Trinitarian Or Modal: Dancing On Pinheads?

[mfbukowski]

Too bad.

I will have to excuse myself from this thread due to Droopy's making this a personal issue (oh I mean "Loran"- I guess he got banned under the other name)

I am tired of his misrepresentation and the thread isn't really worth it unless we are going to talk about hippie stuff. Now THAT would be interesting!

[Loran Blood]

Contested definitions

The term "Postmodernism" is often used to refer to different, sometimes contradictory concepts. Conventional definitions include:

Compact Oxford English Dictionary: "a style and concept in the arts characterized by distrust of theories and ideologies and by the drawing of attention to conventions."^[12]

This points to, but not fully, to the central definition of Lyotard of the "postmodern condition," which is an incredulity and rejection of all "metanarratives," which is to say, all overarching, grand narratives/explanations of the human condition, including all philosophcal, religious, teleological, and political belief systems whatever (except the grand narrative of postmodernism, which claims there is no grand narrative).

Merriam-Webster: Either "of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one", or "of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature)", or, finally "of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language".^[13]

This is a part of it, but hardly inconsistent with Lyotard's core insight. Much of deconstruction, and the anti-metanarratives of Foucault and other postmodernist philosophers (as well as movements like DaDa in art) all fall under the unbrella of the "postmodern." So far, we have a more coherent whole than mf appers to be aware of.

American Heritage Dictionary: "Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes: 'It [a roadhouse] is so architecturally interesting ... with its postmodern wooden booths and sculptural clock.'"^[14]

Is this relevant to any discussion of postmodern philosophy, mf?

While the term "Postmodern" and its derivatives are freely used, with some uses apparently contradicting others, those outside the academic milieu have described it as merely a buzzword that means nothing.

And it is within the academic milieu (and the pop culture, the academic milieu's cat litter box) that my interest lies. If something means nothing, then there is certainly no reason for us to be arguing over it.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Loran Blood

[mfbukowski]

This points to, but not fully, to the central definition of Lyotard of the "postmodern condition," which is an incredulity and rejection of all "metanarratives," which is to say, all overarching, grand narratives/explanations of the human condition, including all philosophcal, religious, teleological, and political belief systems whatever (except the grand narrative of postmodernism, which claims there is no grand narrative).

yeah. That would exclude me.

[mfbukowski]

Merriam-Webster: Either "of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one", or "of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature)", or, finally "of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language".^[13]

Not me.

[mfbukowski]

And it is within the academic milieu (and the pop culture, the academic milieu's cat litter box) that my interest lies. If something means nothing, then there is certainly no reason for us to be arguing over it.

Yep.

But of course something doesn't mean nothing. That would be an odd language indeed.

[Loran Blood]

yeah. That would exclude me.

The problem, mf, is that in postmodern philsophy and ideology, one pill makes you smaller, one pill makes you tall, and one pill really doesn't do anything at all. I don't think that makes for good philosophy, and I don't like where many of the conclusions those aspects of postmodern thought that have been worked out at length lead (nor Continental and French philosophy generally, which I have long considered to be, while quite interesting, also almost uniformly malignant).

Edited February 8, 2012 by Loran Blood

[mfbukowski]

American Heritage Dictionary: "Of or relating to art, architecture, or literature that reacts against earlier modernist principles, as by reintroducing traditional or classical elements of style or by carrying modernist styles or practices to extremes: 'It [a roadhouse] is so architecturally interesting ... with its postmodern wooden booths and sculptural clock.'"^[14]

Is this relevant to any discussion of postmodern philosophy, mf?

Uh, no. I am not discussing art, or literature reacting against modernist principles- unless you call philosophy "literature", but even in that case, I don't reintroduce traditional classical elements of style, nor do I carry modernist styles or practices to extremes.

I am not even sure what that means, frankly.

"Postmodern wooden booths and sculptural clocks"? Are you serious? Gosh I haven't sat in a postmodern wooden booth in a long time. That sounds like a very precise philosophical definition doesn't it?

My wife tells me I have NO style, and she is right, I am afraid. Unless JC Penney is a mavin of style that is.

[Loran Blood]

Yep.

But of course something doesn't mean nothing. That would be an odd language indeed.

...those outside the academic milieu have described it as merely a buzzword that means nothing.

I didn't say it.

[mfbukowski]

The problem, mf, is that in postmodern philsophy and ideology, one pill makes you smaller, one pill makes you tall, and one pill really doesn't do anything at all. I don't think that makes for good philosophy, and I don't like where many of the conclusions those aspects of postmodern thought that have been worked out at length lead (nor Continental and French philosophy generally, which I have long considered to be, while quite interesting, also almost uniformly malignant).

That's nice. What philosopher precisely makes pills that make you smaller or larger?

I don't recall having read anything about pills that do that in the philosophy I read.

Isn't this a great thread on the Trinity?

[Loran Blood]

Uh, no. I am not discussing art, or literature reacting against modernist principles- I am not even sure what that means, frankly.

I didn't say you were discussing art or literature. That's why I asked if this was postmodern philosophy, mf, because that what I'm interested in (including the cultural artifacts it spawns) and you seem to be bent on showing that the term itself is so nebulous as to be beyond definition such that a critique could be sucessfully launched.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Loran Blood

[mfbukowski]

If something means nothing, then there is certainly no reason for us to be arguing over it.

I didn't say it.

Uh, ok, now you are really confusing me.

Maybe I need one of those pills after all.

[Loran Blood]

Uh, ok, now you are really confusing me.

Maybe I need one of those pills after all.

Try reading the thread.

[mfbukowski]

I didn't say you were discussing art or literature. That's why I asked if this was postmodern philosophy, mf, because that what I'm interested in (including the cultural artifacts it spawns) and you seem to be bent on showing that the term itself is so nebulous as to be beyond definition such that a critique could be sucessfully launched.

I told you I don't know what "postmodern philosophy" IS.

I can talk about specific philosophers if you like, but I thought we were talking about the Trinity.

But it's your thread. If you want to talk about something else- hey knock yourself out!

[mfbukowski]

Try reading the thread.

<cue Twilight Zone theme>

[Loran Blood]

<cue Twilight Zone theme>

Fine, I'll do it for you:

.those outside the academic milieu have described it as merely a buzzword that means nothing.

I didn't say something means nothing, your source did.

[mfbukowski]

Fine, I'll do it for you:

I didn't say something means nothing, your source did.

No, it says "Postmodernism" is a buzzword which MEANS nothing. That sentence MEANS something.

"Something means nothing" is just contradictory. See the difference?

This has to be the most bizarre thread in the history of the board.......

[Mudcat]

I once stuck a postmodernist and a cup of instant coffee in a microwave for a couple of minutes and traveled back in time.

That is about as deep as my jokes get.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Mudcat

[Loran Blood]

Look at this nonsense:

There is literally nothing to talk about when you talk about the Trinity.

This is where lingusitic philosophy leads. Throwing up one's hands and leaving the arena of ideas to talk about language. I've encountered this before and I've tangled with another Wittgenstinian who manifested the same air of intellectual condescention and impatience with anything outside a discussion, not of ideas and the arguments claimed to support them (and whether they do or not), but of the way language conditions perception and how perception and all contending ideas are in some sense little, if anything more, than artifacts of language.

It may be that you are a disciple of Richard Rorty, who is a salient contributor to the postmodern movement and its general intellectual trajectory that gave me the idea that you were a postmodernist. You're known by the company you keep (I'm also well aware the Rorty holds a iconoclastic pragatist/utilitarian view of ethics and epistemology himself).

Look, you came out slugging yelling that I was dragging you into something. So alright, let it rest.

[Ares]

Get back on topic folks. The topic is not who is a better philosopher.

[mfbukowski]

This is where lingusitic philosophy leads. Throwing up one's hands and leaving the arena of ideas to talk about language.

If you can express ideas without language, be my guest. Otherwise that is what you will be talking about.

You really have no understanding of these issues- the last hundred years of philosophy has been devoted to speaking about language, both in American and British philosophy and also on the continent.

I am not your enemy- I am a faithful member of the Church. I don't know what your problem is, nor unfortunately, at this point, do I care.

But for the rest of the thread make sure no one uses language or interprets what someone else says- because then you will be speaking about "language". Go ahead and exchange your non-verbal "ideas" using telepathy.

This is a waste of time. I don't know how I got sucked in as far as I did.

[Calm]

But for the rest of the thread make sure no one uses language or interprets what someone else says

Man, mf, I can't believe you are seriously suggesting he play charades.

I hate charades.

[Cobalt-70]

Semantics is the branch of philosophy that studies the meaning of language. Very important and useful in philosophcal analysis, but only to a point. An important aspect (to me at least) of philosophical thought (and debate) is care and precision in language use, and defining terms (this cannot become a fetish, however). Once, or as this is done, the real work begins, and that is what is usually called "critical thinking" (NOT the "critical thinking" one encounters in "critical theory" or in may "multidisciplinary" humanities and social science areas) in which informal and forma logic are used to analyze the arguments of others for their logical consistency/coherence.

Reducing everything to language and semantics tends to remove one of the most salient insigns that one must bring into any serious discssion, and that is that "words mean things." Once meaning is ascertained, we can discuss things like the Trinity, in which meaning is unclear or absent, but then this becomes itself a philosophical problem to be resolved, not a chance to throw up our hands and walk away saying "its all just semantics."

There are many criticisms of the Trinity and the Modality. However, I think the line of criticism you are suggesting is exactly the wrong one. You seem to think that language is powerful enough to reach behind the sign and grasp the true reality hidden behind it. Because language is not powerful enough to do that in the case of the Trinity and the Modality, you blame the supposed reality that you think should be hidden behind the text (but isn't), rather than text itself.

You cannot take a first step to find out what things really mean, and then merely deal with the underlying meanings. All meanings are themselves text, and must be defined by further text. The moment you think you have reached the meaning, you find that all you have actually reached is a bunch of text that differs in meaning from what the text supposedly signifies. You can't escape text in general. So why do you think that text about the nature of God is any exception? There is always différance--meaning that there will always be a separation in meaning and time between the subject and the object, or between the sign and the signified.

So we have perfectly good descriptions of the Trinity, and perfectly good descriptions of the modal God. There are hundreds of analogies, like the triple point of water, or the band members of Cream. These are as (ir)rational as any other formulations of God, and the fact that the Trinity is a bit paradoxical is not a problem. Give me just about any concept in Western thought, and I'll probably be able to find a paradox in it somewhere. That's just the nature of text. I think that us Mormons, who have very paradoxical and esoteric formulations of our own, should not be trying to cast that speck of irrationality out of our Christian neighbors' eyes.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

Man, mf, I can't believe you are seriously suggesting he play charades.

I hate charades.

yeah, the only problem is that even charades is a "language". The reason it is fun to play is that it is so hard to understand.!

[mfbukowski]

That's just the nature of text. I think that us Mormons, who have very paradoxical and esoteric formulations of our own, should not be trying to cast that speck of irrationality out of our Christian neighbors' eyes.

The key is understanding that you cannot get away from the paradoxes and strive for genuine communication in spite of them, and not let the "words get in the way".

That means, I think, that many times we are "saying the same things" as our Christian neighbors, but we don't know it because they are speaking Christian and we are speaking Mormon.

[Loran Blood]

There are many criticisms of the Trinity and the Modality. However, I think the line of criticism you are suggesting is exactly the wrong one. You seem to think that language is powerful enough to reach behind the sign and grasp the true reality hidden behind it. Because language is not powerful enough to do that in the case of the Trinity and the Modality, you blame the supposed reality that you think should be hidden behind the text (but isn't), rather than text itself.

Whatever much of this actually means, the core of my criticism of the Trinity is that Christians are claiming a reality behind the terms used to describe the Trinity that is not intelligible, and hence, the modal and Trinitarian views may be little more than metaphysical trivialities. Modalism looks a lot like the Trinity and the Trinity looks modal.

You cannot take a first step to find out what things really mean, and then merely deal with the underlying meanings. All meanings are themselves text, and must be defined by further text. The moment you think you have reached the meaning, you find that all you have actually reached is a bunch of text that differs in meaning from what the text supposedly signifies.

I will take this to be a true statement, and based upon that, disregard the above text (which I have just said I will accept as "true" but which clearly cannot be the case as the text itself indicates that any "truth" I believe I have found is nothing more than a relative frame of reference, or node of meaning floating in a sea of other text which is inconsistent or irrelevent to the truth, or true meaning, I believe I have found, and continues in infinite regress (or expansion) without reference to a final core of meaning grounded in a shared universe of discourse) and all supporting argument following it as nothing more than a text embedded in a sea of other text that contains no coherent or settled meaning (which is to say, the argument you are trying to make thorugh your own text, is fundamentally, according to your own argument, meaningless).

Let's take the above paragraph as an example, but alter a few terms to narrow its applicability:

"You cannot take a first step to find out what the text Cobalt has written really means, and then merely deal with the underlying meanings. All Cobalt's arguments are themselves text, and must be defined by further text. The moment you think you have reached the meaning of Cobalt's arguments, you find that all you have actually reached is a bunch of Cobalt's text that differs in meaning from what the Cobal's arguments are supposedly trying to establish."

What I would have to tentatively derive from this is that your arguemnts are worthless as means of transferring information from one mind to another, establishing the truth, plausibility, or probability of any set of claims, and as a means of gaining knowedge of any kind. The only possibility you leave open is the claim that the "meaning" or the truth" of a text is purly the extension of one's own subjective mental state onto the text (in whatever form this may take) and has nothing to do with what the author intended or what the terms and logical skeleton of any arguments (conclusions claimed to follow from premises) imply.

You can't escape text in general. So why do you think that text about the nature of God is any exception? There is always différance--meaning that there will always be a separation in meaning and time between the subject and the object, or between the sign and the signified.

This sounds like Derrida's gibbersih, but regardless of from whence it comes, I will put it into my general dismissal, based upon the fundamenal premises of your own argument above, of your own argument, as your own argument, being a text, must, by defintion, be subject to the same principles of critique.

So we have perfectly good descriptions of the Trinity, and perfectly good descriptions of the modal God. There are hundreds of analogies, like the triple point of water, or the band members of Cream. These are as (ir)rational as any other formulations of God,

All formulations of the concept "God" are in not irrational (and the basis upon which any claim of irrationality as to any particular concept of God would have to be looked at in detail in its own right).

and the fact that the Trinity is a bit paradoxical is not a problem.

For most intelligent, philosophcally mature people, paradoxes are problems to be explored and/or resolved, at keast tentitively, if possible, not used as the prism through which all philsophcal problems are viewed.

Give me just about any concept in Western thought, and I'll probably be able to find a paradox in it somewhere. That's just the nature of text.

What I suspect is that it is really much more the nature of the theory you are using to analyze "text." What I would be equally as interested in is finding is paradoxes in your own theory of text and language. If your own theory is filled with paradox, (and epistemological circularity) what does that say about its ability to discern paradox - or any other set of conditions or states of affairs, in anything is analyzes? Like all postmodern literary theory, it alread appears to be deeply self constradictory in its fundamental assumptions. Could paradox be far behind?

I think that us Mormons, who have very paradoxical and esoteric formulations of our own,

Parodox is only important if it is anything more than an <em>apparant</em> paradox.

should not be trying to cast that speck of irrationality out of our Christian neighbors' eyes.

It is the very case that the LDS view of God is eminantly rational, as compared to the doctrine of the Trinity (which is a purly abstract philosophcal construction) that is at issue.

Words mean things, not just solipsistically to a private, subjective mind, but to an entire community within a shared universe of discourse. It is not all just more and more "text," it is meaning, and meaning can be clear, fuzzy, indistinct, or highly unstable (such as much of your text above, in which the meaning of much of what you are trying to actually say is in no sense lucid).

Edited February 8, 2012 by Loran Blood