Cassandra has a quite puzzling definition of post-modernism, that it is in fact a negative, whereas I see it as a positive. On the other hand, she sees Enlightenment as a positive whereas I see it as a negative.
I quite like much post-modern architecture which harks back to the bold, warm, elegant opulence of art-deco, some of which you’ll see below. Pomo architecture rejects the rules, constructs and strictures of modernism and lashes out with decorative elements which are anathema to the conformist Statist dream of cold geometrics and utilitarianism. Modernists see pomo architecture and art as decadent and frivolous whereas I see it as fresh and fun.
As for the Enlightenment, I don’t see Enlightenment philosophers who aimed for secularization, dechristifying and a cold modern dystopia, men like Hegel and the particularly obnoxious Voltaire, as all that worthy of reverence.
Cassandra seems to agree in a way:
As God was the center of the Universe, with Pope, King or Emperor as spiritual and secular substitutes in feudal times – during modernity in Nationalism – the Nation quite literally usurped God’s place, as did the State in all incarnations of Statism.
If she agrees with this, then why support Kant, Hume and the other Enlightenment thinkers? Anyway, to Art Deco, which is anything but Statist in nature: