A Guide to Turning Postmodernism Against Itself
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 05. 2018
- I look at some aspects in the deconstruction project of Jacques Derrida and give a few strategies for taking the upside world created by postmodernism and putting it back on its feet.
Support this channel:
patreon: / pageauvideos
paypal: www.paypal.me/JonathanPageau
website: www.pageaucarvings.com
facebook: / jonathanpageau
twitter: / pageaujonathan
A Chesterton quote comes to mind: “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
noice
Methinks Aristotle is closer to the bulls-eye, ergo, more "solid" than Chesterton. To wit:
_"it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought w/out accepting it; tolerance and apathy are the signs of a dying civilization."_
Last i checked, feces qualifies as "something solid." Not in my mind thank you, and much less in MY mouth.
>insert witty comment about solid = penis
I think solid here is meant to mean truthful. Not a literal material substance of the word solid.
@@kargs5krun Yet feces can be wholy liquid, or partly liquid, depending on the diet and current health of the person who makes it, but it always have water in it, so your statement can't hold water all the time.
Esentially both Chesterton's and Aristotle's quotes contain the same message, although one is more blunt than the other.
Postmodernists : “There is no objective truth”
Me : “Is that objectively true?”
Protagoras: "There is no absolute truth."
Socrates: "Is that absolutely true?"
Nothing new under the sun.
@@777Justin Life is new under the sun.
Iterations. Which @Ghost Light has demonstrated. 🎉
You’re comment iterates a new delivery for your sentiment.
this is not a contradiction dude, why does everyone say this
@@none11flop9 Why not and how?
@@300387ful either there is an absolute truth or there isn't. if not, then the statement "there is no absolute truth" would be absolutely true.
this isn't a contradiction because again, either there is an absolute truth or there isn't. both cases would have an absolute truth to them "there is/isn't"
it's also an equivocation fallacy. obviously truth exists, that is, not lying.
But the truth in the original statement means moral arbiter or a correct philosophy, not literally "this statement is true/untrue"
"Progress without telos" is the perfect description, Jonathan! I've frequently remarked that that the modern myth of progress teaches people that simply moving in any direction, as long as it's away from the past, is moving in the right direction.
But with out a meta-narrative that can establish a transcendent source of ethical norms (especially a transcultural meta-narrative), our only sense of "oughtness" is the feeling that we ought to simply move away from tradition of any sort.
Deep Talks: Exploring Theology and Meaning-Making who are you allister macintyre? Another after virtue ite, glad I’m in good company
On the shared bathroom-issue: I live in Malmö, in the south of Sweden where we have a popular outdoor sauna- and baths facility. It’s right on the sea, so no enclosed pools but actual seawater for the bathers. It’s open all year round and is kind of an ’institution’ for winter bathers, also quite popular (or exotic?) for tourists, although outdoor winter bathing after sauna is more of a finnish tradition.
Now, the thing is with this bathing faciltiy (Ribersborgs Kallbadhus) that it is also a nude facility. You can wear bathing clothes on the premises but hardly anyone ever does. In the sauna it is NOT allowed to wear a bathing suit. There’s a women’s department and a men’s departement but the nude rule applies to both. If you leave the bathing/sauna department or walk into the café you naturally have to put clothes on. The ruling majority in Malmö city (a coalition between social democrats, members of the Left Party and members of the Green Party) have decided that it is discriminatory on behalf of the city to have separate departments for men and women. Or rather, to have only TWO departments in the facility when there are individuals who consider themselves neither men nor women. Last Monday shared nude departments were introduced. The departments were deemed gender-less or possibly even queer so that anyone regardless of sex could enter into any of the two departments. Apparently, some women who consider themselves just that - women - and who hadn’t heard of the ’Queer Monday’-experiment were shocked when they went into their normally secluded area, nude, to find it swarmed with not primarily trans-people but mostly straight naked men, some of which were known offenders. The women wrapped themselves in big bathing towels and sarongs to shield from unwelcome stares and glares and gazez. Finally some women fled into the men’s section which was almost void of people. There were a few women who voiced their disappointments openly to the local newspaper, especially since they had paid for their seasonal cards when there were no such thing as gender-less nude areas in the women’s department (and for that matter a likewise gender-less nude area in the men’s department, where not many people seemed to be bothered to visit). When the local Left Party politician, herself quite the queer activist, was asked about the sad and disappointed female paying customers’ experiences during Queer Monday, she basically responded that it was the visible and unfortunate consequences of living in a Patriarchy, and that men just have to get themselves together and stop behaving badly.
That is an awesome example.
Huugeda mig.. hejsan fellow swede🤙🏻
Unbelievable ! Thanks a lot for the intel... Aloha from N. Carolina
More like living in a matriarchy and that is the worst tyranny of all.
It's because they really don't give a damn about women, men or lgbt people. They only care for power, they see people as puppets and themselves as the puppet master
From what I can tell (an incredibly novice perspective from a 21 year old linguist here), postmodernism seems to be a sly attempt to control or influence certain schools of thoughts and even certain political perspectives. This idea you touched on of "radical hospitality" especially interests me - "if only you'd open yourself up to more perspectives, if only you'd step outside of yourself and see different ways of viewing information and viewing truth, then you'd be a better person". To me, it seems that postmodernists want you to discard what you believe to be innately true or real, to make yourself tabula rasa in effect, so that they can instil their own sense of truth or morality into you. A subtler take on "listen and believe": open yourself up and accept what *I'm* saying, not necessarily what your soul or your reason is saying. Very clever.
Yes, it is the same as everything. I wrote a thing here in the comments on Post-Postmodernism.
And it is as usual: "ALL perspectives ARE valid (as long as they are post modern).
If you take a look at the most recent debate with Jordan Peterson wether PC has gone too far, just look especially at that Dyson. What a sly worm tounge he is. His mouth dribbels of post modern power speech. He is truly a scary person!
Its the same there too!
Every feeling is valid (if they are incapsulated by post modernism), but not evil ones (that which is not post modern).
We are against VIOLENCE just as anyone alse (as long it is not post modern)
You see, everything they say have their unspoken bracketed continuations.
Bingo!
All three of you are tin foil hat wearing paranoids.
Terrified because someone challenges you to suspend your pre-suppositions and to consider different and opposing viewpoints.
You would think that the Post Modern storm troopers came by your houses and threatened you at gun point, with a few healthy pistol whippings for good measure !
It is simply the basics of Zen and Phenomenology; you must have as clear and empty a mind, as possible to give something new and different a fair hearing.
But I guess ,from the tone of your posts, that it is all based on demons who rebelled from God. who are pushing Post Modernism !
I'm one of those people who naturally looks at something from many perspectives before making a decision. So, for me it takes a lot of time to understand a situation on a deep level and then look at the issues from multiple viewpoints to determine what is real and factual and what is not. I've come to the conclusion that there is a lot of merit to opening yourself up to different viewpoints; however, you need to take care to honestly determine which viewpoints have merit and/or are viable. From what I see, read, and hear, the left side (I'm not going to get into the right-side's ills yet) of the political spectrum that wholeheartedly supports postmodernism has reached a point where they refuse to define anything (with one major exception being the group in which you are supposed to belong and don't you dare step out of it). You can watch the Munk debate with Dr. Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry to see how the far-left debaters refused to define anything. They are in the act of dissolving the definition of gender. They refuse to define what a person is, when a person becomes a person, when a person is granted basic human rights or when they should be revoked. The postmodernists and the far left don't want to have definitions, which means no boundaries, which is inherently psychologically unsafe. In addition to this (and like the far right), they have come to a position of exclusivity in thought. All-or-nothing mentalities. Our way or no way. And it's extremely divisive, which is why we are seeing the polarization on both sides. They're entrenching themselves and refusing to budge. The ideology of identity politics, the balkanization of people into groups and sub-groups and ever-shrinking sub-groups, and entrenching themselves into excluding anything that doesn't fit their (oddly enough) ever evolving defined group will destroy whatever it touches. Another big thing is the game of victimhood--playing the victim. Both sides do it. I see it from Sean Hannity and Ben Shapiro as much as I do from the left. Oh! Someone said or did this, so you should be outraged and offended (or should make fun of it)! There is no appeasing the perpetually aggrieved. Full stop. And people who say the far left aren't silencing diverse thought should re-examine the facts and consider the firings (or refusing to hire regardless of merit and qualifications) of people with opposing viewpoints and the orchestrated boycotting and doxxing of people to silence them. That is censorship at its most dangerous.
Frank.
Certainly the Far Left has been influenced by Post Modern thought, but to conflate the two is not useful.
Post Modernism has every right to refuse to define stuff, just as much as others have a right to define stuff.
Show me where a real representative of Post Modernism has declared that it is all about "our way or no way'" ?
I agree that Far Left PC has gone too far, but there are legitimate avenues to debate and vote those positions down. To attempt throw Post Modernism out with the bathwater is childish and betrays a real lack of
careful, deep thought and study of the topic.
So when are you going to display your critique of the Right/Conservatism and where are the benefits you have found in Post Modernism; or are there none ?
As you know, we Gamers have been working hard on flipping it over again! :)
gamers rise up
''There is nothing new under the sun'. 'ideas' reincarnate into modern versions of the same narrative.
Seems rather depressing when we look and see where we are on the cycle of repetition. The question is, how much suffering is avoidable this time round.
Samsara
I think that we will see a reset the resulting pogroms will almost complete.
Also some extra-terrestrial somewhere has probably thought of it before.
Every lie, falsehood and deception eventually cancels itself out, including their proponents who refuse to let them go. Like suicide; enter Judas Iscariot.
Progress is two steps forward 1.8 steps back, we need to stop postmodernism stealing that 1.9
I like Roger Scruton’s observation for its succinctness: The moral relativists have made a virtue of moral relativism.
We’re at the ground floor for ethical systems and they keep trying to destroy the foundations, but then they remember they need something to stand on to justify the destruction.
This is probably the most tightly woven circle or ‘inverting’ process that I see modern sensibilities perform *all by themselves* on a daily basis.
Upside down world is simply inhospitable, even to the people most enamoured with it. Postmodernists are in an abusive relationship with their own ideas.
Another good one is how ‘skepticism of meta-narratives’ is routinely pushed *as a meta-narrative*.
Postmodernism: "There is no truth, except for marxism. Now give us power.".
Simplistic knucklehead conclusion. 🤦🏼
Postmodernism is anti-Marxist.
@@kyledonahue9315 It might be wiser to ask for his clarification as to what’s meant by “Marxism.” Oftentimes, when people say “Marxism” in these contexts, what they really mean is the post-Marxian intellectual traditions of the European West. Post-modernism is associated with Marxian thought, because the former is naturally associated with the Frankfurt School, which-in some sense-begat it; the Frankfurt School, then, would be an example of Western European, post-Marxian (specifically, post-WWII) intellectualism.
@@kyledonahue9315 Marxism is also hyper-postmodernist
I spend a lot of time with progressive, postmodernist, atheist types (even though I'm much more of a libertarian/conservative and a christian) and one thing I've noticed is that the more open ones are very interested in my religious views once they get to know me a little. I've even managed to convince a couple of them into believing the metaphysical necessity of God and relate that belief to a more moderate political perspective, probably because politics become secondary when you're open enough to seriously consider the possibility of God's existence. Also, in every case they seemed to become much more tolerant of my political views afterwards.
This is to say that your perspective definitely corroborates my personal experience. Good stuff.
"Truth is subjective"
"No it's not."
"YES IT IS!!!!!"
1) So radical openness can lead to destruction. But a properly calibrated openness, a wise openness that keeps the total situation in mind, can help realize the benefits of openness without giving way to the radical openness that leads to disintegration.
Fair enough.
But in this fallen world, the act of limiting openness is not without consequence, in that someone's interests get selected against in a particular context. Mature people have to be willing to make those discriminating choices, and to bear the responsibility of their consequences.
Your discussion of post-modernism highlights the fact that philosophy can only do so much for us. After coming to understand the conceptual landscape of "openness," and with full awareness of the dangers of excessive and insufficient openness, we then need to look at particular cases and take concrete positions.
Otherwise, like Derrida, we just do a lot of tail chasing.
2) What you describe as the "flip" back, say, in the case of leveling gender leading to a re-asserted hierarchy, is not so much a flip as the revelation of the flaw in the egalitarian position. The egalitarian argument goes like this:
i) Every so-called biological difference between the sexes is in fact a social construction.
ii) The mechanism whereby these so-called biological differences are constructed is by separating men and women and telling them that men are better at certain things and women better at others.
iii) Therefore when we allow men and women to compete freely, and repeat to ourselves over and over again that women are as strong as men, the differences will disappear.
But (iii) is false, therefore (i) or (ii) is false. "The hierarchy reasserting itself" is just what you call reality crashing into the falsity of one of these premises.
If I do my best to put this in your terms, a rigidly enforced social equality of the genders leads to a recognition of the differences between the genders. And I can see how a rigidly enforced inequality of the genders, say by refusing to allow a woman to ever pursue masculine interests, can make salient, to borrow a term from your last video, the fact that there are exceptionally strong women who are stronger than exceptionally weak men.
But if we get out of our own heads, and instead of thinking about the circumstances that make more obvious to us one or other aspect of the problem, we try to develop a way of thinking about how to organize our behavior around the reality of sexual difference, taking into consideration what becomes salient at the extremes, we might come up with something like this:
1) It is beneficial to separate male from female spheres in domains where the general tendency is for one of the sexes to outperform the other.
2) But provided we do not weaken the standards in the more skillful sex's domain, it is permissible to let those people who can only test the limits of their potential by moving into the opposite sex's domain do so.
There is no need to accept any false metaphysical premises about "social construction." Nor is there any need to conceptualize the biological tendencies of the sexes as if these tendencies were subject to mathematical precision, as if they were strict logical categories.
This is a core incoherence in the egalitarian position: it is only by viewing the biological tendencies of the sexes through the lens of mathematical precision that the egalitarians are able to make the argument that finding one exception disproves general rules such as "Men are like this" or "Women are like that."
Once you understand that biology is not math, or metaphysics, or some other deductive science, the whole line of thinking collapses.
*edited a typo
Too long but interesting lol I'll finish it some day
And that's why I started painting cells....
Excellent summary. Thank you for taking the time.
Every time you said "a normal hierarchy" I could hear the exploding heads of a million sociology grads 👌.
This is good stuff. I was in a discussion where someone brought up the idea, if God is dead then anything is permissible. I remembered Zizek said in one of his talks that he believes that if God is dead, nothing is permissible and I think that's right. This goes along nicely with your point about hospitality and the prostitute. In the wake of the death of God and the dismantling of the meta-hierarchy, so to say, we aren't free. We fall into Nihilism, which is not a place where someone can live for long, so then we are positioned to become victims of brutal political and social ideologies. So by getting rid of God and the ultimate hierarchy leads to subjugation by other hierarchies in which you will have less freedom, not more.
I really like how you explained the move from extreme openness to the possible possession by a hierarchy.
Jess Purviance,
Good stuff, cause it makes you feel good ?
In the wake of the death of God-Meta-hierarchy, we are indeed free.
It is just that freedom is terrifying and dangerous and so the sheep minded or morally under-developed cry out for a new hierarchy , a new narrative or some kind of return to the old.
This is basic existentialism, which is closely related to Phenomenology and Post Modernism.
The solution of the hierarchy-injustice issue for humanity will have to come through a historical process, as Hegel makes clear, see his Master/Slave Dialectic. It will not come by retreating into old concepts of God and traditional hierarchies.
thenowchurch What's the Master/Slave dialectic?
Jess.
Simply put, it is the idea that both Masters and Slaves are part of the Universal Reason (God) and that all sentient participants in this process seek to be recognized (given significance as an equal in terms of basic rights) by another free being.
This, Hegel says drives the historical process, because the Master knows that the recognition of a slave is not real.
He must reduce the severity of the bondage and eventually free the slave, if he ever hopes to gain the recognition of the "other".
There are sub-narratives, such as, the Master and his ilk tend to become lazy and not so wary, while the slave is learning hard lessons, difficult coping skills, how to suffer and how to gain freedom.
Ultimately , this idea says that, humanity will never be in a state of harmony until all forms of enslavement are abolished because we have seen through them.
thenowchurch How does that fit with finding meaning in the wake of the death of God? Im not seeing the connection.
Jess.
Well instead of a fall into Nihilism or a default to status quo authority, it indicates that finding meaning is a process on the inner plane where the individual struggles with "God" and finds a deeper meaning of God, one that connects all beings in an inter-connected whole.
It is a phenomenological process; the individual's lived experience not a screed or creed from an external manifesto.
Making a truth claim about truth not existing has no ground to stand on.
We have to be more subtle than that. Derrida would never be so naive as to say that truth does not exist. He actually shows how there is a multiplicity of "truths" seen from a multiplicity of angles, and so the Truth is drowned in an ocean of truths. He does this in "The Truth in Painting" for example. I am suggesting that in the end, the multiplicity of truths will set themselves up inevitably into a hierarchy.
>I am suggesting that in the end, the multiplicity of truths will set themselves up inevitably into a hierarchy.
It doesn't seem like that works, either.
Let's grant such a premise (which is very similar to JBP's idea about there only being a very small subset of interpretrations/truths that don't lead to death). We're immediately back on post-modernist ground of "who defines the hierarchy," "is there only a single way to organize this hierarchy," etc. And then the self-referential nature of such an argument re-emerges.
Alchemical Secrets - These are the steps I want you to take.
First, I want you to know.....Kek is the Light when he is called "Keki" and the "Light of Nu" when he is "Kekui"
Next.....I want you to find "The Land of Keki"
I will tell you to begin at Khemenu (Hermopolis) and stop at the Isle of Abu (Elephantine)
Next, what does khemenu mean? Khem+Nu or Kek+Heh+Nu=Light+Infinity+the primordial watery abyss
What is the Coptic word for Khemenu and the Arab name too.
What do these words mean? What does Shomayim mean?
Alchemical Secrets you say?
Who is Chem (Khem) (Hm) (Ham) of the primordial watery abyss called Nu
Who invented the written word?
Who is Thoth, who is Misor, Where is the Land of Khnum called (Khn n) and Canaan too.
Read the first chapter of Gospel of the Egyptians and the Pistis Sophia too.
Read the 12th city or the 12th gate in the Book of Gates
THEN, after you have done these things, let's talk about TRUTH
Where's Kekistani Patriot on your emergent "hierarchy of truths" Jonathan? LOL.
There is only ONE TRUTH Trust Nebo Alone Find him then go backwards to Uruk and Lagash in the Land of King Gudea, in the Land of Gilgamesh and Enkidu. This is the Land of Ishtar (Ishar), the serpent winch.
You must know what Gilgamesh says to Ishtar when she says "Marry Me"
You must know Kekui is Annunaki - The Father (Frog), Mother (Serpent) and Child (Kekui)
You and The Distributist have some good guidelines about pushing back rather than just criticising. It’s helpful for the riffraff like myself that straddle the post modernist deconstructionist and the structure of tradition- quite by accident. Many thanks.
Really enjoyed this. The idea that even maximum possibility has a container between beginning and the "goal" will turn itself back into a hierarchy. Absolutely is a outcome when dealing with existence. Great video
Your final point of recreation of hierarchies from deconstruction is brilliant, really made me think
I love following intersectionality to its end. You get right back to "everyone is an individual," a child of God if you will, a soul, knit together, your hairs and years numbered by God.
hey man! just wanted to say love the work you are doing, makes me happy
So basically, "radical hospitality" is openness without perspective, caution or mindfulness. It is openness without order, boundaries, or limits. Openness without scrutiny may lead to chaos.
You got it.
The examples you give are very easy to understand , rich in content logical. It gives me sense that I really understand what are the pros and cons of deconstructism. Thanks a lot for posting this video.
Big thanks to enlighten us with your deep thoughts.
There's the example of the male to female transgender MMA fighter. I remember seeing a picture of her, somewhat more masculine and certainly more deadly than your average male, ragdolling a(n actual) lady in a fight.
YES THIS IS THE ONE I WAS WAITING FOR
Great video, thank you!
You sir, should do this much more. Thank you.
Very instructive video! This type of content would be a nice addition to your other videos :)
Very helpful. I would love to watch more videos about this! Thank you so much for your work
I love your talks they have broaden my views, and deepened my understanding of my faith in Christ. Also, it helps clarify postmodernism and how it's playing out in the world stage. Keep it up, and thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Thank you so much for your work. I am a baptized Byzantine Catholic. However during my childhood it was mostly an ethnic (Slavic) experience. Nonetheless, I always felt like a stranger in a strange land during my schooling and college experience. It wasn't unti' I started going deeper, reading the Church fathers, that I felt the aha moment : I had been entering reality from the point of view of the Resurrection, which is completely foreign to modern Western culture. I now live in France. The battle us real. Please consider having Fr Thomas Loya on your show to talk about Theology of the Body. Thanks again.
He actually is describing the Catholic Church since Vatican II.
Necessarily find these tweets and show us in the film
Thanks for you video. I think you could have used a few more examples of how one could use Derridas biblical readings to turn PM on its head.
I think I have thought this by telling myself I shouldn't be too open or else my brain or mouth will spill out unmentionable horror. Northanger Abbey seems to deal with that radical hospitality as it explores the superficial versus real friendships between Catherine Morland, the Tilneys, and Isabelle.
Definitely make a video on those "real peer review" tweets! I think we would enjoy hearing your analysis.
As a lifelong Symbologist ~ I am very happy to have found your channel.
It’s interesting because the Blessed Mother also seems to stand for radical hospitality. Lots of food for thought!! Thank you.
Too open --> chaos and reordering, possibly putting those who were so "open" on the margins or eradicating them.
All of this really connects in my life
Great video. Would love a video on those tweets!
That might just happen. This video has reached 3k views and the day isn't over yet, so I think this is something people are interested in for sure.
I think this relates to my read on the Moral Foundations Theory. The theory posits 5 dimensions of morality: Care/harm, Fairness/cheating, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, Sanctity/degradation. I would argue these also relate to the Big 5 Personality Traits, eg. openness and conscientiousness.
My thinking, as relates to your discussion is that the morality dimension of Care/harm and the personality trait of openness relate to the principle of "extreme openness". And then loyalty/betrayal and authority/subversion, "authority" including tradition, eg. "culture" as related to your descriptions in the stories, relating to the notion of the protection and support of one's own city and one's own culture.
On the Moral Foundations Theory, a study was done exploring those dimensions versus political/philosophical leaning. What was found was that liberals primarily focused only on care/harm, fairness/cheating and very little on loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation. But on the other hand, conservatives consider all 5 dimensions on a more equal footing, albeit with slightly less emphasis on the first two than the liberal apply.
I think what you describe is that it is important to include the dimensions of loyalty/betrayal and authority/subversion to avoid "extreme openness" resulting in one's own demise or the demise of that which one values (eg culture, societal values, etc.)
An obvious example of what you outlined in this video is the intuitive and inevitable reconstruction of a hierarchy taking place in European countries especially, who have, at first, been radically open to Muslim migrants. This radical openness, in the name of tolerance and acceptance, has led to new citizens who do not reciprocate that tolerance and openness to the traditional ideas and the traditional culture of their new home.
For example, if new citizens do not tolerate homosexuality, or Christianity, or even atheism, in the way that these things have traditionally been at least tolerated (or at the very least, tolerated moreso than they have been in predominantly Islamic countries), then native citizens are left to ask themselves what exactly they are doing and, what exactly they are "progressing" towards, in the name of radical openness and tolerance. In many ways it's symbolized by the image of the snake eating its own tail. And now in many European countries, Europeans are reevaluating whether they have gone too far initially, what exactly it is that they are progressing towards, and, perhaps most importantly, they are reevaluating their contradictory elevation of relativism to the top of the value-hierarchy; they are realizing that cultures are not equal, values are not mere opinions...and resizing this in a very concrete way.
Excellent information and very clearly delivered. One technical complaint though. Please adjust the volume discrepancy between your intro and main body.
I love your take on "Beast Master." It's plain to anyone with experience. Put the most well trained and physically dominate woman against a male equivalent and it would be no contest. Frightening that some people choose not to acknowledge this fact.
I'd love a deeper dive into biblical hospitality minus the post-modernism (I was raised Jewish and went to an orthodox jewish school and I remember many many passages on, rabbi commentaries on, and rituals of hospitality), if you ever get the chance! But grateful and happy as usual that you're here making by far some of the best content out there. AND I CANNOT WAIT FOR YOUR BROTHER'S BOOK AHHHHHH. Thanks, man, you're a treasure.
I did an interview with Jordan Peterson on the subject where we go deeper into the issue. It is called Tradition and Things that do not fit. I know how you feel about the book. I keep holding back from writing Matthieu an email with just one word. "So?"
merci beaucoup!,..Amen
It’s interesting to hear about ‘openness’ with regards the future. That positioning is embodied in the ‘yin’. Surrendering one’s will to God is the basis. Having spent a considerable amount of time in meditation I can attest to the appeal of it, surrendering your attachment to thoughts is the basis of the pathway to ‘enlightenment’. It’s a very alienating and confrontational path.
You may find a video recording of Dr David Hawkins called ‘The Final Doorway’ of interest. It’s someone describing the subjective experience of radical openness through the lens of a spiritual hierarchy.
Not promoting or condoning it at all, but you may find it interesting.
Summary of Turning Back Post-Modernism (perhaps and updated video is needed)
Example of Hospitality - Jacques da Derrida
• Radical openness to “new” things, open to the movement towards new meanings, to the end times. Key words: Openness, Tolerance, non-judgmental, progress, etc.
• Purpose; disarms the person, group or society to their own self-destructions. Definitions, identities, and groups are burst open as a virus kills a cell. Note how some groups are destroyed while others are artificially emphasized.
• It is “Progress without telos”.
• A basic tenant of “deconstruction” is “you can’t totally control the results of the deconstructed thing. For instance, the “meaning of the text” (i.e., the deconstructed thing) because in post-modernism (textual criticism) the “text” is always referring to other things, things “outside of itself.” The author’s meaning is impossible to know, thus it only matters how a reader receives it.
• Biblical examples: Rahab the prostitute, who helps the Israelites to destroy Jericho. Elijah the prophet against the King who marries Jezebel, who then imports her gods.
How to turn post-modernism back on itself?
• Continue the process of deconstruction to where it breaks down and differences, distinctions, and hierarches will then reveal themselves. Real distinctions can then reassert themselves.
Some breakdowns will be recognized as absurd, dangerous, evil, etc. Expose them and use them to point out true hierarchy.
These can be pointed out to show that the “thing” being “deconstructed” in fact has true meaning.
For example, trans athletes, trans sexual fetishizes, or the rejection of merit/performance.
Hierarchy is their enemy therefore they label it “Patriarchy”.
• Ask, “to what are you progressing towards?” “Question progress without purpose. This is difficult for them to answer because they have no positive goal. A tenant of post-modernism is to never give a positive proposal, it is antithetical for them to do so. This is why they hide behind “the” science.
Recognize the trick, defend definitions, and defend meaning, and purpose.
Expose that the destruction of meaning is the goal. Point out how absurdities and dangers reveal true meaning.
The hierarchy of meaning can then reassert itself as the person moves away from anxiety.
Always remain open to change that has a specific positive purpose.
James Lindsey advises to be a stable “landing pad” available to those seeking to escape the anxiety of post-modernism.
It's in our nature to perceive patterns. Detecting more patterns is a sign of a higher intelligence, which inevitably leads to continuous conscious and unconscious construction and modification of hierarchies. Destroy all hierarchies and they will simply reemerge due to our natural mental functions, unless you can somehow - and want to - rewind our evolutionary progression/state, which conclusively signifies a psychological retraction from the future, i.e. a severe and disabling lack of openness and acceptance.
Growing up in Sunday school singing silly songs about Joshua fighting the battle of Jericho and now I’m here in awe of the meaning one can find in the story 😳
If I'm reading what you are saying across your videos in general, then one of the main themes of Christianity is the correct integration of the stranger in a way that allows you to keep your identity cohesive while incorporating useful new information. As an aside post modernism is really more of an argument for a statistical approach to interpretation than an abolition of meaning altogether, it's just that it's quite counterintuitive for people that they struggle to see it through to the end.
I can't believe you talked about Beast Master and not include the Beast symbolism that is permeating the show.
Your description of the prostitute interested me. I questioned why it's so demonized in society today and the uncertainty of whether or not Mary Magdalene was one or why is it significant to the story. I still have more research to do on that but I will put it together soon.
I'm very keen on meditation in a secular Buddhist context. That allows a radical openness to whatever is present in the moment, and a radical deconstruction of what we take in our experience to be a true self, but is actually ultimately unreal or 'empty of inherent existence'. But what that means is that you are effectively surrendering to what is ultimately real, the source of being. This is seems a feature of most spiritual traditions, so in Christianity it would be opening to Christ and God, in Buddhism it would Nirvana or Suchness. I was interested recently to read about a catholic philosopher, Dietrich von Hildebrand, that saw this process as ironically allowing you to be more of an authentic individual rather than than simply destroying the reality of your individuality e.g. "In the measure that man submerges himself in his adoration of God, his personality becomes ampler and richer, and adorned with higher values", so the individual is flipped back on his feet as more real once again perhaps?
I asked, "Should we only believe in things that are provable?"
The answer I received was, "yes"
Then I asked, "Is that provable?"
Full circle!
Has anyone got links for talks, books or articles (Pageau's and others') about Elijah?
I would love to see, if you could write about it.
Starting to really wish you would work in Jung. I'm just starting to think about this idea that Christ is the Jungian Self within that survives death and rebirth processes. That view of it matches up with the unconscious phrasing that Christians use, so I guess that's a point in its direction.
~
The description you made in Sacred Spaces ('Why you should go to church') was unbelievable. I am repeatedly amazed by just how deeply correct this 'intellectual dark web' is: when I went to church, they had a flyer that said something like "every Sunday we gather for church, and then spread out across the P____ area." (the exact quote presented the point better but I don't have the flyer with me) and I thought... "Why did they phrase it like that? Spread out? You mean 'go home'?" then I realized that it is exactly as you described: the church is the center, and everyone's lives are oriented in relation to the church.
Jung's philosophy leads to a Gnostic hole you don't want to be in.
I have a video entitled "I don't trust Jung anymore"
you should check it out!
Нова if you want to see this thought in the context of wider mystical thought for me ken Wilber is a good intro - very clear language and he has read and attempted to integrate all the mystics and psychologists! A ken wilber reader contains bits from all over his oeuvre and is a good primer and No boundary is also a good overview from a more linear perspective.
Every lie, falsehood and deception eventually cancels itself out, including their proponents who refuse to let them go. Like suicide; enter Judas Iscariot.
Hi, really liked what you had to say, found it incredibly thought provoking.
I want to make it clear that I understood what you had to say, but I remain sceptical as to how effective this would be in practice.
I can't quite put my finger on what's "missing", but my sense is that if I tried to deploy this now against a pM, they'd be able to tear me down in a way that would undermine the cause - it wouldn't be an "Auschwitz" moment (as dropped by a certain JBP recently...)
I think a part of my reservation comes from understanding just how slippery these regressive pM types are when you try to debate them... that this isn't, in and of itself, enough to pin them down and really put them on the spot.
Maybe it's because it's the first time you've presented this idea in this way (assumption), but it really felt like a prototype... a half-finished idea that still needs work. It's CLEAR you're onto something, but the exact details are still a little fuzzy.
Or to look at it a different way (and as this is a war of ideas...), it's like you've described a wonderful new rifle and said "you point it in the direction of the enemy and squeeze"; using a weapon is different to understanding how it works...
Anyway, hope my ramblings make sense to you. As I said, I KNOW you're onto something and I hope you can revisit this idea soon!
We need everything we can get if we're going to survive this insanity...
Hospitality, in which you attempt to court understanding that isn't AS preconstrained by its origins. Thinking outside the box, in other words. To do this, for me, I've had to treat myself like I'm one of several different people living inside my head, and I pose an inquiry to these other people, and usually it's inchoate if I can manage it. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that those "other people" are the parts of my brain that deal with art and drama (aka symbolism, eh?) more so than with articulated language (except insofar as words and phrases might have an artistic/dramatic nuance to them depending on the context, i.e., if I'm writing a poem I can evoke an image/feeling using words, only the words themselves aren't the important part, rather the peripheral nuance is the primary meaning...it's tricky to set that up, though). It's hard to do this, though. It's like standing on a high dive, and the only way you can get past your fear of jumping off is to pretend you're NOT going to jump AS you jump. If you're quick enough, you'll find yourself already on the way down before your fear catches on, but by then it's a fait accompli, right? Once I've posed (or more properly, start posing) the inquiry, then I listen to what comes back to me by paying attention to the periphery of my awareness. It's not just lateral thinking, it's more like a precursor to lateral thinking. Hence "hospitality," in which you invite understanding to (begin to) manifest itself out where you can get a handle on it more consciously, so that it doesn't slip away the moment you turn your more direct attention to it. Usually this kind of endeavor IS attached to a form of inquiry, though. If it isn't, then you will have a very hard time making any sense of what might (or might not) waft back at you. I.e., if you keep rejecting your mind's attempt to make sense, you'll end up with nonsense. So...dispensing with an answer just because it's an answer is like building a pool by destroying what you've built every time you notice that it starts to hold water. Jordan Peterson talks about this from a direction that's a little easier to grasp as a beginner when he observes that yes, there are an infinite number of interpretations (correct post modern observation), but those interpretations will always be constrained by what works in the real world and what doesn't--so not all interpretations are valid and reliable.
Okay, hang on a sec while I copy and paste this into a hard file on my computer, since CZcams has a vicious sense of timing when it comes to glitching when posting...
A similar story to your beastmaster show happens right now in germany. In on of our states (North Rhine-Westphalia) there was a different requirement for height for men and woman to be part of the police-force. 1.63 metre for woman and 1.68 metre for men. Now some people sued the state, because "gender equality". Now the requirement height for both genders is equal at 1.63 metre. Next thing that happens: Some woman sue the state, because woman are generally smaller than men and this favours man over woman. Seems like no matter what you do, you lose if you play this game.
How far into chaos do we slip until things are able to flip back? I can see that an historical lens is probably inadequate to answer this question. Is there a symbolic view that answers it? How much power do individuals have to bring forth the true hierarchies in a peaceful way?
>How much power do individuals have to bring forth the true hierarchies in a peaceful way?
This comment is demonstrative of the weakness of this idea of "flipping post-modernism back on itself."
Do you, John B, know what this "true hierarchy" is? If so, how? Why should others believe you.
Better questions: What are the true hierarchies (if they exist), should we pursue them per se or just try to live good lives, come what may, and why do people keep putting "an" before "historic" even though a majority of people pronounce the H?
>What are the true hierarchies (if they exist), should we pursue them per se or just try to live good lives
How do you know what a "good" life is? Isn't Post Modernism fun. Let's flip it over, "right" side up.
Different T Presumably one where you're sad all the time, or one where you end up suddenly dead, is best avoided.
I mean, you _could_ decide one night to put on a chicken costume and nothing else and run into the middle of a busy highway and lie down, because you live according to a worldview/value system in which that is _The Best Thing_, but that has a tendency to destroy itself.
John B not sure peaceful ways are necessarily a part of that process.
Enjoyed a lecture about bill of rights built upon reason not religion. However, pointed out that reason is no longer a fashionable philosophical style.
Does anyone know of a non-video forum for analysis of post-modernism? I have access to the canon of said philosophy, but I seek a place for discussion about this at a higher level than the comments section. My sibling has been "indoctrinated," and I have always had some amount of conflict with the philosophy.
I have stumbled over this idea of Post-Postmodernism within Post Modernism when I took "fashion science" class at university.
It seems to me, to be a idea of the total fragmentation of all structures of interpretation, ethics and rule even the structure of post modernism. Everything is allowed, there are no rules, no structures, nothing is wrong as long it is done through the lens of post modernism...
This is what I think it is, it's was verry blurred and filled of power speech from the professors (commonly also known as wordsalad) so it's probably "open for interpretation" (as long as you interpret within the post modern structure)?
danthefrst.
Like most people on here, you do not get Post Modernism.
You have an over-simplified view of it, a reduction of it to anti-nomianism.
It is based in Phenomenology, which implies that individuals must find Truth in their own experience as opposed to swallowing whole the narratives of the society or cultural rulers, unquestioningly.
It declares that it is impossible or extremely difficult to translate Truth into form , expression or language and therefore we should be wary of simple reductions and total solutions, as is common in religion.
Post Moderns do not fear being critiqued and always stress the fallibility of their own formulations.
Study Hegel and learn how to recognize the beneficial aspects of the "Other" and how to learn from your enemies, while pointing out what they have gotten wrong.
Post Modern Structure ? Post Modern is the deep observation of and questioning of structures. A skeptical attitude that can always be useful, as long as humans are fallible.
>which implies that individuals must find Truth in their own experience as opposed to swallowing whole the narratives of the society or cultural rulers, unquestioningly.
but aren't the narratives of society and cultural rulers part of one's own experience as well?
Onlyhas99.
You are correct.
I am just saying we must stay vigilant and reserve a little skepticism.
It is the difference between memorizing a creed and truly knowing why you believe something from personal experience.
Do you simply accept Mormonism as true because your parents and town do ?
No, you must search and experience for yourself.
Totally agree with that skepticism part.
And like I said, the very fact that your parents and town accept Mormonism is also just known to you by your own experience.
thenowchurch:
I'm not specifically speaking about postmodernism as the idea!
I'm specifically speaking about post modern adherents!
But if we would define a movement about societal critique by it's adherents then I'm spot on. Because this is how they all act.
But there are also many problems within the structure of how to conduct the critisism! Yes!
"Everything is power structures". This is a commandment as is "no interpretation trumps another" and "there are no true metanarratives".
The problems is because;: "everything is power structures" is a meta narrative, and it is a specific interpretation that is so true according to the adherents, that it commands how they all act.
If you work through these commandments then what I say above is not that peculiar.
So no, three different arguments about why I do not agree at all that I "simplify" post modernity.
Thanks
So radical Hospitality ends up getting abused by people who do not reciprocate and want to overthrow your culture
Jordan Peterson was right. This content is incredible.
Keep making it.
They call it "deconstruction" when a better term is "demolition"
I'm french but i learn and speak english as well. Although jonathan's is incredibly rich and complex vocabulary, i somehow have a grasp of what he's explaining here. But still not enough to understand it fully. Could somebody help me by resuming in a more accessible way his endgame? Because i too can not stand this boundry less philosophy and its condescents believers and i am searching for higher level arguments to shut them down.
I wish you had explained more concretely how the total solidity of the text is broken apart or how it slips and slides.
Cool connection with Rahab and with Elijah. Rahab has no allegience to the city that, maybe from her pov, let her fall to the bottom.
OMG Beastmaster! my fam watches that too. There was that gymnast French lady and an American poledancer that got to the second lvl via exceptional flexibility! But the gymnast was too short to jump from the tube.
so, no need to worry, order will spontaneously reassert itself?
Wise as a Serpant, Hospitipal as a Dove. 🐍 🕊
In short, STAY BALANCED!
So that's why pooping is such a transcendent experience...
It's very poetic as well. We literally spill our guts and put the result onto paper, only to immediately flush it-an obvious metaphor for the transient nature of being. Afterwards, out of the scope of our conscious experience, our excretions (chaos) travel through the bowels of the earth, through which they are cleansed until once again they may emerge in new forms such as clean water or vegetation (order). When you take a shower, every drop that touches your skin is comprised of molecules that have made this journey countless times, carrying within them the history of a million bowel movements. Pooping is a chtonic pagan ritual.
@@Cephalonimbus poetic indeed! Thank you
Donc voyons voir if I got the gist of the vidéo: if we let the postmodern arguments run their course, as the narrative unfolds, a hierarchy (whether we notice it or not) still emerges? Btw the prostitute does discriminate right? Between those than can pay and those that can't. Derrida must've mentioned that right?
Much like Dr.Peterson's videos in the beginning, I have trouble following the arguments at times. But I'll get used to the way you structure your thoughts soon enough.
What is the title of the intro music?
It seems that radical hospitality, even in the examples that Dérida uses himself, will be appealing to people that have very little to lose from the fall of their city.
They are already people that may have more to gain from a scrambling of the cards than staying in a status quo that has offered little opportunity...
I wonder why Dérida wanted to tear it all down so badly...
Tzeentch is pleased with this video
A mind is like a parachute. You don't just open it up will- nilly to have fun. Unless you have a desire to jump out of a perfectly good airplane for no reason..and even if you're doing it for fun your life insurance and health insurance premiums go up if you do it on a regular basis. Not to mention the fact that it takes training to learn how to open it properly and then it must be folded back up correctly or it can't be opened up again in an emergency. A mind is like a parachute. Be ready to open it. But it's best if you never have to. Most people are so open minded nowdays that their brains fall out.
I understand that the idea of wanting this heirarchy. It’s orderly and it often allows things to function efficiently but I feel like viewing it as a hierarchy can be dangerous. People will begin to look at data and say that A is better than B without realizing (or even being able to realize) the whole picture. What I imagine will happen if this goes too far is that postmodernist ideas will find themselves back in this natural order, the perception of this order as necessarily a hierarchy will bring people to force strict rules to shape this natural order into something purely black and white to make something absolutely efficient. This will swing back to another idea similar to postmodernism because people will see the faults and then try to fix it.
Trying to fix the world is dangerous. It leads to confusion and arbitrary rules. It needs to be realized that if we see the world as something needing to be fixed then we will carry a mindset that is harmful to the world.
As I type this I realize that I’m being hypocritical because I am carrying the mindset that our view of the world should be fixed, which if carried out would certainly lead to deleterious conditions. My point is that I do not know the full answer because I don’t have the full question. No one does. Humans are not built to process the full question so none of us have the full answer.
How does this "flipping" differ from Popper's Tolerance paradox?
"Radical hospitality" was/is better portrayed by both Abraham & Lot's characters, seen in genesis stories. It is generally understood also, to be somewhat a "middle eastern'' custom of sorts, in comparison to the West's.
The Prostitute's motives were spelled out early in that story of Jericho you mention here, beginning with the primordial aspect of "fear/awe." As a used/abused "public servant'' to men's sexual desires, one might also surmise that she perhaps had little respect for/little to no loyalty ties to the cities' inhabitants (esp male) as well as herself. There are both literal and figurative symbolic truth results to the "walls coming down" as well as the "scarlet cord" laid down upon the city walls in which the spies escaped and some, suppose, that soldiers saw & climbed up in the later invasion/destruction of Jericho. Many lessons here to learn, understand, and perhaps use....going forward. Re: Jericho ---> www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+2%2CJoshua+6%3A12-25&version=KJV
So from the chaos a hierarchy always emerges? Interesting
Cabal www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/16/russias-house-of-shadows/amp
Ordo ex Chao. Solve et *Coagula.*
Hi.... Am new here.... Is it a little hard to follow him in general or me/my English understanding is not sophisticated enough ?!
I’m sure u watched a couple videos now, do you understand now?
@@CarlosVargas-jz8gl looool yeah!! I don't even know what is that comment about!!! :)) Thanks for checking
Is Ruth another good example of radical hospitality?
Peterson critic earlier derrida ' you nail Perfectly later derrida ' near is death he went deeply theological ' john caputo the continuity of that work , strangely i found peterson use often deconstruction méthodology , jacques told more what it is and what was' then intent of manipulation
Does being open to post-modernism include being open to being critical of post-modernism? Am I correct in understanding that you are detailing two different critiques of post-modernism? I'm not getting how the stories of the prostitute and Elijah relate to Beastmaster. These seem like two different criticisms to me.
Beastmaster? Through the Portal of Time???
Hi!😊 i want to go and stay in canda for rest of my life😢
That would be cool if you made a real peer review video. It would be interesting.
This is an absurdly long winded way of saying "(maybe) don't be so hospitable that you allow your enemy to undo you", which is a reasonable point.
Moreover, this notion of extreme hospitality is obviously remediable to allow for some caution and is also not fundamentally central to potmodernism per se.
I'm having difficulty encountering ideas such as this and Peterson et al half way through a systemic counselling degree, which is based on social constructionist and post modern thinking. I'm currently writing an essay on my practise being based on tackling ideas such as Self in the cartesian sense and the Saturated self in the Gergen sense. It's difficult now that I'm always in seeming opposition to them. Listening to the crap Foucault has said is the most difficult.
One concept of open hospitality taken literally: "My door is always open." Not just unlocked but Open. What happens? Well you might get friends & family stopping by and you don't have to worry about letting your dog out - so that's nice. Buuuut you'll also get stray animals, bugs, dirt, wind and rain. Theives or worse criminals have easy access to you and your stuff. You're heating or airconditioning the outdoors. What if you apply this to a bank? Or a garden? This is a silly extreme but people who think they want No Boundaries find that they do, in fact, need them eventually.
P.S. This is not a strawman, it's a hyperbole.
Ive experienced The Whatever Bathrooms.
What's obvious to me is that this radical openness is just an expression of Derrida's Jewishness. Being the perpetual outsider, preaching this openness to insiders (europeans) serves his interests very well and allows him to change society in his favor. Seeing that this outsider's(Derrida) conflict of interests should make one suspicious of anyone espousing these views.
Weimar also "tore everything down." It's not clear that the resulting hierarchy is going to be one that is supportable, esp where modern movements are concerned. Do the autonomous zones really resemble a place that is livable (such as existed in Atlanta for example in the summer of 2020)? They wind up having their own governance which is basically vigilantism -- who has the guns
About John the Forerunner, I was wondering why he was called that!
Adam Shellard ,John the Baptist was the Forerunner to Jesus starting his ministry. He came baptizing people for repentance of their sins and said there was one to come whose sandals I am not even worthy to untie. He must increase and I must decrease. This is what John the Baptist said. John 1:27.
Cindy Pope thanks for that Cindy! God bless :)