In modernity, the image was a representation of reality, while in postmodernity, reality is a representation of the image of reality. Thus rationality is replaced with emotionality, as reality is sought to recreate the image, which is always selective and subjective. This perception is inevitably at odds with a perception that strives for an objective truth.
By the very nature of this emotional reality, postmodernity denies itself with the facade of rationality, all the while voiding formerly rational concepts of their actual rational content, and replacing them with emotionality. This allows to understand how the root of all social and political division is not left vs right or conservative vs liberal, but modern vs post-modern ergo rational vs emotional, but with an emotional side that pretends to be rational. It is a fight for the prerogative of truth being in either rationality or emotionality.
I'm revising it right now, writing a more complete foreword, going further into the image issue and mentioning the sociopolitical modern-postmodern spectrum.
you could have just said "YWNBW" but i guess screencap-as-my-opinion post works the same
Alexander Reyes
I bet you've read a great deal if you take a /lit/ shitpost like that seriously.
Noah Clark
And this is also how Postmodernity is overcome. The key realization is that reality itself is a representation of meta reality. Therefore modernity and rationality is just a representation of meta reality - which contrary to reality can be represented in an image. Therefore the solution is to represent meta reality instead of reality in our imagery.
Carter Gonzalez
This is just Baudrillard, Simulation and Simulacrum. You didnt write that yourself, at best you paraphrased it.
Nathan Lopez
Hey, wirklich cool das du dich damit beschaefrigst. Ich lese mal deinen Blog. What is your solution to postmodernism? It can not be remodernism - just going back to rationality. That will not work because it fundamentally misunderstands what Rationality is as a concept.
Andrew Mitchell
Okay I read it. 1. you are making a mistake by assuming that the leftists are telling the truth and actually believe what they are saying. You completely ignore the role of resentment in the whole concept.
2. there is not just one narrative, there are multiple. Which is the problem with postmodernism on an intellectual level. Here is the postmodern problem of postmodernism: there is not one narrative there are many. One of the narratives is that postmodernism is just a misguided application of epistemology. Another is that its just the result of peoples resentment. And the thing about postmodernism is that people are incapable of navigating the great sea of narratives.
Postmodernism is right about declaring modernism to be just one narrative - and a narrative worthy of criticism at that. But by opening up the sphere of narratives as such it falls into an order of complexity that is beyond human and thus everything becomes arbitrary as it is simply beyond understanding. And yet again this is onece again a narrative. As actually reality is trivial and rationality is self evident, and they are just poisoning the well with their emotional reasoning. And that is also just a narrative.
All in all you are doing gods work, user. That article is very good, even though it is not entirely correct about everything. And your solution will also not work because it misjudges history to be cyclical - which itself is just a narrative.
John Sanders
blah blah blah poopy poopy dick dick
Andrew Green
Baudrillard established the concept of the simulacrum, but I expand on that by looking at how this leads to an emotional perception of reality and through that forms a wholly new epistemology. Like, take for example when people talk about muh science in regard to the coof, then they decide that you need to censor a prominent scientist because what he says is somehow misinformation. How does this mindset develop, because there exists a narrative of the "science" which is so sogmatically settled that YouTube or Spotify can decide that even an authority in the subject can't have their say, because the narrative on "science" has a monopoly on truth. And how is this narrative established, through the manichaean view of science as an absolute truth, which in turn stems from the image of science as absolute truth, an image that originates in the emotional desire of having a sage give you xlear and simple answers to complex questions. And this is in the end the same mechanism that allowed for dogma to exist in the middle of ages, because most people were perfectly glad to accept this truth coming from the much smarter people on top. Thus postmodernity needs to pervert illustrated ideals like self-determination by deconstructing them, so they can literally say that a scientist with decades of experience is spreading dangerous disinformation, which is basically saying "others (but not me) are dumb and bot deserving of self-determination so people who agree with me and are of a superior caste need to look after what information gets to the plebs", but this is supposedly "science" not dogma. This goes much further than Baudrillard.
David Ross
>1. It's not about leftists, surely there can be resentment, manipulation, etc. in them, but the question is if this takes hold of normie perception then it is true nonetheless, it can only become a predominant zeitgeist through those mechanisms.
>2. there is not just one narrative, there are multiple. Correct, plus the narrative is continually shifting. >And the thing about postmodernism is that people are incapable of navigating the great sea of narratives. I do mention that more or less, although it's more about people being incapable of navigating the excess of information so they will accept the (or a) narrative as an easy way out.
True that some things I wrote need revising.
History isn't cyclical, I never said so (or if it reads like that it's wrong), it's the Zeitgeist alternating between rationality and emotionality. Ancient greeks and romans: rational. Middle ages: emotional. Illustration: rational. Postmodernity: emotional. If you look at the spectrum emotional-rational, can you think of another dimension? (genuinely curious)
Ryan Martin
I guess the main problem I have with calling postmodernism emotional is that for me postmodernism exists as a duality: First there is the postmodern reality that you are describing. And then there is the postmodern theory which has in large part genuine and correct critique.
The thing is that the excess of information itself is a natural property of the world. And so you either choose rationalism as the only correct narrative and therefore you immensely constrain yourself. Or you get lost in a world without a narrative.
The romans, Greeks, and both modernity and the Middle Ages are all bound by their own narrative. Now postmodernism can be wielded by a purely rational actor, and by doing so he will inevitably fall into nihilism. And then all Values will be destroyed. Therefore he will not be able to put forth a positive vision in the world. That is the great Tracey of pure postmodernism as a method. However postmodernism as we experience it is without any doubt a form of leftism. (Which is also the thing you are describing). I am not sure I am being clear here: There is postmodernism as a modus operandi, which leads to nihilism and has its own problems - but it is not nessecarily emotional. But then there is the thing which you are describing, which is indeed in large part the product of communists and marxists and therefore it is emotional. I also do not believe that the arguments those people make are made in good faith, and so I think its not wise to accept them as genuine postmodernism in the same way as the first category. I fear that a large part of what you are describing is actually just leftism, which itself is just an entropic force and should not be assumed to be acting in good faith.
For the last point you make, you have two examples for emotional: the Middle Ages and Postmodernity. While I agree with you that in postmodernity it seems like the purely irrationally emotional whims of the masses are driving the course of the narrative,Cont.
