Backed into a corner: Dan turns to "fashionable nonsense" to save the church

[Gadianton]

While the apologists regularly deny the possibility of truth in order to defend the church and even more important, defend fellow mopologists and mopologetic theories from the pure light of reason, they've often drawn the line at anything having to do with so-called "postmodernism." This is likely less about postmodernism's criticism of science and truth, and more about postmodernism's association with feminism and racial justice, and criticisms of the white-male dominance of science as an institution. We can't have that! Dan has insisted that Mopologetics is a "masculine" enterprise -- one of combat and hard feelings.

A few times over the years, Dan has touted a book he calls a favorite of his, that is Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal, a physicist who deals brutally and dismissively with all thinkers postmodern, the worst offender being the philosopher Jacques Derrida. Sokal's style is right up Dan's ally: sarcastic and prone to exaggeration. The Interpreter in kind has taken aim at the new guard at the Maxwell Institute, namely Adam Miller and Jared Hickman, who are both students of Derrida's kind of thinking, which they use to defend the church.

Louis Midgley responded immediately to the "off the rails" article, which was published several years ago, stating what we seem to hear frequently, that Neal A. Maxwell once said at a banquet a long time ago that FARMS should never change and keep doing what they were doing, to which Dan reply's "thank you Louis, thank you." Postmodernism, which is "fashionable nonsense" and "off the rails" is a threat both to the church and the practice of Mopologetics. And so it is quite shocking that Interpreter has been forced to call in a favor from James E Faulconer, the mentor of Hickman and Miller, and one of the most important figures behind the scenes at the new MI.

In the newest article from Interpreter Dan promotes on his blog, Brother Faulconer offers an "introduction" to the thinking of Derrida and how Derrida and other continental philosophers, Nietzsche and Heidegger can help the church. It's a dense article, I got halfway through and gave up. I'm pretty sure Dan hasn't read it, and therefore is careful not to comment on it in his promotion, fearful he'll be found out. I'm sure it was good enough to have Brother Faulconer "help Interpreter sound more smart" as Interpreter has often been the brunt of jokes for its lack of intellectual seriousness. I'm sure the average LDS reader of the article will feel empowered to stay Mormon, reasoning that if a guy as smart Brother Faulconer can stay in the boat, then they are justified to do so also.

The article is hard to understand, but I think one consequence of Derrida's and Faulconer's views on truth and meaning is that a single statement by Neal A. Maxwell could never imbue Lou and Dan with the ultimate security of forever staying at the center of the text of an unfolding story.

[drumdude]

Interpreter articles are usually very shallow, this one sounds like an interesting read if nothing else.

[The Before]

Great, now we have DCP and PCP (Paul C. Peterson).

And wasn’t Heidegger an avowed Nazi? Why would anyone promote him?

While the apologists regularly deny the possibility of truth in order to defend the church and even more important, defend fellow mopologists and mopologetic theories from the pure light of reason, they've often drawn the line at anything having to do with so-called "postmodernism." This is likely less about postmodernism's criticism of science and truth, and more about postmodernism's association with feminism and racial justice, and criticisms of the white-male dominance of science as an institution. We can't have that! Dan has insisted that Mopologetics is a "masculine" enterprise -- one of combat and hard feelings.

A few times over the years, Dan has touted a book he calls a favorite of his, that is Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal, a physicist who deals brutally and dismissively with all thinkers postmodern, the worst offender being the philosopher Jacques Derrida. Sokal's style is right up Dan's ally: sarcastic and prone to exaggeration. The Interpreter in kind has taken aim at the new guard at the Maxwell Institute, namely Adam Miller and Jared Hickman, who are both students of Derrida's kind of thinking, which they use to defend the church.

Louis Midgley responded immediately to the "off the rails" article, which was published several years ago, stating what we seem to hear frequently, that Neal A. Maxwell once said at a banquet a long time ago that FARMS should never change and keep doing what they were doing, to which Dan reply's "thank you Louis, thank you." Postmodernism, which is "fashionable nonsense" and "off the rails" is a threat both to the church and the practice of Mopologetics. And so it is quite shocking that Interpreter has been forced to call in a favor from James E Faulconer, the mentor of Hickman and Miller, and one of the most important figures behind the scenes at the new MI.

In the newest article from Interpreter Dan promotes on his blog, Brother Faulconer offers an "introduction" to the thinking of Derrida and how Derrida and other continental philosophers, Nietzsche and Heidegger can help the church. It's a dense article, I got halfway through and gave up. I'm pretty sure Dan hasn't read it, and therefore is careful not to comment on it in his promotion, fearful he'll be found out. I'm sure it was good enough to have Brother Faulconer "help Interpreter sound more smart" as Interpreter has often been the brunt of jokes for its lack of intellectual seriousness. I'm sure the average LDS reader of the article will feel empowered to stay Mormon, reasoning that if a guy as smart Brother Faulconer can stay in the boat, then they are justified to do so also.

The article is hard to understand, but I think one consequence of Derrida's and Faulconer's views on truth and meaning is that a single statement by Neal A. Maxwell could never imbue Lou and Dan with the ultimate security of forever staying at the center of the text of an unfolding story.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

While the apologists regularly deny the possibility of truth in order to defend the church and even more important, defend fellow mopologists and mopologetic theories from the pure light of reason, they've often drawn the line at anything having to do with so-called "postmodernism." This is likely less about postmodernism's criticism of science and truth, and more about postmodernism's association with feminism and racial justice, and criticisms of the white-male dominance of science as an institution. We can't have that! Dan has insisted that Mopologetics is a "masculine" enterprise -- one of combat and hard feelings.

A few times over the years, Dan has touted a book he calls a favorite of his, that is Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal, a physicist who deals brutally and dismissively with all thinkers postmodern, the worst offender being the philosopher Jacques Derrida. Sokal's style is right up Dan's ally: sarcastic and prone to exaggeration. The Interpreter in kind has taken aim at the new guard at the Maxwell Institute, namely Adam Miller and Jared Hickman, who are both students of Derrida's kind of thinking, which they use to defend the church.

Louis Midgley responded immediately to the "off the rails" article, which was published several years ago, stating what we seem to hear frequently, that Neal A. Maxwell once said at a banquet a long time ago that FARMS should never change and keep doing what they were doing, to which Dan reply's "thank you Louis, thank you." Postmodernism, which is "fashionable nonsense" and "off the rails" is a threat both to the church and the practice of Mopologetics. And so it is quite shocking that Interpreter has been forced to call in a favor from James E Faulconer, the mentor of Hickman and Miller, and one of the most important figures behind the scenes at the new MI.

In the newest article from Interpreter Dan promotes on his blog, Brother Faulconer offers an "introduction" to the thinking of Derrida and how Derrida and other continental philosophers, Nietzsche and Heidegger can help the church. It's a dense article, I got halfway through and gave up. I'm pretty sure Dan hasn't read it, and therefore is careful not to comment on it in his promotion, fearful he'll be found out. I'm sure it was good enough to have Brother Faulconer "help Interpreter sound more smart" as Interpreter has often been the brunt of jokes for its lack of intellectual seriousness. I'm sure the average LDS reader of the article will feel empowered to stay Mormon, reasoning that if a guy as smart Brother Faulconer can stay in the boat, then they are justified to do so also.

The article is hard to understand, but I think one consequence of Derrida's and Faulconer's views on truth and meaning is that a single statement by Neal A. Maxwell could never imbue Lou and Dan with the ultimate security of forever staying at the center of the text of an unfolding story.

It's hilarious watching the Mopologists frantically borrow deconstructionist tools to survive. There is a certain poetic justice in seeing the Mopologists forced to borrow their armor from the very philosophers they spent decades mocking. Folks, you really couldn't script this level of absurdity.

[drumdude]

Dean Robbers seems to have struck a nerve:

Over at the Peterson Obsession Board, one of the posters seems recently to have assumed the task of interpreting my thinking to his fellow board participants. (He takes his moniker there from a notable Book of Mormon robber and murderer.) It is, I suppose, a noble effort, though I don’t think that his prospects for success in this new enterprise are very high. I mean, his is an audience that seems, on the whole, to have tastes and predilections more suited to People Magazine or the National Enquirer than to, say, the Journal of the American Philosophical Association. Most of them appear to have a ravenous appetite for gossipy speculation. But for actual ideas and arguments? Maybe offline, perhaps. (Who knows?) There’s little evidence of any deep thinking among most of those on the POB. Just personal contempt, insults, and hostility. And, sometimes, self-congratulation.

In any case, my commentator’s track record thus far isn’t especially impressive, notwithstanding (or, perhaps more accurately, partly because of) his recent endorsement by the ever-mendacious and continually juvenile (≈)Everybody’s WC. He plainly thinks, despite his palpable animus, that he understands my views, but his attempted summaries of Peterson Thought are unrecognizable to me. (“Don’t believe me?” he writes at the end of one fundamentally misguided exposition. “Ask him!” Which, of course, nobody has. Including him.) As the saying goes, he’s almost always wrong, but never in doubt. But he’s undeniably clever, so I’m reminded of what is sometimes called the “second corollary” to Murphy’s Law: “It’s impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.”

We can’t compete with Dan physically, and we’re no match for his brains. Ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Idiots compared to the estimable Journal of the Interpreter Foundation!

[Gadianton]

I appreciate the attempt at inter-board dialogue actually.

Over at the Peterson Obsession Board, one of the posters seems recently to have assumed the task of interpreting my thinking to his fellow board participants. (He takes his moniker there from a notable Book of Mormon robber and murderer.) It is, I suppose, a noble effort, though I don’t think that his prospects for success in this new enterprise are very high.

I don't see why I should be faulted for my name, I didn't pick mine anymore than he picked his. Did this "robber and murderer" murder more people than Jehovah did with his great flood?

I mean, his is an audience that seems, on the whole, to have tastes and predilections more suited to People Magazine or the National Enquirer than to, say, the Journal of the American Philosophical Association. Most of them appear to have a ravenous appetite for gossipy speculation. But for actual ideas and arguments? Maybe offline, perhaps. (Who knows?) There’s little evidence of any deep thinking among most of those on the POB. Just personal contempt, insults, and hostility. And, sometimes, self-congratulation.

Isn't that what he's doing right now, talking about the people of this board in a gossipy way? He didn't have anything to say about Faulconer's article, did he read it? Is Sic et Non a place for deep arguments and ideas? If he thinks he's better than we are, then what did he think of Faulconer's article?

He plainly thinks, despite his palpable animus, that he understands my views, but his attempted summaries of Peterson Thought are unrecognizable to me.

That's interesting, considering the thread. Jacques Derrida complained that his detractors never understood him either, and so they have that in common. What part does he disagree with? Does he deny his affection for the book Fashionable Nonsense that mocks and sneers at the entire intellectual movement that James Faulconer specializes in?

(“Don’t believe me?” he writes at the end of one fundamentally misguided exposition. “Ask him!” Which, of course, nobody has. Including him.)

This regards another thread. I would ask him, but I've been banned from his board so I can't. I can ask from here. Dan, what scientific theory do you admit is better supported than the Book of Mormon as an ancient document? Is the theory of gravity better supported?

I'm in doubt about a lot of things which is why I'm where I'm at in life I suppose. I could be wrong about Dan's thinking and I do consider it speculative.

[Gadianton]

And wasn’t Heidegger an avowed Nazi? Why would anyone promote him?

Oh yeah, and he even betrayed his mentor who was Jewish, though not practicing, who got Heidegger appointed to his position within the Freiburg philosophy department. A really, really bad guy. Well, I think the first defense will be that bad people can be smart and discover important ideas. It's a point that is debated a lot, especially considering that fans of Heidegger are more likely to be woke leftists than conservatives who might applaud Heidegger for his track record.

[Marcus]

...I mean, his is an audience that seems, on the whole, to have tastes and predilections more suited to People Magazine or the National Enquirer than to, say, the Journal of the American Philosophical Association. Most of them appear to have a ravenous appetite for gossipy speculation. But for actual ideas and arguments? Maybe offline, perhaps. (Who knows?) There’s little evidence of any deep thinking among most of those on the POB. Just personal contempt, insults, and hostility. And, sometimes, self-congratulation...

Wow. DCP already knows people are well aware of his rampant use of plagiarism to attempt to appear smart. This passage, taken from his failed attempt to insult, seems to be projecting every additional attribute he worries that others see in himself.

The "sometimes, self-congratulation" line is especially hilarious.

[Doctor Scratch]

“Ask him!” Which, of course, nobody has. Including him.

What would be the point? Does he *ever* answer questions? He’d just make some excuse about how busy he is, and how maybe he’ll get to it eventually, etc.

A case in point: Chet just asked him a perfectly polite and reasonable question and he got typical brush-off.

[drumdude]

“Ask him!” Which, of course, nobody has. Including him.

What would be the point? Does he *ever* answer questions? He’d just make some excuse about how busy he is, and how maybe he’ll get to it eventually, etc.

A case in point: Chet just asked him a perfectly polite and reasonable question and he got typical brush-off.

It’s all in the book he’s about to publish. Any day now.