A Theory May Just Restate

Chomsky seems to attack post-modernism on the ground that it often concludes in different terms what was expressed by others in simpler terms.

In my view this is not really a valid point, because the same facts can be explained by many theories and in many ways. A theory that just restates the connection between many long known phenomena in other words does not need to be useless let alone wrong.

Especially with post-modernist theories like Foucault's on the meaning of words, one sees that many things already stated in other works (even in folk quotes) are brought together in a coherent way.

People knew for centuries that things fall when dropped, but Newton did tell something new about it...

Post Modernist Pleasure and the coherence of its sound.
There where thinkers dare and the certainty of coherence falls.
There where bliss is thunder and thunders resonate like a miniscule sound.
There thinkers depart asunder.
Recognition of character through logos and mind through development and will.
We with war mongers and economic chess.
We fetishists of that which is imagined and do not mostly think forward still.
Fetishisms are correct and sound, but motivating still.
We as collective identifications and losers of origins still. Yeah.. We search and become. We have never been we become and ignore the thing that makes us sound still.

Thinking should be fun, thinking should thunder.
Thunder in this sense can blunder but be correct in its wrongness still.
Opposed to the character of the minute detail and reality of the moment without any conscious will. No!
Variety should prospher and be fruitfull at will. No! to hypes and back to fun! Back to adrenaline of fun and other chemicals the thinkers' dialogue!

We are creators and we live now!

Different characters different breath. Let them choose toghether or in another variety still. So history will not clash but learn,
quick,
and still.

Thoughts are for the taking by everyone.

So who makes who? And you you?

J. Zijlstra