Tags

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


Today will be a good news day. Having said that, since most of the news coming from the FrancisRabbitChurch™ is so dreadful, the bar for what constitutes good news is quite low. But anyways…

First point of order is that your humble blogger has been observing a pattern which could lead to a identifiable PROCESS. The pattern that has been observed is one where bloggers from the Catholic blogosphere have been picking up and commenting on the work produced by Dr. Jordan Peterson.

Background is as follows. A few months after I started noticing and writing about Dr. Peterson’s videos and lectures, I noticed another blogger, namely Tantum from the Dallas Area Catholics blog also producing posts about Dr. Peterson’s work. (see here and here just to mention 2).

Now a third blogger has entered the fray. Over at the The Orthosphere blog, I came across a post titled Some ideas either from or inspired by listening to Jordan Peterson podcastsThis post is so good, and written with what one can call a “Nietzschian compactness”, that I am reposting it here:

The one thing God lacks is limitation. Every being that exists is limited. Limitation creates suffering. I would add that overcoming current limitations involves suffering; but limitations will continue and thus suffering will continue. The trick is not to become angry and resentful due to the necessary suffering that existence involves. In the pathological, the anger and resentment at one’s own existence is directed at all of existence in toto, which makes a kind of sense since suffering and existence are coextensive; it’s nothing personal! Peterson sees certain dictators, among others, as ultimately infected with this nihilistic urge for total destruction.

So, suffering is not just part of the human condition, but at the heart of all existence. If it were possible to exist outside of actually being a limited creature, then upon hearing of the existence of a person with even the greatest blessings of health, wealth and beauty, one can imagine sending one’s condolences.

What I find interesting about this above text is that it is a perfect example of what we call the CONVERGENCE PROCESS on this blog. What is in fact happening is that the subset of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium that is clinical psychology, as represented by Dr. Peterson is CONVERGING with the philosophical (theological) subset as represented by Richard Cocks at the Orthosphere blog.

Another PROCESS that could be taking form, but is still in the early stage is what I will call: The proper categorization of what is the “theology” of Francis. Your humble blogger has been writing about this, and placing Francis’ “theology” in the post-modernist camp. Just to review, the post-modernists are a quasi-religious sect, whose basic tenants of their belief system are described as follows: (see here) (emphasis added)

The post-Modernists don’t believe in coherency, and I’m not making this up. This is part of their philosophy. They don’t believe in logic. You know, Derrida says straight out that Western is fallo- logo centric, by which he means male centered and privileging the idea of logic. Well, he doesn’t buy any of that.  He doesn’t think that there is a truth that is out there. He doesn’t believe that individuals can reach any sort of truth by thinking. He certainly doesn’t believe that we can move towards truth in dialogue. Because that’s “dia-logic”. Right? There’s none of that. (case in point here)

Given the above as context, over at the Musings of a Pertinacious Papist blog, a post appeared titled ‘Is Francis a Postmodernist’? Here is that post:

I’m not sure the discourse of the Holy Father rises (or ‘sinks’) to the level of academic abstraction sufficient to qualify him as a ‘Postmodernist,’ but when you read some of the seemingly hyperbolic praise he heaps on the likes of nihilistic Postmodern writers like Michel de Certeau (right), you can see how someone might come up with an article like that of the pro-life activist, Fred Martinez, “Pope Francis and Nihilism” (Catholic Monitor, Sunday, May 28, 2017).

What I think is key to understand the above is that there really is no such thing as ‘Postmodernism’. As Dr. Peterson explains, post-Modernism is just a veneer that masks Marxism. (Here is Noam Chomsky, an eye witness to explain how post-Modernism came into being.) Reverting back to the Peterson video, we get an explanation of the difference between the post-modernist FrancisTheology™ and the “populist cum Marxist” – Francis, the bishop of Rome:

Anyways, forget about logic. That’s out the window. That’s just a construct of Western society and the whole point of the construct was to oppress those other people and to take their wealth. And to privilege the people who live in that so called logic system, so that they can justify to themselves and other people their predator rapaciousness.  Straight and simple. And that’s partly because post-Modernism was influenced by Marxism and that of course because that’s what the Marxist think about any  situation where there is a power status differential. The people at the top are only there because they stole everything from the people at the bottom.

Going one step further, and as we know from Hilary White’s great assessment of Francis (see here), he is all about CONTROL. So using a “populist cum Marxist” framework disguised in a post-Modernist FrancisTheology™, and given the current intellectual state of the post-conciliar church, especially the hierarchy, this is what works now.

A minor digression… But if Vladimir Putin took over the world, and the power structure turned to a “conservative/nationalistic” mindset, kind of like in Argentina during the rule of the Generals, Francis would no doubt sound like this here.

Notice the difference?

If Francis is anything, it is malleable!

Concluding, what is important to understand is that PROCESSES are taking place. These PROCESSES are independent events, outside the control of anyone or any group that would like to control them. These PROCESSES appear to be driven by rational thought and can be characterized as independent and stand alone.

In the above text, we see two such PROCESSES, namely the CONVERGENCE between the secular and ecclesiastical sub-sets of human activity.

Next, we also notice a PROCESS in its early stages, one that attempts to identify the “verbiage” coming from Francis, the bishop of Rome and categorize it into the CORRECT “school of thought” that it objectively represents. By identifying and categorizing what it is that Francis is telling us, we can then assess… or rather judge the VALUE of that message.

What is important to take away from the Pertinacious Papist post is that the classification of Francis’ message is definitely falling outside of that which we can call a Catholic “school of thought”.

And rightly so.

And finally, what is the most encouraging is that these questions are beginning to be asked, and in forums that are Catholic. In other words, we are beginning to see the early signs of an Institution (Catholic Church) that is trying to understand the situation that it finds itself in, and hopefully the beginning of the PROCESS of righting itself.

And this appears to be due just to the nature of the things…

Advertisements