Saturday, October 20, 2001

hey this is dave
so i am supposed to be interested in things such as postmodernism and humanistic relativism as it relates to the Gospel of jesus Christ. however, it seems to me the polite rejection of anything resembling truth, with the definate article, "the" by those elightened members of the intellectual majorty in most universities, is a bunch of bunk. the put your head in the sand approach to learning about the world as applied to the truth is not only amazingly presumptuous, but unrealistic. no person in my estimation can live a life devoid of some authoritative adherence to some truth. or at least to some governimg principles that are outside the self. that is, if one is to try to understand anything, they must adhere to a "the truth"-like understanding of the world. nothing understood is inherently false by proof of its knowing and irreducible impression on the mind. nothing "false" is known by definition because nothing "false" exists. everything, including the ideas of the mind, exist, if they did not they would not be ideas in the mind. even those who try with all their might to dissolve the truth by simply overlooking the underlying truth to everything around them are paying dearly for thier self imposed rebellin against the faculties of their own existance. some things are true! in fact everything has in it truth. what is true is known, what is false, even falsity is known because we talk about it and it has purchase in our minds.
overall the idea that there is simply no "the truth" is the intellectual equivelent of two children on the playground arguing over whos dad can beat up whoms. there is simply no fruit from the war of words, the point is to put the two guys in the ring and see who kicks whoms butt! let not the simple rejection of the topic of discussion be ample reason to deny the topic exists.

Tuesday, October 16, 2001

thoughts on foucault. his impression of knowledge, or what constitutes knowledge is based on what he terms the discursive formation. a compilation of the rules of the society that govern language, topics, who speaks and what is appropriate for discrourse. these rules are the basis for formulation all knowledge and truth. clearly arbitrary and without much sense of unity, each era or formation of episteme is complete unto itself and is not continuious with any previous episteme nor carries on the foundational elements of the past or future episteme into new formations. this idea of knowledge or maintaing what is true interesting because it does not regulate truth by any standard but itself. truth, according to what is acceptable, regulates itelf and internally mandates the discourse and those involved according to the rules of the regime in command and any time. this idea he states is why certain things are acceptable at one time and not another. or why one culter deems something off limits while another condones it. why certain people are against homosexuality and others are not. uh, ran out of time, more later.