Talk:Post-structuralism

message: Removed link to an essay created by a "pomo generator." Either the link is meant to add to the article by pointing to the common accusation that poststructuralist prose is so obscure that it can be, humorously, mimicked exactly by a simple algorithm. Or it's meant to dupe the foolish into believing it's a genuine piece of poststructuralist writing. If the former, then the link should be marked as such and the reader should also be directed to the Sokal hoax. The latter is vandalism in this context.
24.63.27.250 (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Pomo generator

message: At the end of the section "between two camps" the sentences do not make sense. I lack the understanding to put them together.24.122.81.209 (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Between two camps

message: French Theory is only an American and then French name for a part of post-structuralist Fr. philosophers (see for instance : here. I suggest this article to be merged into [[Post-structuralism] (here)]. This merge would provide French Theory the context it lacks to be fully understood.
NB : fr:WP pages about these two movements are exactly inverted. (A big one for FT and a small for P-S.)
Your opinion ?
# Support. --Hedgehog in the bell (click to ring) 09:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[French Theory]]  into this article ? VOTE.  

message: Bhny (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gang of Four?  

message: What's with the hyphen?  Based on a cursory review of works referencing poststructuralism, it appears that the hyphen was used 10+ years ago, but contemporary publishing and the current NOAD don't. Has there been a discussion about this elsewhere? czar · · 08:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed the archive page: Talk:Post-structuralism/Archive_1#Why_the_dash_in_title.3F and Talk:Post-structuralism/Archive_1#Requested_move. The scholarly ref usage numbers have shifted in favor of dropping the hyphen, and I'm suspicious of citogenesis for the opposite effect in regular search results.  czar · · 08:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphen 

message: We should use this term only in ironic quotation marks. Academics belong to a culture, for instance European culture, Japanese culture, Indian culture. But since the very definition of the American Way of Life is the ABSENCE of culture (cf. Baudrillard, de Toqueville et. al), one should not speak of American academics, merely of American publicists or opinion multiplicators. 93.219.144.39 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We go by what the reliable sources say. Unless your analysis is shown to be something other than original, it qualifies as fringe in terms of actual implementation. czar · · 17:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  American "academics" 

message: I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so forgive me if this is the wrong section. Here is an idea...
Matrices hold some data of indefinite size. However, numbers are always changing from one snapshot to another. Does there exist a mathematical construct that defines and stores entries (ie. data) but has no "solid construct"? Consider a matrix or an equation using any symbol set to be a "solid construct".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vektor-k (talk • contribs) 18:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matrices (Mathematical Construct) and Post-Structural Symbology 

message: Suppose the existence of an axiom(alpha). Find a frame(beta) such that a finite-state Turing machine can find a solution for every frame(beta) within time(gamma).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vektor-k (talk • contribs) 18:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frame Problem and Post-Structuralism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Post-structuralism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050728125303/http://www.brocku.ca:80/english/courses/4F70/poststruct.html to http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F70/poststruct.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Post-structuralism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091206043349/http://poststructuralism.info/ to http://www.poststructuralism.info/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I feel like this confusion in the article perfectly sums up how my minor studies in Rhetoric went... they're such weird abstract ideas of things.. if my professors can't teach it easily, this Wiki page editing will be a challenge!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8500:5FA6:5109:DFC9:D113:A61C (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusion 

message: This article needs substantial revision by an expert. It seems to illustrate M. Frank's view that post-structuralism is a bad term because it can not be understood independently from structuralism. (Frank proposed the alternate term "neostructuralism.") The poststructuralism/neostructuralism discourse began with the events of May 1968 in France as (essentially) a continuation of structuralism, with an increased emphasis on the shortcomings of the concepts of linking and hierarchy.
I expect that most people who have studied (and to the extent possible, understood) structuralism, post-structuralism, critical theory, and postmodernism would agree that this article is terrible. Do other editors agree that this article would benefit from deletion of 90% of its content - boiling it down to its essence - and then starting over?Sbelknap (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neostructuralism 

message: The article doesn't say much about French post-structuralists of the 1970s, such as Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Baudrillard, and others and their influence on postmodernism, and how it spread to America (Rorty) and around the world in the 1980s.  SEP and this article may be helpful. Mathglot (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  French thinkers of the 1970s 

message: == Modern post-structuralism, expressed as "cloud structuralism with degrees of systemic noise and degrees of significance per interaction" ==
=== In biology (but this is an example; it's not solely biological) ===
For example one species might evolve empathy (brain wiring, neuro endocrinology, etc.) which is usually beneficial, but sometimes neutral or very few times disadvantageous or even harmful.
There's no human biased purpose in nature. Things (organisms and biosystems) do evolve but always percentages of noise, and tolerated mistakes or even few lethal mistakes exist.
We shouldn't beautify science. We should focus on the data and less on the unfalsifiable Freudian psychoanalysis of science.
___
1. Mechanisms (solutions  to  problems) never evolve perfectly in nature (a. because they don't have to (they have to be good enough), b. because any solution has limitations).
2a. Beneficial traits are sometimes disadvantageous, but nature (usually) tolerates that.
If we become extremely hominocratic (homino- used because homo- has different meanings in Greek and Latin)/human-biased/human-centered in our reasoning, we might construct erroneously specific explanations when actually the cloud of possible interactions of traits is the main idea.
2b. Percentages of noise (arbitrary interactions and usages of a trait, not so beneficial, and probably not the reason the trait evolved), tolerable disadvantage and a usually small percentage of lethal (or very harmful) disadvantage should be mentioned.
3. There is a cloud of events related to each adaptational trait. Nature judges the overall cloud of possible interactions and usages of each trait; each interaction and usage has a different degree of significance. Humans oversimplify nature sometimes. We should analyze the cloud of possible interactions and usages (each one labelled with a degree of significance) of the adaptational traits, and how change occurs (for example in the environment).
Now a meta thing.
Some (especially) hypermous/high-order traits (for example behavioral, biochemical,  etc.), are the result of the collaboration of many simpler traits. In this case the cloud of possible usages and interactions and the significance labeling of usages and component subtraits might become vague at the edges: a. some observed phenomena might be provisional (for example due to a recent environmental change), b. some observed phenomena (behavioral, biochemical, etc.) might be two (or more) orders of magnitude hypermous, being the result of a wider connectome of traits than the one we proposed (shared submechanisms might be falsely attributed to fewer processes), c. some fringe observed phenomena might be too hard, too fringe, too significantly weak or too conflicting for nature to manage; so we might observe something that cannot be expressed easily by a simple phrasing (we shouldn't say nature wanted this; instead we can say nature couldn't properly manage this process, resulting to some disadvantageous or arbitrary occurrences). This is extremely important to mention. Most people construct simple to tell stories. Even the complex reality can be expressed though. Though it's very hard to create causal diagrams with a huge amount of parts; especially when you know that a percentage of them: a. regulates an already complex process, b. some parts of the interactions might be the uncontrolled dispersion of the main network (nature can tolerate small dispersion events which are arbitrary thus not necessarily beneficial; the problem is that species never stop evolving and the environment isn't static, thus things can go wrong; a process might be nonbeneficial or a mismanaged dispersion event; this is extremely important to mention, for example many biochemical interactions and behavioral patterns have a percentage of dispersion events [not the main reason a process evolved]).
== Very male dominated treatment of a subject ... ==
This reads, in one respect, like something from the Victorian era, before the mainstream discovered that women have minds too.
Even I have heard, for example, of Judith Butler, who surely deserves a passing mention on this subject. Surely there must be others, both as advocates and as critics.
Personally I do not know enough to redress this, particularly I am short of sources other than Butler, but hope other editors will do so... 2A01:4B00:F998:9A00:4D92:B807:A367:F8EF (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  meta-warring / beyond warring / how to describe reality 

message: This reads, in one respect, like something from the Victorian era, before the mainstream discovered that women have minds too.
Even I have heard, for example, of Judith Butler, who surely deserves a passing mention on this subject. Surely there must be others, both as advocates and as critics.
Personally I do not know enough to redress this, particularly I am short of sources other than Butler, but hope other editors will do so... 2A01:4B00:F998:9A00:4D92:B807:A367:F8EF (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very male dominated treatment of a subject ...