• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Postmodernism (written or audio)

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Audio:

Jean Baudrillard, a famous writer on the topic of “postmodernism,” explained postmodernism by means of four stages that symbols and objects have progressed through.

Stage 1: “Basic reflection of reality.” Here, symbols and objects attempt to create an objective reflection of reality. For example a chair is made to be sat on and is valuable if it fulfills its purpose, and a shirt is valuable if it covers your skin. The symbols, stories, myths, etc. of our ancestors were an attempt to describe reality as best they could (agree with the results or not). A symbol or image of a god was meant to represent an objectively existent force in reality. Here I see a comparison to very early Polytheism and the Stellar Tradition, where we accepted the objective, dualistic and spiritual nature of reality, the existence of the gods, and so on, with very complex systems that understood reality itself is complex. Inherently this can only ever be, at best, an attempt at metaphysical knowledge about reality, but it is an honest attempt.

Stage 2: "Perversion of reality.” Here the relationship between value and objective reality begins to shift, for example a chair may still serve its primary function, but be more valuable if made with a rare material, by someone of note, and/or for someone of great importance. There may be no practical difference between the stage 1 and stage 2 chairs, and yet the stage 2 chair is given more value. Symbols (perhaps most famously the serpent) are also twisted, for example as a means to control people, or even by demonizing all gods and saying there is only One True God. The complexity of reality is ignored, in favor of a simple “good vs. evil” breakdown, where everything is either Godly or Demonic. The comparison here is the Solar/Agricultural tradition and, especially, Monotheism. There is an acceptance of some sort of reality, but that reality is twisted intentionally, whether that be to control people, confuse them, or anything of the sort.

Stage 3: “Pretense of reality.” Here we have the appearance of reality, but much more of a detachment from it. The idea that gods are "just archetypes," or that magic is “just psychology,” illustrate this, along with Physicalism at large. People pretend these are the totality of reality, of which they consider themselves to be the "true seekers," but in the end they outright ignore the most important aspects of our reality. Christian Nationalism is another illustration, where leaders outright lie and fabricate history under the pretense of truth, such as the U.S. being founded as a Christian nation. Objects mainly have value thanks to Materialism and Consumerism, not to mention advertising, and the rejection of higher reality makes such things easier to fall for.

Stage 4: "Bears no relation to any reality whatsoever." This is what may be called "postmodernism," total detachment from reality. An very worrying illustration is the democratization of science, where politics and public opinion now hold as much (or more) sway as empirical evidence (with strict empiricism or “scientism” already falling under "stage 3,” since there are so many other forms of knowledge than empirical knowledge.). Here, a shirt or chair like from stage 1 may be significantly less valuable than an identical shirt or chair endorsed by a famous celebrity. We all know politicians lie when they make promises and yet cheer any time they make one anyways. Our symbols only represent our made up realities: watered-down Christianized ideology such as we see running rampant in polytheistic revival, or modern pop-cultural fictions and multiverses, for example.

Baudrillard gives the example of Main Street at Disney Parks. Not only do we spend more time and money on these fabrications than reality (e.g. replacing the gods on our altars with Disney stuff), but our very differentiation between the "real world" and "Disney world" is a delusion. Disneyland is part of the “real world”. There is no inner child to most adults which is in hiding and in need of release, rather they are very outwardly children yet still wield great power. The world is childish and run by mental and spiritual children. The "perfect world" of Disney is still draining your so-called "real" money (which itself belongs to stage 3, as paper money has no objective value).How often do we obsess over the lives and stories of fictional people, such as families in TV shows, meant purely as consumer content? Even I am guilty of this. Our biggest "influencers" are literal morons on terrible platforms, platforms which encourage us to pretend our true selves are only the best moments we choose to share online.

Stage 5: To these 4 stages I propose adding a 5th in the 21st century: “replacement of reality.” Artificial intelligence, virtual and alternate realities, one of the most recent symbols of status at the time of writing this is the new Apple headset, costing thousands of dollars, people just walking around and existing in a totally manufactured reality, one which will inevitably be shaped by those in positions of power and wealth. The popularity of fake news also may deserve ranking in this new, 5th stage, perhaps even something like plastic surgery.

It is important to note that I do not believe we necessarily pass linearly through these stages. For example there are currently people whose beliefs and practices conform to any one of these 4+ stages, or they fit different stages depending on the context.

Morality is another way to look at the stages, and for this I will use the modern example of the debate on abortion. In stage 1, morality is a quest for objective truth, so for instance with abortion we would realize that the issue is objectively complicated.

In stage 2, morality is twisted to fit the reality promoted by those in power, so for us this would be that abortion is always wrong. They still believe in an objective morality in theory, but twist and simplify that morality.

Stage 3 brings us Moral Relativism, whether abortion is right or wrong depends on who you ask, what culture you were raised in, etc. There is no objective morality, but this itself is an objective truth in a way. This is opposed to the second stage Monotheists who believe abortion is objectively wrong all together, or first stage folks who know the topic can be more complicated than black and white. Basically whatever the culture says is moral, is. Whatever morals the Relativist has, they do not believe them to be more correct than any other morals.

Finally in stage 4+, morality is completely dependent on what those in power (politicians, corporations, influencers, etc.) say is moral. It's a warped form of Moral Relativism, really. This individual believes that morals are relative, but not to culture or anything of the sort. Instead, morals are relative to whatever suits them best at the time, and whatever they are told by "authorities" of high symbol/object value. They do not believe the values and morals of others are equally valid to theirs (stage 3), nor do their actions suggest any belief in a consistent objective morality, warped or otherwise (stage 1 and 2). Instead, their morals are relative to whatever their own pseudo-reality is, whatever is to their benefit, and this itself mainly stems from the aforementioned authorities. And note that someone may be, say, a stage 2 monotheist when it comes to religion, but a stage 4 on morality, and so on.

"Whataboutism" is another illustration of moral Postmodern manipulation. Say a person is telling you how evil the current president of the U.S. is because they do X. You ask, "what about the fact that your favorite president did X too, were they also evil?" The Postmodernist will then say you are engaging in "whataboutism." To one who accepts Moral Realism it is immediately clear why the question is valid though: the answer determines if the person is truly opposed to X or simply using it against those they don’t like, special pleading. Postmodernists simply believe whatever they need or want to at the time to support their own biases, not that X is actually immoral.

Our paper money is another example of stage 3, “pretense of reality.” The paper money system is entirely theoretical, in reality the paper is worth very, very little. It's just tied to this conceptual system that, were it to be cast aside, would make all cash meaningless paper. Stage 1 would be things like services, sustenance, shelter, useful things, symbols that were thought to impact reality, etc., objective things all people need. Stage 2 is illustrated by gold, we give it meaning beyond what it has, but it's a real thing with a limited amount of it in the world, you cannot get trillions in debt just printing new gold into existence as with stage 3 cash. And for stage 4+, what better example than NFTs and Bitcoin, or views, likes, and upvotes?

Social media gives us insight into the world of stage 4 / Postmodernism. All the big-name forums or social media platforms, as well as many smaller ones, are oversaturated with advertisements, these new religious symbols and their new valuable objects, to the point where advertisers choose which platforms or outlets survive and which crash and burn. Whole sites wield the power to silence dissenters of whichever ideologies they find unappealing. In many cases people are extremely limited in the number of characters they can use at once, making true discourse impossible. People live entirely fake lives to instill jealousy in others, who go on to lie to themselves and others as well, and groupthink is encouraged through voting systems which create hiveminds and drive out any independent thought. All these fit with Baudrillard’s fourth stage - none of this is reality. Consumerism is objectively less valuable than individuation and freedom, it is not a valid way to live life, it only wastes life, time, and resources. Human thought is not limited by a character count, this does not describe reality in any way, instead creating a new "reality" where any idea longer than a few sentences is a "word salad" and cannot hold one's attention. There are fewer and fewer "great thinkers," and they are not the ones being heard and viewed. The endless, manufactured, touched up selfies, vacations wasted taking pictures instead of living, time lost in the imagery rather than the real event - this is not objective reality. It not only rejects reality but twists and perverts it, replacing it with a manufactured (simulated) one.

[Cont...]
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
[...cont]

Cancel culture is another unfortunate offspring of Postmodernist thought. Due to the power held and used by the creators and maintainers of all these stage 4 images and objects, "reality" is now defined by such entities. A famous actor was fired from all his roles including a massive franchise on mere accusations of abuse, before the crimes were even brought to court (where it turned out things were not so clear cut). If it can happen to a rich, beloved movie star, imagine what could happen to you. I am not suggesting you feel bad for a billionaire who helps fabricate reality, nor do I believe we have a great and trustworthy justice system in place. All I want to illustrate is how a mere accusation led to guilt and punishment because corporations and the more popular political party said they were guilty, and culture followed blindly, before it even reached the justice system at all. Even in cases where someone ends up being guilty, they cannot be found guilty before investigation and judgment. But this does not matter in a world where reality is whatever is most popular at the time.

All forms of media contribute to this, there is no longer any reality in culture outside of the images and realities created for us, created to distract us from this disturbing rejection of reality. Games, shows, movies, children’s content, fiction and non-fiction works, governments, news outlets… not every single individual instance of these may be wholly negative, but the positive ones are becoming more and more rare. I’ve found an interesting source of philosophy on this matter in the poetry of Jim Morrison, famously known as the singer of The Doors, whose father was all too familiar with the fabrication of reality. Morrison wrote about how the powers that be use content from films to museums (where we simulate history) and everything in between to blind citizens to their power over us, our values, even our own meanings regarding life. He feared that humans had become simple spectators, staring blankly into the screen, letting it write their reality for them. He even predicted the "meta" nature of our modern culture, where everything has become self-referential, filled with cameos and easter eggs, dead actors resurrected and old ones de-aged, because media-created reality is now the only reality. All it can reference is itself, lest it shatter the illusion or acknowledge reality. Just look at how our culture cannot even create new content, just remakes, sequels, shared universes, etc.

"There are no longer “dancers,” the possessed. The cleavage of men into actor and spectators is the central fact of our time. We are obsessed with heroes who live for us and whom we punish. If all the radios and televisions were deprived of their sources of power, all the books and paintings burned tomorrow, all shows and cinemas closed, all the arts of vicarious existence… We are content with the “given” in sensation’s quest. We have been metamorphosized from a mad body dancing on hillsides to a pair of eyes staring in the dark." - Jim Morrison

Another great example of postmodernism is the idea of secularism, that we can separate the public from the religious, or that there are actually people who have no religion whatsoever. This rejects the reality that religion applies to many aspects of life, that someone who is non-theistic or simply “spiritual” still is often religious. For example we can look to sports, where all sorts of weird rituals and ceremonies take place that have nothing to do with the layman understanding of religion, gods, the divine, etc, but are studied as such by religious scholars nonetheless. It can even tie back to the Disneyland example, such as how we pretend America is a secular country, or delude ourselves into thinking the hateful Atheism of France (or places like the USSR before it) is somehow not its own form of religion. In stage 1 we recognized there was no separating the spiritual and religious from daily life. Stage 2 keeps this mostly in place but twists it to fit monotheism. It's not until stage 3 that this really changes to keeping religion “private,” and stage 4 flips the whole thing on its head to where the state and corporations have become god, and the gods have become fantasy.

Postmodernism has even seeped into the WLHP to a great extent. For example, with the identification of the Christian entity Satan with all sorts of beings that have no correlation to him. The Satanist who says that The Devil is Setesh, the Serpent, Prometheus, or any other such deity is placing objective reality on the backburner in favor of a popular cultural meme - that all these beings are Satan, despite their histories, characteristics, mythologies, etc. It is Postmodernism which allows certain groups from the late 1900s to claim absurd things like being the first and only Satanists with no regard for objective reality, or which allows organizations to claim the title of Romantic Satanists when their values and acts fly in the face of that literary movement. It's why people who think they are on the WLHP can still fall for things like Physicalism against all evidence and reason. It's how occultists can create completely made up identities for themselves that, even after being exposed as fraudulent, are still parroted blindly by their followers. And in a wider sense it applies to modern polytheism overall, where new age, fluff bunny occultists come in changing polytheism to monotheism, or saying all male and female goddesses are just a manifestation of duo-theism. There is no escaping Postmodern irrationality.

Our symbols of the divine, of deeper spiritual meanings and truths, of a reality beyond this one, have all been replaced with corporate logos, meme templates, and easter eggs. Like me, many others also have altars in every room of the house, their altars are simply shrines to brands, consumer content, companies, political parties, famous actors, etc. The utility of an object no longer defines it, but instead it is the fabricated social status a thing is supposed to create, such as an uncomfortable designer chair being ten times the cost of a more comfortable and practical one. If your car can reliably get you place to place, but isn’t sporting the right hood ornament, or a fresh coat of paint, all the fancy add ons and a high floor price, then the object simply is not as valuable as if it had these entirely unnecessary things, and therefore the individual themselves is judged as less valuable. Two identical shirts can vary in price by hundreds of dollars based solely on the name printed on the tag inside. All of these values are entirely manufactured and completely detached from objective reality.

Perhaps worst of all is that people and objects have become harder to tell apart, as best exemplified with celebrities. They are fake people with false personalities who we are supposed to see as the ideal human beings. All of their flaws are edited and filtered out, and then we are condemned for not being on par. To postmodern companies, the individual is literally just an object to be used as a means to an end, a cog in a machine rather than an individual with needs, goals, drives, etc. Politicians are themselves celebrities now, and I do not only mean literal actors running for office, but rather that people cheer for them like they do a rock star, consume their media like it is a drug, defend them as if they were their favorite comic character… What gives these politicians and celebrities their power? An association with the new system of symbols and objects of value, the system which disregards reality all together in order to encourage things like Consumerism and obedience.

Postmodernism has an influence over almost every aspect of our lives. It encourages people to believe any fleeting thing they want, or more often are told to want, is of foremost importance or value. It allows constant advertising to empty us of any "inconvenient" meaning or value and fill the void with Consumerism and material things, or to fill it with work lives that are ultimately pointless and amount to nothing more than some conceptual material wage (money itself not even being "real"). The value of objects defines and overtakes the value of the individual. A disregard for objectivity means a disregard for the scientific method itself, allowing science to become a process of authoritarianism at worst and democracy at best, a process of media propaganda rather than a quest for truth. Whatever facts benefit the high-object-value people and the symbols they associate with are true, and facts which do not are false, being able to change at the drop of a hat as needed.

Postmodernism is clearly the natural outcome of our move from profound reality to a fabricated simulation of reality created to control, stifle, and subdue human beings… an immoral and dangerous metaphysics too blind to see that without any objective reality nobody can ever be correct, including themselves.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...

Jean Baudrillard, a famous writer on the topic of “postmodernism,” explained postmodernism by means of four stages that symbols and objects have progressed through.

Stage 1: “Basic reflection of reality.” Here, symbols and objects attempt to create an objective reflection of reality. For example a chair is made to be sat on and is valuable if it fulfills its purpose, and a shirt is valuable if it covers your skin. ...

The latter is for valuable on an objective reflection of reality.
Now there are parts of the world, which are objective, but not all of it.
 
Baudrillard gives the example of Main Street at Disney Parks. Not only do we spend more time and money on these fabrications than reality (e.g. replacing the gods on our altars with Disney stuff), but our very differentiation between the "real world" and "Disney world" is a delusion. Disneyland is part of the “real world”. There is no inner child to most adults which is in hiding and in need of release, rather they are very outwardly children yet still wield great power. The world is childish and run by mental and spiritual children. The "perfect world" of Disney is still draining your so-called "real" money (which itself belongs to stage 3, as paper money has no objective value).How often do we obsess over the lives and stories of fictional people, such as families in TV shows, meant purely as consumer content? Even I am guilty of this. Our biggest "influencers" are literal morons on terrible platforms, platforms which encourage us to pretend our true selves are only the best moments we choose to share online.

Disney is an interesting case.

Here’s a clip from a Disney flick. Note the similarities between 2:45 and the flower festival in the real world in the second video.

The flower festival featured in “encanto” is on the UNESCO list of the intangible heritage of humankind.

Stephanie Beatriz, Olga Merediz, Encanto - Cast - The Family Madrigal (From "Encanto")


FLOWER FESTIVAL: the pride of the Silleteros | WIDE​

 
Audio:

Jean Baudrillard, a famous writer on the topic of “postmodernism,” explained postmodernism by means of four stages that symbols and objects have progressed through.

Stage 1: “Basic reflection of reality.” Here, symbols and objects attempt to create an objective reflection of reality. For example a chair is made to be sat on and is valuable if it fulfills its purpose, and a shirt is valuable if it covers your skin. The symbols, stories, myths, etc. of our ancestors were an attempt to describe reality as best they could (agree with the results or not). A symbol or image of a god was meant to represent an objectively existent force in reality. Here I see a comparison to very early Polytheism and the Stellar Tradition, where we accepted the objective, dualistic and spiritual nature of reality, the existence of the gods, and so on, with very complex systems that understood reality itself is complex. Inherently this can only ever be, at best, an attempt at metaphysical knowledge about reality, but it is an honest attempt.

Stage 2: "Perversion of reality.” Here the relationship between value and objective reality begins to shift, for example a chair may still serve its primary function, but be more valuable if made with a rare material, by someone of note, and/or for someone of great importance. There may be no practical difference between the stage 1 and stage 2 chairs, and yet the stage 2 chair is given more value. Symbols (perhaps most famously the serpent) are also twisted, for example as a means to control people, or even by demonizing all gods and saying there is only One True God. The complexity of reality is ignored, in favor of a simple “good vs. evil” breakdown, where everything is either Godly or Demonic. The comparison here is the Solar/Agricultural tradition and, especially, Monotheism. There is an acceptance of some sort of reality, but that reality is twisted intentionally, whether that be to control people, confuse them, or anything of the sort.

Stage 3: “Pretense of reality.” Here we have the appearance of reality, but much more of a detachment from it. The idea that gods are "just archetypes," or that magic is “just psychology,” illustrate this, along with Physicalism at large. People pretend these are the totality of reality, of which they consider themselves to be the "true seekers," but in the end they outright ignore the most important aspects of our reality. Christian Nationalism is another illustration, where leaders outright lie and fabricate history under the pretense of truth, such as the U.S. being founded as a Christian nation. Objects mainly have value thanks to Materialism and Consumerism, not to mention advertising, and the rejection of higher reality makes such things easier to fall for.

Stage 4: "Bears no relation to any reality whatsoever." This is what may be called "postmodernism," total detachment from reality. An very worrying illustration is the democratization of science, where politics and public opinion now hold as much (or more) sway as empirical evidence (with strict empiricism or “scientism” already falling under "stage 3,” since there are so many other forms of knowledge than empirical knowledge.). Here, a shirt or chair like from stage 1 may be significantly less valuable than an identical shirt or chair endorsed by a famous celebrity. We all know politicians lie when they make promises and yet cheer any time they make one anyways. Our symbols only represent our made up realities: watered-down Christianized ideology such as we see running rampant in polytheistic revival, or modern pop-cultural fictions and multiverses, for example.

Baudrillard gives the example of Main Street at Disney Parks. Not only do we spend more time and money on these fabrications than reality (e.g. replacing the gods on our altars with Disney stuff), but our very differentiation between the "real world" and "Disney world" is a delusion. Disneyland is part of the “real world”. There is no inner child to most adults which is in hiding and in need of release, rather they are very outwardly children yet still wield great power. The world is childish and run by mental and spiritual children. The "perfect world" of Disney is still draining your so-called "real" money (which itself belongs to stage 3, as paper money has no objective value).How often do we obsess over the lives and stories of fictional people, such as families in TV shows, meant purely as consumer content? Even I am guilty of this. Our biggest "influencers" are literal morons on terrible platforms, platforms which encourage us to pretend our true selves are only the best moments we choose to share online.

Stage 5: To these 4 stages I propose adding a 5th in the 21st century: “replacement of reality.” Artificial intelligence, virtual and alternate realities, one of the most recent symbols of status at the time of writing this is the new Apple headset, costing thousands of dollars, people just walking around and existing in a totally manufactured reality, one which will inevitably be shaped by those in positions of power and wealth. The popularity of fake news also may deserve ranking in this new, 5th stage, perhaps even something like plastic surgery.

It is important to note that I do not believe we necessarily pass linearly through these stages. For example there are currently people whose beliefs and practices conform to any one of these 4+ stages, or they fit different stages depending on the context.

Morality is another way to look at the stages, and for this I will use the modern example of the debate on abortion. In stage 1, morality is a quest for objective truth, so for instance with abortion we would realize that the issue is objectively complicated.

In stage 2, morality is twisted to fit the reality promoted by those in power, so for us this would be that abortion is always wrong. They still believe in an objective morality in theory, but twist and simplify that morality.

Stage 3 brings us Moral Relativism, whether abortion is right or wrong depends on who you ask, what culture you were raised in, etc. There is no objective morality, but this itself is an objective truth in a way. This is opposed to the second stage Monotheists who believe abortion is objectively wrong all together, or first stage folks who know the topic can be more complicated than black and white. Basically whatever the culture says is moral, is. Whatever morals the Relativist has, they do not believe them to be more correct than any other morals.

Finally in stage 4+, morality is completely dependent on what those in power (politicians, corporations, influencers, etc.) say is moral. It's a warped form of Moral Relativism, really. This individual believes that morals are relative, but not to culture or anything of the sort. Instead, morals are relative to whatever suits them best at the time, and whatever they are told by "authorities" of high symbol/object value. They do not believe the values and morals of others are equally valid to theirs (stage 3), nor do their actions suggest any belief in a consistent objective morality, warped or otherwise (stage 1 and 2). Instead, their morals are relative to whatever their own pseudo-reality is, whatever is to their benefit, and this itself mainly stems from the aforementioned authorities. And note that someone may be, say, a stage 2 monotheist when it comes to religion, but a stage 4 on morality, and so on.

"Whataboutism" is another illustration of moral Postmodern manipulation. Say a person is telling you how evil the current president of the U.S. is because they do X. You ask, "what about the fact that your favorite president did X too, were they also evil?" The Postmodernist will then say you are engaging in "whataboutism." To one who accepts Moral Realism it is immediately clear why the question is valid though: the answer determines if the person is truly opposed to X or simply using it against those they don’t like, special pleading. Postmodernists simply believe whatever they need or want to at the time to support their own biases, not that X is actually immoral.

Our paper money is another example of stage 3, “pretense of reality.” The paper money system is entirely theoretical, in reality the paper is worth very, very little. It's just tied to this conceptual system that, were it to be cast aside, would make all cash meaningless paper. Stage 1 would be things like services, sustenance, shelter, useful things, symbols that were thought to impact reality, etc., objective things all people need. Stage 2 is illustrated by gold, we give it meaning beyond what it has, but it's a real thing with a limited amount of it in the world, you cannot get trillions in debt just printing new gold into existence as with stage 3 cash. And for stage 4+, what better example than NFTs and Bitcoin, or views, likes, and upvotes?

Social media gives us insight into the world of stage 4 / Postmodernism. All the big-name forums or social media platforms, as well as many smaller ones, are oversaturated with advertisements, these new religious symbols and their new valuable objects, to the point where advertisers choose which platforms or outlets survive and which crash and burn. Whole sites wield the power to silence dissenters of whichever ideologies they find unappealing. In many cases people are extremely limited in the number of characters they can use at once, making true discourse impossible. People live entirely fake lives to instill jealousy in others, who go on to lie to themselves and others as well, and groupthink is encouraged through voting systems which create hiveminds and drive out any independent thought. All these fit with Baudrillard’s fourth stage - none of this is reality. Consumerism is objectively less valuable than individuation and freedom, it is not a valid way to live life, it only wastes life, time, and resources. Human thought is not limited by a character count, this does not describe reality in any way, instead creating a new "reality" where any idea longer than a few sentences is a "word salad" and cannot hold one's attention. There are fewer and fewer "great thinkers," and they are not the ones being heard and viewed. The endless, manufactured, touched up selfies, vacations wasted taking pictures instead of living, time lost in the imagery rather than the real event - this is not objective reality. It not only rejects reality but twists and perverts it, replacing it with a manufactured (simulated) one.

[Cont...]
That is some deep reading. I had to read it a couple of times. :)
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I never could understand the word "postmodern." "Modern" refers to the present, so "post modern" would literally be "after the present." That would be the "future" for most people.

Maybe I'm some kind of barbarian or philistine for thinking this, but it seems "postmodernism" means making up words that have no meaning for no reason.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I never could understand the word "postmodern." "Modern" refers to the present, so "post modern" would literally be "after the present." That would be the "future" for most people.

Maybe I'm some kind of barbarian or philistine for thinking this, but it seems "postmodernism" means making up words that have no meaning for no reason.
Couldn't tell you why they chose the word, but we must identify things by words.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Science - or, more precisely, the perception of science - also had its role in creating postmodernism. Quantum mechanics seemingly tells us that reality isn't real (in the sense modernism thought it to be).
Psychology and neurology seemingly tells us that we don't perceive reality as it is. Which has led to one of the most stupid mantras postmodernism has created: We create reality in our minds.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Science - or, more precisely, the perception of science - also had its role in creating postmodernism. Quantum mechanics seemingly tells us that reality isn't real (in the sense modernism thought it to be).
Psychology and neurology seemingly tells us that we don't perceive reality as it is. Which has led to one of the most stupid mantras postmodernism has created: We create reality in our minds.

Yeah, it is not that reality is only subjective or objective, it is as far as I can tell a combintion of objective, intersubjective and individually subjective.
But that is just me.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Yeah, it is not that reality is only subjective or objective, it is as far as I can tell a combintion of objective, intersubjective and individually subjective.
But that is just me.
Unfortunately, it isn't just you. This re-definition of reality is quite common with postmodernists.
For me (and it is not just me, but we may be a minority now), reality is what is real, objective, measurable. What we create in our minds are only models of reality, or maps. But the map is not the territory.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The latter is for valuable on an objective reflection of reality.
Now there are parts of the world, which are objective, but not all of it.

Edit. @1137
I didn't write what I actually wanted to express and I made a mistake.
That something has value as it matters, it is useful or meaningful is subjective and not a objective reflective of reality.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Unfortunately, it isn't just you. This re-definition of reality is quite common with postmodernists.
For me (and it is not just me, but we may be a minority now), reality is what is real, objective, measurable. What we create in our minds are only models of reality, or maps. But the map is not the territory.

Well, yes, but I haven't been able to only always refer to the territory.
 
Stage 2: "Perversion of reality.” Here the relationship between value and objective reality begins to shift, for example a chair may still serve its primary function, but be more valuable if made with a rare material, by someone of note, and/or for someone of great importance. There may be no practical difference between the stage 1 and stage 2 chairs, and yet the stage 2 chair is given more value. Symbols (perhaps most famously the serpent) are also twisted, for example as a means to control people, or even by demonizing all gods and saying there is only One True God. The complexity of reality is ignored, in favor of a simple “good vs. evil” breakdown, where everything is either Godly or Demonic. The comparison here is the Solar/Agricultural tradition and, especially, Monotheism. There is an acceptance of some sort of reality, but that reality is twisted intentionally, whether that be to control people, confuse them, or anything of the sort.

I like the example of the chair.

The chair is an object that I’ve seen used in sculpture on multiple occasions.

Here’s an artist who uses the chair in several of her works.

(I tend to view her work thru the lenz of magical realism, rather than postmodernism, though, given the culture it originates from, but whatever.)

“Art does not give answers. Art only asks questions.”


Doris Salcedo's Public Works​


Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago

The Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago presents the first retrospective of the work of renowned sculptor Doris Salcedo (Colombian, b. 1958). In conjunction with the exhibition, the MCA produced a short film documenting Salcedo’s site-specific and ephemeral installations—works that either no longer exist or are otherwise impossible to display in the galleries of the museum—in order to establish their importance and contribution to her larger body of works.

Salcedo grounds her art in rigorous fieldwork, which involves extensive interviews with people who have experienced loss and trauma in their everyday lives due to political violence. Rather than making literal representations of violence or trauma, however, Salcedo’s artworks convey a sense of an absent, missing body and evoke a collective sense of loss. The resulting pieces engage with multiple dualities at once—strength and fragility, the ephemeral and the enduring—and bear elements of healing and reparation in the careful, laborious process of their making.

Doris Salcedo is cocurated by Pritzker Director Madeleine Grynsztejn and Curator Julie Rodrigues Widholm, with assistance from Curatorial Assistant Steven L. Bridges, and will be on view at the MCA from February 21–May 24, 2015. The exhibition travels to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, June 26–October 14, 2015, and the Perez Art Museum Miami, May 6–October 23, 2016.


This documentary was made possible by generous support from the Stefan Edlis and Gael Neeson Foundation as part of the exhibition Doris Salcedo, organized by the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago.

Lead support for Doris Salcedo is provided by the Harris Family Foundation in memory of Bette and Neison Harris: Caryn and King Harris, Katherine Harris, Toni and Ron Paul, Pam and Joe Szokol, Linda and Bill Friend, and Stephanie and John Harris. Additional lead support is provided by Stefan Edlis and Gael Neeson, The Bluhm Family Foundation, Anne Kaplan, Howard and Donna Stone, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and Helen and Sam Zell.

Major support is provided by The Chicago Community Trust; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Colombia, Ministry of Culture of Colombia, and Embassy of Colombia in Washington DC; Barbara Bluhm-Kaul and Don Kaul; Paula and Jim Crown; Nancy and Steve Crown; Walter and Karla Goldschmidt Foundation; Liz and Eric Lefkofsky; Susana and Ricardo Steinbruch; and Kristin and Stanley Stevens.

Additional generous support is provided by the National Endowment for the Arts, Christie’s, Marilyn and Larry Fields, the Diane and Bruce Halle Foundation, Agnes Gund, the Kovler Family Foundation, Nancy and David Frej, Mary E. Ittelson, Lilly Scarpetta, Jennifer Aubrey, the Dedalus Foundation, Jacques and Natasha Gelman Trust, Ashlee and Martin Modahl, Lois and Steve Eisen and the Eisen Family Foundation, the North Shore Affiliate of the MCA, Carla Emil and Rich Silverstein, Jeanne and Michael Klein, Lisa and John Miller, Elizabeth Firestone Graham Foundation, the Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, Emily Rauh Pulitzer, Maria C. Bechily and Scott Hodes, the Barbara Lee Family Foundation, Jill Garling and Tom Wilson, Solita Mishaan, and Sara Szold.

The artist’s galleries have also provided support to present the exhibition and catalogue: White Cube and Alexander and Bonin, New York.

 

Ostronomos

Well-Known Member
Although an argument can be made that perception is divorced from reality, it ultimately is no different from it. This is because if it were, a photon could not travel towards one's eye enabling one to perceive. This logically demonstrates that reality is perception. I've argued this before in another forum.

Reality enters the mind is a tautological truth.

This can be extended to make a case that the universe is ultimately an omnipresent mind but we are limited by our five senses.

What are your thoughts?
 
Although an argument can be made that perception is divorced from reality, it ultimately is no different from it. This is because if it were, a photon could not travel towards one's eye enabling one to perceive. This logically demonstrates that reality is perception. I've argued this before in another forum.

Reality enters the mind is a tautological truth.

This can be extended to make a case that the universe is ultimately an omnipresent mind but we are limited by our five senses.

What are your thoughts?

There seems to be sixth sense for directly percieving mathematical objects.

It often works a lot better than the other five senses, which are mainly used to store and retrieve information on paper.

I don’t always trust what my eyes see on the paper though.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Another great example of postmodernism is the idea of secularism, that we can separate the public from the religious, or that there are actually people who have no religion whatsoever. This rejects the reality that religion applies to many aspects of life, that someone who is non-theistic or simply “spiritual” still is often religious.
The OP seems to do a pretty good job, mostly thumbs up from me. (Although careful readers might find things I missed.)

But the above seems incorrect to me. While it's true that religion applies to many aspects of life, it by no means has to apply to ALL aspects. For example, in legal matters I think it's appropriate to rely on a-religious morals and ethics.

And I also take exception whenever anyone links religion with spirituality. To me spirituality is completely independent of religion, and it is the religious who attempt to co-op spirituality and claim it as their own :(
 
The OP seems to do a pretty good job, mostly thumbs up from me. (Although careful readers might find things I missed.)

But the above seems incorrect to me. While it's true that religion applies to many aspects of life, it by no means has to apply to ALL aspects. For example, in legal matters I think it's appropriate to rely on a-religious morals and ethics.

And I also take exception whenever anyone links religion with spirituality. To me spirituality is completely independent of religion, and it is the religious who attempt to co-op spirituality and claim it as their own :(

How does one separate culture from religion?

That's a western cultural notion.

Remember, religion is a part of identity.

And religious rights under the law include both individual religious rights and collective religious rights.

Other cultures are not co-opting anything simply by having an identity.

That doesn't even make any sense. It's just silly.
 
Last edited:

The Rights of Maroons In International Human Rights Law​

By Fergus MacKay

The vast majority of American states have ratified international human rights treaties that obligate them to respect the rights of individuals and certain groups. Some have also ratified International Labor Organization Convention No. 169 (ILO 169), which deals exclusively with the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. The rights of Maroon individuals and collectivities are also protected under these instruments. This article provides an overview of the nature and content of those rights, with an emphasis on collective rights.

Prior to turning to the substance of Maroon rights, I should point out that states have an obligation to give effect to ratified human rights treaties in their domestic law, as without these measures international guarantees for the most part cannot be enforced or enjoyed by the intended beneficiaries. By virtue of both general principles of international law and specific provisions found in human rights treaties,(1) states are obligated, first, to give effect without discrimination to human rights in their domestic law by constitutional amendment, adopting new legislation and/or modifying existing legislation; and second, to ensure that effective remedies are in place permitting rights to be enforced in domestic courts and other tribunals.

While the underlying rationale for protecting the collective rights of Maroons -- the right to cultural integrity, the right to self-determination, the right to equality before the law and freedom from discrimination -- holds true in all cases, the manner in which Maroons are classified under international law -- as minorities, as tribal peoples, or as some other entity -- is important. Without engaging in a (contentious) discussion of how to classify Maroons, I will simply state that under international definitions, imperfect as they are, Maroons can be described as both "minorities" and as "tribal peoples," the latter being most relevant in terms of collective rights.(2) And while they are not indigenous peoples, Maroons enjoy largely the same rights as indigenous peoples under international law -- the main distinction being that Maroons cannot claim aboriginality and the rights that attach to that status. For this reason, but also due to a lack of international jurisprudence on Maroon rights, I will make frequent reference here to indigenous peoples' rights.

Maroon Rights Under International Instruments

Minority rights are encapsulated in Article 27 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides that "[in] those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of the group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language." These rights are held by individuals but exercised "in community with other members of the group," thereby providing some measure of collectivity. Similar language is found in Article 30 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the points made here are therefore also relevant to the rights of Maroon children, and by implication, the larger community, under that instrument.

The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) has interpreted Article 27 to include the "rights of persons, in community with others, to engage in economic and social activities which are part of the culture of the community to which they belong." In reaching this conclusion, the HRC recognized that indigenous peoples' subsistence and other traditional economic activities are an integral part of their culture, and that interference with those activities can be detrimental to their cultural integrity and survival. By implication, the land, resource base, and the surrounding environment also require protection if subsistence activities are to be safeguarded.
 
The HRC further elaborated on its interpretation of Article 27 by stating in its 1994 General Recommendation No. 23:

[One] or other aspects of the rights of individuals protected [under Art. 27] -- for example to enjoy a particular culture -- may consist in a way of life which is closely associated with a territory and [with] its use of resources. This may particularly be true of members of indigenous communities constituting a minority.... With regard to the exercise of the cultural rights protected under Article 27, the committee observes that culture manifests itself in many forms, including a particular way of life associated with the use of land resources, specifically in the case of indigenous peoples. That right may include such traditional activities as fishing or hunting and the right to live in reserves protected by law. The enjoyment of those rights may require positive legal measures of protection and measures to ensure the effective participation of members of minority communities in decisions which affect them.... The Committee concludes that Article 27 relates to rights whose protection imposes specific obligations on States parties. The protection of these rights is directed to ensure the survival and continued development of the cultural, religious and social identity of the minorities concerned, thus enriching the fabric of society as a whole.

According to an HRC statement in July 2000, Article 27 requires that "necessary steps...be taken to restore and protect the titles and interests of indigenous persons in their native lands" and that "securing continuation and sustainability of traditional forms of economy of indigenous minorities (hunting, fishing and gathering), and protection of sites of religious or cultural significance for such minorities...must be protected under Article 27."(3)

The basis for the protection of indigenous peoples' land and other rights under Article 27 is the right to enjoy culture. Just as with the cultures and economies of indigenous peoples, those of the Maroons are fundamentally related to the ownership, use, and enjoyment of their lands and territories. These territories are inextricably intertwined with the social, ancestral, and spiritual relationships that govern Maroon daily lives. Consequently, for Maroons to enjoy their culture, the same level of protection must be accorded.

Under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), states-parties are obligated to recognize and respect the right "to own property alone as well as in association with others" and the right to inherit both without discrimination. As with indigenous property, peoples, traditional Maroon land tenure or property ownership is collective, with individuals holding subsidiary usufruct rights, and such land tenure is different from property rights regimes set out in state legal systems. Failure to recognize and protect Maroon property and inheritance systems and rights is discriminatory and denies equal protection of the law.

In its 1997 General Recommendation, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination elaborated on state obligations and indigenous rights under CERD. In particular, the Committee called upon states-parties to "recognize and protect the rights of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources and, where they have been deprived of their lands and territories traditionally owned or otherwise inhabited or used without their free and informed consent, to take steps to return these lands and territories," and to "ensure that members of indigenous peoples have equal rights in respect of effective participation in public life, and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent."

Similar conclusions about indigenous peoples' rights have been reached under Inter-American human rights instruments, specifically the American Convention on Human Rights, that apply equally to Maroons. First, it is well established in the Inter-American system that indigenous peoples have been historically discriminated against and disadvantaged and, therefore, that special measures and protections (affirmative action) are required if they are to enjoy equal protection of the law and the full enjoyment of other human rights. These special measures include protection for indigenous languages, cultures, economies, ecosystems and natural resource base, religious practices, and "ancestral and communal lands," and the establishment of an institutional order that facilitates indigenous participation through their freely chosen representatives.(4) The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) characterized the preceding as "human rights also essential to the right to life of peoples."(5) Protection of these rights, then, amounts to a broad prohibition of assimilation and ethnocide.

The IACHR has dealt with indigenous rights in the context of environmental degradation and development activities on a number of occasions. Most recently, it found that Nicaragua had violated the right to property, judicial protection, and due process of the law by granting logging concessions on indigenous lands without taking steps to title and demarcate those lands and to ensure that the affected communities could participate in decision-making about those concessions.(6) (See Theodore Macdonald's article on page 66.) It looked extensively at environmental issues in its 1997 Ecuador Report, which examined in detail the rights of indigenous peoples affected by oil drilling activities. It held that the right to life and to a healthy environment are inseparable, that human rights issues arise when regulations protecting the environment are absent or not enforced, and that a right to access to information and participation in decision-making about environment-and development-related matters exists pursuant to rights set out in the American Convention.

Addressing rights to lands, territories, and resources, the IACHR has found that indigenous peoples' property rights derive from their own forms of land tenure and traditional occupation and use.(7) It has related these rights on a number of occasions to cultural integrity, thereby recognizing the fundamental connection between indigenous land tenure and resource security and the right to practice, develop, and transmit culture free from unwarranted interference. For instance, in 1997, the IACHR stated: "For many indigenous cultures, continued utilization of traditional collective systems for the control and use of territory are essential to their survival, as well as to their individual and collective wellbeing. Control over the land refers to both its capacity for providing the resources which sustain life, and to `the geographical space necessary for the cultural and social reproduction of the group.'"(8) It reiterated this conclusion in its Second Report on the Human Rights Situation in Peru, stating: "Land, for the indigenous peoples, is a condition of individual security and liaison with the group. The recovery, recognition, demarcation and registration of the lands represents essential rights for cultural survival and for maintaining the community's integrity."(9)

Finally, in 1997, the Heads of State of the Caribbean Community adopted the CARICOM Charter of Civil Society, which provides in Article XI that "[the] States recognise the contribution of the indigenous peoples to the development process and undertake to continue to protect their historical rights and respect the culture and way of life of these peoples." This charter applies to both Suriname and Jamaica, although its scope -- in particular, the question of whether Maroons are included in the category "indigenous peoples" -- has yet to be articulated.

Territorial rights are interrelated with rights to autonomy and self-government and both are related to Maroon rights guaranteed by their treaties with colonial authorities. The Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations, in their respective draft declarations on the rights of indigenous peoples, have recognized the right to autonomy and self-government as a mode of exercising the right to self-determination within existing states; the draft declarations also require respect for rights guaranteed under treaties between indigeous peoples and states. From the Maroon perspective, their historical treaties are sacred covenants by which they exchanged a cessation of hostilities for political, territorial, and cultural autonomy. The treaties stand as a testament to the struggle of their most powerful ancestors and set immutable boundaries within which they can exist and prosper as free peoples. (Bilby, 1997)

Maroons can also be classified as tribal peoples. Tribal peoples enjoy essentially the same rights as indigenous peoples under international law. ILO 169 defines tribal peoples as "peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations." The IACHR used the same language when describing non-indigenous "tribal peoples" in Article 1 of its proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, thereby according Maroons the same rights as indigenous peoples under that instrument. This proposed declaration is presently under review by a working group of the OAS Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs prior to submission to the OAS General Assembly for adoption at some point in the future.

Together with its predecessor ILO No. 107, ILO 169 is the only binding international treaty to deal exclusively with indigenous and tribal peoples' rights. It is based on the principle that indigenous and tribal peoples should "enjoy as much control as possible over their own economic, social and cultural development." It recognizes that indigenous and tribal peoples "have the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development as it affects their lives, beliefs, institutions and spiritual wellbeing and the lands they occupy or otherwise use, and to exercise control, to the extent possible, over their own economic, social and cultural development." It also contains six articles on indigenous and tribal land and resource rights, basing these rights on traditional occupation and use of land and resources rather than on grants from the state, and a number of provisions relating to consultation and participation in decision-making. To date, of the states in which Maroons live, only Ecuador and Colombia have ratified ILO 169. In both countries, ILO 169 provided the basis for constitutional and legislative changes recognizing some of the rights of Maroons in domestic law.(10) Brazil is in the process of ratification, and Maroons in Suriname are lobbying the state (with little response) to ratify it.
 
Top