DiscussMormonism.com

Over on the fittingly named MAD board, juliann is, in effect, accusing Beastie / Seven of being stupid:

juliann wrote: I have yet to see a countermopologist even define postmodernism let alone use it in any meaningful way (beyond their reliance on pejoratives for survival). Seven doesn't know the difference between elements of metholodology and "postmodernism". Deconstructionism? That has been going on forever. It is a legitimate method that can stand apart from her fuzzy notion of "postmodernism". But then there is nothing like an avowed atheist who maligns religion for being out of touch with the modern world trying to use postmodernism as a pejorative when it is postmodernism that has brought in liberation, feminist and queer (yes, that is the term) theology. Countermopologists need to decide where they stand...hopefully somewhere between that nose they keep cutting off and their face.

Is it just me, or does anyone else hear echoes of her earlier butchering of the sociologists of religion? I am rubbing my hands together with glee in anticipation of the moment that she actually starts quoting authoritative texts.... I think it's really cool and charitable of juliann to be aiming criticism of this sort at a poster who has been banned from participating on the forum. Way to go, juliann!

Mister Scratch wrote:Over on the fittingly named MAD board, juliann is, in effect, accusing Beastie / Seven of being stupid:

juliann wrote: I have yet to see a countermopologist even define postmodernism let alone use it in any meaningful way (beyond their reliance on pejoratives for survival). Seven doesn't know the difference between elements of metholodology and "postmodernism". Deconstructionism? That has been going on forever. It is a legitimate method that can stand apart from her fuzzy notion of "postmodernism". But then there is nothing like an avowed atheist who maligns religion for being out of touch with the modern world trying to use postmodernism as a pejorative when it is postmodernism that has brought in liberation, feminist and queer (yes, that is the term) theology. Countermopologists need to decide where they stand...hopefully somewhere between that nose they keep cutting off and their face.

Is it just me, or does anyone else hear echoes of her earlier butchering of the sociologists of religion? I am rubbing my hands together with glee in anticipation of the moment that she actually starts quoting authoritative texts.... I think it's really cool and charitable of juliann to be aiming criticism of this sort at a poster who has been banned from participating on the forum. Way to go, juliann!

I think she's just incredibly dishonest. Isn't it netiquette to put "/rant" after engaging in that kind of gibberish?

is beastie okay because Juliann is a bully....

Mister Scratch wrote:Over on the fittingly named MAD board, juliann is, in effect, accusing Beastie / Seven of being stupid:

juliann wrote: I have yet to see a countermopologist even define postmodernism let alone use it in any meaningful way (beyond their reliance on pejoratives for survival). Seven doesn't know the difference between elements of metholodology and "postmodernism". Deconstructionism? That has been going on forever. It is a legitimate method that can stand apart from her fuzzy notion of "postmodernism". But then there is nothing like an avowed atheist who maligns religion for being out of touch with the modern world trying to use postmodernism as a pejorative when it is postmodernism that has brought in liberation, feminist and queer (yes, that is the term) theology. Countermopologists need to decide where they stand...hopefully somewhere between that nose they keep cutting off and their face.

Is it just me, or does anyone else hear echoes of her earlier butchering of the sociologists of religion? I am rubbing my hands together with glee in anticipation of the moment that she actually starts quoting authoritative texts.... I think it's really cool and charitable of juliann to be aiming criticism of this sort at a poster who has been banned from participating on the forum. Way to go, juliann!

Here's a not bad definition from literary theorist Edwina Taborsky:

Postmodernism can be defined in part as "the Mediated concept of Truth, [which] first admits that there is no such thing as absolute, pure Truth. There is a reality, which may be abstract or sensual ... but one cannot access it/know it ..'in-itself'. One can only 'know' it within the socially constructed (or species-constructed) 'mediative-habits' of one's particular society/species/whatever. "

That seems to be a reasonably accurate description of Juliann's approach to Mormonism.

First, out of misery, I'm fine. I have a long history with Juliann and compared to some of her other attacks on me, this one is relatively mild. I remember the very first thread I ever participated on on FAIR, she flat out called me a liar about seven times. This behavior is par for the course for Juliann. Reality is that despite her propensity to quote scholars, she often doesn't have a very good grasp of what the scholars are saying. The other reality is that (as RalphMan, who I now look to being banned from MAD pointed out on the thread) Juliann also has the bizarre tendency to accuse other people of engagingin the exact same behavior she, herself, has engaged in.

Of course I'm not an expert in postmodernism, but I do know enough about it to sense that Juliann doesn't really understand its full intent. In fact, there were many old threads on Z in which EA and Gad, who both know quite a bit about philosophy in general and postmodernism in particular, exposed the fact that she really has a dim grasp of what the theory really means.

Postmodernism can be defined in part as "the Mediated concept of Truth, [which] first admits that there is no such thing as absolute, pure Truth. There is a reality, which may be abstract or sensual ... but one cannot access it/know it ..'in-itself'. One can only 'know' it within the socially constructed (or species-constructed) 'mediative-habits' of one's particular society/species/whatever. "

That seems to be a reasonably accurate description of Juliann's approach to Mormonism.

It is, with the exception of the fact that she believes one can still obtain reliable knowledge via "revelation", which was the point I said created a serious disconnect with postmodernism. She is inconsistent in her application of the theory, In other words.

beastie wrote:

Postmodernism can be defined in part as "the Mediated concept of Truth, [which] first admits that there is no such thing as absolute, pure Truth. There is a reality, which may be abstract or sensual ... but one cannot access it/know it ..'in-itself'. One can only 'know' it within the socially constructed (or species-constructed) 'mediative-habits' of one's particular society/species/whatever. "

That seems to be a reasonably accurate description of Juliann's approach to Mormonism.

It is, with the exception of the fact that she believes one can still obtain reliable knowledge via "revelation", which was the point I said created a serious disconnect with postmodernism. She is inconsistent in her application of the theory, In other words.

That is absolutely correct. The approach seems to be that, since "reality" is a bad gauge of truth, only revelation will suffice (and revelation is of necessity subjective). What this allows her to do is twofold:

1. She can dismiss any discussion of church history, doctrine, and "evidence" for or against Mormon scripture as irrelevant (and indeed, those who find such things compelling are fundamentalists locked into an erroneous Enlightenment concept of reality); and notice how Wade has picked up Juliann's vocabulary if not the subtlety of her position.

2. Dismiss conflicting "revelation" with a "so what?" because revelation is subjective and subject to the same social constructs as "reality." So, whatever works for you is theoretically fine.

I've seen her do both of these repeatedly. And I'm not so sure it's particularly inconsistent; however, what is inconsistent is her defending Mormonism in any way because to do so would lock her into point #1; likewise, she cannot argue that Mormon revelation is any guarantor of truth because of point #2.

Like I said, she has had to destroy whatever claims Mormonism makes about itself in order to salvage some sort of belief. I very much doubt she sees what she has done to herself and her religion.

beastie wrote:...as RalphMan, who I now look to being banned from MAD...

Was Ralphman banned?

beastie wrote:First, out of misery, I'm fine. I have a long history with Juliann and compared to some of her other attacks on me, this one is relatively mild. I remember the very first thread I ever participated on on FAIR, she flat out called me a liar about seven times. This behavior is par for the course for Juliann. Reality is that despite her propensity to quote scholars, she often doesn't have a very good grasp of what the scholars are saying. The other reality is that (as RalphMan, who I now look to being banned from MAD pointed out on the thread) Juliann also has the bizarre tendency to accuse other people of engagingin the exact same behavior she, herself, has engaged in.

Of course I'm not an expert in postmodernism, but I do know enough about it to sense that Juliann doesn't really understand its full intent. In fact, there were many old threads on Z in which EA and Gad, who both know quite a bit about philosophy in general and postmodernism in particular, exposed the fact that she really has a dim grasp of what the theory really means.

I can't read her stuff it drives me nuts and makes no sense to me....I am glad you can hold your own....
I think she talks in circles and never comes to a point of any sort expect to call people names..
Take care

beastie wrote:First, out of misery, I'm fine. I have a long history with Juliann and compared to some of her other attacks on me, this one is relatively mild. I remember the very first thread I ever participated on on FAIR, she flat out called me a liar about seven times. This behavior is par for the course for Juliann. Reality is that despite her propensity to quote scholars, she often doesn't have a very good grasp of what the scholars are saying. The other reality is that (as RalphMan, who I now look to being banned from MAD pointed out on the thread) Juliann also has the bizarre tendency to accuse other people of engagingin the exact same behavior she, herself, has engaged in.

Of course I'm not an expert in postmodernism, but I do know enough about it to sense that Juliann doesn't really understand its full intent. In fact, there were many old threads on Z in which EA and Gad, who both know quite a bit about philosophy in general and postmodernism in particular, exposed the fact that she really has a dim grasp of what the theory really means.

Juliann is a nut. I'm glad you can withstand her better than I can. You are quite right, she often accuses people of the same behavior that she engages in. When you see someone defending something that zealously, there's a bit of a problem there. There's nothing wrong with standing up for what you believe in. But Miss Thang takes it a bit too far.

Makes my head hurt thinking about her...