RAMANAM
In the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, Amen.
Countrymen,
Dr. Sanity composed an essay under title,
POSTMODERNISM AND THE LEFT: A PERFECT STORM
I commented as follows on her comment on a comment by one “fred the obscure”:
Overall a most brilliant post, comprising a description of what theologians term a demonic personality, or in Vedic parlance, a Rakshasa. A Rakshasa is a personality which can assume many guises, including a human one, but is distinguished by their devotion to destruction, even of their self. A Rakshasa personality embodies and therefore enacts the power of what in classical philosophy is termed me on, non-being. (Different from uk on, which is being not.)
This reply’s description of the difference between Modernism and Post-Modernism is accurate as far as it goes. In the body of the post more is imputed to Modernism (in fact, making it akin to Greek and German Idealism) than is allowed it in this reply.
The last two sentences in this reply catch this observer’s attention. They impart an almost ontic disconnect (as if any disconnect in the ontic abyss could be real) between
nature and behavior. The expository metaphor itself undercuts such an implication: apples and oranges share being fruit, whatever their sense-based differences. And they share the same purpose (telos), reproduction of their species.
In the realm of existence, this and that can be distinguished one from the other but not separated.
“fred,” the obscure is that, as you point out, but his interest strikes this observer as being by way of accusatory — Dr. Sanity is a poltroon, though I cannot recognize on what account — more than interpretive or even exploratory.
I should like to submit that Modernism will not bear the weight of battle with Post-Modernism. It is the latter’s obverse, merely. No, I think a puissant battle formation to pose against the Post-Modern onslaught, which is near total victory, has yet to be formed. No doubt this fact agitates Sowell, as it does all human observers and defenders.
A battle formation of strength sufficient to avert the defeat of humanity has roots in Modernism’s antecedents, its deep antecedents. The enemy are demonic, not human personalities: their nature, behavior and destiny (all of a piece) fit more the analysis set forth in the body of this post than they do the perversity of the current academic curriculum, which is also referenced, and rightly.
IMO, the battle formation sought starts with a human academic curriculum. Such are not entirely out of memory, but improvements are available. I suggest effort constructing a human academic curriculum, followed by effort establishing certification agency(s) committed to its application. In other words, something along the lines of rebuilding civilization. Our ancestors have been obliged to do it before us. Now so must we.
Reply the Second:
“I am willing to let reality decide which of us is correct.” Nice. Jeremiah’s response to the doubters among his fellow priests at Jerusalem, who comprised virtually all of them.
Mr. Coppedge, your image of “Jesus,” as you put it, is doubly eisegetical and therefore unreal (aka untrue). Firstly, the personality in question is not a Jesus. A man named Jesus mows our condo association’s lawns weekly, and finely too. The personality in question is a Jesus who is the Christ of history. Your representation of him is bathetic. Secondly, “social justice” is an ideology of so-called liberation theologians. It has zero religious, cultural or moral content. It’s sole purpose is fighting legitimate authority by inciting illegitimate impulses. Its non-origin in the concerns of Jesus the Christ, Evangelists, Apostles and Fathers is both clear in the primary literature and thoroughly documented in the secondary. Go find these and lose your indoctrinators if you want a life. You’ve been worked over into canon fodder by your minders.
Update 1: An American Renaissance.
Update 2: The Saudi Connection: Wahhabism and Global Jihad, and related: Qatar.
AMDG – VICTORY
