Hey, @unenlightened

Thank you for your response. This is in fact exactly what I was looking for. In that, the narrative you give concerning your daughter and the easily discernible identity politick that concerns your relations is exactly why I tend to weigh an epistemological framing of identity.

This is a situation that I like to claim alongside Wilderson’s argument concerning the “red, white, and black,” although his particular analysis concerns the perpetuation of whiteness in American media. It seems this same situation of disarray surrounds the narrative lessons you voice. This is less a claim of an “impersonal identity,” in a way that could be associated with some kind of innate, programmed racial psychology, as much as it is a claim surrounding politics that recreate oppressive structures. This is where I agree with your observation as such a cycle as, frankly, cyclic. The oppressor must become the oppressed, but this is where my question reasserts itself - by what means is this end accomplished? Is there a material time-bomb waiting to go off in all of our (even nonmaterial) relations, or do we just tinker with the ontology machine long enough to see our strife become the villain?

This specter of disarray in ontology is a beast of its own nature, which of course requires an analysis of equally viable psychological factors, but I would ask you, where can we draw the line? In the stories you have presented, is it a conflict of the flesh itself, or the innate representations of that flesh? When we laugh, should we scoff at life representationally or physically?

Thanks :)

I don't see how post-truth simply applies to that of perceptual pathos however. Post-truth should be technically evaluated in the same sense as something along the lines of "post-structural" or "post political." This is to say that their is not a shift in how the mass public constitutes value within truth itself, but the boundaries by which truth is defined. Therein, post-truth is not a deviance in objective fact, but a reevaluation of these facts and how they are defined, especially in a linguistic sense.

I would say that the objective truth you seem to find infallible is up to the specific context by which this truth is meddled. It is not a question of the post-truther, but of the truth which, for some advent reason, has become "post-." An experiment in the propaganda of this truth may be best for a holistic evaluation, but where from?

But perhaps this is the jargon of the post-truth. Post-truthers! They are everywhere!