Crazy Texan Monday (on Tuesday)
By Deacon Hall • Nov 3rd, 2009 • Category: engagingI was out of town this weekend, and so I missed out on posting Crazy Texan Monday on Monday. So, we’ll go with Crazy Texan Monday on Tuesday for this week and think of it as something like “breakfast for dinner,” which in my humble opinion, is the best dinner.
I’m putting this post up to really challenge the listeners who casually associate themselves with the “postmodern church” or as being “postmodern believers.” These are terms that, in my opinion, must be thought through a bit more, for, at least according to Rodderick (who is, mind you, close to being divine), the latter term is impossible. You have no self that could believe in the first place! For more on the meaning of postmodernity, check out his lectures on Philosophy and Postmodern culture in his Philosophy and Human Values lectures, and his Fatal Strategies from his Self under Siege lectures
P.S. If any of you who identify with the postmodern church are offended, don’t worry: this view is rampant in academia, too. I can’t tell you how many academics in the humanities that I know who haven’t read either the Bible or Plato, like the books or not. Not to mention the fact that a post like this one is itself quite postmodern in both its form and content, if Roderick is taken seriously.
Deacon Hall is currently working toward a PhD in utter frivolity. He spends his spare moments immersed in a dark world of angst and ennui, and the rest of his time learning what those words mean from his overlords.
Email this author | All posts by Deacon Hall
Postmodernism is dead:
http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=134279&SubjectId=1366&Subject2Id=1377
Two points, here. (1) Listen to all of the posts and you’ll see that digimodernism is precisely the fulcrum of the postmodern as Roderick understands it. There’s no difference in trajectory.
(2) What I at least would agree with is the following. Postmodernity as a structural order is philosophically dead. No doubt, persons would want to argue with my calling it a structural order. But I think there’s no denying that we have come to order our worlds under systems of “difference,” “the Other,” etc. And having reached a point of being altogether uncritical, have become almost completely meaningless. In other words, the term postmodernity came to lose track of the hypermodernism (or digimodernims) that was being set in place and has become dead to itself (a paradoxical turn of phrase, I admit.)