You are on page 1of 7


The Goal: The Means is the End
We intend to restore the fundamental necessities and environmental awareness of the species through
the advocation of the most current understandings of who and what we truly are, coupled with how
science, nature and technology (rather than religion, politics and money) hold the keys to our personal
growth, not only as individual human beings, but as a civilization, both structurally and spiritually. The
central insights of this awareness is the recognition of the Emergent and Symbiotic elements of natural
law and how aligning with these understandings as the bedrock of our personal and social institutions,
life on earth can and will flourish into a system which will continuously grow in a positive way, where
negative social consequences, such as social stratification, war, biases, elitism and criminal activity will
be constantly reduced and, idealistically, eventually become nonexistent within the spectrum of human
behavior itself.
This possibility is, of course, very difficult for most humans to consider, for we have been conditioned by
society to think that crime, corruption and dishonesty is "the way it is" and that there will always be
people who want to abuse, hurt and take advantage of others. Religion is the largest promoter of this
propaganda, for the "us and them" or "good and evil" mentality promotes this false assumption.
The reality is that we live in a society that produces scarcity. The consequence of this scarcity is that
human beings must behave in self preserving ways, even if it means they have to cheat and steal in
order to get what they want. Our research has concluded that scarcity is one of the most fundamental
causes of aberrant human behavior, while also leading to complex forms of neurosis in other ways. A
statistical look at drug addiction, crime and incarceration statistics, finds that poverty and unhealthy
social conditions comprise the life experience of those who engage in such behavior.
Human beings are not good or bad... they are running, forever changing compositions of the life
experiences that influence them. The "quality" of a human being (if there is such a thing) is directly
related to the upbringing and thus belief systems they have been conditioned into. This simple reality
has been grossly overlooked and today people primitively think that competition, greed and corruption
are "hardwired" elements of human behavior and, in turn, we must have prisons, police and hence a
hierarchy of differential control in order for society to deal with these "tendencies". This is totally illogical
and false.
The bottom line is that in order to change things for the better fundamentally, you must begin to
address root causes. Our current society's system of "punishment" is outmoded, inhumane, and
unproductive. When a serial killer is caught, most people jump up and down and scream for the death of
that person. This is backwards. A truly sane society, which understands what we are and how our value
systems are created, would take the individual and learn the reasons behind his or her violent actions.
This information would then go to a research department which considers how to stop such conditions
from occurring through education.
It is time to stop the patchwork. It is time to begin a new social approach which is updated to present
day knowledge. Sadly, society today is still largely based on outmoded, superstitious dispositions and
It is also important to point out that there are no utopias or endings. All evidence points to perpetual
change on all levels. In turn, it is our personal actions every day of our lives that mold and perpetuate
the social systems we have in place. Yet, paradoxically, it is also our environmental influences which
create our perspectives and hence world views. Therefore, true change will come not only from adjusting
your personal understandings and decisions, but equally from changing the social structures that
influence these understandings and decisions.
The elite power systems are little affected in the long run by traditional protest and political movements.
We must move beyond these 'establishment rebellions' and work with a tool much more powerful:
We will stop supporting the system, while constantly advocating knowledge, peace, unity and
compassion. We cannot "fight the system". Hate, anger and the 'war' mentality are failed means for
change, for they perpetuate the same tools the corrupt, established power systems use to maintain
control to begin with.


while the individual. a challenge born from the splitting of the postmodern discourse into an underlining and an undermining of the notion of coherent. of trends. mass media. This code of existence in what came into being after modernity (involving post-feminism. This type of receiver will never turn to Barth’s novels. post-colonialism and Islam. though a promoter of canonical democratization and supporter of the necessity to revigorate art through derridean impurity of genres. the world wide web) and defined by a series of societal transformations marking the transition to a new type of society. the videoclip. leadership. material. all questionning the very status of art. in the same time as traditional humanism has been demolished (mainly by Nietzsche). closer to a myth or an illusion. as the complexity and expansion of society grows and its pace becomes faster and faster. with elements such as the fragmentary. due to social processes determining the standardization of individualities in a rationalised and bureaucratized consumer society and in the cultural media. All in all. reconfiguration and conceptual re-definings. decentered. writing. and. In Against Interpretation (1966). Both for Nietzsche and Heidegger. The assimilation of forms characteristic to mass culture by postmodernist literature and art. virtual reality) is one also defined by the mall. looking for their identity. however noxious we think their extraordinary impact upon the receiver or even the creator might be. dependent on extremely complex electronic information and communication networks. With a mass media allowed to function as a second God. the hyper-text. This gradual dehumanization was effected by the degradation of the spiritual world as we knew it. autonomous self as source of significance or action. Susan Sontag gathers all these elements in the syntagm “new sensitivity” and strongly believes that the immediate and easily noticeable consequence is the blurring of the borders between high/elitist culture and low/mass culture. self-constituted subject (an important acquisition of the modern individual and of a culture of individualism) becomes fragmented. everything having to do with communication warns about dehumanization. W. o eliberare simultană de efort şi plictiseală. models and mostly pseudo-models to which they are connected. In other words. in spiritual. the hypermarket. a process triggered by the proliferation of alternative cultural forms and practices such as the television. hackers and an Internet globalising but also robotising us. more and more fragile. “the being is no longer a fixed. Adorno says: [o] experienţă artistică foarte intensă şi conştientă este accesibilă numai celor pe care viaţa nu îi apasă în aşa fel încît să-şi dorească. any event depending more or less on its reflection in the media. The autonomous. in postmodernity. postmodernism rejects the model of an inert consummer. does not mean giving up evaluation criteria or suspending the differences between the categories of receivers as the aethetic dimension is never eluded. The human being has been displaced from the centre of the universe. but a fluctuating. with television as a double-edged weapon. arts. while the artificial character of the mind circus on the move becomes a huge threat. interactive media – the telephone). becomes a mere consumer of reality. the cinema. the pc or the cell phone and signals a radical change of paradigm (the cultural one included). T. although the obsessive quest for the whole already suggested the beginnings of what was to become the radical postmodern investigation. this legacy is also transmitted by new communicational technologies specific to the information society (the Internet. in general. unwilling to take over the necessity of a personal perspective. and is in close connection with technical progress and social movements. by its moving in the street. Modernism investigated the foundation of experience in the self and focused on a self in search for its integration. as postmodernism also defines itself through a permanent challenge of the receiver’s horizon of expectations. globalization. unlike mass media cultivating the passivity of the receiver. that of the spirit. Besides the specific communicational codes (gestures. is a series of distinct characteristics of a society or a social group. contingent entity”. Europeanism. the focus of modernity on subjectivity was still within the dominant humanist framework. ready to unconditionally accept everything s/he is offered. inertness and prejudice (the 2 . we implicitely come to live in the non-culture of a lobotomising entertainment and advertisement industries. unchangeable plan.2. publicity. even disappears. with Americanism vs. Furthermore. the emergence of a mass advertisment and entertainment culture. în timpul liber. dehumanization and the self Postmodern culture. like any other culture. hence of humanism. The contemporary multicultural forms are assumed by many expert voices as characterizing a continuation of a major crisis of the 20th century. the identity becomes less and less stable. words. unbalanced. comfortably backing out from. all this mentain deliberatelly the confusion between the image and the real object. intellectual or emotional terms. Multiculturalism. The newly acquired commercial dimension of art. but to the extremely rich offer of magazines or Danielle Steele’s. a reference point for the real world phenomena. what is clear is that we can neither ignore nor minimize them. perpetuated in the new millenium via remakes of all kinds. the influence of the media on the masses. Barbara Taylor Bradford’s or Sandra Brown’s novels. contextual. From the postmodern perspective. virtual reality or publicity. the obvious kinship between pop-art and show-biz.

The source of inspiration for the social commentator willing to identify a future ethics is the new social movements and changed attitudes to race. to the detriment of a ‘depth’ paradigm. the latter characterized through the expansion of the global market and the development of the means of electronic communication at all levels of existence. a discourse characterized by ‘platitude’. it appears like an intertextual phenomenon. More than that. agglutination of styles. are mixed. old distinctions and orientations are abolished: objects no longer relate at all to their processes of human production. tolerance plays an ever important role. scepticism. Harvey sees the ground allowing for new angles and perspectives.same as modernism. underlining all these negative categories. Cărtărescu mentions here “sentimentul de depeizare. one that serves as a vehicle for the confrontation and the dialogue of the poliphony of voices. disorientation in a world characterized through disintegration of authority and relativization and incertitude of traditional values (the same as Vattimo’s).. In the cracked postmodern surface of reflexion. ‘weakness’ or lack of moral standards. all sense even of a lost authenticity gone. peace and ecology. politically and nationally defined. by subjectivity. while the other kind of approach. making room for all styles and ideas. race etc. this subject manifests itself through the continous assertion of its lack au authenticity. the transition from modernism to postmodernism leads to a ‘surface’ model of literature and culture. and them and popular/mass forms. with the relation between the socio-political dimension and the aesthetic one differently constructed from one culture to another. pieces and parts belonging to other cultural identities. historical depth and. The existence of the other. what is beyond any doubt is that it produces not only a world of consumption. in fact). one that has very little in common with Vattimo’s pensiero debole. some of which serious and traumatizing. In short. dissolved in and contaminated by one another.]. It is easy to see that the road to all these becoming real for each and every individual is long and difficult. If postmodernist features (as well as modernist ones) are historically and culturally specific. everybody have a prosperous life. professor David Harvey approaches the problematic of postmodernity as social condition in The Condition of Postmodernity. who describes it as mutation or even series of mutations at the level of a culture in which postmodern features like cultural relativism and moral conventionalism. the subject as ‘lack’. “at one and the same time an aesthetic and a political one”. The past is recoverable now only as pastiche […]. expressions. From the neo-Marxist perspective.. Under these circumstances. disgust at ideas of solidarity and disciplined organizing. de dez-inserţie a omului din lume prin pierderea treptată a simţului realităţii”. claims to become the true postmodern subject. postmodernism appears as ‘weak’ discourse. Consequently. from one continent to another. The main preoccupation 3 . another. In a similar note. Precariously constituted round the margins of his interior void. An Enquiry into the Origins of Social Change (1997). There is still another area that cannot be ignored due to the effects and the consequences of the movements in it: small local cultures make themselves known to the rest of the world and take part in the cultural pluralism without which the postmodernity of the world we live in would remain a meaningless concept. now becomes ‘schizofrenic’. The connection between culture and capital is a frequent one. the result of the combination between the cultural reaction to institutionalised modernism and de final movement from monopol to multinational capitalism. one of the most convincing descriptions of postmodernism is McHale’s: a change/mutation determined by social. they are not culturally hermetic. its postmodern equivalent becomes the opposite force of a collectivity ethnically. and the postmodern phenomenon is considered a cultural dominant. there is a loss of emotional content and of ‘objective’ or critical distance. as collage. economic and technological changes inside the heteroglossia of intercultural change. the only question being whom they represent. this gives him confidence in a “historico-geographical materialism” contributing to the accomplishment of the re-oriented project of Enlightenment. on the other. fragmented and politically neutral. the mass culture. but also modified psychic and social conditions: In this ‘depthless’ society of the image [. approach to postmodernism (in the same vein of Marxist criticism) might be that of Terry Eagleton. pragmatism and localism. of otherness. according to gender. An empty subject. criteria. Whether this is a matter of worry or of joy (depending on the approach to the phenomenon). formerly alienated under monopoly capitalism. lack of an adequate theory regarding political action. vehemently speak against it. remains a constant value and an angle from which postmodernism defines itself as modernism projected to another scale: if the modern other oposed the individual self. religiously. rather similar. addresses and exploits exactly their passivity. profound psychological experiences. one can as easily notice the pattern of the man faced with intense. postmodernism becomes its own syptom of dissemination and difference. The individual. political actions. beyond the unsatisfied primary needs of the citizens in many parts of the world. on the one hand. where idioms and the dialogue between art and the academic sphere. Once the danger of nuclear confrontation ceased and the Iron Curtain fell. most part of the world’s population either chose democracy or dreams about it as an unreacheable ideal: a world in which war and famine no longer exist. divised.

would mean to give up the luxury of textual and theoretical preoccupations that continue to ensure the dominance and priviledge of the First World. clinging to the modern rejection of the signified. the shelterless. When retaliation is taken […] for ‘American arrogance’. Whereas commentators such as Callinicos see in postmodernism the cultural expression of a new middle-class and of a new conservatism. and of new forms of political struggle in which civilian tourists are held responsible for the actions of their governments. feminist and leftist postmodernism can and must fight against this new elitism. Nevertheless. the periphery. The author considers that French feminism is postmodernist but fails to fulfill its political potential because it turns its back to the popular. the social constituance and the discipline of the sexual identity (Foucault). but also to the otherness of the poor. Laura Kipnis. and continental feminism. withdraws from the implications of its own analysis in textual autonomy. theoretical autonomy and distance from political practice. she disapproves of the de-politicization of a Western Marxism inclined towards aestheticization. leading to a new culture. the rest of the world became the object for conquest. remember it was written in 1989: [i]n the current hysteria over ‘international terrorism’ […] the reaction to any decentring telos is symptomatic blindness rather than insight: […] unwillingness and inability to fully comprehend this phenomenon of shifts in power and spheres of influence. specific to modernism. powerless and hopeless. this is the postmodern critique of the Enlightenment. In the essay. the conclusion being that what postmodernity lacks is a postmodern political discourse. as he calls it. the new casino-economy. The ‘decentered’ postmodern subject hides from the decline of the great imperialist powers of modernity. The author’s bitter-ironical tone is obvious. on the one hand. While reading the following quotation. fragmented. and which it has not been able to detach from yet. this. the absence. design and the quality of urban life. gendered. a decentering. essayist and professor of media studies at Northwestern University. socially constructed or just a linguistic effect. rewriting the rules from its own interest. knowledge or plusvalue. gives a short presentation of the differences between Anglo-American feminism. the interpretation of the feminine sexuality (Lacan). after operating a radical structural analysis (falogocentrism=falocentrism+logocentrism). the one between feminism and postmodernism is also cautious. such an approach derives ultimately from the French theory: the hostility of Western thinking towards and the fascination with the other (Derrida). from the traumatizing loss of hegemony. “Feminism: the Political Conscience of Postmodernism?”. fashion. Many feminists regarded with impatience the philosophical arguments hard to understand that surrounded the epistemological basis. the subject was ‘centered’ and. it is the margin. 4 . critic. with the flag of Enlightenment waving. and concentrated instead upon studies of historical inspiration about social conditions. In modernity. Kipnis takes as a basis the subject. The same as Baudrillard but going in a different direction. Due to the rather contested relation between (French) postmodern theory and politics. creating compensating fantasies sometimes (of the Rambo type in the United States). about in the same way as Western Marxism turned its back to the masses. attentive to the symbolic capital. Kipnis brings forward arguments in favor of the idea that deconstructivist.of the post/neo-marxist Harvey is economic and geo-politicall themes. it is. in her opinion. in fact. essentialist and traditionally liberal. which. through its synecdochical relation with the political centrality of the West. talking.

poverty. this might be considered a pat answer. genocides. so ideas do not matter. postmodernists believe that what is wrong with modern ideologies is one part of humanity imposing its ideas and values and control over other parts. subjugated the earth to the Eurocentric. Since we are required to discuss things. While arrogant modernism focused on the hammer of the authority of reason and truth 1. Postmodernly mocking at authority(ies) Actually. perhaps one can learn a thing or two. However. This has had the result that we are actually free to evaluate things (and people) on the basis of what is actually good and what is actually bad. it’s not just because the modern refuses to die. consequently the world is now an odd mix of modern and postmodern. pounding every nail (dysfunctional cultural/political/educational institutions) and attacking every problem. Postmodernism includes modernism as just another valid source of ideas. when the term is said to have appeared. the Modern period was misnamed(!). modernists built a culture that exalted technological achievement and mastery over the natural order. and believed that through the application of universal reason to every human problem. (un)comfortable. The modernist believes in OR more than AND. postmodernism focused on the carpenter(!). but also because the postmodern refuses to kill it. this has the effect that we tend to “deconstruct” the things we evaluate. and strangely enough.” (by the way. More than that. It pledges its allegiance to a principle that could read as follows: “Look at the big picture! Don’t focus in on two or three things to the exclusion of other things! Keep everything in context! Don’t ridicule ideas merely because they’re not the latest and greatest! Pick your own fashions! Don’t let someone else tell you what you should like! ‘Tsall good. and that not everyone should be required to agree. Nevertheless. exploitation and injustice. we are required to make individual choices.3. identifies nuances when discussing the legitimation of truth. this is too extended to be called a “principle”) Still. both for marginalized people and for the earth. Isn’t the very idea of “modern” always associated with the ideas “new” and “now”? Obviously. True. We used to evaluate everything and everyone based on reputation or position. many jaws fell and bounced off the floor several times. and how they relate to each other. how weird and disorienting can it be that in our postmodernist frame of mind there is no truth. outgrowths of modernist autonomous individualism. humanity could move steadily forwards the fully rational society in which there would be freedom. But modernism planted the seeds of its own undoing. we are now required to discuss things. “nauseated” being more appropriate. or one group in society imposing its values on other groups. shining product. 5 . The myth of progress ends up in a nightmare of violence. Professor Valentine Cunningham. a building for example (as postmodernism began in architecture). because a modernist has to decide whether this is true OR that is true. though having at its core an ardent need to de-center/-molish the old and make large. but we are required to at least agree to disagree. a more profound thought being that the modern period was not misnamed. as for their owners it was utterly inconceivable that anything could follow modern. the assumption being that not everyone is going to agree. after the several decades since its breaking-through appearance. the ordinary word “modern” is associated with “new” and “now”. Oddly. the latter leaving visible the working (the ducts in the same example) and saying it is alright to be in the open. back in the ‘70s. The former showing the final. and “postmodern” was as good a name as any. holistic. male dominated paradigm. reductionistic. Which brings us to deconstructionism viewed as the bridge between modernism and postmodernism. pollution. Yet. But then. and it is alright for different things to look different. trying to show all the pieces at once. rather than having to take someone’s word for it. The former. Expansion-minded capitalism and liberal democracy. especially since it’s a bit of a joke on the ordinary meaning of modern. We are not required to agree about everything. and in our postmodern world “issues” are not the issue and no one takes almost anything seriously anymore? If one can fathom that. Anyway. allowing him to choose whether or not to use hammers. Consequently. if there were to be a period of anything following the modern. but the historical period we call “modern” chose to associate itself with the “new” and the “now” in such a deep way that we actually see the breakdown of the whole notion of periods. on the territory of literature and literary criticism. one that might be considered actually healthy. Our culture has undergone a basic shift. Perhaps “jaded” is an understatement. seems to lead/push us in the opposite direction. with the basic underlying assumption that we all had to agree whether something (or someone) was good or bad. The modern period is the period that refuses to die. in AND/OR. one nation imposing on another. in trade for losing our monoculturalism. otherness-/difference-accepting room for itself. or even better. Postmodernists believe in AND more than OR. threats of nuclear annihilation and other horrors of the twentieth century have undermined the faith in progress. This would bother a modernist. people nowadays are somewhat jaded by the term “postmodern”. tolerant. great. it would have to be called something other than “modern”. Obviously again. Postmodernists say that the idols of autonomous reason and technological proliferation have brought the modern age to the brink of disaster. From this presumption. Every time somebody claims to be in possession of the truth. and granting him some amount of free will and creativity. prosperity and happiness for all. postmodernism. The appalling wars. with maybe a keener insight of human nature. this time: 1 The thinkers of the Enlightenment project praised the idea of progress. the postmodern refuses to kill anything completely. tending to take things to pieces and then take one of the pieces in isolation and glorify it. the latter. it ends up repressing people.

Its disappearance causes us to construct an Other of the Other in order to escape the unbearable freedom its loss encumbers us with. Modernism tried. It is really liberating to be unserious. we come to an inevitable deadlock. But this really is not a problem for anyone who believes in a Creator. or of the validity of truth leading to discussion on reality. this radical subjectivity leads to the dangerously arrogant inference that no one can ever be wrong about what they believe. Openness without the restraint of reason. but I do it nonetheless. among other things. Consequently.” It is the notion that everything is as good as everything else. casual etc. which is not bad if you are not serious all the time about everything and anything. But only few know why we think that way. It is entertaining. especially among the emerging generations. I think it is dangerous to mock at the idea that truth is a goal. Instead subjects respond according to the fetishistic logic of disavowal: “I know what I’m doing is meaningless. Thus. the postmodern outlook seems more absorbed rather than thought out. imagination. a kind of existentialism in fact. It tried to get rid of conventions. they conclude that. So while we hear the rhetoric of openness to everything and tolerance for everyone. It tried real hard. and tolerance without moral appraisal seem. This apparently contradictory coupling of cynicism and belief is strictly correlative to the demise of the big Other. nostalgic. He does not view us as nails. He has his own ideas of what rules. God expects us to behave like carpenters. but some are more relative than others. As people living in a socially and morally fragmented age. God is not a modernist. we should accept all beliefs as equally valid. in an age of anti-dogmatism. that [t]he typical postmodern subject is one who displays outright cynicism towards official institutions. we are confronted with the danger of not knowing truth from self-delusion anymore. one price to pay for all the generous ideas and principles of postmodern ideology is that a growing number. 6 . are exactly that). which is not wrong if both concepts are properly defined. be playful. Fortunately. The tyranny of truth has been replaced with self-empowering stories. For too many people. mocking. In general. yet at the same time believes in the existence of conspiracies and of an unseen Other pulling the strings. sometimes to be the new postmodern mandates. It really. many postmodern ideologues have been successful in transforming ideology into popular zeitgeist. But maybe it’s not this. can and has: laugh at itself and humor. It does not matter too much whether the universe itself is true or false. there is yet something else that postmodernism. psychoanalyst. in good will. ‘Strong’ postmodernism says that all truth is created. we tend to be ideologically confused rather than deeply committed to our convictions. he gave us a carpenter as an example. it is rare to find someone who really understands what this means. we obviously stumble… Once discredited the idea of the writer’s duty to render truth the best he can. It build the cult of seriousness and objectivity. God gives people the freedom to go to the devil if they so choose. philosopher and cultural critic. True(!) greatness. etc. so to speak. either. though unfortunately it has come to be associated with postmodernism. and if pomo is not about entertainment it is about nothing at all. It thought it got rid of conventions. and what does not. At least to itself. retro. postmoderns claim is measured by how much freedom you give to others. On the other hand. argues. although he probably likes it when people agree with him. unfortunately too often. It is actually liberating to be able to be what you really are. Paradoxically and ironically (if it were not sad). A universal truth only has to be true about our particular universe. not what you should be or the others want you to be. most people guide their lives by other precepts and values than these… sceptics… Howbeit. it is now taken for granted that governments routinely dissemble and that advertisers perpetrate shams. sentimental. many people aspire to truth and greatness. A vast majority came to believe (and many of us even teach it. But all it really did was make its conventions invisible. again unfortunately. rather than dominating others with our version of reality. and he does not expect everyone else to agree with him. But this disbelief does not bring with it a freeing from or resistance to ideology. at least now and then. Postmodernism is not afraid to laugh at itself. That may be why they are often so cynical: advised by voices in contemporary culture (including many academics willing to make themselves visible as up-dated scholars) to consider claims to truth as being clever disguises for the pernicious will to power (which.. of course) that truth is relative. because goodness is only a matter of opinion. that often they are hopelessly contradictory or that we often live inconsistently with them. just as long as it makes a good story and you like the Author. Which brings the study back to the idea of ‘truth’ and the extant to which this is relative. a Lacanian Marxist sociologist. It is like claiming that the only thing you can know absolutely is that you cannot know anything absolutely. unlike its predecessor. to which the postmoderns answer with the cult of subjectivity. be it in literature or criticism. Modernism means being serious. fiction. Then what? Postmodernity is a moment of cynical reason in which subjects no longer believe the official line delivered by society’s authorizing institutions. So maybe God is postmodern. typically functioning at the expense of truth: authority as the truth rather than truth as the authority.” Žižek. believe that reason and truth are inherently political and subversive. which is really just another form of modernism. more honestly called “cultural relativism. All truths are created relative. Still fewer have any clue about how our beliefs practically relate to our own lives. It has become the socially appropriate attitude to display.[o]nce discredited the idea of statements having a truth-value. really tried. not by how much you can coerce others to do what you want (see footnote 1). Indeed. For all that. free from the constraints of rationality.

Family is where you create it. Modernism fought against but also created a lot of dysfunction. society needs people who are willing to be partisan on behalf of their chosen culture. it is really about being together. gestures. deconstruct. Nowadays. Pretty comfortable. It is a cultural item that is transmitted by repetition in a manner analogous to the biological transmission of genes. we have done that already. family is where you find it. It offers. writer or academic. “’Tsall good.In any case. to act as the Big Other who tells us about the world. for that matter. It is no fun to create a new culture and then cut it off from the rest of humanity. and so on. with lots of diversity. but rather to challenge our own ideological presuppositions. because it actually finds its meaning in dysfunction. One good thing is that. It mirrors a postmodern sort of movement. We were encouraged to revolt. in this respect. Now people can send their memes2 across wider chasms without getting crucified on one end of the bridge or the other. rituals etc. it does not force anyone to come up with answers. It is no longer interesting. plus many others. symbols and practices transmitted from one mind to another through speech. Except when it’s not. may appear as a blessing. and defines the element of cultural ideas. confusing. the only question left is what are you hungry for? Plus. are called to criticize rather than try to find answers. Yes. Despite all this. beyond its disturbing. Postmodernism. For one thing. nobody disputes that. isn’t it? Regardless of that. while remaining sufficiently non-partisan to keep in touch with the rest of the world. cut apart our papers. about as good as any movement gets nowadays. depending on their life experience and domain of action. 7 . and a certain amount of turmoil. with praiseworthy generosity a smorgasbord. run away from home. Postmodernism really is a result of Modernism. The interesting thing is that postmodernism is propagating the dysfunction. things have improved greatly.” 2 “Meme” (< Greek ‘mimema’) originated with Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book “The Selfish Gene”. not get married. maddening characteristics. It claims it is not the task of the philosopher. All of the three categories above. We have agreed to agree. we should not fail to notice how one cannot rebel by being dysfunctional any more. Except when we do not. and the bridges across the gaps have gotten sturdier.