Windows and Mirrors: Postmodernity and Existentialism

I was struck by the phrase 'Windows and Mirrors' one day. Two similar objects that present notions of perspective. From a window, one can see that which is outside, and of course, from the mirror, one has a perspective of what is inside. Both of these are necessary qualifiers of an understanding of the world. And it is not as if any of our windows or mirrors are objective sources of pure information, nor is it true that individuals alone endeavor to make out what Reality is. Our windows and mirrors are molded by our experience and perhaps our genetics or innate-ness. Furthermore, not just individuals but ages and spirits of ages wander and wonder together in moments - in eras. We have stumbled into this great expansive age that some have dubbed 'postmodernity' but it is steeply rooted in the existential movements typified by such writers as: Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, Jaspers, Camus and Kafka. In sort of a self-defining move, postmodernity and existentialism is seeing where we are seeing where we are.

In no way is this work meant to describe postmodernity nor existentialism with any depth deserved, but it is my hope that it will show a glisten of light off a moment which is the only moment that ever existed - now. And in this one moment of now, there are simultaneously two moments. The first moment is the historical moment. This moment we are in was only made possible by all preceding moments of a great galactic and human history. Political and social progress, wars and famines, works of art and science have all pushed life on earth into this moment. It is complete with a multiplicity of traditions and remnants of ages past all mixed with ideologies and utopias that we strive towards. A pushing of the ancient with a pulling of the future culminate for the individual - for a society - in this historical now. And where is this historical now? It is postmodernity.

Postmodernity is the child of democracy and communications technology (to reduce it greatly). Essentially, democracy from its theoretical birthplace in Greece to its slow but steady growth through various codes (or bills) of rights and political institutions that seek to give voice to the individual has, in quite a few ways, dethroned the monolithic voices of traditional authority and instead enthroned a harmonious (or chaotic) pluralism of perspectives that no longer allows a single tradition of belief as arbiter of justice, save allowing a pluralism of belief as the single tenet of justification. The growth and assimilation of rapid long-distance communications (television, radio, cellular phones, internet)into many lives and institutions has developed concomitantly with this ideological strain of pluralism and allowed many of the marginalized voices room in which to speak and justify previously dismissed or unheard views. We have an explosion of information ranging from many views to many ears with little regard to space or time, as information on anything from anywhere can be grasped by an individual here and now.

Whereas the traditional modern (read: Enlightenment) modes of understanding may simply relegate this uprising of seemingly disconnected, fragmented and even contradictory claims as another mode of cultural relativism, this reduces it to something that would simply not have enough force to push itself into the public market of ideas with the tenacity with which it has done. Cultural relativism may work as a descriptive assessment. That is, within a culture or cultures there are many modes of understanding, of ethics, of political theory and so on. Cultural relativism as a strict prescriptive belief does not allow for any vital ethical or political stance because in doing so it does not allow certain beliefs justification and thus breaks its own rules of relativizing. To put it another way, though we may differ in views, it is not simply that "anything goes" and there is no hope for justice, but rather we work hard in the face of the tentative and impermanent towards an unspeakable justice that keeps this sort of dynamic of tolerance and disagreement alive. We can, by maintaining certain traditions and tenets, face injustice and wars against human dignity and certainly we will not be alone. The project is undergirded by some sisyphusean liberation in that we have come to terms with the fact that this may never work and we will always have a remainder in our equation or may never be able to plot a end-all doctrine or position - the fight towards such a utopia and the beauty of an ideal justice is more moving and inspiring than inevitable failure. This is not logical and this is postmodernity.

The second 'now' that exists is the ahistorical now of being. It is the eternal essence that has always existed regardless of any physical changes to the universe, nor any alterations in the human project. This is existentialism: The understanding that the moment as it unfolds before you is as much a part of you as you are of it. There is a newness that disregards the past in the sense that the past does not currently exist and you are only faced with what you are facing now. It grasps itself and it is this now that presents and feeds every individual in the historical sense and drives them to choices which will continually push history forward creating new history. It is the dread we feel when we face up to our own ability to interpret, choose and express and know that we are the liabilities of the outcomes in our lives and the lives of others. When one becomes aware of this be-ing that pervades all things there is a sharpness of a knife cutting against the present moment into the future and one realizes that there is no such thing as standing still. We are who we will be. However, this does not mean that there are unseen forces tinting or affecting our awareness, nor does it mean that we do not give ourselves to various faiths (religious or otherwise) that will inevitably intertwine themselves with our eternal awareness and our historical perspective.

So, as we, as constantly as possible, recall our finitude and infinitude within the context of our social, economic, political, and religious orientation we are faced with a strange piece in front of us. We have a window and a mirror occupying the same position as some optical illusions force us to see two entirely different things at the same time. The window of now shows us a world where as you read, you are connected to a vast network of communications spanning the entire globe, coded and decoded, traveling at light speed and translating itself onto a computer screen. The mirror allows us to see how we are affected and what is possible beneath social construction. We are able to see the oneness of being and the multiplicity of worlds in a breath and become part of it and interact with it.

In a world of complexity, suspicion, and surprise, we are faced with new tasks that the up-til-now faith in empirical methods of understanding the world as some physical phenomenon will simply not be able to explicate. We are faced with a type of spiritual and intellectual non-euclidean geometry - something that (with some grace) bows out of traditional arguments but also engages the arguments with fresh innovation that is inherent in the human spirit which is the Spirit of God. The grittiness and mistake-making potential make it something wholly of our own, but we are all our own, and the sooner we can recognize this in the midst of our overwhelming reality, the sooner we can come back to some sort of peace that transcends understanding in the midst of this chaos of globalization... or whatever it is.