireless communicator would pave the road for radio, television, and cellular phone communication in the next century. And that's my point. Living in a postmodern society, we have a fairly small grasp on what postmodernism has to offer. We seem to understand modernism a little better (I say this because, just like Vagabond mentioned in their post, we are constantly using modernism to compare with postmodernism). I personally believe we understand modernism better because we have moved past the modernist era and have had time to analyze modernism. While we are still living in the postmodern, it surely will be somewhat difficult to understand, because we have not had as much time to critically examine what is most familiar to us (such as the internet, worldwide communication and other instantaneous entertainment). So yes, I agree with Vagabond. Lyotard is fairly difficult to understand, but I think this subject of postmodernism is itself pretty difficult to understand, considering we live it and take it for granted everyday