►Reconstruction beyond Postmodernism◄
dedicated to ReC
O Force-compelled, Fate-driven earth-born race,
O petty adventurers in an infinite world
And prisoners of a dwarf humanity,
How long will you tread the circling tracks of mind
Around your little self and petty things?
„How can ‚we‘ effect any change in people’s poor living conditions,
in inequality and injustice, if ‚we‘ don’t accept the validity
of underlying universals such as the ‚real world‘ and ‚justice‘ in
the first place?“
What does it mean: The End of Postmodernism?
Gruppe Or-Om presented the Installation “The End of Postmodernism” at the
Museumsquartier in Vienna in 2006 (http://or-om.org/endpostmodern.htm
). Harris Kondosphyris and Katherina Nasioka from ReC saw the project and especially the question of the “Totalitarism of Pluralism” found their interest.
We would like to explicate some of the essential ideas of the project, which means also a
►Reconstruction beyond Postmodernism◄
Basics of Postmodernism
Modern theory differs between the concepts of Reason (Vernunft)
and Rationalities. Is there any common agreement about the
structures and functions of one Super-Reason as an instance for
handling and organizing the plurality of rationalities established
within the highly segmented and differentiated structures of one
social system, within the relations of different social
systems (systems of the first, second, third and fourth world;
center and peripheries) and within the
The Concept of Reason, an important heritage of the centuries of
Enlightment (Aufklärung) associated with the ideas of deliberation from immatureness and oppression, inequality and injustice,
became more and more devaluated by historical experiences and
catastrophes of world wars and their abuse of ideas and concepts of
reason. The development of highly segmented
and stratificated societies and decentralisation rejected more and more “imposed
meta-narrative and hegemony; the breaking of traditional frames of genre, structure
and stylistic unity; and the overthrowing of categories that are the
result of logocentrism and other forms of artificially imposed order”(wikipedia).
Reason so became associated with totalitarian suppression. Universality, totality,
generality, fundamentalism, essentialism and metaphysics have to be rejected. Postmodernists have dismissed these ambitions as „metanarratives.
“Embedded in this mind-set is hostility to the idea that discriminating judgments are appropriate in assessing art and literature, to the idea that
hierarchies of value exist, hostility to the idea that an objective
truth exists. Postmodernism is the overarching label that is
attached to this perspective” (Charles Murray).
How can we handle a modest concept of reason beyond absolutistic usurpations?
Postmodernism gave different answers f. e. Anti-totalitarian concept of antagonism (Widerstreit) LYOTARD; Transversal (pure) Reason WELSCH consisting only of formal categories ; Responsive Rationality (WALDENFELS)
The different attempts of postmodernism, to establish a modest concept of reason
for handling pluralities, dialectic oppositions and contradictions
between socially sedimented rationalities, opinions, political, social, aesthetic and economic ideologies try to say: „The minimal instruments of an
anti-totalitarian reason to handle plurality have to accept the diversities, incompatibilities and incommensurabilities of modern high segmented societies and must not lead to essentialistic and substantial (semantic) concepts of a
Super-Reason, which decrees formal and substantial categories and
structures for the usage of ALL variations of rationalities and their pluralities within all social systems of the word-system.
Postmodern theories don’t possess selfreferential consistency. What does this mean? If every general and universal statement about anything is forbidden as totalitarian, hegemonic and essentialistic violation and suppression, if plurality has to be accepted as the highest possible rational instance for handling
the question of objectivity, then postmodernism has to apply these
principles also to its own statements and theories. The different
postmodern theories would have to say:
“We are for ourselves not legitimated to make these general and
universalistic statements about all other theories developed till
now. Our general and universalistic meta-statements about all other
theories of reason and rationality cannot have any general and
universalistic validity. Our theories have to accept, that they are
also only relatively narrow minded positions among all the other
theories of reason. We have no right to handle the other theories in
a totalitarian manner by using our concepts and reasonings. Our own theories have no right to govern the
other pluralities and to figure as meta-level in the hierarchy of
meanings. Our own theories are only different elements within the
indiscernible, un-hierarchical, incommensurable and incompatible
plurality in connection with all other theories. According to
postmodern theories our theories must be accepted as upon the same level with all other theories. If we deny universality and essentiality also our theories have no universal and essential character.”
Postmodern theories don’t practise this self-referential consistency! Our
consequence: Postmodern theories thus are realising all the deficiencies and shortcomings they are criticising at other concepts of reason.
Postmodern theories establish a forbidden conceptual meta-level, the theories are authoritarian and totalitarian, figure as “objective” super-level of hierarchies and become a new hegemonic instrument of suppression and
distortion of other theories of reason. They cannot deliver any
criteria for their self-legitimation as meta-narrative and as a
privileged position. If they would be self-referentially
consistent they would be forced to deconstruct their own rational
gesture of universality and essentiality, their reign over
Our next objections against postmodernism are condensed in the following citation: „The postmodern vision of a tolerant, pluralist society in which every
political ideology is perceived to be as valid, or as redundant, as the other, may encourage individuals to lead lives of a rather disastrous apathetic quietism. This reasoning leads Habermas to compare postmodernism with conservatism and the preservation of the status quo“ (wikipedia). This protection of plurality under the conditions of dissent leads to the fatal result that we would be forced to accept all kinds of extremism, fundamentalism, fascism and indifferentism within the
pluralistic social systems without any criteria for the evaluation
of epistemic, ethical, political, aesthetical conflicts, developments, evolutions and kinds of governance. The absence of any possibility of self-legitimation by their own Basics and the tin ear for epistemic, ethical, political, social and
aesthetical criteria is the most important lack of postmodern
theories. Under serious conditions these theories would be forced to
eliminate themselves as tyrannic universal instruments of
►Reconstruction beyond postmodernism◄
We have overcome the dungeons of postmodernism! We have
unmasked its anti-hegemonic gesture as hegemonic governance! But –
breathing fresh air – are we able to find structures of a
Super-Reason never recognized till now, which enables us to solve
the problems of handling the highly complex conflicts of
epistemic, ethical, political, social and aesthetical pluralities within the
world system. We say: Yes! Here we can only try to explain the
structure of this Reason within a metaphor. We use the Figure of the
Line (1), (2), (3) in a lot of our different works as a symbol for
ubiquitous universal structures and relationships within the
Essential Absolute Infinity. The theoretical backgrounds and basics have to be studied at our website or under
Positions of traditional and postmodern arts and philosophy are only limitated
lines within line (3), without perceiving all relations between the
infinite lines (1) and (2) and the limitations within line (3).
Mostly these positions worship the Goddess of „Finite Plurality“.
The infinite line (1) is a metaphor for the Absolute and Infinite
Essence, the basis of Divine Reason. Always in history
philosophers said, that we – as human beings – have a direct access to
Try to understand the deduction from the infinite line (1) (Absolute
Essence) to the finite squares A, B, C …(philosophy)
within line (3.1) and the finite squares 1, 2, 3, 4 …(arts) within
line (3.2). Thus you will become aware of the
►Reconstruction beyond Postmodernism◄
and all traditional schools of arts and philosophy. You will
realise, that it will not be enough to handle the incommensurable
and incompatible overlappings, crossovers and entanglements in the plurality of schools in arts and philosophy in the postmodern manner, a kind of „Totalitarism of Plurality“.
Traditional oeuvres of philosophy, sciences within line (3.1) and of arts line (3.2) are imperfect, incomplete, and can be evolved to a new step of perfection. If art, philosophy and sciences remain in the historical and contemporary limitations, they will not evolve but remain in a vicious circle being confronted with the problem of arbitrarity, atony and fatigue in new overlappings and hybrids. Our Deductive Generator© constitutes the aesthetical and logical basics for a new foundation of arts and sciences.
The Deductive Generator©
All formal aesthetics and all scientific concepts have to be deduced from and within the Infinite and Absolute Essence, recognizing the steps and hierarchies
of infinite and finite forms respectively concepts. This evolution
implies new concepts for all kinds of art, philosophy and science.
The present epistemic, ethical, political, social and aesthetical pluralities have not to be destructed or negated but they are integrated into a new Structure of Infinite Reason.
And there its limitations, distortions and incomplete relations
become obvious in a new manner. Nothing has to be eliminated, but
scarcely all has to be reconstructed within the new infinite framework and gets new weights, relations and balances. The deduction of all pluralities beginning with the One, Absolute and Infinite Essence delivers the possibility for our
► Reconstruction beyond Postmodernism◄
That means: One Universal Mankind (http://or-om.org/oromacropolis.htm), One
religious system, new basics of epistemology, mathematics, logicsand semantics of all languages, new basics for all sciences andtheir overlappings. New relationships between Nature (matter) and Spirit, between man und woman, new social formations, a new social world order of globalization, new aesthetics and ethics ( http://or-om.org/Grundrechtskatalog.htm and
Is this deductivefoundation of all epistemic, ethical, political, social and aesthetical pluralities within the Absolute and Infinite Essence a new despotic and hegemonic instrument of suppression of all other theories, a new inadequate governance of plurality? How can we maintain that this Deduction is not an
authoritarian and totalitarian logocentric meta-narrative a new artificially imposed order.
Our answer: These deductions have to be examined by everyone itself. It must not be a doctrine imposed on someone by physical or psychical force and
violence, menace, thread or fraud. It can only be distributed by
peaceful and good means of persuasion and convincing, not
by rebellion, uprising, insurgency and revolt.
Finally some questions: Would you say, the Pythagorean theorem is
a despotic and hegemonic instrument of suppression of all other theories of the triangle? Would you say, the abovementioned deduction of the line (1) , line
(2) and line (3) is a despotic and hegemonic instrument of
suppression of all other theories of the line, a new inadequate
governance of the infinite plurality of finite lines within line (3)?
The finite entities within line (3) have 2 possibilities:
a) continuous creation, permutation, variation and recombining of finite elements within circling tracks of vicious circles;
b) Integration of the finite entities and elements of line (3) into the Overall-(Or-Om-) Structure of line (1) and its inner deductions with new harmonies
There is no dialectical necessity, that mankind will take the direction b) but
we have to point out its possibility.
Christian Friedrich Krause: Vorlesungen über das System der Philosophie.
Reprint Edition 1828. Breitenfurt 1981.
S. Pflegerl, Siegfried: Gastarbeiter
zwischen Integration und Abstoßung. Wien-München 1977.
S.Pflegerl, Siegfried: Die Vollendete
Kunst. Zur Evolution von Kunst und Kunsttheorie. Wien-Köln 1990.
S. Pflegerl: Die Aufklärung der Aufklärer.
Universalistische Ideologie- und Rassismuskritik. Frankfurt am Main,
Berlin, Wien, New York 2001.
S. Pflegerl: Ist Antisemitismus heilbar?
Zur Bearbeitung einer fatalen Tradition. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin,
Wien, New York 2001.
S. Pflegerl: K.C.F.
Krauses Urbild der Menschheit. Richtmaß einer universalistischen
Globalisierung. Kommentierter Originaltext und Weltsystemanalyse.
Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Wien, New York 2003.
Krause Digital Research Project:
– Universal Net-Cubism;
Museum in progress:
Monochrom, Quartier 21:
„Quo vadis logo?“;
International Istanbul Graphic Design Week, Istanbul 3-7 May 2004;
Künstlerhaus Wien, UPDATE: Hornbach Art Galleries©
Quartier 21: Installation: Die Ge_HORNBACH_te
Kunst. Wien 5-8/2005
Monochrom, Quartier 21: Installation: The End of
Postmodernism. Wien 3-8/2006.
Kunsthaus Graz/Kunstlabor: Installation: The End
of Postmodernism. Graz 10-12/2006.
Team Teichenberg, Quartier 21: Installation: The Google Goose.
Team Teichenberg, Quartier 21: Extended Art Projects. An Extended
Presentation. Wien 11/2006.
Reconstruction Community Athens: Or-Om
Athens since 11/2006.