why me wrote: I think that this should do the trick.
?
So, in your view, if I were to argue that in America we can usefully classify people into political categories called "conservative" and "liberal" you would think I'd be engaging in postmodernism? Seriously?
I'm not sure what you think you are establishing with that quote, but again the mere act of identifying categories of belief doesn't imply endorsement of any form of epistemological relativism.
I don't think that's what Kerry is saying. It would be more like, let's say republicans make up one "metanarrative", then being "postmodern" would be to look for divisions within republicans who are supposidly united. Like, to say there are republicans who are so for tax reasons but no social reasons at all and some for mostly social reasons.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Gadianton wrote: I don't think that's what Kerry is saying. It would be more like, let's say republicans make up one "metanarrative", then being "postmodern" would be to look for divisions within republicans who are supposidly united. Like, to say there are republicans who are so for tax reasons but no social reasons at all and some for mostly social reasons.
I picked a more specific example to compliment my general one. Remember, I said there was nothing postmodern about creating categories of belief and he decided to argue there is. My liberal vs. conservative example counts for that, but I realized after I wrote that post that it might make sense to give an example of something he actually is interested in arguing.
i don't know, bad habit. sometimes i don't catch myself.
i try to treat anyone who is posting annonymously as that.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Gadianton wrote: I don't think that's what why me is saying. It would be more like, let's say republicans make up one "metanarrative", then being "postmodern" would be to look for divisions within republicans who are supposidly united. Like, to say there are republicans who are so for tax reasons but no social reasons at all and some for mostly social reasons.
In the political arena, postmodernists would be about idenity politics. In other words, there is no great metanarrative to embrace and so, we need to break down the big picture in many small pictures: rights for gays; save the planet; women issues; animal rights; global warming among other issues. Each group has their own truths and each group needs to be respected for that truth. However, in the metanarrative it was all about socialism and capitalism or any other major ideology. Modernity was centered in the enlightenment as was socialism and capitalism as universal truths but for postmodernists, the enlightenment failed; thus, postmodernity.
The LDS church and Joseph Smith were centered squarely in modernity where absolute truths were stressed. Now, such ideas are attacked by the postmodernists. And if need be, broken down into subgroups. And this is what shades is doing with Mormonism by stressing chapel and internet Mormons and highlighting difference in outlook and belief.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world. Joseph Smith We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…” Joseph Smith
Of anyone I know, Dr. Shades is probably the very least in danger of becoming postmodern.
I've pointed out that Hugh Nibley has argued there are four ways to deal with criticism of the church, he coined the term "Cultural Mormon" to represent those who deal with criticism in one particular way. Was Hugh Nibley then a postmodernist, breaking up the one truth of Mormonism into four smaller truths?
It is no small oversight in your argument that Dr. Shades is not celebrating diversity with fists clenched at the oppressive meta-narrative of Mormonism. Rather, Dr. Shades is thoroughly committed like no other to the meta-narrative of Mormonism which happens to be "Chapel Mormonism". Not that he believes in it, but that this is what Mormonism is, and that the "Internet Mormons" are an apostate, heretical sect (lol). he is by no means saying that one big truth in Mormonism is really made up of two smaller truths, but that there is one big truth -- Chapel Mormonism. And then there is outright damnable heresy, Internet Mormonism.
The kind of argument that Shades is making and that Nibley made -- about the "4 ways", Nibley's skewering of both "Cultural Mormons" and "lazy" Mormons -- is the kind of argument postmodernists hate. Shades and Nibley represent true blue modernism and everything wrong with it (for a postmodernist).
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
The question I thought to ask is if Shades thinks that "Internet" and "Chapel" are competing narratives equally true within the norms of the group that accepts them. Obviously the answer is no. He doesn't think either are true.
I'm also virtually positive Shades takes the "two religions" claim more seriously than you are crediting him for. It's not Quakers and Calvinists, but there's more than ball-busting going on here. This situation is similar to Shades taking his survey more seriously than you credited it for.
With that out of the way, Juliann's newfangled charges of plagiarism is weird. She spent years interacting with this dichotomy and it never occurred to her then to charge plagiarism then. And she said herself anyone at all familiar with the topic would be aware of Iron Rod vs. Liahona. But more than that, she's a big time fan of Massimo Introvigne's dichotomy which itself is extremely similar to Iron Rod vs. Liahona in the way Chapel vs. Internet is. This basic gist of this kind of categorization is fairly straightforward and runs older than any of those concepts. Yet Juliann is not accusing Massimo of plagiarism and academic malfeasance.
Good point on the narratives. This further dissolves Why Me's very odd accusation. If there were two groups with two "languages" so to speak, then they'd be talking past each other. But Shades has made it clear that the Internet Mormon knows exactly what the real Mormonism is, there is no "translation" problem here.
You may be right that Shades sees the literal polarization more extremely than I do. To the extent he takes that further than I would, and to the extent that this would cause me to otherwise put a little less stock -- just a little less -- in the theory, the apologists flipping out over it has been more than adequate compensation.
Lol! Oh man, I don't even want to go down the path...
All I'll say is I am going to do a post on the differences between Shades and Poll. Not for the sake of whether he should or shouldn't have cited Poll, I couldn't give a rat's ass about that, but I think it's important to understand certain differences.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Anyway, do they not get that "Internet Mormons" developed the way they have on account of the massive theological challenges they encounter online?
I can't really think of any theological challenges I've encountered on the internet that I haven't already encountered on my mission or before which was well before the internet existed.
This is a major reason why there is no such thing as an "internet Mormon". We've heard the arguments before and have dealt with them. We return to our wards and teach/discuss/debate upon the same things with each other.
Anyway, do they not get that "Internet Mormons" developed the way they have on account of the massive theological challenges they encounter online?
I can't really think of any theological challenges I've encountered on the internet that I haven't already encountered on my mission or before which was well before the internet existed.
This is a major reason why there is no such thing as an "internet Mormon". We've heard the arguments before and have dealt with them. We return to our wards and teach/discuss/debate upon the same things with each other.