tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post3292352249752798974..comments2023-12-15T21:49:46.651+01:00Comments on Pluralist Speaks: Postmodern AuthoritarianismPluralist (Adrian Worsfold)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-18965983829954493182009-05-11T22:18:00.000+02:002009-05-11T22:18:00.000+02:00A core point, I think, is that no reading method c...A core point, I think, is that no reading method can truly exempt us in any context or setting - from the responsibilities (in contexts) of reading, understanding, following. I see all of these schools as efforts to avoid audience responsibilities, by pushing something back on the text or other authority (usually with skewed if not de-historicized frames, too). I note that by the end of the argument, we somehow can only hear some sort of divine revelation order that commands, stop thinking or investigating, just obey.<br /><br />I used to take it too much for granted that one charism among Anglicans was that we never, ever thought God was commanding us as followers to turn our brains off.<br /><br />Real authorities, on the other hand, are always contextual, risky when we apply things to ourselves and other people, and need conscientious follow-up in testing and discernment - not least because of that pesky rule of unintended effects.<br /><br />The more I read Fulcrim, the crazier their hard work to escape being responsible for what they read and understand of God and neighbor seems to be. They seem always to be arguing that until they have touched some eternally objective bottom hundreds of fathoms down in the deeps of knowledge, they cannot learn to swim or trust keeping their heads above water to breathe. drdanfee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-45698821451143713802009-05-01T22:16:00.000+02:002009-05-01T22:16:00.000+02:00Well, you can do the same to me of course, but min...Well, you can do the same to me of course, but mine doesn't have the same consistency as O'Donovan's, and if you do this to my texts they should tend to disperse - except that all arguments as presented in essays and articles are constructed narratives that should increasingly focus to a point: and so go ahead and bust them.Pluralist (Adrian Worsfold)https://www.blogger.com/profile/01922153724523820866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5449677811690616608.post-66897964025685326492009-05-01T20:13:00.000+02:002009-05-01T20:13:00.000+02:00-"not an argument"
-"a construction of vertical a...-"not an argument" <br />-"a construction of vertical authoritarianisms" <br />-"phrase after phrase of stacked up texts" <br />-"emphasising discipline and regulation"<br />-"It should be seen for what it is" -"a skyscraper of piled high crates" <br />-"(these comments) should be rejected"<br />-"nothing more than an artifice" <br />-"reaching up, pressing down its mass" <br />-"swaying in the wind."<br /><br />So it would seem to be the case that this is not an argument, but a construction of vertical authoritarianisms, phrase after phrase of stacked up texts emphasising Pluralist's discipline and regulation. It should be seen for what it is, as a skyscraper of piled high crates and Pluralist's comments should be rejected as nothing more than an artifice reaching up, pressing down its mass, and swaying in the wind.<br />Or not? What is really the difference?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com