Postmodern Catholics ...could it be a good thing for everyone?

[mfbukowski]

Well I have been thinking and that is always dangerous....

Ready for a long post?   If not, fergitabout it! 

Could Postmodernism actually be a good way to envision Christian religious matters since both Postmodernism and Catholicism - two philosophies seen to be totally opposed- both have points of view which might be compatible??

BUT, many who hang out here know how I feel about the Catholic view of "substance" and how opposed I have been to what I have called "substance theology"

What do I mean by that?  I mean what is actually called "Scholasticism" which is a medieval interpretation of Plato and Aristotle found in philosophers like Augustine and primarily in Aquinas.   "Substance" is a complicated notion once you get into it, because there are various different kinds of substance and the entire subject is nuanced beyond belief including the question popularly understood as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"-- which is actually a huge misnomer and a misinterpretation of a very sophisticated argument discussed by Aquinas about whether or not "substance" occupies space and whether or not two or more "substances" can occupy the same space.  But it has been a looooong time since I have actually read Aquinas and it is not likely that I will again so if I got it wrong, let me know and I will accept any correction which is correct. 

But what the heck am I talking about- what IS substance??  Let me discuss how the idea is used since it ain't an easy one.

First of all think of the word "sub-stance"

In English if you think about it - it is not that complicated

"Sub" roughly is a prefix used to identify something which is literally "under" something else.  A submarine is sub-marine- it is something that goes under water.  A subway is a "way" or "street" or "path" that goes UNDER ground etc.

STANCE- derives from "stands".  If you take an aggressive "stance" - literally- it might appear that you and your body are ready for a fight- you are standing with your fist clenched perhaps, an angry face- etc.

So substance is something that "stands beneath " something else.  In Scholasticism and in Greek metaphysics in general, "substance" is what "stands under" or "exists under" or "undergirds" the way things APPEAR to us.

So there is created by this idea the idea that "appearances are deceiving" compared to what something "really is".   Appearances in this context are also called "accidents".    So in describing the body of a car, it's substance might be a "metallic substance" - steel or aluminum or etc- while its "accidents" or appearances might be yellow or red, of a certain make or model, making different shapes as between maybe a pickup truck or a luxury car etc.   All these variations in shape and color etc are "accidents" so it could be said that all metallic cars and other things even, could be "consubstantial"- or "of one substance" while the fact that they are yellow or black or pick up trucks or luxury cars becomes irrelevant to their metallic substance which stands-beneath the appearance that they are "really" different.

So it might be said that all these accidental manifestations of different "metal" objects are "consubstantial" in that they share substance- a kind of indescribable "underlying substance" we see only through the accidents which we describe as "metal"

So now how does the "body blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ" appear to be a small piece of bread?

Theologically, and if I get this wrong, Catholics please speak up- what one would need to do is keep the SUBSTANCE of the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself intact, by changing his "appearance" or the "accidents" of who/what he APPEARS to be- while keeping what "stands beneath"- ie: his SUBSTANCE constant.   

Theologically this is known as "Transubstantiation"- ( the transfer ("swapping") of  of the substance of the bread and wine, (while keeping the appearance of bread and wine ) and to those appearances transferring the substance of God Himself in the embodied Christ.  

So the Eucharist for Catholics can be difficult to understand for the modern and especially post modern mind as we are  now in the 21st century.   For some we are already beyond "postmodern" and "POST postmodern"- a season of total secularization.

This post-post modern mind worries about things like whether or not a VEGAN can eat honey, because it is an animal product and is essentially producing capital for the oppressive bee-keepers who hold the bees as slaves.   Sounds like it's own religion to me- but ANYWAY.... 

So what does transubstantiation have in common with postmodernism?? 

Yet again we return to my poster boy for postmodernism Richard Rorty AND my infamous quote of his which has been in my siggy for years and years and  which has produced very few comments 

What I say in these sentences in the quote box below is my "translation" from the way Rorty uses language into the way that might have meaning for someone not versed in his technical language.   The original can be found in my "siggy" below

Quote

 

To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.  To say that [reality as we know it ] is not out there is simply to say that where there are no [ languages, the world as WE know it, cannot be "out there" because all  "WE" humans know, are our own personal experiences AND what we have shared in the pool of human observations- which requires language.   And since ] sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations, [the world AS WE KNOW IT is in a real sense created by language itself! 

Our God - the Word, - created all things]

     [Reality cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- ] because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be [ useful or not].  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot [describe "reality" in a useful way]  

 

 

So the world is out there, but we only see what APPEARS to us.   There are "Causes" which - we cannot define- of what we observe but we do not observe "reality as it is" but only "Through a dark mirror"

So some descriptions of the world we cannot see, might include a description of the human model of "atoms"- little balls of OTHER particles we have named-zooming around and bumping together.   So that might be a description a scientist-type would give of the "reality" of our steel car body, we discussed above.  BUT no human has ever SEEN an "atom" without special equipment- INVENTED by other humans.

So that is one description of the world which  "STANDS BELOW" the metal we call "steel".   It is an imperfect human description of what stands below the metal of the car- but what we SEE is a yellow patch of a curved surface which is used by mankind for its purposes.  It could be a pickup truck or it could be an economy vehicle, or a Mars rover or a bucket, a boat or a file cabinet, or a spoon. What "stands below" all these things is what we describe - as a "metallic SUBSTANCE'" but all we know are its visible properties.

So if we change the "substance" of the car body from what we call "metal"- then it is no longer "consubstantial" with metalic objects.  Suppose we swap the "metallic substance" from what we call "steel" to what we call "fiberglass".   Now we have a fiberglass substance for the body but the appearances- of a yellow car- stay the same.   Of course humans can detect the difference between a fiberglass body and a metal one but could not detect the difference between Flesh and Bread because that change is supernatural.

And this is all that Rorty is about if you understand "all he is saying"  In Rorty's schema we cannot KNOW the "causes" of what we SEE because we see only appearance.   For that reason "for all practical (pragmatic) purposes, "reality" is what we see and experience.   It might be nice to know about, but we cannot experience it so why worry?

And yet many folks- especially conservative Catholics, if I understand, are upset with postmodernism which I see as a tool which could be well used in order to explain Catholicism to many who are now secular.

But guess what?

We are missing this whole idea as much as the Catholics are - at least those who believe that reality as we know it  (appearances) is somehow "truth" or that we can even know "TRVTH" as inscribed on a Greek temple to be worshipped.

"Truth" is not out there to be observed- because we cannot observe the world "as it is"! 

 We can only FEEL and experience personally and subjectively God's truth.

And that is what one interpretation of the scriptures says and what postmodernity sets up for us to use as a teaching mechanism

Why are we not using it?

It might change the world if this word gets out so be sure not to think about it or tell anyone.   

And God again becomes a substance we cannot see because all we see is appearance- what we DO see.

Pragmatism is about eliminating the appearance/reality distinction and leaves open what "stands under" appearances and describes that underlying SUB-STANCE as a "cause of experience" which we cannot directly experience.

Sounds good to me and by the way it even works better for Mormons. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I have been thinking and that is always dangerous....

Ready for a long post?   If not, fergitabout it! 

Could Postmodernism actually be a good way to envision Christian religious matters since both Postmodernism and Catholicism - two philosophies seen to be totally opposed- both have points of view which might be compatible??

BUT, many who hang out here know how I feel about the Catholic view of "substance" and how opposed I have been to what I have called "substance theology"

What do I mean by that?  I mean what is actually called "Scholasticism" which is a medieval interpretation of Plato and Aristotle found in philosophers like Augustine and primarily in Aquinas.   "Substance" is a complicated notion once you get into it, because there are various different kinds of substance and the entire subject is nuanced beyond belief including the question popularly understood as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"-- which is actually a huge misnomer and a misinterpretation of a very sophisticated argument discussed by Aquinas about whether or not "substance" occupies space and whether or not two or more "substances" can occupy the same space.  But it has been a looooong time since I have actually read Aquinas and it is not likely that I will again so if I got it wrong, let me know and I will accept any correction which is correct. 

But what the heck am I talking about- what IS substance??  Let me discuss how the idea is used since it ain't an easy one.

First of all think of the word "sub-stance"

In English if you think about it - it is not that complicated

"Sub" roughly is a prefix used to identify something which is literally "under" something else.  A submarine is sub-marine- it is something that goes under water.  A subway is a "way" or "street" or "path" that goes UNDER ground etc.

STANCE- derives from "stands".  If you take an aggressive "stance" - literally- it might appear that you and your body are ready for a fight- you are standing with your fist clenched perhaps, an angry face- etc.

So substance is something that "stands beneath " something else.  In Scholasticism and in Greek metaphysics in general, "substance" is what "stands under" or "exists under" or "undergirds" the way things APPEAR to us.

So there is created by this idea the idea that "appearances are deceiving" compared to what something "really is".   Appearances in this context are also called "accidents".    So in describing the body of a car, it's substance might be a "metallic substance" - steel or aluminum or etc- while its "accidents" or appearances might be yellow or red, of a certain make or model, making different shapes as between maybe a pickup truck or a luxury car etc.   All these variations in shape and color etc are "accidents" so it could be said that all metallic cars and other things even, could be "consubstantial"- or "of one substance" while the fact that they are yellow or black or pick up trucks or luxury cars becomes irrelevant to their metallic substance which stands-beneath the appearance that they are "really" different.

So now how does the "body blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ" appear to be a small piece of bread?

Theologically, and if I get this wrong, Catholics please speak up- what one would need to do is keep the SUBSTANCE of the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself intact, by changing his "appearance" or the "accidents" of who/what he APPEARS to be- while keeping what "stands beneath"- ie: his SUBSTANCE constant.   

Theologically this is known as "Transubstantiation"- ( the transfer of  of the substance of the bread and wine, (while keeping the appearance of bread and wine ) and to those appearances transferring the substance of God Himself in the embodied Christ.  

So the Eucharist for Catholics can be difficult to understand for the modern and especially post modern mind as we are  now in the 21st century.   For some we are already beyond "postmodern" and "POST postmodern"- a season of total secularization.

This post-post modern mind worries about things like whether or not a VEGAN can eat honey, because it is an animal product and is essentially producing capital for the oppressive bee-keepers who hold the bees as slaves.   Sounds like it's own religion to me- but ANYWAY.... 

So what does transubstantiation have in common with postmodernism?? 

Yet again we return to my poster boy for postmodernism Richard Rorty AND my infamous quote of his which has been in my siggy for years and years and  which has produced very few comments 

What I say in these sentences in the quote box below is my "translation" from the way Rorty uses language into the way that might have meaning for someone not versed in his technical language.   The original can be found in my "siggy" below

So the world is out there, but we only see what APPEARS to us.   There are "Causes" which - we cannot define- of what we observe but we do not observe "reality as it is" but only "Through a dark mirror"

So some descriptions of the world we cannot see, might include a description of the human model of "atoms"- little balls of OTHER particles we have named-zooming around and bumping together.   So that might be a description a scientist-type would give of the "reality" of our steel car body, we discussed above.  BUT no human has ever SEEN an "atom" without special equipment- INVENTED by other humans.

So that is one description of the world which  "STANDS BELOW" the metal we call "steel".   It is an imperfect human description of what stands below the metal of the car- but what we SEE is a yellow patch of a curved surface which is used by mankind for its purposes.  It could be a pickup truck or it could be an economy vehicle, or a Mars rover or a bucket, a boat or a file cabinet, or a spoon. What "stands below" all these things is what we describe - as a "metallic SUBSTANCE'" but all we know are its visible properties.

And this is all that Rorty is about if you understand "all he is saying"  In Rorty's schema we cannot KNOW the "causes" of what we SEE because we see only appearance.   For that reason "for all practical (pragmatic) purposes, "reality" is what we see and experience.   It might be nice to know about, but we cannot experience it so why worry?

And yet many folks- especially conservative Catholics, if I understand, are upset with postmodernism which I see as a tool which could be well used in order to explain Catholicism to many who are now secular.

But guess what?

We are missing this whole idea as much as the Catholics are - at least those who believe that reality as we know it  (appearances) is somehow "truth" or that we can even know "TRVTH" as inscribed on a Greek temple to be worshipped.

"Truth" is not out there to be observed- because we cannot observe the world "as it is"! 

 We can only FEEL and experience personally and subjectively God's truth.

And that is what one interpretation of the scriptures says and what postmodernity sets up for us to use as a teaching mechanism

Why are we not using it?

It might change the world if this word gets out so be sure not to think about it or tell anyone.   

And God again becomes a substance we cannot see because all we see is appearance- what we DO see.

Pragmatism is about eliminating the appearance/reality distinction and leaves open what "stands under" appearances and describes that underlying SUB-STANCE as a "cause of experience" which we cannot directly experience.

Sounds good to me and by the way it even works better for Mormons. 

It seems to me that at some most fundamental level, everything is consubstantial, so there needs to be some agreement as to what the cut-off point, scope and context are (the shared definitions of how things appear to us, or what we see). This explanation allows people to acknowledge some common ground before differentiating their definitions, inviting them to test the definitions (spiritually-speaking, as in Alma 32), at which point they choose which definition matches (or broadens) their expectations and works best for them an whether to act further.

Edited February 28, 2021 by CV75

[JustAnAustralian]

So are you saying that we can't describe what is meant by "substance" because we can't comprehend what that "substance" is?

If not I'm going to need to re-read this a few more times.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It seems to me that at some most fundamental level, everything is consubstantial, so there needs to be some agreement as to what the cut-off point, scope and context are (the shared definitions of how things appear to us, or what we see). This explanations allows people to acknowledge some common ground before differentiating their definitions, at which point they choose which definition matches (or broadens) their expectations and works best for them.

Hmmm- thanks for the headscratcher.. 

I think this problem is NOT one for postmodernism but might be one for substance theology because for postmodernism and Rorty, all they are admitting is as he says- 

Quote

 

To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states

 

 

 

All R and company are saying is that we know the world is out there but we are not saying anything about it besides that it 
"causes experiences" .  The medievals say something similar- that God is "out there" and that all we know about him are "appearances"- our personal experiences- but they try to define what we cannot experience- that the substance of bread is different than the substance of human flesh.

You can't have it both ways- you cannot say that all we know are appearances and yet pretend that we know the difference between substances.

In other words we are NOT "brains in a vat" creating things as in a dream, as a purely mental event.  All we can know about those things in the world is what we perceive about them, their appearances, which may or may not be "accurate".   We do our best to figure out what the appearances tell us but there is always uncertainty and so we make up paradigms upon which we experiment to see if the "causes" really do what we expect of them, but from time to time we have to revise those paradigms after more human experiences are accumulated.

But in theology there ARE different substances which are apparently able to be swapped for each other as in Transubstantiation.   I am not sure how one would verify how "flesh" is a different "substance" than "bread." 2000 years later we say both are "organic" but so are trees and plastic.

But my point of what we have in common with the medievals is that we cannot know underlying structures of reality for sure, we see only appearances.

That helps us with the concept of "God"- we experience him in our hearts- the "appearance" - our perception- is real and the cause is  "out there" in the world but we only know as it were - the "color yellow", or in this case, instead of our eyes and brain, this experience of what is "out there" in our heart and mind.   As far as we can "prove"- since we do not perceive the world directly- in EITHER case- is our perceptions.

Reality and appearance are one and you cannot get around it.

It seems clear common sense at first until you start trying to analyze it.  And how is animal flesh a different substance or not?  How would one tell?  We can do DNA samples etc but do we define reality by DNA?

Yes I think for Rorty virtually everything IS "consubstantial" as a "cause of things in space and time (which) are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. " 

For both views, we must rely on faith  to "postulate" an unconfirmed paradigm about the nature of what we cannot yet know

Edited February 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

So are you saying that we can't describe what is meant by "substance" because we can't comprehend what that "substance" is?

If not I'm going to need to re-read this a few more times.

Pretty much!

Imagine this:  "All of reality is ACTUALLY made out of shmutz but I can't tell you about it because I can't describe it and no one has ever experienced it except as feelings"

So my answer might be "Well your feelings might be "real" but how do you know that "shmutz" caused the feelings if you cannot describe how that happens?

Answer:  Yes well there are different kinds of shmutz but we cannot experience any of them because they are beyond any kind of observation.

Are you a convert now to the shmutz theory?

[Calm]

I will be interested in hearing responses from the Catholics among us. I am not certain they would agree with your portrayal of the reasoning behind their belief. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I will be interested in hearing responses from the Catholics among us. I am not certain they would agree with your portrayal of the reasoning behind their belief. 

I want to make it clear that I am AGREEING with the Catholic viewpoint that there are things about "reality" which no one can know in a detailed way- that "underlie " what we understand as reality

I am agreeing that most of reality including all religious statements are ultimately "mysteries" which is what I was raised to believe.   How does the Trinity work?  What about the Incarnation?  These are "mysteries" which we cannot verbalize but they can be as real and true as any other unknown idea in science.

We are not sure exactly but use faith to describe how it is "real"

We LDS folks believe that sort of thing and Catholics AND postmoderns all believe that.   We share that in common.  That is a GOOD thing. 

By understanding that it is rational to believe in "mysteries" could be a big step forward for culture

What that says that can be seen as in any way as being "Anti-Catholic" is in the mind of the beholder.

My intent was to open doors not shut them or make things difficult.

I suggest that one who is an active Catholic and who is a co-author on books with Rorty is Gianni Vatimo.  Look him up.

Perhaps it is time to close the thread if that is the direction in which it is perceived.

In this way of seeing, I understand Catholicism much better and much more positively than ever before since I left Catholicsm.  

But maybe the posts are too technical, and for that I am sorry.

But if others find anything offensive or controversial I will gladly close the thread and even request that it will be deleted.

I have no intention to alienate anyone- I am trying to make connections.

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, Calm said:

I will be interested in hearing responses from the Catholics among us. I am not certain they would agree with your portrayal of the reasoning behind their belief. 

Well then I would encourage them to correct me.  I don't think I am even attempting to "portray the reasoning behind their belief"

I am suggesting a different paradigm which could apply to all religions and especially Catholicism and "Mormonism" which rely heavily on linguistic expressions of their doctrine.

This statement for example can be seen as opaque as anything said by Aquinas and whether or not substance occupies space.

Quote

 "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter" (D&C 131:7-8).

And yet I have a testimony that it is true.

[3DOP]

Lying awake at 3 AM,  3DOP is most pleased with the effort of mfbukowski to reach out. 3DOP perceives himself as an aging factory hand with fast diminishing mind and bodily faculties. But who also has a reservoir of knowledge remaining. I do not pretend that I am an idiot.

I doubt that I will perceive flaws at a different hour. I suspect that someone else might spot a critical flaw. But at this time, which is not quite optimal, I find your remarks to reflect more than a desire to win an argument. That is the first reason that I like this post. The second reason I like this post, is that upon first reading, 3DOP is forced to say nihilo obstat.

That 3DOP sees nothing objectionable must be understood in light of his own real limitations, as well as the gifts he has received and which are not his own. My nihilo obstat, like those of the Catholic Church are no guarantor that what is said must be accepted as true. It is the subjective judgment of the one issuing, that at time of issue, nothing objectionable was detected.

Thank you, Mark. Goodnight.

Rory

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Lying awake at 3 AM,  3DOP is most pleased with the effort of mfbukowski to reach out. 3DOP perceives himself as an aging factory hand with fast diminishing mind and bodily faculties. But who also has a reservoir of knowledge remaining. I do not pretend that I am an idiot.

I doubt that I will perceive flaws at a different hour. I suspect that someone else might spot a critical flaw. But at this time, which is not quite optimal, I find your remarks to reflect more than a desire to win an argument. That is the first reason that I like this post. The second reason I like this post, is that upon first reading, 3DOP is forced to say nihilo obstat.

That 3DOP sees nothing objectionable must be understood in light of his own real limitations, as well as the gifts he has received and which are not his own. My nihilo obstat, like those of the Catholic Church are no guarantor that what is said must be accepted as true. It is the subjective judgment of the one issuing, that at time of issue, nothing objectionable was detected.

Thank you, Mark. Goodnight.

Rory

 

Bless you Rory and thanks.  Frankly this thread is obliquely about your views and an attempt to reach out in your direction.  I think I "get you" better than I have before.

The only point I am making in a long technical way that now is that I see that "it's a mystery" can be a reasonable answer and a valid and rational way to define reality BECAUSE there ARE mysteries which will never be describable  linguistically, because they are beyond human perception, but ARE the CAUSES of human perception and as such, cause phenomena which we CAN observe, and terming them "SUB-STANCE" is perfectly reasonable. 

Is what we perceive as light a particle or wave?   Yes.     It is neither and both (suppose) and changes by simply the act or experiment as it is attempted- the observer becomes part of the phenomena itself because the method of observation affects the results.  

So it would be reasonable by analogy to see light as a "substance" which is the cause of what we see-  and more clearly as different colors depending on wavelengths etc.   So let's say that light is an undefinable "substance" which is the cause of our visual perception of the color we call "red"

So it is perfectly reasonable to postulate "substance" as the cause of perceptions (accidents/appearances)

Previously I was not seeing the connection between Rorty's (and all those he represents as  "poster boy"  for the postmodern movement) notion of "the effects of causes which do not include human mental states"  and the Catholic notion of "substance".

Now I know that Rorty's words could represent the Catholic notion of "substance"

That's all.

In my way of thinking that's a biggie.   It makes Catholicism more reasonable by serving as a description for "substance" which I had never noticed before.

Boney nachos, mi amigo. 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

For both views, we must rely on faith  to "postulate" an unconfirmed paradigm about the nature of what we cannot yet know

And I think the commonly held definitions provide some "working model" structure for those unconfirmed paradigms.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

And I think the commonly held definitions provide some "working model" structure for those unconfirmed paradigms.

I agree of course as long as we realize that the commonly held definitions of say "truth" were from another era and the old meanings may lead our thinking astray.

We know what truth is. We use the term all the time, including in judicial contexts etc, we just can't define it as "correspondence to reality" while also thinking that truth means "real"!

In that sense you are saying that truth is correspondence with truth.

Uh huh.

That's where commonly held definitions get you.

Not too useful. Works fine when somebody is telling you about their history, say, or which kid had his hand in the cookie jar.

But we have to realize that anything spoken ALWAYS is an expression of only one POINT OF VIEW about "what really happened" filtered through human experience and so always about human perception, not the "substance" of "what really happened".

Should we see " What really happened" in the context of atomic theory when the atoms of the kid's finger mingled with the atoms of the cookie?  Is that "what really happened"?

 And yet we have people saying that religious beliefs are just "chemical changes in one's brain."

 How can that possibly describe the sublime affects a religious  Experience.?

 Commonly defined terminology doesn't always work..

Edited February 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

.................. In Scholasticism and in Greek metaphysics in general, "substance" is what "stands under" or "exists under" or "undergirds" the way things APPEAR to us.

So there is created by this idea the idea that "appearances are deceiving" compared to what something "really is".   Appearances in this context are also called "accidents".    So in describing the body of a car, it's substance might be a "metallic substance" - steel or aluminum or etc- while its "accidents" or appearances might be yellow or red, of a certain make or model, making different shapes as between maybe a pickup truck or a luxury car etc.   All these variations in shape and color etc are "accidents" so it could be said that all metallic cars and other things even, could be "consubstantial"- or "of one substance" while the fact that they are yellow or black or pick up trucks or luxury cars becomes irrelevant to their metallic substance which stands-beneath the appearance that they are "really" different.

So it might be said that all these accidental manifestations of different "metal" objects are "consubstantial" in that they share substance- a kind of indescribable "underlying substance" we see only through the accidents which we describe as "metal"

..........................................

So what does transubstantiation have in common with postmodernism?? 

Yet again we return to my poster boy for postmodernism Richard Rorty AND my infamous quote of his which has been in my siggy for years and years and  which has produced very few comments 

...........................

So the world is out there, but we only see what APPEARS to us.   .................  BUT no human has ever SEEN an "atom" without special equipment- INVENTED by other humans.

....................  In Rorty's schema we cannot KNOW the "causes" of what we SEE because we see only appearance.   For that reason "for all practical (pragmatic) purposes, "reality" is what we see and experience.   It might be nice to know about, but we cannot experience it so why worry?..........................

"Truth" is not out there to be observed- because we cannot observe the world "as it is"! 

 We can only FEEL and experience personally and subjectively God's truth.

And that is what one interpretation of the scriptures says and what postmodernity sets up for us to use as a teaching mechanism

Why are we not using it?

It might change the world if this word gets out so be sure not to think about it or tell anyone.   

And God again becomes a substance we cannot see because all we see is appearance- what we DO see.

Pragmatism is about eliminating the appearance/reality distinction and leaves open what "stands under" appearances and describes that underlying SUB-STANCE as a "cause of experience" which we cannot directly experience.

Sounds good to me and by the way it even works better for Mormons. 

Well said, Mark.  However, I do have a couple of observations or questions about that Rorty quote: "the world as WE know it, cannot be "out there" because all  "WE" humans know, are our own personal experiences AND what we have shared in the pool of human observations- which requires language.   And since ] sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations, [the world AS WE KNOW IT is in a real sense created by language itself!"

The entire universe and sub-atomic physics is certainly described by specialized human language, which stands between us and ultimate reality.  Along with the DNA code, all of that can be described with human-invented computer code.  This applies to the entire universe, even though there is much we cannot describe (Dark Energy and Dark Matter).  Does this enhance the notion that everything we experience may be merely a massive hologram based on a God-authored computer code?  Takes me back to the 1982 film "Tron," in which humans find themselves part of just such a huge computer program.   Does God get more bang for His buck by making it seem so real? 

[MiserereNobis]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I have been thinking and that is always dangerous....

Ready for a long post?   If not, fergitabout it! 

Could Postmodernism actually be a good way to envision Christian religious matters since both Postmodernism and Catholicism - two philosophies seen to be totally opposed- both have points of view which might be compatible??

BUT, many who hang out here know how I feel about the Catholic view of "substance" and how opposed I have been to what I have called "substance theology"

What do I mean by that?  I mean what is actually called "Scholasticism" which is a medieval interpretation of Plato and Aristotle found in philosophers like Augustine and primarily in Aquinas.   "Substance" is a complicated notion once you get into it, because there are various different kinds of substance and the entire subject is nuanced beyond belief including the question popularly understood as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"-- which is actually a huge misnomer and a misinterpretation of a very sophisticated argument discussed by Aquinas about whether or not "substance" occupies space and whether or not two or more "substances" can occupy the same space.  But it has been a looooong time since I have actually read Aquinas and it is not likely that I will again so if I got it wrong, let me know and I will accept any correction which is correct. 

But what the heck am I talking about- what IS substance??  Let me discuss how the idea is used since it ain't an easy one.

First of all think of the word "sub-stance"

In English if you think about it - it is not that complicated

"Sub" roughly is a prefix used to identify something which is literally "under" something else.  A submarine is sub-marine- it is something that goes under water.  A subway is a "way" or "street" or "path" that goes UNDER ground etc.

STANCE- derives from "stands".  If you take an aggressive "stance" - literally- it might appear that you and your body are ready for a fight- you are standing with your fist clenched perhaps, an angry face- etc.

So substance is something that "stands beneath " something else.  In Scholasticism and in Greek metaphysics in general, "substance" is what "stands under" or "exists under" or "undergirds" the way things APPEAR to us.

So there is created by this idea the idea that "appearances are deceiving" compared to what something "really is".   Appearances in this context are also called "accidents".    So in describing the body of a car, it's substance might be a "metallic substance" - steel or aluminum or etc- while its "accidents" or appearances might be yellow or red, of a certain make or model, making different shapes as between maybe a pickup truck or a luxury car etc.   All these variations in shape and color etc are "accidents" so it could be said that all metallic cars and other things even, could be "consubstantial"- or "of one substance" while the fact that they are yellow or black or pick up trucks or luxury cars becomes irrelevant to their metallic substance which stands-beneath the appearance that they are "really" different.

So it might be said that all these accidental manifestations of different "metal" objects are "consubstantial" in that they share substance- a kind of indescribable "underlying substance" we see only through the accidents which we describe as "metal"

So now how does the "body blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ" appear to be a small piece of bread?

Theologically, and if I get this wrong, Catholics please speak up- what one would need to do is keep the SUBSTANCE of the body blood soul and divinity of Christ himself intact, by changing his "appearance" or the "accidents" of who/what he APPEARS to be- while keeping what "stands beneath"- ie: his SUBSTANCE constant.   

Theologically this is known as "Transubstantiation"- ( the transfer ("swapping") of  of the substance of the bread and wine, (while keeping the appearance of bread and wine ) and to those appearances transferring the substance of God Himself in the embodied Christ.  

So the Eucharist for Catholics can be difficult to understand for the modern and especially post modern mind as we are  now in the 21st century.   For some we are already beyond "postmodern" and "POST postmodern"- a season of total secularization.

This post-post modern mind worries about things like whether or not a VEGAN can eat honey, because it is an animal product and is essentially producing capital for the oppressive bee-keepers who hold the bees as slaves.   Sounds like it's own religion to me- but ANYWAY.... 

So what does transubstantiation have in common with postmodernism?? 

Yet again we return to my poster boy for postmodernism Richard Rorty AND my infamous quote of his which has been in my siggy for years and years and  which has produced very few comments 

What I say in these sentences in the quote box below is my "translation" from the way Rorty uses language into the way that might have meaning for someone not versed in his technical language.   The original can be found in my "siggy" below

So the world is out there, but we only see what APPEARS to us.   There are "Causes" which - we cannot define- of what we observe but we do not observe "reality as it is" but only "Through a dark mirror"

So some descriptions of the world we cannot see, might include a description of the human model of "atoms"- little balls of OTHER particles we have named-zooming around and bumping together.   So that might be a description a scientist-type would give of the "reality" of our steel car body, we discussed above.  BUT no human has ever SEEN an "atom" without special equipment- INVENTED by other humans.

So that is one description of the world which  "STANDS BELOW" the metal we call "steel".   It is an imperfect human description of what stands below the metal of the car- but what we SEE is a yellow patch of a curved surface which is used by mankind for its purposes.  It could be a pickup truck or it could be an economy vehicle, or a Mars rover or a bucket, a boat or a file cabinet, or a spoon. What "stands below" all these things is what we describe - as a "metallic SUBSTANCE'" but all we know are its visible properties.

So if we change the "substance" of the car body from what we call "metal"- then it is no longer "consubstantial" with metalic objects.  Suppose we swap the "metallic substance" from what we call "steel" to what we call "fiberglass".   Now we have a fiberglass substance for the body but the appearances- of a yellow car- stay the same.   Of course humans can detect the difference between a fiberglass body and a metal one but could not detect the difference between Flesh and Bread because that change is supernatural.

And this is all that Rorty is about if you understand "all he is saying"  In Rorty's schema we cannot KNOW the "causes" of what we SEE because we see only appearance.   For that reason "for all practical (pragmatic) purposes, "reality" is what we see and experience.   It might be nice to know about, but we cannot experience it so why worry?

And yet many folks- especially conservative Catholics, if I understand, are upset with postmodernism which I see as a tool which could be well used in order to explain Catholicism to many who are now secular.

But guess what?

We are missing this whole idea as much as the Catholics are - at least those who believe that reality as we know it  (appearances) is somehow "truth" or that we can even know "TRVTH" as inscribed on a Greek temple to be worshipped.

"Truth" is not out there to be observed- because we cannot observe the world "as it is"! 

 We can only FEEL and experience personally and subjectively God's truth.

And that is what one interpretation of the scriptures says and what postmodernity sets up for us to use as a teaching mechanism

Why are we not using it?

It might change the world if this word gets out so be sure not to think about it or tell anyone.   

And God again becomes a substance we cannot see because all we see is appearance- what we DO see.

Pragmatism is about eliminating the appearance/reality distinction and leaves open what "stands under" appearances and describes that underlying SUB-STANCE as a "cause of experience" which we cannot directly experience.

Sounds good to me and by the way it even works better for Mormons. 

Quite an interesting take. Sorry I haven't responded before this -- I've been tied up in the psychedelic spirituality thread. Let me go take some shrooms and stare at my car. I'll get back to you in a few.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree of course as long as we realize that the commonly held definitions of say "truth" were from another era and the old meanings may lead our thinking astray.

We know what truth is. We use the term all the time, including in judicial contexts etc, we just can't define it as "correspondence to reality" while also thinking that truth means "real"!

In that sense you are saying that truth is correspondence with truth.

Uh huh.

That's where commonly held definitions get you.

Not too useful. Works fine when somebody is telling you about their history, say, or which kid had his hand in the cookie jar.

But we have to realize that anything spoken ALWAYS is an expression of only one POINT OF VIEW about "what really happened" filtered through human experience and so always about human perception, not the "substance" of "what really happened".

Should we see " What really happened" in the context of atomic theory when the atoms of the kid's finger mingled with the atoms of the cookie?  Is that "what really happened"?

 And yet we have people saying that religious beliefs are just "chemical changes in one's brain."

 How can that possibly describe the sublime affects a religious  Experience.?

 Commonly defined terminology doesn't always work..

I try not to use the word “truth” 😊.

I was thinking more along the lines of various tenets, and that “commonly” in “commonly held definitions” does not refer to “generally” (as in crossing communities or paradigms), but as pertaining to a particular community or paradigm and as set up by those acknowledged to be in charge.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well said, Mark.  However, I do have a couple of observations or questions about that Rorty quote: "the world as WE know it, cannot be "out there" because all  "WE" humans know, are our own personal experiences AND what we have shared in the pool of human observations- which requires language.   And since ] sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations, [the world AS WE KNOW IT is in a real sense created by language itself!"

The entire universe and sub-atomic physics is certainly described by specialized human language, which stands between us and ultimate reality.  Along with the DNA code, all of that can be described with human-invented computer code.  This applies to the entire universe, even though there is much we cannot describe (Dark Energy and Dark Matter).  Does this enhance the notion that everything we experience may be merely a massive hologram based on a God-authored computer code?  Takes me back to the 1982 film "Tron," in which humans find themselves part of just such a huge computer program.   Does God get more bang for His buck by making it seem so real? 

Great stuff! 🤔 

But we still are trying to fit God into man's concepts.

On the other hand, God is the MAN OF HOLINESS so where does human intelligence end and God's intelligence begin? 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quite an interesting take. Sorry I haven't responded before this -- I've been tied up in the psychedelic spirituality thread. Let me go take some shrooms and stare at my car. I'll get back to you in a few.

I'm still stuck on the connection between cars and accidents.  (Let me know if the shrooms help  )

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well said, Mark.  However, I do have a couple of observations or questions about that Rorty quote: "the world as WE know it, cannot be "out there" because all  "WE" humans know, are our own personal experiences AND what we have shared in the pool of human observations- which requires language.   And since ] sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations, [the world AS WE KNOW IT is in a real sense created by language itself!"

The entire universe and sub-atomic physics is certainly described by specialized human language, which stands between us and ultimate reality.  Along with the DNA code, all of that can be described with human-invented computer code.  This applies to the entire universe, even though there is much we cannot describe (Dark Energy and Dark Matter).  Does this enhance the notion that everything we experience may be merely a massive hologram based on a God-authored computer code?  Takes me back to the 1982 film "Tron," in which humans find themselves part of just such a huge computer program.   Does God get more bang for His buck by making it seem so real? 

I always try to post the entire post upon which I am commenting to be sure to get the context right, then look at individual statements.  These nuances amount to absolutely nothing in regular speech and are rather pedantic actually, but I think if we are careful to speak within a paradigm, it is easier to learn it inside and out and actually start thinking in a new way.

Quote

The entire universe and sub-atomic physics is certainly described by specialized human language, which stands between us and ultimate reality. 

To be totally consistent within the paradigm I think it is useful to speak in terms not about "the entire universe" but the world of pooled human experience as what is being described.  And it is not "certainly described" unless that somehow can allow that the paradigm changes continuously, unless we are thinking in terms that "certainty" is a psychological state which varies as much as the paradigm does!

Quote

Along with the DNA code, all of that can be described with human-invented computer code.  This applies to the entire universe, even though there is much we cannot describe (Dark Energy and Dark Matter).

Again, unless one is thinking in terms of a casual discussion, within the paradigm I think it would be hard to say that ALL of it can be described in any language including computer code.  And for my money  dark energy and dark matter are as much unknowable "causes of experience" as anything else- we are just getting the equipment together to be able to perceive them at all, much less construct practical models and paradigms.  As long as paradigms about the universe keep changing, the universe itself changes because all we can know about it IS our constructions.

Quote

  Does this enhance the notion that everything we experience may be merely a massive hologram based on a God-authored computer code?  Takes me back to the 1982 film "Tron," in which humans find themselves part of just such a huge computer program.   Does God get more bang for His buck by making it seem so real? 

 

Now on to the meat! 

I don't think it makes much difference if we describe what is "out there" as a "hologram" OR "a cause of human mental states" - pick the paradigm that best works in the story we are constructing since we cannot see the "reality as it is" either way!! 

Neither paradigm with be totally "right" (useful) or totally "wrong" (irrelevant and useless) anyway!

But it is sure fun to speculate if it is God the Human trying to fake us out or ourselves, The Humans, who already have been faked out by thinking we can know reality in itself instead of just perceiving a mirror of our perceptions looking back at us!

In either scenario, we have a "Manmade" universe!

It always reminds me when people speak of a "fine tuned" universe fit perfectly for humans by God.

Yep it could be that.

On the other hand it could be that we have evolved  perfectly to fit the universe!

It's all in our point of view!  Either belief requires faith!

But when the Spirit whops you upside your head with an experience you cannot doubt- that's another matter that kind of seems to help you make a choice PRONTO!