Advice for the Philosophically Forlorn

This space is dedicated to the quest for personal postmodern growth. If you have a question or a problem relating to the postmodern condition, or are seeking answers to life's timeless riddles, Heidi and her team of highly qualified and well-paid pomo experts are at your service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 

Thank you so much for your informative and thought-provoking website. I have a question for you. Is it possible for a person or physical trait to be post-modern by itself? I am thinking specifically of my hair. I am balding and haven't had a haircut in five months. Therefore, I have not enough hair and yet too much hair at the same time.

The interpretation of my follicular dialectic is best considered in a post-modern analysis: it is up to the person viewing my head to determine its meaning for herself, and then to question the processes that led her to interpret my head as either balding or shaggy. I suppose it's even possible for certain enlightened individuals to be able to see neither of these aspects of my post-modern coiffure.

Is this an appropriate topic of conversation in social situations, and do you think that it will increase my chances of getting laid? I will be wearing a hat until I receive your response.

A Lonely Sophist

Dear Lonely Sophist,

 

First let me say that all physical traits, by their very nature are postmodern. To echo the immortal words of Jean-Paul Sartre, postmodernity precedes essence. Therefore there is nothing about the essence of your head that necessarily lends itself to one interpretation or another. Your hair and the head from which it sprouts or fails to sprout is a text, my friend, a text to which meaning must be attributed. Stanley Fish writes:

What I am suggesting is that formal units are always a function of the interpretive model one brings to bear; they are not 'in' the text, and I would make the same arguments for intentions. That is, intention is no more embodied 'in' the text than are formal units; rather an intention, like a formal unit, is made when perceptual or interpretive closure is hazarded; it is verified by an interpretive act, and I would add, it is not verifiable in any other way.

It seems to me that the crux of your connundrum lies in determining how best to insert your formal unit 'in' the text by an intentional interpretive act. This can be achieved in a variety of ways, the most effective of which is probably monoxidil and/or hair transplants. Another solution is to achieve rupture with the need for structural companionship in your quest for textual consumation. I leave you with a quote from Derrida: