Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


wheel-of-justiceBefore we begin today’s post, a little house cleaning is in order. A friend of this blog, and a VERY VIP friend at that, has suggested that the manner in which I produce the blog posts make them hard to read. In essence, they are too long and I use too much BOLDING in the text. Furthermore, it has been observed (notice the small case letters of the word “observed”– I’m making progress already) that I do not write a proper lede paragraph that introduces the subject matter of the post itself. Without going into the extenuating circumstances, I plead GUILTY AS CHARGED. (oops). But from today, I will set out on my very own PROCESS of change.

Nuff said.

Today’s post will be about PROCESSES, or to be more specific, about a certain PROCESS that I have observed. This PROCESS entails elements that have been identified and explained in my previous posts, namely: talking points, narratives, fake news, virtual realities and the phenomenon of gas-lighting. These elements are actually part and parcel of a PROCESS whose end result is what I will term for the purposes of this post: the neo-Modernist “SYNTAX” (any orderly arrangement or system) structure.

Before I go on, a few general observations are in order.

The reason that I think it is important to identify and understand the underlying PROCESS(ES) are several.  First, it makes it easy to group what appear to be” independent” and “unrelated” occurrences or events and then test (remember Ockham’s razor?) them to see if in fact they are “independent” and “unrelated”. If they are related, then one can discern how they fit into the larger structure.  Next, when segregating these events into a structured framework, it becomes easier to identify “potential motives”, hidden agendas, etc. Furthermore, one can more easily assess the degree of veracity contained in the structures built on the individual data sets. And lastly, by understanding that PROCESSES can be independent, stand-alone “things” – albeit in a dematerialized form, the prescient observer can then go on and make educated guesses (predictiveness) as to how the said process will unfold.

So let’s get cracking.

We will look at several occurrences, purportedly “independent” and “unrelated” occurrences and see if we can “FIT” them into our pre-defined neo-Modernist “SYNTAX” structure. We will use the following flow chart to define the internal  sequencing and hierarchical order of our “PROCESS”:

TALKING POINTS => NARRATIVES => VIRTUAL REALITIES => GAS-LIGHTING

I will add one constraining element on the PROCESS and that is FAKE NEWS.

So let us test the above PROCESS and see if we can use it to identify an underlying neo-Modernist “SYNTAX” structure.

Our jump off point is to explain why a neo-Modernist “SYNTAX” structure would be needed in the first place. For this, we have Dr. John Lamont (via the Rorate Caeli blog) to thank for defining our jump off point. Here is the text: (see here)

The neomodernist position, when stated clearly, is not liable to attract many people. Although its conception of truth ( “bringing thought into line with life” – as opposed to the objectively correct “bringing the mind into conformity with reality”)  has been defended by the pragmatist school of philosophy, most lay opinion agrees with the majority of philosophical opinion in rejecting the pragmatist understanding of truth. In addition, no great philosophical expertise is needed to see that the historical perspectivism (the assertion that “different historical periods necessarily possess concepts, assumptions, and ways of reasoning that are peculiar to themselves. As a result, the thought of past times cannot be shared by later epochs (and vice versa), and no epoch can conceive of the world in the way that its historical forebears did.”) of the neomodernists is self-refuting. Historical perspectivism is a universal philosophical claim about the nature of human concepts and human knowledge, a claim that is presented as being true for all people at all times, and as being known to be true by the neomodernists. But such a claim contradicts historical perspectivism itself, which denies the possibility of knowledge of this sort.

In other words, they ran afoul of the third of the three classic laws of thought: Law of the Excluded Middle. (see here)

NB: Where have we seen this fallacious construction before?

Why yes, it was the underlying cause for the demise of “structuralism”, which posited that words have no meaning in and of themselves, but only act as a representation of underlying structures. Yet the “structuralists” needed words with objective meanings to explain “structuralism”. Here is how we explained this EXACT SAME design flaw in our post titled Deconstruction Francis (see here):

However, a small design flaw in Structuralism theory quickly consigned it to the trash-heap of history. Here is how we described this small design flaw:

The bad news however, was that this movement itself soon faded into obscurity due to a small design flaw, i.e. the inherent logical fallacy of contradictory conditions. In other words, Structuralism implicitly breached the rule of non self-contradiction. The specific problem was this: in order to use Structuralism, i.e. a theory that states that words DO NOT have an objective meaning, one needs to use words that DO have a objective meaning.

So getting back to the subject at hand. What we see is the neo-Modernists encamped behind the Sacred Vatican Walls have a serious handicap, just like all neo-Modernists in the various other fields of human activity. The manner in which these neo-Modernists circumvent their self-contradictory, self-refuting pseudo-philosophical underpinnings is through what I have termed in this post the “neo-Modernist “SYNTAX” structure”.

So let’s take this vehicle out for a spin shall we. We begin by identifying a set of TALKING POINTS. Here is one that I came across lately: (see here)

 (1) Don’t talk about the dubia. 

 (2) Say that Amoris Laetitia is perfectly clear.

(3) Poke fun at the traditional Church teaching

(4) Say that the dubia reflect a simplistic approach.

(5) Come down hard on papal authority

(6) Don’t be afraid to impugn the integrity of people who disagree.

(7) Paint a rosy picture of relationships between Catholics and their pastors.

Now that we have a set of talking points, let us try and identify the NARRATIVE. How’s this for a NARRATIVE: (see here)

[Pope:] “But no: tradition blooms!” he responds. “There is a Traditionalism that is a rigid fundamentalism: it is not good.

We see from the above that in these two sentences, Francis, the bishop of Rome implicitly supported his NARRATIVE (tradition is rigid) on five of the seven above TALKING POINTS, namely; 1 (explicitly), 3 (implicitly), 4 (implicitly), 5  (explicitly) and 7 (implicitly).

We will stop here for today, but you dear reader can take any passage pertaining to the Dubia by Francis or the FrancisApologists and place it into this above structure.

And now a few words about the constraints. Any DATA POINT that refutes the NARRATIVE or injects DISSONENCE into the NARRATIVE is then defined as FAK NEWS. And FAKE NEWS, or its Francis equivalent “Coprophagia” is defined as: “the sickness of coprophilia, that is, always wanting to cover scandals, covering nasty things, even if they are true…”

Given the above, we can now move onto the Francis “Wheel of Justice”. If we identify various sets of TALKING POINTS and extract the implicit NARRATIVE, we can create a “Wheel of Justice” of NARRATIVES just like in the cartoon at the top of this post.

This set of NARRATIVES in turn is then used to create a VIRTUAL REALITY. Here is how this VIRTUAL REALITY is set out:

The 4 Cardinals are against the Pope.

The manner in which this VIRTUAL REALITY is defended is through the use of the psychological tool of GAS-LIGHT. Once again, GAS-LIGHTING is defined as:

(…) is a form of psychological abuse in which a victim is manipulated into doubting their own memory, perception, and sanity.[1][2] Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim. The term owes its origin to Gas Light, a 1938 play and 1944 film, and has been used in clinical and research literature.[3][4]  

 Here is the GAS-LIGHTING of his opponents by Francis, the bishop of Rome:

Pope Francis: Rigid People Are Sick (see here)

Concluding, the question needs to be asked is: why does Francis need to resort to what we termed in this post as the “neo-Modernsts SYNTAX framework”? Once again, John Lamont explains:

The key to the neomodernist capture of power is however also the reason for their failure to sustain a religious culture. Neomodernism is not like Protestantism, which contains ideas with a positive content as well as being a rejection of Catholicism. These ideas – justification by faith, and the like – are not correct, but they say something substantial, and have an appeal that can give rise to an important movement. Neomodernism, however, on a religious level is a purely negative thesis. As a result it has no attractive force of its own, and ecclesiastical structures that fall into its grip eventually die away – a process now visible all over the world.

And there you have it!

The neo-Modernist “SYNTAX” structure is better than nothing!

Advertisements