Jim here's more fun

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

Re: Jim here's more fun

Postby met on Tue Sep 05, 2017 7:22 am

Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:Well, okay, you do realize his gist there IS in tune, in certain key senses with foucaldian, Derridean and Butlerian themes and concerns that interest me? Translating his notion into post-structuralist terms, one might say, "It means we all performatively perform "people" acts prelaid out for us by all thos ineluctable socio-lingo-historical patterns stemming from the flow of pouvoir-saviour thru-out every level and more of every human society". Or some such....

Then the open and unattended question here would be, of course.... "Okay, but if we aren't really "people", what are we?" Are we, for certain, by the power of such definitions, Known to be absolutely nothing but effect? Perhaps what we really are is "something else," perhaps we embody some otherness that "peoplehood" cannot subsume, or define, and perhaps that something else transcends all the fictions and all the narratives of those delimiting constructs of "ourselves" that we create, are created for us, and we cling to out of fear and ignorance, or ... I dunno ....something else? .... hmmm.... :ugeek:


I didn't get any of that from those posts. He's not using critical analysis along Foucauldian lines to say we aren;t people but along hard reductionist lines that result from uncritically accepting a given ideology of science. Your analysis seems light years more sophisitcated. If anything, his gist is the opposite of what you're talking about, or seems that way to me, in uncritically taking on a truth regime as transparent self-evident truth.


Jim, I know, of course that was his intention, but his own very sentence sabotages and thwarts him by lapsing back into first person with an astonishing aporetic flair. And yet, the case is also that that failure to express it underlines so very well the exact lack of personhood the sentence proposes ..... That's what I loved about it....the impossibly possible impossibility of it. Ya dig? :ugeek:
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
User avatar
met
 
Posts: 2791
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Jim here's more fun

Postby Jim B. on Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:33 am

met wrote:
Jim B. wrote:
met wrote:Well, okay, you do realize his gist there IS in tune, in certain key senses with foucaldian, Derridean and Butlerian themes and concerns that interest me? Translating his notion into post-structuralist terms, one might say, "It means we all performatively perform "people" acts prelaid out for us by all thos ineluctable socio-lingo-historical patterns stemming from the flow of pouvoir-saviour thru-out every level and more of every human society". Or some such....

Then the open and unattended question here would be, of course.... "Okay, but if we aren't really "people", what are we?" Are we, for certain, by the power of such definitions, Known to be absolutely nothing but effect? Perhaps what we really are is "something else," perhaps we embody some otherness that "peoplehood" cannot subsume, or define, and perhaps that something else transcends all the fictions and all the narratives of those delimiting constructs of "ourselves" that we create, are created for us, and we cling to out of fear and ignorance, or ... I dunno ....something else? .... hmmm.... :ugeek:


I didn't get any of that from those posts. He's not using critical analysis along Foucauldian lines to say we aren;t people but along hard reductionist lines that result from uncritically accepting a given ideology of science. Your analysis seems light years more sophisitcated. If anything, his gist is the opposite of what you're talking about, or seems that way to me, in uncritically taking on a truth regime as transparent self-evident truth.


Jim, I know, of course that was his intention, but his own very sentence sabotages and thwarts him by lapsing back into first person with an astonishing aporetic flair. And yet, the case is also that that failure to express it underlines so very well the exact lack of personhood the sentence proposes ..... That's what I loved about it....the impossibly possible impossibility of it. Ya dig? :ugeek:


I dig, man! ;) In this largely nuance-free medium, I guess I missed the ironic distancing. Thought you were endorsing his position rather than proto-deconstructing it! :o :shock:
Jim B.
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: Jim here's more fun

Postby met on Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:14 pm

oh c'mon... you know me better than that! :o .... (well, assuming for a moment, there IS a me? ... :? :( )
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton
User avatar
met
 
Posts: 2791
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Jim here's more fun

Postby Jim B. on Tue Sep 05, 2017 2:09 pm

met wrote:oh c'mon... you know me better than that! :o .... (well, assuming for a moment, there IS a me? ... :? :( )


:D :D :D :lol: :lol: :lol:
Jim B.
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Previous

Return to Adventure of Faith (Religion/Spirituality)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron