Temporary but Unrepentant Umbilical to Furthur Thought-Insanity, Part XXXVIII

Carlos-o(∞): “ We have this situation: the Enlightenment presupposes most of which Postmodernity finds problematic, while what the Enlightenment consciously treats, and upon which it elevates, erects and carefully constructs, is what Postmodernity finds necessary to dismantle, precisely for the purpose of getting at, releasing, and thus letting breathe, what the Enlightenment had presupposed, (or taken for granted.)

It’s more confusing than this, though…What the Enlightenment presupposes and takes for granted also rather more importantly appears to be what the Enlightenment wishes to oppress or marginalize, to block from ‘serious’ consideration. In the case of the Enlightenment, it's even more difficult than usual to distinguish assumption from repressed content.

It could also be that Postmodernity has no necessary relationship to the Enlightenment; the Enlightenment could be just another ‘era’ or ‘other’ for the Postmoderns to be playful with, (or pillage—it’s often difficult in Postmodernity to tell which is which.)

As in Postmodernity the wherewithal to bypass the Enlightenment is available (in the form of a remarkably diverse and thorough archive of world history at the fingertips of the masses in the form of the internet, among others), we could see the Postmoderns going back to those things the Postmoderns want wherever they are to be found (e.g., to ancient Greece, to pre-Columbian American culture, to Africa, or whatever or whenever.)

In other words, why would the Postmoderns tarry at all on the historical Enlightenment? (We take it as beyond question that the Postmoderns do tarry within the ‘problem’ of the Enlightenment.) There must be compelling reasons for this. This tarrying by Postmoderns, on the historical Enlightenment, the need to do this, is the problem of Totalization.

There needs to be some satisfactory Postmodern theory of what it is the Enlightenment is responding to, why the Enlightenment arises in the first place. Why would the Enlightenment presuppose what the Postmoderns find problematical? Why would the ‘values’ of the two eras be in this strange relationship of inverse symmetry? Why would a purely formal freedom, potentially devoid of an experience or feeling of freedom, suffice theoretically for the Enlightenment, while for the Postmoderns, the experience or feeling of freedom would be paramount, and without which the formal freedoms of the Enlightenment appear threatening as thick prison walls?"