The Fall of Postmodernism

The Fall of Postmodernism
or
The Rhetoric of Honesty

By The Fool



Rhetoric is in essence the art of persuasion; the means by any, to manipulate a persons view to conform willingly to a specific point or course.

Rhetoric is by its nature dishonest, for instead of communicating a thing as it is, the person who wields it attempts to manipulate another individual’s perception to conform with the motives of the user.

This type of rhetoric is effective in the hands of an intelligent individual, however it is almost powerless in comparison to the rhetoric of honesty.

The rhetoric of honesty is simple; to be honest with your motives and intentions, to attempt to communicate a thing as it its, for the sake of what it is.

By using the rhetoric of honesty, an individual is ether forced to engage with it or flee. By fleeing, the battle is lost and honesty prevails, by engaging with honesty, the individual reveals his/her true nature by virtue of how he/she reacts to it.

Lets say there is a fortune–cookie and two people of business wanted it, the first person to admit “I want that fortune cookie” initiates a sequence where the other businessperson must be honest or reveal his/her true intentions.

If an entrepreneur wants the cookie, he/she must find ways of getting it, and these ways are determined by a set of logical outcomes shaped by circumstance; this being dictated by factors which are governed by the environments of nature, man, and personality.

It is to have the mental faculty to see these factors, that determines an individual’s ability to use rhetoric; to persuade people that a thing is. Such sight is not something that is rigid and linear, but like water; filling the shape of its container, the mind fills the circumstance of the reality it perceives.

However rhetoric itself is not truth; not an explanation of how things are, but the ability to, using language, manipulate the factors of circumstance in such a way as to convince others of a specific view, for the promotion of an agenda.

Language used with logic and reason, with the intent of finding out the reality of a thing, is not rhetorical, for if an individual attempts to rebuttal an honestly made point, that person is forced to by virtue of honesty itself, openly explain why the point is wrong, and if the rebuttal is honest in its communication of a disagreement, then the individual who made the original point must address the points of disagreement in such a way that an honest person would admit to what he/she thought was wrong, but stand on the points thought to be true, and from this dynamic deliberation could be made. This is how individuals of reason can deduce the “correct” course of action in any given situation, and learn from the effects produced thereafter, thus true progress is made. This deliberation through reason, applied to the scientific method, of basing the context of deliberation on observable, provable phenomena, results in closer and closer approximations as to what is true in regards to reality.

This claim of the effects of reason, is not rhetorical, for as the scientific method is founded in reason and logic; the hypothesis of science being to determine what is real, the mind occupying a natural state of delusion in context of such, the environment produced by the mind in a delusional state would show obvious disassociation between various degrees of delusion, and this is preciously what is observed throughout history between societies governed by superstition, versus those of reason. The practices of a scientific society are backed by explanation, which produce an observable result that embody a practical truth, which in turn can be tested against to produce greater truth ad-infinitum.

Rhetoric is not reasonable, though may take the form of reason, for it is utterly logical in its use, however instead of the intent of pursuing reality, the intent is to dominate another’s will, to trick the victim into choosing to believe what is being communicated is true. The dynamics of rhetoric is not something that can be simply communicated, aside from the definition of persuading others of a thing, for those who use it are aware of so many environmental factors, that only partial examples of the tactics used may be communicated. For example…

In theory, our notion of enterprise would have it that if both businesspersons admit they want the fortune cookie, then true business must take place. What we are taught in schools, and what most people think occurs at this point is that the two individuals who want the fortune cookie can negotiate until either one, or both parties are satisfied in the result. One party may offer to buy-out the others interest in obtaining the cookie, instigating a bidding war between the two parties, in which the interested party who offers the best price will prevail. If both parties wish to have the cookie, but neither wishes to lose their profit in obtaining it, they may cut a deal in which both individuals receive half of the cookie in exchange for the cooperation of the other in future ventures, or through an investment in their own company.

It is held that this sort of cooperation is what drives business, and as cooperation leads to greater profit for both parties, business is inherently profitable to everyone, as cooperation is forced upon each interested party through trying to obtain the most profitable decision, but the reality is not as simple.

Each party is interested in the maximum profitability for his/her own person, and the maximum profit resides in an individual obtaining the complete fortune cookie at no cost. It is here that rhetoric comes into play, the true power dynamics of any interest group come to fruition, and as previously stated, the avenues for this option are only limited by an individuals sight in observing the logical context of the given situation.

1. One may feign interest in the fortune cookie altogether, invite his/her opposition to participate in another venture, gaining cooperation, and use this trust to convince him/her that acquiring the fortune cookie would be an unprofitable decision, leaving the cookie for the remaining interested party.

2. One may attack the others assets, by devaluing his/her power base, and thus make it impossible for the opposition to bid on the fortune cookie in the first place.

3. One may attack the others image, promoting the view among others that the reason the opposition wants the cookie is of malicious intent; enough people partaking in this perception, it becomes unprofitable for the opposition to engage in competition for the fortune cookie to begin with.

The success of these tactics, or lack-thereof, hinges on an individuals sight of motive and circumstance. An individual who is being manipulated into thinking the fortune cookie is a bad investment, may laugh at the attempt and say, but I want the fortune cookie nonetheless, they are so delicious. It is at these points of conflict produced from seeing the reality of a situation between two interested parties, that the Rhetoric of Honesty comes into play, and it is this honesty that drives true cooperation.

If an individual is intelligent enough to see through the manipulation in option one, all said individual must do is voice his/her insight into the tactics used and proclaim interest in the fortune cookie, instigating classical negotiations of cooperation for maximum profit. If done correctly said individual may be able to use the original feigned cooperation to his/her advantage, profiting from what was intended as a distraction.

If option two is used against an individual, said individual can make the actions of a violent attack against his power-base public, garnering the support of the masses by virtue of honestly declaring the maliciousness of the situation, debasing the profitability in the attack itself, for the attack only reinforces the claim of maliciousness.

Option three is the trickiest to deal with, as the opposition has already attempted to create a negative connotation towards the mere act of showing interest in the fortune cookie. What makes this tactic the most difficult to deal with, is that the dynamics of the situation hinge upon the perception of what is considered good versus bad.

Ultimately all human action is driven by an ethos, a moral principality that dictates to an individual what should or should not be done. It is the driving force of perpetuation in all aspects of humanity, be it an individual, social groups, corporations, governments… All align themselves with the perpetuation of what is perceived as “right” over “wrong”, and this has lead to a number of unique circumstances in our cultural mindset.

As we have grown out of our natural state of delusion, we have identified the greater prosperity in the feedback-loop of resources/technology produced by reason, thus reason has been identified as morally good. In a culture that perpetuates under the moral justification of reason, those who wish to perpetuate an agenda must conform to the appearance of reason, or be labeled immoral. Once again, it is extraordinarily difficult to flesh out these dynamics, for they rest on an individual’s sight of multiple factors of environment, but one of the greatest uses of this rhetoric is that of the postmodernist ideology.

The ideology of the postmodernist is that everything in society is a product of power-agents acting upon society to promote their own agenda, and that by understanding how these influences of power operate, one may see how a thing actually is. Over the course of the last century, this attempt to understand power has lead to the promotion of equality of minorities in context to the majority that dominates them, and in doing so created an agenda of equality for all groups in existence. Initially this has produced greater prosperity by virtue of reason, for the majority of existing opinions; racism, bigotry, sexism, were negated to the point that social change could occur, that oppression was lessoned, that opportunity was increased for a greater population, and thus greater prosperity in context to the previously oppressed occurred. Postmodernism became the dominate form of thought in our education instigated by our culture, and in becoming dominant, those who would purport to combat “evil” in the name of “good” fell; no longer using reason to explain a thing as it is, to help humanity prosper. Instead Postmodernists began using rhetoric, manipulation and deceit, for the promotion of an agenda that they call “good” in context to the “evil” they disagree with. One of the most obvious forms of rhetoric within postmodernism, is that of the agenda to eradicate racism, and this goal was actualized just like a tyrant, a power monger, wanting to dominate a situation by virtue of manipulating the logical context of it. In this case, attempting to abolish racism by attempting to deny that the word “race” has any reality in our scientific, reasonable understanding of reality, by rhetorically asserting that the term “Race” has been mistaken for an understanding of species.

The term “Race” is nothing but a cultural descriptor used to communicate observable diversity within the human species, but it is not applicable to the scientific definition of species. This fact is shown in that the word race is only applicable to humans, humans being of a single species, this in turn indicates that the term “race” is not mistakenly used as “species”, but to communicate observable diversity within it.

Through the promotion of the agenda of eradicating racism from the planet, Postmodernists engaged in a form of social engineering, from which they came to the conclusion that in order to eradicate racism from the world, they would need to eradicate the concept of race from our cultural identity; eradicate a word which promotes the identification of differences within humanity. They achieved this by rhetorically, ignorantly, and insidiously assigning the definition of “race” to that of species, knowing full well that our scientific understanding of species is incompatible with the relative diversity described by the cultural term “race”.

It is a scientific fact that the human species does not display enough variation within itself to connote separate species of human. However the term race is not a scientific term, it is a cultural descriptor of relative difference. The term “Race”, like “morality”, is only applicable relative to the context in which it is used. People of the geographic region Asia, can be considered to be racially “Asian” in context to those from Africa, who can be considered to be racially “African” in context to “Asian”. However the existence of Race is relative, not a rigid scientific definition like species, as such what is considered a single “Race” dissolves when that “Race” is viewed within the context of itself. For example, a Kenyon looks different from a Zimbabwean, as a Zimbabwean looks different from an Egyptian, so much so that it would be impossible to describe them as part of a single African “Race”.

When one looks at the diversity within what is termed racially African, one finds that though “Africans” may share enough similarities as to be considered a “Race” in contrast to the similarities in “Asians”, there is such a large amount of diversity within what is termed “African” that viewed in context of itself, African can no longer can be used racially. However race being simply a matter of context, the general similarities and differences of Egyptian vs Zimbabwean vs Kenyon mean that each subdivision of the racial term African can in turn be viewed as separate races in context to each other. Yet just as the racial term African cannot be viewed as racial in context of itself, when one looks within the diversity of what connotes an Egyptian, a Zimbabwean, a Kenyon, one finds that each subdivision of the nations consist of even further subdivisions of diversity, so much so that it negates the use of nations as a racial term.

Race cannot exist without a context of diversity, the term itself being merely a cultural descriptor of the difference within the human species, thus as long as there is diversity within humanity so shall there be words to communicate the perceived differences.

It is our nature as beings who are self-aware to describe what we see, and from this understanding of ourselves a great delusion is revealed, for in order to eradicate words that describe differences within our species, we would have to become so homogeneous as to have no diversity, no differences between us.

As evolution creates variation, as our choices necessitate change in environment, as reality is change, it is impossible for us to eradicate diversity, for the freewill to choose; to be self-aware of ourselves, will always create diversity for as long as we reside within the laws of our own reality; as long as we are human.

From this truth, it is shown the true consequence of the postmodernist ideology, for the source of racism is not the word, nor is it our perception of differences between ourselves and cultures, but the absolute stagnating dominancy of a single view that is perceived to be morally right, over that which is morally wrong.

The true source of racism, of bigotry, of sexism, is the same source as that which produces fundamentalists, tyrants, genocide; a manipulation of logic used to perpetuate an absolute ideology. For as words of diversity will never be repressed, the only option left to those who would seek to eradicate the word of race, who believe that it is culture and not ourselves which produce “racism”, is to perpetuate an ideology, a belief system which denies the existence of human diversity, and promotes the lie that we are all the same, that we are all one, that we are homogonous.

The rhetoric of Postmodern ideology is no different in its dynamics than a tribal cult, whose superstitions are created to actualize a goal, be it “this poisonous animal is evil” or “this life-giving plant is good”, the explanations for the superstitions do not matter, are not reasonable, but merely intended to direct the tribe towards a desired course of action, intending to keep people from a perceived threat, or direct them toward a beneficial aid.

The road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions, for, as it is our nature to perpetuate an absolute environment necessitating an absolute morality, superstitions that are implemented through social manipulation, enact a greater threat to fellow humans than the avoidance of the danger produced from the superstition itself. Those who question the evilness of the dangerous animal, or question the goodness of the beneficial plant are punished, tortured, mutilated, or eradicated from the social environment. Whatever it takes to perpetuate an absolute, unchanging environment of morality.

Like a tribal shaman who perceives the danger of the poison, yet is not able to comprehend the poison itself, just the effect it has, and thus provide a superstitious explanation in context to the people’s perception of death produced, so have our modern sociologists constructed an ideology from the perception of repression, of hate, of death produced from the differences we perceive amongst ourselves, and attempted to direct us away from our own hate using the same primitive dynamics of what is morally bad in context to what is morally good.

Just as the unwise shaman does not attempt to discover the nature of the poisonous animal, the nature of the poison itself, and possibly by virtue of reason and experimentation discover positive effects, he/she only identifies the creature with death, justifying its avoidance with any explanation that conforms to, and makes sense in context to the preexisting superstitions of the tribe.

By rhetorically linking the scientific fact that there is one human species, with the term “Race”, which is a relative term of diversity that can only exist in context to general differences in humanity, Postmodernism has created an ideological machine which appears moral, for as our society is scientific, that which appears as such is analogues to the morally good, but the machine is nothing more but a superstition based on an understanding of logic alone, without the intent to understand a thing as it is.

Just as the businessperson in option three of the fortune cookie enterprise, has created a situation where the mere showing of interest in acquiring the cookie generates within the followers of the lie, the perception of immorality, so have postmodernists manipulated the logical connotations of our language to produce an ideology that cannot be questioned without the accusation of evil, repression, delusion, immorality.

The only way to overcome this tactic of logical manipulation is to use reason, for if the manipulator is unable to behave in a reasonable manor, he/she is revealed by virtue of the reaction to reason, as delusional. Unable to explain why the point against the ideology is wrong, the manipulator must find alternate ways of justifying him/herself, but as only reason may defeat reason, the explanations produced will be observably not of reason, not of explanation, but of avoidance from the point being made, the delusional self-perpetuation of an absolute moral environment being so strong is some, they will even lash out in violence against the threat to their stagnant, absolute mindset.

Because the postmodern ideology logically hinges upon the definition of race and species being the same thing, therefore making the concept of race nonexistent in context to the scientific evidence of what defines a species, Postmodernists have no option but to delusionally deny that the term “Race” can be used in anyway but as species. Instead of seeking to explain how the term is used by culture, they choose to rhetorically claim that human beings in our ignorance are trying to use race as species. They choose to rhetorically ignore that race is a term only used within humanity, and thus a descriptor of diversity within our species, a species so utterly dense in its diversity that the term can only be used relatively, through generalities in context of greater or lesser groups, a species so utterly diverse that the term cannot be valid in context to the racial generality being described.

What the ideology of postmodernism has done, is hypocritically and ironically ignore the dynamics which produce racism, which produce bigotry, which produce the oppression of minorities from the absolute perpetuation of an environment driven by the majority, and sought to dominate all cultures, all environments, with conformity to a delusional and rhetorical denial of how an existent thing is in context to reality. For a cultural term may not be scientific, yet be real and exist by virtue of its effects/operations within society, and therefore be understood scientifically. Race is not scientifically real, but is culturally real as a descriptor of diversity, and thus is understood scientifically as a cultural agent.

In essence, Postmodernist ideology through its own ignorance has sought to actualize an ultimate form of racism, by dominating all human-beings under a single cultural understanding not based is reason, not based in science, but by the manipulation of culture through logical circumstance, in order to achieve an agenda which it perceives a morally righteous.

I do not know what morality is, I do not know what is truly good and what is truly bad, but I can observe what people call moral. I can observe how the dynamics of morality change in context to the individual and his/her environment. How we change our environment through choice necessitating new concepts of morality relative to the effects of the change produced, and how these concepts of morality are universal in their function, not their existence.

Whatever the contrast in environment is, be it personal, social, or natural, the extremes of diversity between them is ultimately considered immoral, and each contrasting system will attempt to eradicate that which contrasts it, that which can change the absolute perpetuation of the system itself, unless the system accommodates through reason, an explanation of such extremes, and respects that true progress, true novelty and discovery, is necessitated by that which is perceived to be counter to the norm.

Option three in the fortune cookie enterprise is the most difficult tactic to deal with, because just like cults, just like the postmodernist ideology itself, it consists in generating a social environment that opposes what it has been engineered to perceive as immoral, and the only way to overcome this machine of sociality without creating another machine, is by virtue of reason, to explain why and how the machine of delusion operates in the first place.

The first two options are simple tactics of war, of preexisting power structures operating strategically to overcome an opponent. Option three is different, as it necessitates the manipulation of other people into forming a new structure; one specifically deigned to promote a specific agenda. It operates by the oppression of an individuals free-will, by using morality and logical context, into deluding an individual into perpetuating an environment not of their own, but the manipulators.

Though reason may overcome this manipulation; here is the simple truth as to how these machines of delusion can be prevented in the first place.

If the businessperson truly cared about cooperation for the benefit of others, he/she would have agreed to split the cookie. If the businessperson truly loved and respected humanity he/she would listen to the reason of prosperity through mutual cooperation, and joined his opponent in a mutually profitable venture. If the businessperson truly loved others, he/she would never attempt to dominate an individual’s free-will, out of respect for life.

That which is most profitable to a given environment is that which is unprofitable to another.

This being the case, there will always be those who choose profit over love, absolute personal gain over mutual cooperation and partial profit.

NO!! Don’t you dare think to judge such action as moral or immoral!! For just as we produce subsets from the natural environment, so do freedom and mobility in society necessitate subsets from the societal environment. Have you learned nothing? As these environments are necessitated by our free-will, which is necessitated by choice through self-awareness, to stop their creation would be to negate our own self-awareness!!! To achieve a form of control which absolutely dictates all aspects of our life within society under the justification of what is morally good.

Because business is communal, it is not advantageous for the businessperson to use such tactics, for to do so would be to risk his/her reputation, and be branded as one who is untrustworthy. Fear of ostracization keeps such tactics from being the norm, to be used only when the risk warrants the reward of success.

Option three is almost impossible to pull-off successfully in business, because the process of creating a social machine uses the public to begin with, thus if ones motive is profit justified under morality, any and all entrepreneurs would be aware that the morality is nothing but a guise for profit, a means to an end which can be shown for all to see, and as all such machines seek an absolute perpetuation of their values, the nature of the machine polarizes all into either agreeing or disagreeing with it. Forcing an ideological war against those who oppose the environment created, suspending the normal processes of free-enterprise in favor of radical societal change, which is a danger to all business.

Option three is what occurs when an environmental system perpetuates through the moral justification of its own values, driven by the absolute domination of its ideology, and not the necessities triggered by environmental circumstance, or scientific reason.

Because it is our nature by virtue of self-awareness to necessitate the creation of new personal, social, and natural environments… a single unchanging ideology; the perpetuation of any environmental norms under absolute moral justifications, results in a system of control which is highly stable if it reaches the point of statehood, but ultimately unsustainable. For as there shall always be new systems of thought and commerce that emerge within any given system, an absolute perpetuation of a thing shall result in said thing’s disassociation from the environments produced within.

When disassociation occurs, contention between moral environments is produced, inevitably resulting in the annihilation of either the environment in contention, the host environment, or a synthesis occurs between the contrasting environments in which both are changed to the point where they can co-exist, eventually becoming part of a singular environment in which multiple subsets of itself exist in harmony.

Contention between environments is produced when any single environment seeks am absolute perpetuation of itself in contrast to multiple environments, be it a single dictator seeking to perpetuate his/her own belief-system upon others, a corporate entity seeking absolute profit through absolute control of market factors, a revolutionary seeking to impose his/her moral standards upon the contrasting environment, even an environment of reason in contrast to that of delusion creates contention in context to the disassociation of one form to another.

As all environments seek an absolute perpetuation of themselves, it is inevitable that environmental change shall occur through violent revolution, unless that which is absolute is willing to change itself.

This is what Marx was attempting to explain in his Capitol, that this process naturally occurs by virtue of environmental dynamics.

Stop right there!!! Just because these dynamics are inevitable does not mean that communism is instigated by violent revolution, nor that the communism he was attempting to describe was instigated by any revolution, instead being an end-point of an ultimate sustainable system of control, which results from the natural cycle of contentious environments.

Revolution seeks an absolute perpetuation of its moral values, as such, a successful revolution will inevitably continue the cycle of oppression, as one absolute set of factors will invariably result in the oppression/contention cycle that drives our development. Communism cannot be achieved by a revolution of absolute values, and thus cannot be achieved through ideology, which is nothing more but sensational absolutism.

The ultimate sustainable system of control is that which changes itself according to reasonable necessity; which respects the generation of new subsets of itself in context to the potential of absolute ideals; which possesses a scientific understanding of self, and the effects that self-awareness produce in reality; which understands the effects reality produces on us; which understands the paradox of a system which is absolute in its perpetuation of change within itself.

In order for such a system to come to fruition, both the oppressed of new and minority subsets, and the oppressors of those who seek the perpetuation of a current environment, must learn to show compassion for each other, must learn to care for each other.

If the oppressors cannot choose to love and respect the oppressed, then the oppressed cannot give up their hate towards their current state of being, and if the oppressed cannot give up their hatred toward their state, then the new systems of control produced from their inevitable revolutions shall be no more than a continuation of unchanging ideals, and the wheel shall remain unbroken.

It is thought that Marx viewed the hunter/gatherer state of social existence as being analogous to a primitive form of communism, in that the means of production were so standardized, that the people themselves were the means of production. However if people are dictated by a self-perpetuating set of cultural values, then those who control said values control the means of production. Thus the culture creators; the true philosopher kings of ancient times were able to manipulate the means of production in accordance with a perceived necessity, by changing the customs of a people to produce a desired effect for the progress of the people they ruled.

Comte, who is given credit with coining the term sociology, thought that sociologists were the next iteration in the priest cast, and he was not wrong, for by changing the understanding of ourselves, we change our culture, and by changing our culture we change the means of production through a change in environment.

However this changing of self must be governed by reason, tempered by science, and posses’ knowledge of what the self is, and its effects on our reality: personal, social, and natural. Without experiencing the self, one cannot know the self, and when one who has not experienced him/herself attempts to change the self, the self does not act through itself, but through what he/she perceives in terms of logical outcomes in context in environment.

At this point in time there is no difference of dynamic between the ancient Shaman who perceives the poisonous animal as a threat to his/her people, and the Postmodernist who perceives the concept of race and minority as an equally dangerous animal. Both choose to manipulate the logical/moral contexts of their host culture to achieve a goal that they perceive as beneficial for everyone. Both operate not from the motive of explaining how a thing is, but attempt to manipulate the cultural understanding of it for the promotion of an agenda, which only results in the continuing wheel of an absolute perpetuation of values.

The true science of humanity, of which it is my great privilege to help lay the foundations, as my kin before me, shall guide our human-race in the state of the ultimate sustainable form of culture, neither through sociology nor philosophy, but an eternal self-surpassing of those who through revelation of self, shall be revealed by virtue of their novelty and understanding, their honesty and love, their fellowship to humanity.

As has been shown, the only way to defeat a social machine is to explain through reason how it operates, forcing the machine to either engage with reason, necessitating the growth and change of both parties, or for it, by virtue of its own irrationality, prove itself to be unreasonable.

The way to defeat the cult of culture is to be driven by reason, but the way to reason is to love existence, for if you love everything you love nothing, and so come to understand that which is beyond yourself.