Check out my Manifesto (Constructive Criticism wanted!)

[Zyler]

Hey guys, I came up with an idea of some sort of cultural theory concept and managed to vomit it out into the first draft of some kind of manifesto. A manifesto is a actualization of some sort of political, ideological or rhetorical theory that describes what it's core tenets and values are. It's generally written like a numbered list of points that attempt to justify what it's trying to say, like a shopping list of truth, justice, liberty and counter-cultural-ism. I wrote it in such a way as to lead up to some sort of epiphany, but I guess it's up to you guys if it makes sense or if it's just a load of guff. I also included a list of what I consider to be the basic human wants and needs with definitions. The theory is called Neoism by the way.

[b]Neoism[/b]
[i]We change the subjective. Our brush is the past, we learn from it but we do not dwell in it. We do not get moody and wear white makeup over spilt milk. Objectivity is impossible but we try anyway, in hope for a future breakthrough.[/i]

This manifesto is not just a list of beliefs. It is a step-by-step justification for a way of viewing the world, society, culture and the human condition.

[b]We propose:[/b]
[b]1. That there are natural laws.[/b]
Natural laws are things that we know are true simply because the only alternative would be too impossible and absurd to exist. These laws include things such as the law that all humans are equal; the alternative would be that all humans are not equal and that some people’s subjective views are objectively superior to others, meaning there’s no such thing as subjectivity.
[b]2. That objective conclusions can be drawn from natural laws.[/b]
This means natural laws can form the core axiom of logical reasoning, and that this reasoning will always be objective assuming the rhetorician does not introduce any other basis of reasoning or bias.
[b]3. That subjectivity is ultimately a flawed replacement for objectivity, required for human understanding of concepts we are incapable of rationalizing objectively, from all possible viewpoints.[/b]
It is obviously better to be objective, because that means you are considering all possible viewpoints and what you are saying is as true as it can possibly be. The alternative would be blind-siding someone, somewhere with your utter stupidity due to you missing some crucial thing, which is inevitable with subjective statements.
[b]4. That without sufficient evidence for objective claims, that subjective notions can be used as placeholders in the form of stereotypes and representations; as required for human understanding.[/b]
The problem with objectivity is that it is generally impossible to consider all possible viewpoints that a person might have and come to a rational solution that everybody can agree with. In order to compromise for this, we use common representations or stereotypes in order to communicate things that a person may have no experience with, this is why parody-style humor is often the first level of acceptance when it comes to people grappling with something they find overwhelmingly strange and confusing.
[b]5. That the objective is not relative, but all understanding of objectivity is subjective.[/b]
The things we might view as being obvious or objectively true may not be so. If something gets repeated enough times it may eventually become so ingrained within the culture that most people just accept it as being “as is”. The reality we exist in must be constantly criticized in order to work out what is a natural law and what isn’t.
[b]6. That some statements can be considered closer to objectivity than others, but it is impossible to ever be completely objective.[/b]
Because objectivity itself can be subjective, it is impossible to ever be completely objective. However, we want to strive to be as objective as possible so in the future we might discover more natural laws and have a clearer understanding.
[b]7. That all constructed realities are subjective, but they have their basis in an objective reality we cannot directly observe.[/b]
This is mostly the same as the last point. I just wanted to make the position on subjectivity vs objectivity very clear.
[b]8. That all ideas of humans can be deconstructed into their basic constituent elements.[/b]
This stems from the idea that we can understand exactly why someone does a thing through analysis and by doing so we can take it apart and work out how it works.
[b]9. That a deconstruction (finding things that are misrepresentational or false or breaking down the idea into its constitutional elements) of an idea of humans is objectively analyzing that idea, but criticizing or representing the idea being deconstructed or the deconstruction itself in any way or otherwise proposing a solution is entirely subjective and prone to bias (especially if that solution is politically or ideologically driven).[/b]
This one is a bit complicated. It is basically the idea that when you find a fault with something and back up the claim that there is a fault with a lot of evidence showing that the fault exists, then that you claim exists fault definitely objectively exists assuming you actually know what you’re talking about and can prove it. However, as soon as you or someone else poses a solution to the fault, that solution is probably not the objectively best solution to solving that particular problem. The solution is probably going to be hindered by the solver’s beliefs and biases. In the same way, any kind of product that actually represents or tries to explain a fault within society and culture is fundamentally subjective in how it weighs things like the different elements of the problem, or the extent of the problem and so on. The problem definitely exists in some form, there’s just no objective way of explaining it without relying on some sort of subjective rationalization, especially if you have some sort of bias that leads you to one way of explaining it over another.
[b]10. That deductive reasoning, or any other form of logic that requires the applicant to have all the facts of the situation at hand, is entirely subjective and prone to bias if it is impossible to understand every fact or human perspective that relates to the situation (especially if the reasoned conclusion is politically or ideologically driven).[/b]
This relates to the previous point but extends it to logical processes as well. Logical tricks like deductive reasoning, which involves going through an argument and trying to consider every possible outcome in an attempt to debunk them, require you to consider every possible outcome; which is impossible. Some rhetoricians can exploit this fact by coming up with increasingly absurd subjective situations in order to disprove something (“But what if the pirate came from the future and had a peg-leg that shot tornado-shark-zombies that vaporized people!”)
[b]11. That all ideas of humans have a basis in basic human wants and needs.[/b]
This comes from the idea that everything we do can be traced back to some sort of basic human want or need, which in itself is a natural law we can base our logic off.
[b]12. That by removing that which makes a human idea provocative, we can discover its basis in the frame of time and reality it comes from and become closer to objectivity, even if it is unreachable.[/b]
It’s possible, through deconstruction, to work out what it is in a particular product that makes it successful. More specifically, we can find out what makes people desire a product by adhering to the idea of basic human wants and needs.
[b]13. That by analyzing that which makes a human idea provocative, we can discover how it relates to basic human wants and needs.[/b]
This is the second part of the previous point.
[b]14. That provocations are subjective (Horror can become comedy) and can be changed, but they are limited to being related to basic human wants and needs. Therefore, every possible human want or need can be deduced and related to the provocation.[/b]
The fun thing when playing with provocations is that we can switch them around and mess with them. Horror can very easily turn into comedy which can very easily turn into awe (the type of emotion we feel when we watch explosive action movies) and vis a vis, vice versa. With a complete enough understanding of provocation in Neoism, it may become possible to master the art of mixing genres to a whole new degree.
[b]15. That through deconstruction, removing provocation, and analyzing the provocation for basic human wants and needs we can be as close as possible to objectively analyzing a human idea, as it allows one to understand how any human being may subjectively perceive that idea.[/b]
This is the second part of the previous point. Neither modernism nor postmodernism can describe what makes horror funny, or comedy horrific or what levels exist between them. This is the kind of thing I hope to describe and justify through Neoism: how horror, comedy, awe, tragedy, happiness, sadness, sanguinity, melancholy, and all the rest are all just one big intangible concept we can never describe but perhaps we can reason with and witness.

[b]Basic human needs and wants:[/b]

Eating/Drinking:
Humans need to consume liquid, glucose, protein and nutrient sustenance in order to survive for as long as possible. Products that are viewed as containing better forms of liquid, glucose and nutrient sustenance lead Human beings to think they will lead to longer life spans while other products activate basic biological triggers to cause human beings to desire consuming them.

Rest:
Humans need to sleep for varying periods to live and also to think clearly and be alert. Human beings also need to create breaks from tedium in order to remain functional and stay focused throughout the day; otherwise they are prone to lapses of judgment as their attention span waivers.

Waste:
Humans need to remove waste after consuming products needed for sustenance. This comes in the form of both biological waste and product waste. In order to maintain a clean and sanitary environment, Human beings need waste to be disposed off quickly and efficiently and therefore view waste as being disgusting or undesirable and don’t want others to view their waste publicly. Products can appeal to humans by removing waste quickly and efficiently with minimal effort or by not leaving so much waste behind.

Sex:
Humans want sex. It is a basic biological trigger that can be exploited to create appealing products. Products can also appeal to humans by allowing them to get sex or be more likely to receive it. However, the viewing of individuals of the opposite sex, the same sex, any sex, no sex and any particular form or shape as attractive can also be used for benign purposes, products can be created that explore the forms of attractiveness. Artists can create works that investigate what makes a form or an idea or existential concept attractive to humans. Psychologists use these forms to analyze an individual’s thought patterns (Rorschach). It’s entirely possible that any basic human want or need can be used in this way, but sex is the only one that has had considerable amount of effort applied into understanding it’s intricacies and alternative applications; for reasons that should be obvious to any human reading this.

Safety:
Humans desire constant reassurance of our safety and wellbeing as well as the status of our ability to perform tasks we desire to perform; certain demographics can need more reassurance than others. We want to hear that the world is okay and a nice place or alternatively that we will be protected from the dangers that the world throws at us. Naturally, confident people who do not quake or shiver or ever doubt themselves will allow us to feel more safe, whether they actually have the ability to make us safer or not. Products are successful if they promise safety quickly and efficiently, with little to no effort on our part.

Status/Attractiveness:
Because confidence is related to attractiveness, we consider attractive people to be confident. Being seen as attractive and/or having attractive people around us makes us feel safer and more confident because it means that we are more attractive and safer by association. It also explains why people want to be seen as attractive but do not necessarily want sex.

Status/Moral Correctness:
Humans also feel safer from existential horrors and other humans if they possess the most correct moral outlook, therefore they need to perpetually be “The Good Guy”. Products that reinforce this delusion, even if they remain vague enough for everyone to subjectively be “The Good Guy”, will be successful.

Status/Political Correctness
Humans feel safer if they are more accepted by their peers. If they feel they are unaccepted, they create an emotional response called embarrassment and feel the need to somehow correct their behavior. Products will be successful if they allow humans to correct their wrong-thought; either by allowing them to make amends, hide their actions or bring everybody else down with them. The difference between Political Correctness and Moral Correctness is entirely subjective and perhaps arbitrary.

Life Fulfillment:
Abraham Maslow created a “hierarchy of needs” that basically ordered simple psychological needs and safety at the bottom and esteem and self-actualization at the top. It’s possible that Humans seek more permanent means of securing their wants and needs and so wish to find permanent life-fulfilling ways of doing so. This can be considered to be another want and need within itself. However, it is more subjective in its application, making it difficult to write about.

Escapism:
Escapism fulfills the human desire to escape the stress of one’s own life situation and reassure their own existence through their relation to others. Any political speech or form of fiction does this by principle. We do this by relating to characters that are not us but vary between being like us, while a bit worse to a bit better than us, to being very unlike us, and much better than us. The latter is experienced when consuming products that are farther away from our physical reality and are shocking and thrilling rather than the prior; which is almost as easy to digest as our own lives. The variation between the two depends on the individual’s amount of existentialism, their attachment to concepts (anything from religion to science, politics, play, social accountability, etc.), their level of self-confidence and their desire for self-improvement. Any product can be successful if it can reassure a person that they are in fact a person while allowing them to escape the reality of their own predicament, at least for a short amount of time. This is also why people don’t like massive mood whiplash in their fiction, they come to watch/read/listen to a product in order to experience a particular kind of escapism, not to view life as the boring and horrifying mess that it really is (in which you can have Christmas presents one day and then brain cancer the next).

(on a scale of shock/thrill to relatability/reality to shock/thrill):
Horror
Tragedy Political speeches and ‘shock’ fiction
Drama
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dramedy (Dram-e-dee) or a character-driven light-hearted drama that has comedic elements. Makes up most action-adventure stories, video games and kids movies (for example, Avatar: The Last Airbender).

Literary Fiction: ‘Real’ fiction that takes all the fun out of life and focuses on a kid with brain cancer or something. You can be left with this if you take out all the comedic elements of Dramedy and Crama and instead focus on the characters’ ‘real problems’. Many, many ‘artistic’ products do this.

Crama (Kar-ma) or character-driven light-hearted comedy with dramatic elements, usually with things like a laugh-track and jokes that play with dramatic tension between characters. Makes up most sitcoms and is usually based in real life where the characters go through life changes, have relationships and do other semi-permanent human things that we can relate to (The Big Bang Theory).

Comedy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parody
Satire Political speeches and ‘shock’ fiction
Horror