Equitist Confessions of a Futurist Mind
This highly anticipated frequently revised essay is an open letter to society, truly a written plea for rational coherent thought that is desperately necessary to move from subject objection to an Equitist solution framework using the broader fabric of logic. The minds of autonomous thinkers must feel the pressure to move forward realizing a world of possibility. The more minds that focus on rational coherent autonomous thought the faster society can move from problem identification based on relative condition to embracing the process of finding solutions.
The broader question of modern philosophical thought, and all of the theories associated with that string of thought, is about the reaction to the epiphany, the crash, realization, the mind shift, or put simply the change that is required in perceived reality to change the postmodern condition. What happens when it occurs? If the authors of the giant postmodern collections of isms (Nuclearism, Environmentalism, Feminism, Militarism, etc) are correct and the conditions that we perceive as functions of reality are fundamentally oppressive, then does the realization of the postmodern condition facilitate an instantaneous change? The next step exists to reject postmodern assumptions and begin to move from objection to solution. Central to the postmodern stream of logic is the suggestion that everyone should question the very nature of existence and the patterns of interaction that are the very nature of being a part of society.
To facilitate discussion and perhaps pervade the depth necessary for a functional challenge to the structure of thought and the system that allows the perpetuation of the normative game, this essay offers this journey throughout history. Modern philosophy has concluded that perhaps a fabric of logic exists; the threads of this fabric resonate throughout modern argumentation. The specific pattern of interest today is from classical theory being the foundation of logic –> the shift to realism –> postmodern thought and the ability to object –> neo-realist objection to postmodern thought –> rejection of postmodern thought –> resolution of objection and the final realization. At the most basic level of this fabric of logic a series of realizations have occurred that allow the thinker to see the world and to perhaps become aware of a condition known as reality.
Reaching a resolution of the current trend of objection and finding the final realization is why the thinker strives to question, not necessarily to object. Understanding the normative game enough to move form questions of the postmodern condition to a broader understanding of the nature of existence is an important step. Requiring the thinker to move beyond questions and release the litany of manufactured isms. This release allows the thinker to use the fabric of logic to make a rational coherent choice about future interactions and the very nature of the conditions reality presumes.
How do you go about describing this release? Perhaps only a series of Equitist confessions from the thoughts of a futurist mind will open a window into what is possible instead of requiring the thinker to answer questions. Neo-realists have been able to put down the objection of the system to see that even if you knew and understood every ism ever created reality requires action. Thinkers are not static objects and the conditions that presume reality are the very conditions that define action as a necessary part of sustained existence. That is why the resolution of the objections raised through isms is the last step to the final realization of what possible when the thinker is allowed to use the larger fabric of logic to make decisions.
Equitists make an objection to the very structure of how some modern philosophies conceived in the formation of isms define the current debate about the future of individual empowerment. Postmodern thought developed for a reason, as a response to a specific train of thought and as a result questions developed that have been labeled with isms (For example, Feminism), through label, argument, and action focuses on defining a firm dichotomy of difference between two sides of a debate. Embracing postmodern thought and futurist assumptions does not require any serious theoretical revision or counter intuitive debate. Equitists define the debate in terms of progress toward equality striving to explain the game board (broader design of the structure of the system) in terms of everyone being equal.
Every argument has to consider the long-term consequences of structural formation and of course resolution. That is why the rejection of postmodern thought by letting go of the need to define reality using the litany of isms is the only way to find a resolution of objection and reach the final realization. Every thought is a precious commodity, because it is potentially the solutions that will allow the thinker to use the fabric of logical thought instead of seeing reality from the prison of a castle in the air perpetuating the illusion of objections being change instead of expressing the possibility of a solution oriented society that answers the big questions.
Just because the game board exists, does not mean that we have to continue playing the game. Playing a game without understanding the consequences of the game boards design is a sign of poor strategy. Understanding the self is an essential element to understanding the game. All people are equal. Categories and labels create inequality. Reject inequality in favor of equality. The thinker might ask, “Do we move forward as a society, or do we simply proceed to the next location where we plan to occupy space?” Basing existence on the notion that movement is a function of occupation defines a specific logic system. Does one ism matter more than the structure of theory does?
Think about this argument in the context of two different strategies of conversation for a moment. If you start, a conversation based on a perspective that is full of prejudice then your chances of removing bias are not very good. Now when you start a conversation without walking into bias and prejudice it makes argumentation from the opposition more difficult. When you start with the Equitist premise, it works some like this, the thinker says, “Everyone within society is the same in terms of equality. Equality is an idea that applies to everyone. Do you believe in the idea of equality for all of the people?” This frames the debate outside the confines perpetuated by echoing objections to the postmodern condition in the form of an ism devoid of a specific rational for the philosophical direction or coherent rational for thinking about solutions to objections.
To foster a certain level of understanding, the following example requires the reader to replace (ism) with any postmodern objection. An author writing to express a postmodern ism might alternatively suggest, “(ism) defines the problem, now is the time to stand up and fight for (ism)!” This statement defines difference inherent in the title (ism), instead of the title of unification like Equitist. One of the reasons that many people disagree with (ism) specifically is that arguing against the oppression of something is much more difficult that arguing against oppression at face value. If the structure of the argument requires identifying difference to raise one side to the standards of another, then the broader question is about why labels are necessary to separate two ideas in terms of one being the other.
The practical answer is that they are not necessary, because the separation is not fundamentally necessary. In fact, it might be the separation assumption that is the structural problem of the argument. The thinker might say, “We are all the same, borders, language, and culture only serve to confuse the real issue. People are just people. No person is any better than any other person is, just because society simplifies things with an artificially contrived label.”
Raising the Equitist objection to the next level requires moving beyond objection to a framework of solution. Maybe the thinker would say something like, “I object to the structures and confines of (ism). As a society, we should endorse the value of equality. No difference exists between people.” A postmodern author might get defensive about this premise for a moment. Most people will recognize that everybody in the end is equal. If the objection made in favor of two sides existing then automatically a structure confines the creation of a solution. It is possible to advocate for one side or the other. Equitists raise an objection to the confines of this structure.
We should be able to step forward as a society and let go of an out of date theory and move forward in the pursuit of equality. Rejection of postmodern thought seems like a complicated intrusion into the foundation of modern philosophy, but it is only a natural step in the resolution of objection and the final realization at the most basic level a fabric of logic exists. In essence, the objection is that postmodern ism specific argumentation is structurally self-defeating. If you frame the debate in terms of subtracting from one side to benefit they other side, then you have intrinsic division within your potential set of outcomes.
The values behind the Equitist objection grounded in a belief that everyone is equal. Individuals do not need external definitions and biases that create a dichotomy of difference. Equality is one of the most important values that upheld by a society. Perpetuating labels and systems that stand against equality, even when the functional premises might be the same are repugnant. Now is the time to find an alternative to the current system.
A potential alternative does exist to objection and the solution is equality. Perhaps the only way to explain a potential alternative to the current system is to listen to the thinker, “If everyone is equal, then we should treat everyone as equal. Reject borders, language, and culture in favor of equality. Labels are divisive misrepresentations of the fact that people are just people.” Some observations about the game involve conclusions like, “Tear down the confines of current thought and expand the future potential for pure equality.” Equitists confessions of a futurist mind in the end is about the idea that, “We are all the same.” I do not understand why so many people hold on to borders, language, and culture to define them. As if, some meaning comes from where you are born and what you look like. It is the middle years of life when people forget the truths of life.
One day we will all treat the social animal as a rational autonomous thinker. Fellow futurists understand the confession that the postmodern preference for objection through isms breeds both piety and pestilence. Society promotes a foundation where the social animal receives categorization, labels, and is eventually just a game piece moved through the system without regard for meaning or the value of solution that comes from rational autonomous thought. The thinker has to consider the long-term consequences of the ideas currently supported.
Equitist confessions of a futurist mind form a series of conclusions about how to solve problems by making solutions the form for identifying problems. Postmodern thought only allows isms to consider the nature of a condition and form an objection. For an objection to be meaningful, it has to present a solution to correct the condition. I object to the idea of defining reality through the postmodern framework of objection without hesitation. The postmodern mind believes in a series of terms with a very complex influence on reality. The solution is equity, and at the most basic level that means that all things are equal. As a futurist, I do not believe that national borders define anything more than arbitrary lines defining arbitrary rules. Everyone everywhere is a capable of being a rational autonomous thinker. A thinker that is capable of so much more than having to relay on something external like culture to define and facilitate a series of differentiations.
Have postmodern objections lead to the epiphany, the crash, realization, the mind shift, or put simply the change that is required in reality to change the postmodern condition? What happens when it occurs? The broader question of modern philosophical thought asks if isms are the answer. Postmodern thought reflects on objections and now is the time to define a logic proof advocating change. Maybe that Equitist logic proof moving toward the rejection of postmodern thought finding a resolution of objection mentality and allowing society to begin the final realization is meaningful. The Equitist logic proof would sound something like this: Do you believe in equity? Equity means that everybody is equal. If you believe in equity then you believe that everybody is equal.
Postmodern thought has created a series of objections wondering off in the wrong direction, because the basic underlying idea of ism style argumentation is that a condition exists that defines the subject to a disadvantage-requiring objection. The Equitist confessions of a futurist mind confess that in the end the rational autonomous thinker has the power of choice. A power defined in the ability to treat everyone equal without dichotomous difference. This is a confession that is looking ahead to a point in the history of society. The futurist tradition allows the thinker to transcend to a point in time where the game board is no longer a structure and thought exists on a broader fabric of logic that is equal for everyone. Insisting that society continue to focus on artificial differences only perpetuates the real problems. Reject the social conventions that only inhibit progress. Progress is being able to accept a vision of a society where everyone is equal regardless.
Defining the end of the debate about the nature of the postmodern condition involves noting the hypocritical de-justification of objection without solution. Questioning the nature of any condition is part of learning to use the broader fabric of logic that allows meaningful rational coherent thought. Providing a solution framework is a necessary part of resolving any condition that is disrupting equity. Raising an objection about the postmodern condition by forming a differentiation of objects not equity, through dichotomous relations is inherently counterproductive, because it values the object over equity. The hypocritical nature of defining object drive dichotomous relationships provides a de-justification of the postmodern critic. Equitist theory clearly allows the thinker to realize the resolution of object based objection and allows the broader fabric of logic to produce a final realization of the value of social equity.
Any rational autonomous thinker has the power to embrace change and uniquely reject the assumptions that underpin the structures of postmodern thought. The postmodern condition is not a state of reality that requires pure objection; problems require solutions, realization of the necessity to strive to find the final realization of equity drives progress, not infinitely regressive objections to observations about a theoretical condition. This essay of Equitist confessions of a futurist mind does not holistically reject philosophy, but rather it embraces the tradition of revision expanding the potential of critical thought.
