In a message dated 8/9/01 9:23:27 AM EST, [log in to unmask] writes:
> Perhaps I will find resolution to my immediate objection
> to the use of the prefix "Paleo" and "Neo". It seems
> to imply through taxonomy a phylogeny that actually
> was a synergetic happenstance. It implies a historical
> schooling and followers with the "paleos" being
> the foregoers and the "neos" being the late comers.
> I don't think that is what happened.
I have found it tricky trying to transcribe 'enough' of Perl's arguments for
discussion purposes without creating posts that are overly long. Here's a
passage that I shouldn't have omitted that directly confirms your point:
What Frank Kermode terms "Neo-Modernism", I want to point out immediately,
is "Neo" only in the sense that its attitudes did not come to dominate until
after the second world war. Neo-Modernism and Paleo-Modernism begin at
roughly the same time. It is simply that Paleo-Modernism dominates cultural
attitudes before the war; Neo-Modernism comes to dominate after the war.
-- Steve --