The Post Post World

This semester I engaged in a bunch of rhetoric and it was damnly fascinating. The way people engage it and form dynamics in discourse. Some get testy, some are masters of debate, some person's have this genuine innocence to learning that makes you smile at when they smile because they simply value the practice of learning.

But I will say this. Yes, this is a contention. Starting with the positive. I'm glad, or maybe I'll finally acknowledge that living in a "Post" world, is a good place when it comes to learning in any aspect, especially through academia. What I mean when I refer to "Post" is as in the prefix when attached to other things such as: Structuralism, Gay, Modernism, Modern-art.

The reason being, is as I so willingly define, is when the "Post" is employed as a prefix it shifts the objective learning or objectivity of the central vantage point of disseminating a specific subject matter, and shifts it to a multi-lensed approach meaning. So the shift occurs by moving away from a central canon of how to understand a specific subject matter, but then shifts relatively to a communal vantage point which requires the students' energy to shift lenses to grasp a great breadth of understanding.

However, in this "post" understanding, their seems to be a vulnerability to get caught up with a facet of identity which is found in the suffix value of the "ism." I've spoken great deals about this before, but not specific to an ism, but any title you then garner for yourself as an identity, be it Socialist, Feminist, Post-Structuralist, Universalist, then lends to you to the folly of the marriage of the ism and the value of the post. Because while the post, how I value is relatively non-objective in understanding, the ism begins to bring back to objectively forming understanding. It objectively renders understanding back to the identity of the value preceding the ism. Furthermore, when you qualify yourself with an ism, you then are spending your time in a selfish manner. I'm bold with that, but I believe that isms are employed specifically politically, and no matter how people try to absolve politics as any way selfless, it's completely selfish. Politics for an individual or a group cannot be divorced from selfishness; especially in the modern world and in modern politics.

And with the ism fixed to the post prefix you begin to see this selfish mode begin to objectify things which then formulates an enemy to thrust all angst towards. Someone or something, more often then not the terms "system, machine" are used as an adequate enemy. And however easy and maybe qualifying of a response it is to castigate someone or something with full responsibility of evil or imperfection, what the initial indwelling of the post identity is to fracture objectivity by taking into consideration the multiplicity of it all. There has to be an understanding of the fissures not only in the character of every individual but in the character of understanding, logic, time, systems and any qualifiable endeavour. But this understanding that all these things have imperfections is what grants us the ability to move into a mode of pacificity when encountering further imperfections and instead of forming a selfish upheaval against any certain villainous thing, we can then form a new objectivity in order to breathe and encounter the complexity of a big "IT" that's found in IT all.

The post isn't perfect because I find that still there are certain canons formed. There are lines of thought or triggers of quality that divide people, and there is a level of civility or even hegemony formed when in comes to qualitative judgement towards particular things. You still are supposed to like or value certain things; and if you don't you maybe discredited. That's is unfortunate and pushes for an understanding that even the system of the "post" world is flawed.




Live Relentlessly,
Peace
Remoy