h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Postmodernism
Yes I know I should be studying but I now feel like I know more about the management of archives than the mind can comfortably deal with. So without further ado here is a rant I wrote on the bus to school one day about postmodernism. Oh and a note "man" in this easy is not meant to be a digressive term, considering I am most particularly in favor of feminism, its just plain easier to use "man" to mean "human" its just the way the essay reads and nothing more than aphasics. Do not interpret "man" to mean "not woman".

Postmodernism is often herald as the true and or indicative prospective philosophy of the 22nd century. Its two pillars (phases it calls them, but I know a pillar when i see one) and it being critical of "modernism" does not in my mind go far enough. Neither do they replace or cope with the general and most important of modernism's pillars. One that is very much still contested but indeed in force today.

Pillar one:
"The removal from symbols, labels and other signifying themes"
The mans prospect of symbols is indeed at its most indicative and it can be argue as its most and greatest achievement. Back in the days of the great philosophers, who shall be named, there was the great symbol of god. This ideal of god being the one perfect being and the only thing that man should see the through the eyes of when he observes the universe. The idea being that man is in fact a inferior being to that of god and takes subservience to him or her. In other words the pre modern idea that God was the world and the world was god. God was then destroyed in part by what many now call the start of the "modern" era. An era I argue that we have not, and are not going to leave, for some time. Man replaced god at the center of the universe. In other words Man became the most important thing. The universe was man, and man was the universe. This allowed us to discover many great things. One of the things we discovered was our ability to symbolize everything. That is to describe it, place it down, to be observer to it. Man created symbols to be man. As it where. He was the great creator and the great destroyer. And for all he is worth he has destroyed and created many a good and bad thing and there is little one can do about it. However to prove that this theory of "postmodernism" is in fact bunk one must go to first principles and do it logically. Since all philosophy is applied thinking (thats what it means) and politics is applies philosophy, one could argue that the removal of symbols and labels is the removal quite a number of things that this world has given us. The problem is that the removal of a symbol is not in fact going to work. Discrimination, or as it is purely, the ability to discriminate between two objects is in fact the human ideal, what keeps us sane. One can tell that this is not a lamp post, that is not a comb, this is a kettle, that is brown, that is a large gold brick wrapped in a slice of lemon. The ideal that you cannot symbolize something takes away the simple phonological aspect of "I think there for I am". How you ask? Well like this.
"I am thinking therefore I am"
"I am post modern and cannot symbolize thought"
"Therefore I am cannot exist as I cannot symbolize what I am thinking"
"So therefore I am not acutely saying this to myself?"
"So who is?"
"I dunno. Perhaps god"
"But that is also a symbol and so is er pretty much everything."
I am sorry people but you can't be a post modern person, or perhaps you don't exist.

Pillar two:
"The retraction from borders"
Now this theory ties very nicely with what most see now as "globalisation" theory. Once again I shall endeavor to prove this pillar as bunk. However it is not, as the first pillar is, logically wrong, the way this one is wrong is much more to do with the nature of humanity. You see the thing about humanity is that we need our barriers and limits. I will not ever do certain things because I keep control of various aspects of my mind. For me to loose these borders, it will mean that I do things that I cannot essentially say was my choice to do so. In other words the retraction from internal borders will never be fully achieved. I will always have secrets, and so will you I suspect, the reader. I may perhaps speculate on them, and it is likely that you will speculate on mine. The problem with borders is that yes, there is always a way around them. However one could effectively say that there was allays a way around them and so therefore this statement that there is a "retraction from borders" should officially be changed to a "retraction from seen borders". However the definition of seen and what a border is, is likely to be of some debate and I am sure that other people have there opinion of this. The basic reason for this pillar is made in the hope that mankind will resolve its differences by the destruction of its own barriers. However they will still be there, and I doubt that a universal idea of how the world should be run will ever be agreed upon in the next 3 centuries.

Now what am I effectively saying here that we are not reaching the end of the "modern" phase? Well this is the general problem with modernity it is a word we have yet to effectively replace and that is mostly because of one aspect of "modernity" that still remains as the aspect of central of philosophy of man. This is that Man is at the center of the universe and that all of it can be observed and studied by him. And I would argue that we have in fact not reached any point at which we can effectively say that this central part of our knowledge can be replaced or undone. When man took the step of no longer figuring that "god" was the center of the universe he effectively allowed for many of the things that people cry as trumps of post modernism. I don't wish it to really to be called that. In fact the real change happened in world war one, whereby man released finally he was not invincible and he was his own nemesis. This is a classic case of the nemesis complex, as we now see ourselves as the being that observers all we have become our own worst enemy by being the being that knows all. Which is silly since we know we don't know everything, but we effectively try and get in our own way quite happily. We will continue to do this until we finally realize as a society that man is not the center of the universe. I don't argue that there should be a god that determines our actions, I still say we should do that. I also say that we should indeed have a real post modern, if we have not already passed through it that is (given that none of the pillars are fulfilled or indeed followed its not likely). I shall call the new age/philosophy "Orbotallus." This is of course reigning in my three (notice I have one more!) pillars which are as follows:
1. That humanity should define and symbolize as much as possible. Things should be well defined and well known.
2. All interpretations of said definitions are to be treated with respect
3. Cooperation is when humanity is at its greatest, it achieves its worst and its best when it works as a whole
Personally I think that is a much better definition of what the last 40 years have been and what the next couple of hundred or so should be. The name Orbotallus comes from "orb" meaning globe and "tallus" meaning whole. The basic idea of my philosophy is that everyone is going to have a different view, but there is no way that you can hope to have anyone understand yours unless it is well defined and shown. The second is my semi libertarian thing, I don't think were going to get much further with everyone trying to control other peoples respects and views. I don't really want to change yours, you don't really want to change mine, let just get this other with and we can just say that both views are valid and that there might either be a middle ground or at least a nice bridge we can appreciate. And the last is a reminder that we are Human, we are going to make mistakes, we are also going to group together for mutual good or mutual evil, either way we are working together. This is the thing that many forget about economics, its the "con" part represents community, as in the way that the communities money and services flow. And thats about it.

Enjoy the whole

I would agree with certain points. On some random tangent that I feel is somehow related. Sitting in biology class. We're entering our last unit: evolution. Living in the Bible Belt, my teacher feels the need to present the only two sides of the evolution 'versy, the creationist and the evolutionist. I said something about there being more than those two sides and he asked me what. I said, what about the agnosticistic point of view? And he said, 'We group that with atheistic because agnostics don't believe in a god.' Yeah, about five minutes later I got told to be quiet because there are only two sides to every argument.

Actually a true agonistic (not me, I am probably 13% pagan, 12% idiot, 16% evan and the rest agnostic) would say that there is a possibility of a god or gods, or it could be any other number of theories. Of course the Evaluation Vs Creationism debate is often one I love to get on the agnostic side of. There are NEVER just two sides to an argument. NEVER. For example there were 3 in the world wars, Axis, Allies, Neutral. And there is always a neutral side. For example most creationists and evolutionists agree that the universe was indeed created, its just when and what happened next they disagree on.

Which is why I argued for even five minutes.

Yeah there is just no helping some people

I should have known you'd bid me farewell, there's a lesson to be learned from this and I've learned it very well...

Ok I am confused now, what?

Now I know you're not the only starfish in the sea and if I never hear your name again, it's all the same to me....

Well frankly my dear, I don't give a dam

What did the fish say when it hit concrete? Dam.

And I like your religious breakdown, it seems quite logical to me.

No one appreciates the finer points of Simon & Garfunkel. Children these days.

Yeah. All that god replaces man stuff its just weird, people want to go back to it as well apprently

This is where someone should say, 'Children should be seen and not heard.'

Oh no, I don't say that, if children want to be ignored they can try shouting

LISTEN TO ME!!! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!!!

Sorry was there a noise somewhere?

Works every time

*throwstantrum*

And if you keep on ignoring them they soon either learn to stop it or, if they don't you just tell them what a pity it is that they where bad, cause you where going to go to the park today.