Superarchitecture: The change of Paradigm

Postmodernity is the cancer of mankind. I will explain why I sustain this later, in other entries.
This I'll dedicate to illustrate you about the inconsistencies that lie within postmodern theory in architecture. Most postmodern philosophers (in all lines of thought, from architecture to psychology) have used thinkers as Nietszche as banner, but nodoby seems to notice how antagonical both postures are. There are semantical contradictions, their thesis are "fool's gold" that will crumble to pieces before the illustrated eye.
A great mistake frecuently commited by postmodern thinkers is that they try to "improve failures" proceeding exactly with the same way of thinking that generated them. For them, the subject always remits to itself in order to be explained (that is, veeeery synthetically, deconstruction)... Well, this is erroneous. Remember Godel's incompleteness theorems? No consistent system can be used to explain itself. So to say, any system strong enough to prove the concept of it's basic elemts (i. e. natural numbers) leads to a formal logic contradiction (try Russell's paradox of the sets containing sets that are not members of theirselves...)
What all this means is: Postmodernity can't be used to explain postmodernity.

Before I proceed, I think necessary to explain that "Superarchitecture" is the theoretical thesis I'm developing in order to obtain my Architect degree. I'm working on the basis of a change of paradigm, a logical and sustainable anomaly within postmodernity.
Anyway, here it is:

1.-Both Postmodernity and Superarchitecture hold a highly critical posture before classical preceptives.
But:
2.- Postmodernity denies any historical conception of architecture (or anything else).
Superarchitecture dismantles any historical conception in order to find basic principles of any civilization. That is Nietzsche's eternal recurrence (first remarkable contradiction).
3.- Postmodernity claims that architecture cannot longer be concieved as an object, but as the interactions of spaces and events.
Superarchitecture sustains that architecture is a highly complex activity, not an object indeed, but that doesn't lead to the abandonment of all attempt of synthesis.
4.- Architecture is a language, but it is not direct or articulated.
Superarchitecture sustains that architectural language is a metaphor of the inner world, of ideas and convictions, not it's simple expression as Postmodernity affirms.
5.- After dismantling traditional components, postmodernity pretends to rensamble them. this constitues an "extent process" that must always avoid "formal empirism". We understand then that, for postmoderns, facts get never connected and all conflict relationships are carefully maintained, denying their synthesis or totality. So to say, rensmabling is for postmodernity an end in itself.
Superacrhitecture understands rensambling as a sort of "back to the origins", it dismantles only to construct again. It synthetizes.
6.- Superarchitecture then, looks for the reunification of concepts in order to sustain a true system of investigation /traduction of human events (social and psychological).

Hehehe, any comments?