[Ed Hudgins]

That’s post-moderninsm for you. There is no objective reality. Things mean whatever the viewer wants them to mean. Of course, this is a cynical way to diss Western values and to push the left’s agenda. And when you point out that the post-modernists contradict themselves, that if everything is an subjective interpretation, then so are their theories and thoughts, they respond the way Marx did when people asked him “How can you, a bourgeois, understand the working class since you say that the bourgeois mind, formed by capitalist institutions, is biologically incapable of understanding the working class mind?” Both post-modernists and the Marxists from which they came, say “See, you bourgeois minds cannot understand this dialectic logic.” In other words, they’re full of it!

[Borges]

Objective reality meaning one monolithic Meaning of something like a play or book? It’s never been that way. Author’s intentions being contravened go back a lot further then Postmodernism. Old school Marxists don’t even like Pomo.

[ichabod1]

“See, you bourgeois minds cannot understand this dialectic logic.”

Why does that remind me of "It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand." or, "Sometimes I want to go up to a white person and say, 'you can't understand this' and then slap'em upside their head."