Tags

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


Today we go off theme, or rather go off the theme that your humble blogger was developing over the last few posts. Those posts dealt with an interdisciplinary attempt to form an understanding of where the post-conciliar church went wrong and to define a “cure” that would allow it to return to its mission, as defined by its Found namely: the salvation of souls.

So today, we will do a post on an aspect of a recent and presently developing story, which isn’t getting the attention that it deserves. The recent development is the letter sent by the Four Dubia Cardinals, requesting an encounter audience with the bishop or Rome, Francis.

The reason that this said aspect of the story isn’t getting the attention it deserves is that most of the Catholic blogo-sphere doesn’t quite grasp the post-Modernist mindset of the prevailing culture, especially the post-Modernist culture that is presently prevailing behind the Sacred Vatican Walls.

Just to refresh that which in fact constitutes the post-Modernist mindset. As we know, post-Modernists don’t believe in Truth. Everything is relative and all existing structures, whether they are physical (government, institutions, etc.) or immaterial (science, literature, language, etc.) can only be judged through the power dynamic.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as individuality, since all individuals belong to “identity groups” and it is these identity group that fight among each other to obtain power, for those specific groups and their group interests.

The manner in which these identity groups fight in this Hobbesian battlefield is through the use of NARRATIVES. Presently, that is… So what we have in fact are just individual NARRATIVES that are developed by special interest groups that are fighting other NARRATIVES developed by other special interest groups, in a social Darwinian death struggle for dominance.

Here is a more graphic representation of the above information.

Now for the Four Cardinal’s Audience Request (FCAR).

Into this above framework, we get a new piece of information, i.e. the Four Cardinal Audience Request (FCAR). So how do we properly interpret this FCAR in our post-Modernists post-conciliar church “intellectual” framework?

The starting point is that this FCAR appears to collide with the Francis dialogue NARRATIVE. Remember, it’s all about “dialogue”, yet we know, from the Peterson lectures that post-Modernists don’t believe in dialogue.

Moreover, the neo-Modernists don’t believe in the objective meaning of words and their common usage. Words, like everything else, are only social constructs. (Here we need to point out one exception, intrinsically disordered behavior, which is always biological… naturally.)  Words represent “power structures” that need to be overcome.

So the “sin” that the FCAR document commits is that it causes a negative emotional reaction against the dialogue NARRATIVE, i.e. the implication that “Francis doesn’t want to dialogue”. Therefore, this situation is bad not from the absence of an objective good, i.e. no dialogue, but rather from the point of view of the visual,… the optics of Francis evading dialogue. The situation created by the FCAR produces an emotionally detrimental situation since it makes Francis look like a hypocrite.

Yes?

Next, and the far larger problem that the FCAR represents is found in the following text:

We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus.

In light of the above defined post-Modernist framework, this is the most egregious form of material “heresy” that can exist in a post-Modernist pseudo-religious sect. The issue is as follows: not only does “naming” a counter NARRATIVE bring it to life, naming it also “platforms” it.

Now for those uninitiated or those who are not up to speed on what the concept “platforming” entails, I will refer you to a Harvard Business School publication that explains the concept below: (see here)

We typically think of companies competing over products — the proverbial “build a better mousetrap.” But in today’s networked age, competition is increasingly over platforms. Build a better platform, and you will have a decided advantage over the competition.

So to put our FCAR in this “platforming” CONTEXT, we see that by identifying the “product(s)”, i.e. counter-NARRATIVES, as

the “position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant”

and

“those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus.”

… and further by referring to these two “counter-NARRATIVES” by name in the FCAR, the Cardinals not only allowed these two “products” to arise, but far worse, allowed these two counter-Narratives to be “platformed” on a Catholic Church Cardinal’s platform.

Furthermore, by not criticizing these TWO new counter-NARRATIVES in the FCAR, what the Cardinals have done, in this framework of course, is to grant these counter-NARRATIVES legitimacy. In other words, the Cardinals are treating these TWO counter-NARRATIVES as legitimate positions, while only implying that their position is the more preferable one for the bishopr of Rome.

But even if they had criticized the named TWO counter-NARRATIVES in that document, the Cardinals would still be engaged in something that is now in the post-Modernist framework known as “normalization”.

And naturally, there are such things as “normalization NARRATIVES”.

Aside, please see the link here for an example from the POLITICAL sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium.

So concluding, the most interesting aspect of the Four Cardinal Audience Request, from a post-Modernist point of view, is twofold: the appearance of not one, but TWO counter-Narratives being “platformed” by the Cardinals and the “normalization” of the TWO counter-Narratives.

Just to stress how important the “normalization” issue currently is, here is a link to the critique of the Alex Jones interview done by Megyn Kelly which appear last Sunday on her new show on NBC. This comes by way of the National Review post titled: Megyn Kelly’s Gift to Alex Jones. Here is the pertinent text:

A broader indictment is that she’s mainstreaming or normalizing Jones.

And then the author goes on to relate the following:

This is a huge gift to Jones. Even if Kelly does everything possible to avoid the appearance of “normalizing Jones,” he comes out of this a winner because his fans will love it and be re-affirmed in their belief that he’s important. And at least some people who haven’t heard of him will think this joker is more significant than he is.

On an aside, what’s funny about the author of this post is that he can’t even be bothered to research who is normalizing whom, in that Jones has a much larger audience that Megyn Kelly. Kelly got 3.5million viewers for her Jones Interview show, while Jones got approximately 22 million for the parallel transmission while the NBC show was running and corollary videos.

On another aside, whatever happened to the National Review? Excuse the digression…

Which brings me to the final point, and an answer to the question posed by the Call Me Jorge Blog, namely:

What was Francis reaction when he read this letter?

Here is my guess…

Advertisements