"Grace" and "post-modernity"

by Narkissos 19 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  quietlyleaving

  well now slim, Arthur Marwick is one of the good guys - he devised the term "witting and unwitting testimony" for use when examining the primary sources. (This he did to generate critical thinking skills, doubt and skepticism in the poor already confused history student). Interstingly he grew up in a Quaker household and went on to become a brilliant historian. I'm not gonna say anything bad about him because I suspect he wrote some of my second year material.

  Hogsbawm was another brilliant original historian, I'm told. I guess, its true that we have to assume that historians operate in good faith and with integrity but as you have done, one must embark upon a dialogue with the writer of history and question his conclusions.
• 

  Narkissos

  slim,

  I think you got my general drift. By the analogy of "pendulum swing," though, I didn't mean that we are going back to any previous state of philosophy (as one frequent misconception of "post-modernity" does which tends to equate it with a simple regression to "pre-modernity"). Still we can observe recurring (vectorial, as it were) "moves" or trend patterns within a general forward movement (sorry if this is reminiscent of the WT "tacking" metaphor). And imo it doesn't imply a "progress" heading "anywhere" in a teleological way. It can be construed as globally erratic.

  I think the "post-modern" self-consciousness of language or "text" is not completely unprecedented in the history of thought, even though it cannot simply be equated with any previous stage. Think of the Athenian Sophists, the Middle-Ages nominalism or apophatic theology, the Kantian occultation of the noumenon, or the English empiricism. There have been periods of cognitive pessimism, tending to subjectivism or solipsism, followed by moves in the (nearly) opposite direction (like idealism, realism, objectivism and positivism, which were not mere repetitions either). So I suspect that future thinkers will not indefinitely be content with deconstructing texts and will attempt at "breaking through" to the "real" in some fresh ways, which will have to integrate the present stage of deconstruction but "surpass" (or "relieve," as Derrida translates the Hegelian Aufhebung) it, too. Thinking the extra-textual from within the text will require some "ek-static" leap -- we may have to re-read Heidegger and his cognitive use of poetry, without the comfortable conceptual setting of ontology...

  I have found some inspiration in Deleuze's interpretation of Nietzsche's "eternal recurrence" as recurrence of the other. The pars veritatis of the "circle" may be the curve...

  Btw thanks to you and quietlyleaving for the English reading tips...
• 

  hamilcarr

  So I suspect that future thinkers will not indefinitely be content with deconstructing texts and will attempt at "breaking through" to the "real" in some fresh ways, which will have to integrate the present stage of deconstruction but "surpass" (or "relieve," as Derrida translates the Hegelian Aufhebung ) it, too.

  Quote bookmarked!

  bttt
• 

  Mr. Ted

  Oooooo-la-la, a Frenchman you say!

  "love". Just a bit too univocally positive for this French mind, but I guess that's the best one can do in English.

  So, Mr. Frenchman, why is "Love" so limited, so positive? Are you talking about a "love affair, table for one" (Upon reflection, Narkissos is Greek for "Narcissus," isn't it?) or a trip to the dark side with that other Frenchman, Marquis De Sade, "love affair, dungeon for twenty," who said: "In order to know virtue, we must first acquaint ourselves with vice." And then kicking down the door, added: "Lust's passions will be served; it demands, it militates, it tyrannizes!"

  You French are so naughty!

  My problem with "love," I suppose, is the basic problem of theodicy -- that "love" for all its ambiguity covers only a "bright side" of reality.

  Oops, I thought "Love is a Battlefield." (Was that Benatar or Rimbaud?) [Refer to De Sade.] In this post-modern world, if it truly is post-modern, are we still trudging through theodicy, attempting to paint a happy face of God? "He loveth; he killeth!" Haven't we arrived at a concept of love as a diversified spectrum? A mutating virus? a fecund meme?

  Love: ever since Eve shared her "fruit"! ever since Buddha shared his tangerine! ever since bored-again George WBush gave the world the finger! Like, "All you need is love." (I think Charles Aznavour said that.)

  [OMG, I can't stop using emoticons! ]

  With utmost respect,

  My favorite philistine, Ted
• 

  Narkissos

  Ookaaay, Mr. Ted, you got me there (with a little help from the Marquis )

  LE will do...

  (Although it might sound as corny to us, as a concept, as "grace" sounds to you, for symmetrical reasons...)
• 

  Terry

  GRACE is nuts as an explanation of God saving mankind.

  That is why it is "amazing"!

  Man either deserves to be villified as a wretch or he doesn't.

  If man deserves villification it violates God's own standard to overlook sin in man.

  Why punish man ever? If God is to become arbitrary, capricious and whimsical after thousands of years of allowing death, destruction and divine wrath---on what basis does "grace" suddenly deal a wild deuce?

  Invoking Justice at this point becomes a condemnation of God's handling of man's sinfulness either way.

  At least Predestination makes sense (while making god a monster.) According to Calvin, before creating man, Jehovah determined ahead of time who would be created for destruction (ultimately) and who would be let off the hook (saved). Man's "choosing" or actions or inclinations would have nothing whatever to do with it.

  Think of it this way. It is too much to expect that man could lift himself up to acceptance of God's standards if man is a despicable blight and utterly wretched with sin. (After all, why would man's intellect and emotional capacity escape such demonic rebelliousness?)

  Narkissos rightly points out that GRACE has become more of a transcendant uber-semiotic glitch in language (not his words, of course) which, for its very vagueness, is utterly useful because of its pristine non-communicativeness.

  The handiness of Grace is, indeed, amazing! It purports to explain while nullifying rational thought altogether!

  Grace is an anti-concept and George Orwell would smile in envy.

  Grace is not rational. Grace is not just. Grace is a gimmick--a plot device to get the authors of god stories out of a jam when they painted themselves into a corner. A door suddenly appears (where this is none) and a miraculous escape is possible.

  Silent films and movie serials were replete with such devices.

  One week the train runs over the tied up damsel in distress. The next week in Chapter 2 there is a sudden shift in perspective as the damsel's pet dog chews the knots loose and pulls her to safety!

  Ahhhh, Grace, just the maguffin for bad writers.
• 

  whitman

  Interesting - 'Grace' is very important to me, although I do not associate it with a theological concept, I never have - I understand it through the Greek 'Charis' which retains the fluidity of meaning which may be the essential razzamatazz of the word.
• 

  Rapunzel

  Hi. Narkissos - In my opinion, there has to be something - anything - which subverts and exceeds the parameters of law [this "something" may even conceivably an aspect of law itself], if not law would necessarily become oppressive to the point where it is insufferable.

  I see paradox [or as the Schlegel and the German romantics called it, "cosmic" irony] as permeating life it itself. To use a cliche, irony is the "warp and woof" of human existence. Irony is truly essential in that it is life's essence.

  I believe that, "viewing the picture at large or in general," the notions of grace, ecstasy, and existence are all interconnected. The first recorded usage of ecstasy in English was in the year 1382. The term denoted someone "in a frenzy or stupor, fearful, excited."

  The term ecstasy is derived from the Old French, extasie, from the Greek ekstasis "trance or distraction," from existanai "displace," also "drive out of one's mind [existanai phrenon], from ek "out" and histanai "to place", "cause to stand," from the Proto-Indo-European base *sta - "to stand."

  As for the word existence, it of course comes from the Latin existere meaning to "stand forth," "to stand out," or "to appear." Ex means "forth" or "out," and sistere means "to cause to stand" or "to take a stand."

  As can be plainly seen, existence and ecstasy are etymologically associated. At the root of both is an ancient proto-Indo-European root, *sta. Curiously enough, the word statute {designating a legal statute or law] shares the same root as ecstasy and existence.

  Perhaps one could say that "thanks to" the benefits of grace, human existence is rendered tolerable, at least temporarily.

  Perhaps "grace" is a crucial aspect of paradox, paradox forming the very core and basis of human existence.
• 

  Narkissos

  Thanks for those additional thoughts: existence and ecstasy indeed both imply a standing out -- and a standing out of each other as well... I have long found this bifurcation of meaning extremely fascinating, as it forbids any closure of the definition or localisation of "man" (as "human nature," for instance). We exist by standing out of our "selves" as much as by standing out of everything "else" -- insanity and reason, transgression and law, are but different moments of the same paradoxical, or dialectical process, which kharis embraces with a... graceful fluidity.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Interesting old post by Narkissos on “grace”, worth revisiting.