First, no one should infer that they can shed impartial novelty to the subject of cultural trends without showing their bias. Secondly, one’s opinion of societal or individual epistemology ought to continue reshaping and expanding.

Introductory thoughts:

I am a single mind in a sea of you, my peers. I begin my quest with Heidegger’s foundation of “Dasein.” From there, I agree with Bergson that we are all interconnected with a sense of intentionality. This very post is itself done with intent. Each reader of this post does so with intent.

Each of us exist with interconnectedness.

Each of us exist with interconnectedness with intent.

Lastly, I want to point to a newer player to the scene, Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas. He demonstrates that our self-consciousness is impossible without our consciousness of each other. (my self-awareness is second to my awareness of the “Other”) . It is impossible for me to be aware of my existence, if I didn’t first have an awareness of yours.

In this order, I am not only interconnected, but interdependent upon you. His philosophy follows that because I am dependent upon the Other, the Other is dependent upon me. In short, “we need each other.”

What he concludes can hardly be disputed:

1. If each of us exist with interconnectedness (dasein) –Heidegger

2. with intent (purpose) –Bergson

3. and our existences are interdependent

4. therefore, I am morally obligated, or ethically responsible for you.

To rename these four in their antithesis:

1. There is no living being that is not connected to other living beings.

2. I do not exist without purpose or intent.

3. Because I do not live an isolated and unconnected existence, we are dependent upon each other and must rely on something outside of ourselves for meaning.

4. Meaning and purpose for every living being therefore, is to live in service and ethical responsibility to “One” another.

I don’t even want to use the word that appears in the title of this post, because the word is vague, inexhaustible, and possibly indefinable. Instead, I want to say that if I were made to put a name to our current society, I would say that we are modernists still–a hyper modernist.  Try to stumble through the way the scientific community muddles and defines “Postmodernism:”

“The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological and ideological. Both are based on subjectivity. First, because of the subjectivity of the human object, anthropology, according to the epistemological argument cannot be a science; and in any event the subjectivity of the human subject precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth. Second, since objectivity is an illusion, science according to the ideological argument, subverts oppressed groups, females, ethnics, third-world peoples.” (Spiro, Melford E. (1996) Postmodernist Anthropology, Subjectivity, and Science. A Modernist Critique. In Comparative Studies in Society and History. V. p.759-780)

Secondly, I want to say that postmodernism, as others have attempted to define it, is literally impossible.  It is the worldview of self-contradiction.  It rejects becoming and replaces it with simply being.  Who can have no point of reference and still manage to get anyplace?  The goal of postmodernism is to not have a goal.  The strongest conviction of postmodernism is not to have a strong conviction about anything.  It is open to anything except dogmatism.  It is only consistent in being inconsistent.

The one who prides himself on having no prejudice to his thoughts, words, and deeds, is at the same time equally guilty of the deliberate selectivity of his prejudice–he has created an even more malicious and bracketed epistemology in an attempt to arrive at a true one.  In a more clear manner, we all have a faith presupposition.  This is why deconstruction exists.  We all operate from our faith presupposition, even when deconstructionists attempt to bracket it.

How can anyone deconstruct anything? (Foucault is clueless and a hypocrite.)

One cannot throw out seven out of ten uses and meanings and implications to his every thought, word, or deed, without over-favoring the other three. If one were to attempt to deconstruct knowledge and be truly postmodern, he would have to throw out all ten understood or implied meanings to every endeavor. For this in itself would employ both reason and prejudice–two things that will be his enemy more formidable with each attempt.  If language were a game before–if it were broken before, it is even more so now, for now, the word will mean whatever I want it to mean, or whatever culture wants it to mean.  This is how what once was “cool” is now referred to as “hot.”

Culture, as I see it, could be modestly described as such:

We are all still spiritual beings who require a faith presupposition in something bigger than ourselves, and lying outside of ourselves, in order to function and have meaning. We have created an epistemological agnosticism, however, because we’re too proud to admit the previous.