I was planning to write about bottom up in postmodernism, but I think i misunderstood it a little. Postmoderism is not about a top down approach, but it seems not bottom up either. So how is planning done in postmodern? How is people involved with the planning?

Hey all,

Excited to stumble upon this subreddit. I recently wrote a piece premised on the idea that the American Dream is best understood as a cultural myth, subject to multiple interpretations, but that, despite all that, it benefits American elementary school students to be taught to believe in it because it helps them develop traits which are useful in the US.

Very interested in this community's feedback! Please give it a read if you have a chance.

https://ryancmullally.substack.com/p/teaching-the-american-dream?r=1d75wn&s=w&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

science is a mythology

the scientific method is a myth

The-Anthropology-of-science

science is a mythology

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Anthropology-of-science.pdf

or

https://www.scribd.com/document/512683685/Prolegomenon-to-The-Anthropology-of-Science

Some theories/myths which were considered true in science but which are now not true

• The transition in cosmology from a Ptolemaic cosmology to a Copernican one.

• The transition in optics from geometrical optics to physical optics.

• The transition in mechanics from Aristotelian mechanics to classical mechanics.

• The acceptance of the theory of biogenesis, that all life comes from life, as opposed to the theory of spontaneous generation, which began in the 17th century and was not complete until the 19th century with Pasteur.

8 • The acceptance of the work of Andreas Vesalius, whose work De humani corporis fabrica corrected the numerous errors in the previously-held system created by Galen.

• The transition between the Maxwellian Electromagnetic worldview and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.

• The transition between the worldview of Newtonian physics and the Einsteinian Relativistic worldview.

• The development of quantum mechanics, which replaced classical mechanics at microscopic scales.

• The acceptance of plate tectonics as the explanation for large-scale geologic changes.

• The development of absolute dating.

• The acceptance of Lavoisier's theory of chemical reactions and combustion in place of phlogiston theory, known as the Chemical Revolution.

• The acceptance of Mendelian inheritance, as opposed to pangenesis in the early 20th century

What are your thoughts about post-romanticism?

We went from romanticism to irony, is it possible that we are going back again?

Can we talk a bit about Bo Burnham's trajectory, especially his new special, Inside? I find his work to be fascinating, with early material being entirely savagely cynical, but he's since come around and tries to balance a more sincere (and in my view meaningful) perspective.

For examples from Inside, see "A White Woman's Instagram" for this level of sincerity. On the other hand, "How the World Works" is eminently cynical.

This video by Wisecrack does a good job showing how Bo Burnham has changed over time.

Not necessarily exclusive to Ken Wilber, but also of the Integral philosophers that have begun taking over from him. People such as Layman Pascal, Bruce Alderman, and Corey DeVos.

Are we just projecting an order or grouping where there was none ?