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

So today your humble blogger will continue a sub-theme that was embedded in yesterday’s post titled The Battle For Western Civilization And The GOOGLAG!

Just to recap yesterday’s post, your humble blogger presented not one, not two, but three independent yet related OCCURRENCES, namely the firing of James Damore by Googlag Google, the suppression of the Diamond and Silk videos by the Google subsidiary YouTube and the banning and removing all content – including the private mailbox of the statistics professor Salil Mehta, an adjunct professor at Columbia and  Georgetown Universities by, you guessed it, Google.

One manner in which the above independent yet related actions of Google can be understood is through our understanding of what is known as the Overton Window. And just to remind you dear readers, the Overton Window is the term assigned to the concept of what constitutes “acceptable speech”. Here is how this term is defined (see here and here):

The Overton Window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept…. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton (1960–2003), a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy….

Devers refines the definition:

The Overton Window is a concept in political sociology referring to the range of acceptable opinions that can be held by respectable people. “Respectable” of course means that the subject can be integrated with polite society. Respectability is a strong precondition on the ability to have open influence in the mainstream.

So today we drill down into our understanding of what constitutes the range of acceptable ideas the public will accept, i.e. the Overton Window. To be more precise, we will look at how an Overton Window is defined.

In the humble opinion of your even more humble blogger, it would appear that there are currently two competing mechanism for establishing an Overton Window, namely:

the classical manner through the use of fact, evidence, logic and reason


the post-modernist manner through the use of narratives.

A great example of just this phenomenon, i.e. the competing mechanisms can be seen in the video that is embedded at the top of this page. In that video, we see Dr. Jordan Peterson reviewing the infamous document written and submitted to his upper management by James Damore, the former Google employee.

On an aside, the document was written on the behest of the Google upper management as part of an exercise to help enhance Google’s internal operations. The problem was that answers that Mr. Damore provided ran afoul of the prevailing post-modernist narrative. But I digress…

In the interview, the following part is relevant for our needs. It starts at the 13:30 minute mark. Here is that bit:

Jordan Peterson: “Well, I suspect… well I’m virtually certain that you have a majority view point. It’s just that the people who hold the alternative perspective, which are the radical social constructionist type, who insist that everything is a consequence of socialization, the’re a little bit more organized politically, but the’re clearly wrong scientifically, they are wrong factually, the’re wrong ethically for that matter, so… so you probably have more support than you think.

And it will be very interesting to see how that turns out.”   

Now speaking of “interesting” situations and turnouts, we venture over to FrancisChurch.

In another independent, yet related OCCURRENCE in a different sub-set of the Visibilium Omnium, et Invisibilium, i.e. the ECCLESIASTICAL in this case, we get news of more problems arising from another one of Francis’ post-modernist social constructions.

Over on two of my favorite Catholic blogs, i.e. Rorate Caeli (see here) and OnePeterFive (see here), posts appeared relating to a recent interview given by our old friend and kissing aficionado Archbishop Victor “Tucho” Fernandez. The subject matter of these posts is his problematic ghostwritten treatise “The Joy of Sex”.

With respect to the Rorate Caeli post, it contains a translation by Andrew Guernsey. The money quote is from the prologue to the translation and reads as follows:

In an article that provides key insights into the mind of Pope Francis, Fernandez compares adultery to self-defense as having “exceptions”. Indeed, Pope Francis has spoken twice of alleged conflicts between the 5th and the 6th Commandments (Ed. note: you can’t make this stuff up!) with respect to justifying the use of condoms. Moreover, Fernandez argues that the magisterial “flip-flops” of the Church at Vatican II on religious freedom and salvation outside the Church set precedent for Pope Francis to contradict his predecessors in Amoris Laetitia.

So hold that thought.

Over on the OnePeterFive blog, we get an in-depth analysis by Steve Skojec of the interview and a dangling question as to why it reads as it reads. Here is the pertinent part:

Is it just me? Or is Fernández carefully stepping away from the danger zone on Francis’ behalf? His interpretations here are full of casuistry and would hardly be considered orthodox, but they appear to me to be moving away from the current position and in the direction of at least appearing to honor the Church’s moral norms. Or perhaps more aptly put, to at least to admit they exist.

I don’t know whether to be encouraged or concerned.

The answer to Mr. Skojec’s question can also most likely be explained by our understanding of the Overton Window and the methods used to establish it’s boundaries.

What appears to be the case is that TeamFrancis, just like the Google upper management, which has been using post-modernist constructionist narratives to define it’s FrancisTheology, just as Google has been using it to set its diversity policy, has run into a problem.

That problem can best be visualized as the post-modernist constructionist Barque of Francis running onto the sandbar of facts, logic and reason, i.e. OBJECTIVE REALITY.

Not to mention Natural Moral Law.

So this humble blogger’s take on the question posed by Mr. Skojec, would be to see the “Tucho” Frenandez interview as an attempt to muddy more the already muddy post-modernist, social constructionist, post Vatican II waters.

The reason behind the need to make the post VII water more muddy is to walk back a proposition that is untenable and falling outside of even the post VII Overton Window.

Specifically, what is most likely the case is that the last remaining vestiges of Catholicism, i.e. the rationalist Scholasticism, among the Catholic bishops has resurfaced to a point where the FrancisReading of “The Joy of Sex” is simply unacceptable.

Even though TeamFrancis is “more organized politically, but the’re clearly wrong scientifically (theologically), they are wrong factually, the’re wrong ethically for that matter, so… so you (dear Catholic) probably have more support (among the Bishops) than you think”.

Therefore, TeamFrancis has decided to double down on the post-VII strategy by trying to “make muddier” the already very muddied VII water to the point where “The Joy of Sex” can become at least tolerated.

And the reason for this above observation can be discerned from the following part of Dr. Peterson’s reply to James Damore (24:45 mark):

Dr. Peterson: You know, the other thing that you might consider is that it’s possible that this thing will turn out extraordinarily positive for you. You know, it’s going to be a rough ride, but to the degree that you are accurate in your observations then… you know, it’s not that easy to… it’s not that easy for the opponents of truth to have a battle with truth. It’s not easy to have a battle with reality. You know, you tend to lose.  

Concluding, the simple answer to why Msgr. Fernandez has come out with this “more muddying” initiative is that TeamFrancis has become cognizant of the fact that it has lost its battle with the Truth.

Or to use another example, “2+2=5” is FALSE ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE and to EVERYONE.

Just like Holy Communion for serial, unrepentant adulterers.