With India , they encountered a context-free grammar/language and a context-sensitive experiential framework. It was necessary to transform these into variants of Abrahamism (coded language and context-free ethics/meaning).
When worded this way, it becomes clear which framework is conducive to propaganda and which is true discourse.
Foucalt, his predecessor Marx, and the western relativists are objectionable because they seek to transform all discourse as instances of propaganda, ignoring the heathen sensitivity. The believers object to Foucalt because theirs is not propaganda but Truth. BUT THE BELIEVERS DO NOT REALIZE THAT the relativists take their position only to smother the last instance of heathenism i.e., the possibility of context-free grammar/language and a context-sensitive experiential framework; that is, the believers do not realize that the relativists ultimately and conclusively affirm Abrahamism by stating that all frameworks are 'interpretative' frameworks and instances of propaganda (as opposed to experiential frameworks).
To finalize the Abrahamic design, it becomes necessary to state that only propaganda is possible, but this transforms the Abrahamic claims as hollow.
And the blind heathens mistake Foucalt's 'relativism' as relational.
I think, with the movie 'Avatar', the colonizer overplayed its hand (for the first time) and exposed the mask dynamic for a brief period. To resurrect the colonizer dynamic, it will be necessary to shown in the next `movie how the Na'vi are themselves colonizers. This means that Orientalist caricatures of the native have a brief period of vulnerability as they switch between the colonizer's narrative and the native's narrative (in assumed voice and donned clothes)..
When worded this way, it becomes clear which framework is conducive to propaganda and which is true discourse.
Foucalt, his predecessor Marx, and the western relativists are objectionable because they seek to transform all discourse as instances of propaganda, ignoring the heathen sensitivity. The believers object to Foucalt because theirs is not propaganda but Truth. BUT THE BELIEVERS DO NOT REALIZE THAT the relativists take their position only to smother the last instance of heathenism i.e., the possibility of context-free grammar/language and a context-sensitive experiential framework; that is, the believers do not realize that the relativists ultimately and conclusively affirm Abrahamism by stating that all frameworks are 'interpretative' frameworks and instances of propaganda (as opposed to experiential frameworks).
To finalize the Abrahamic design, it becomes necessary to state that only propaganda is possible, but this transforms the Abrahamic claims as hollow.
And the blind heathens mistake Foucalt's 'relativism' as relational.
I think, with the movie 'Avatar', the colonizer overplayed its hand (for the first time) and exposed the mask dynamic for a brief period. To resurrect the colonizer dynamic, it will be necessary to shown in the next `movie how the Na'vi are themselves colonizers. This means that Orientalist caricatures of the native have a brief period of vulnerability as they switch between the colonizer's narrative and the native's narrative (in assumed voice and donned clothes)..