[PantaRhea]

minsocal, on Jun 3 2009, 02:58 PM, said:

That was me and that is a fact. Your read of my post is way too extreme. Derrida, like many, rethought his theory later in life. He simply said, and this is fact, that we need to return to the "grand texts" he sought to debunk. This was after a series of exchanges with fellow philosophers who never accepted his ideas. Dr. John Searle spearheaded the frontal assault on Derrida's ideas and Derrida eventually backed down in public exchanges between the two.

Yes, Derrida did take some responsibility for being misunderstood. Your "fact" as you first wrote it, could easily be used to support the rampant bibliolatry of the fundamentalists. It implied that there is no value in deconstruction, that the Bible is the final word.

"Thus every proposition proposing a fact must, in its complete analysis, propose the general character of the universe required for that fact. There are no self-sustained facts floating in nonentity." - A.N. Whitehead.

I'm not sure I have ever, or ever been capable of, stating a "fact".

[PantaRhea]

JosephM, on Jun 3 2009, 03:01 PM, said:

I am having to use my dictionary excessively reading your posts and minsocals. Don't know if thats good or not?

Depends. Words cannot be defined. They only have meaning in context. Does the dictionary provide the context?

I'm suspecting that, at least from my end, there is an attempt at a display of male dominance in some of these last messages. How do I stop?

[minsocal]

JosephM, on Jun 3 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

I am having to use my dictionary excessively reading your posts and minsocals. Don't know if thats good or not?

It is the price of entry, Joseph. A theory is a theory. What Derrida said is what Derrida said. If you have a theory that is different, call it something else. I am simply reading and reciting from current advanced courses from major universities. Some of those texts paint Derrida as a cartoonish character. I agree.

Deconstruction is nothing more that than the word "Think".

[PantaRhea]

minsocal, on Jun 3 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

It is the price of entry, Joseph. A theory is a theory. What Derrida said is what Derrida said. If you have a theory that is different, call it something else. I am simply reading and reciting from current advanced courses from major universities. Some of those texts paint Derrida as a cartoonish character. I agree.

Deconstruction is nothing more that than the word "Think".

And a human being is "nothing more" than chemical soup? What do the advanced courses you are reading say about reductionism?

Please, minisocal. I'm trying to control it, but you are pushing all my buttons.

(breathing deeply)

[minsocal]

PantaRhea, on Jun 3 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

And a human being is "nothing more" than chemical soup? What do the advanced courses you are reading say about reductionism?

Please, minisocal. I'm trying to control it, but you are pushing all my buttons.

(breathing deeply)

I did not inject "chemical soup" here, someone else did.

[minsocal]

PantaRhea, on Jun 3 2009, 12:36 PM, said:

And a human being is "nothing more" than chemical soup? What do the advanced courses you are reading say about reductionism?

Please, minisocal. I'm trying to control it, but you are pushing all my buttons.

(breathing deeply)

Well, that is your problem, such as it is. We agree on all major points and this the best you can do? I just give up. With you and this damn message board.

[PantaRhea]

minsocal, on Jun 3 2009, 03:44 PM, said:

I did not inject "chemical soup" here, someone else did.

Uh, yes. Er... no. I didn't "inject" chemical soup. Or, yes, it was I who "injected" chemical soup. Not sure which. Depends.

I was trying to illustrate the foolishness of reductionionism.

Of course, human beings are more than chemical soup.

Of course deconstruction is more than the word "think".

Isn't love grand?

[PantaRhea]

minsocal, on Jun 3 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

Well, that is your problem, such as it is. We agree on all major points and this the best you can do? I just give up. With you and this damn message board.

I apologize for any offense I've given, minsocal. Apparently I wasn't stopped in time.

[minsocal]

PantaRhea, on Jun 3 2009, 12:55 PM, said:

Uh, yes. Er... no. I didn't "inject" chemical soup. Or, yes, it was I who "injected" chemical soup. Not sure which. Depends.

I was trying to illustrate the foolishness of reductionionism.

Of course, human beings are more than chemical soup.

Of course deconstruction is more than the word "think".

Isn't love grand?

I have never supported reductionsim here, in any way. You seem to be playing "kill the messenger".

[PantaRhea]

minsocal, on Jun 3 2009, 04:05 PM, said:

I have never supported reductionsim here, in any way. You seem to be playing "kill the messenger".

I saw in your statement,

Quote

Deconstruction is nothing more that than the word "Think".

an excellent example of reductionism.

Maybe I was mistaken. Let's both stop, eh?

[minsocal]

PantaRhea, on Jun 3 2009, 01:14 PM, said:

I saw in your statement,



an excellent example of reductionism.

Maybe I was mistaken. Let's both stop, eh?

Stop? I never thought anything started. Well ... that's life. The concepts we have been talking about are academic gyrations that have little meaning in everyday life. 'Deconstuction' is one of those terms. It is going away, plain and simple. Ten years from now it will be a simple artifact. It pointed nowhere and went nowhere. Just a fad, nothing more. Same for postmodernism. The fact is, both are useless in their skepticism. In the end, the world turns to solutions ... or dies. Very simple.

[PantaRhea]

minsocal, on Jun 3 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

Stop? I never thought anything started. Well ... that's life. The concepts we have been talking about are academic gyrations that have little meaning in everyday life. 'Deconstuction' is one of those terms. It is going away, plain and simple. Ten years from now it will be a simple artifact. It pointed nowhere and went nowhere. Just a fad, nothing more. Same for postmodernism. The fact is, both are useless in their skepticism. In the end, the world turns to solutions ... or dies. Very simple.

Yes, dear.

I hereby submit to your self-perception of the scope of your knowledge as revealed in your final word on the subject.

This post has been edited by PantaRhea: 03 June 2009 - 04:04 PM

[minsocal]

PantaRhea, on Jun 3 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

Yes, dear.

I hereby submit to your self-perception of the scope of your knowledge as revealed in your final word on the subject.

Very mature of you. Anyone here really want to debate deconstruction? Or is the term some silly academic invention without meaning to somebody sick and dying? "I know you have less than six months to live, now let's deconstruct your cancer." I'm taking the issue over to Debate and Dialogue from here.

[PantaRhea]

minsocal, on Jun 3 2009, 05:50 PM, said:

Very mature of you. Anyone here really want to debate deconstruction? Or is the term some silly academic invention without meaning to somebody sick and dying? "I know you have less than six months to live, now let's deconstruct your cancer." I'm taking the issue over to Debate and Dialogue from here.

Ahhh, yes. I see what the problem is now. I don't think anyone wants to debate here. Debate involves an attempt to dominate. Generally it's thing we males do in order to reveal our level of testosterone.

I have no desire to be dominated, or to dominate, or compete in the marketplace of ideas.

[minsocal]

PantaRhea, on Jun 6 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

Ahhh, yes. I see what the problem is now. I don't think anyone wants to debate here. Debate involves an attempt to dominate. Generally it's thing we males do in order to reveal our level of testosterone.

I have no desire to be dominated, or to dominate, or compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Not quite what I had in mind. Some concepts do harm to others. Are you saying Jesus was on a testosterone high when He challenged the status quo?

[PantaRhea]

minsocal, on Jun 6 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

Not quite what I had in mind. Some concepts do harm to others. Are you saying Jesus was on a testosterone high when He challenged the status quo?

Maybe the better question is:
Do I believe that Jesus used power operating in the mode of domination and control in sharing his vision of the Kingdom of God?

[minsocal]

PantaRhea, on Jun 6 2009, 11:33 AM, said:

Maybe the better question is:
Do I believe that Jesus used power operating in the mode of domination and control in sharing his vision of the Kingdom of God?

My answer is no.

[PantaRhea]

minsocal, on Jun 6 2009, 03:20 PM, said:

My answer is no.

Good. We are in agreement then. Neither do I.

(Have you read, God's Power, by Anna Case-Winters?)

[minsocal]

PantaRhea, on Jun 6 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

Good. We are in agreement then. Neither do I.

(Have you read, God's Power, by Anna Case-Winters?)

Not yet, but I'll give it a try.

[minsocal]

minsocal, on Jun 6 2009, 12:38 PM, said:

Not yet, but I'll give it a try.

So far so good. Here is the connection I was looking for:

"Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda! Even to this day, these ancient words are a rallying cry for Presbyterians and other Reformed Christians. It is a motto that reminds us of who we are and who we intend to be."

"Our Reformed motto, rightly understood, challenges both the conservative and the liberal impulses that characterize our diverse church today. It does not bless either preservation for preservation's sake or change for change's sake."

http://www.pcusa.org...04/reformed.htm

Bingo!

I was raised in a different branch of "Reformed Christians", but "reformed" nonetheless.

Thanks for the reference.