Postmodernism and Unitarianism and/or Universalism
WDwwebb
UU pagans. However, postmodernism seems to have made few inroads in UUism or to
have had much of an influence on UU thought, which in many ways does not seem
to have progressed past the 19th century. Perhaps this is due to
postmodernism's aesthetic emphasis, whereas UU's favor a prosaic rationalism.
Or it could be due to certain disturbing elements in postmodernism, such as the
idea that language in its beginnings was arbitrary. This idea problematizes
humanism or any other metalanguage in the same way that many UUs problematize
Christianity. If you are sympathetic to PM, I would very much like to hear
from you. Maybe would could form our own group.
Dennis Webb
Member, First Jefferson UU Church in Fort Worth, TX.
--
soc.religion.unitarian-univ is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
u...@iecc.com, and see http://sruu.iecc.com for the FAQ and posting policy.
Dirk Coburn
wdw...@aol.com (WDwwebb) wrote:
> There are UU humanists (the largest group percentage wise), UU
Christians, even
> UU pagans. However, postmodernism seems to have made few inroads in
UUism or to
> have had much of an influence on UU thought, which in many ways does
not seem
> to have progressed past the 19th century. Perhaps this is due to
> postmodernism's aesthetic emphasis, whereas UU's favor a prosaic
rationalism.
> Or it could be due to certain disturbing elements in postmodernism,
such as the
> idea that language in its beginnings was arbitrary. This idea
problematizes
> humanism or any other metalanguage in the same way that many UUs
problematize
> Christianity. If you are sympathetic to PM, I would very much like to
hear
> from you. Maybe would could form our own group.
Dennis-
You may be putting the cart before the horse for others like me. For
those of us to whom postmodernism currently means only an expressive
(perhaps chiefly architectural) movement with a certain depth of
aesthetic philosophy behind it, not unlike impressionism, abstract
expressionism, constructivism, or minimalism, it would help if you could
give a concise set of principles that describe the implications and
values of postmodernism as a foundation for religious community and
social morality.
--Dirk Coburn
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
There are two kinds of people in the world.
One goes around saying things like"there
are two kinds of people in the world."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael James Tino
> There are UU humanists (the largest group percentage wise), UU Christians,
even
> UU pagans. However, postmodernism seems to have made few inroads in UUism
or to
> have had much of an influence on UU thought, which in many ways does not
seem
> to have progressed past the 19th century. Perhaps this is due to
> postmodernism's aesthetic emphasis, whereas UU's favor a prosaic
rationalism.
> Or it could be due to certain disturbing elements in postmodernism, such
as the
> idea that language in its beginnings was arbitrary. This idea
problematizes
> humanism or any other metalanguage in the same way that many UUs
problematize
> Christianity. If you are sympathetic to PM, I would very much like to
hear
> from you. Maybe would could form our own group.
Dennis
I don't mean any personal affront here, but maybe it's at least partially
because postmodernists tend to use jargon terminology ("problematizes"
"metalanguage") and overly complicated sentence structure to a point that
they exclude almost everyone from being able to understand their arguments.
I think that the many ways in which UU thought HAS progressed past the 19th
century are both accessible and honest. Postmodernism as it has been
presented to me (over and over and over again) is certainly not either. I
knew I was in trouble when I correctly used "performative" in conversation
several years ago.
in peace,
Michael
Dirk Coburn
"Michael James Tino" <shar...@eruuf.org> wrote:
>
> I don't mean any personal affront here, but maybe it's at least
partially
> because postmodernists tend to use jargon terminology ("problematizes"
> "metalanguage") and overly complicated sentence structure to a point
that
> they exclude almost everyone from being able to understand their
arguments.
Not an issue unique to postmodernism. But your point is well taken that
broad religious affinities (including not only scholarly clergy but
also self-identified lay members) do not often coalesce around thoughts
that require a large body of foreknowledge phrased in arcane or erudite
polysyllabia. :-) Hence my interest in a concise statement. I would
bet that of the three affinities mentioned at the start of the thread:
most self-identified humanists are not familiar with more than about a
handful of bulleted thoughts from the Humanist Manifesto;
there is no consensus text or treatise to which self-identified pagans
look by consensus; and
only christians are familiar with a large set of texts in common, and
those are not expository but rather narrative and/or poetic and have the
benefit of thousands of years of soaking into the culture.
> I think that the many ways in which UU thought HAS progressed past the
19th
> century are both accessible and honest.
Not that there haven't been little self-deceptions along the way, but
this is not a grossly unfair generality IMO.
Postmodernism as it has been
> presented to me (over and over and over again) is certainly not
either. I
> knew I was in trouble when I correctly used "performative" in
conversation
> several years ago.
The trouble with basing one's religion on such a system is the
behavioral corollary to the Uncertainty Principle. That which is
observed... Religion needs to be not only about reflection and
evaluation but also about authentic experience, for example of
celebration and solace. IMO of course.
--Dirk
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
There are two kinds of people in the world.
One goes around saying things like"there
are two kinds of people in the world."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
bev porter
postmodern challenge. Humanism, from the Renaissance, through the Enlightenment
became the intellectual foundation of the modern world. The postmodern assessment
is that this promise of modernism has failed. Witness the wars, genocides,
ecological poisonings, etc. The postmodern attack on the Enlightenment has been
directed, as well, at humanism Patricia Waugh in "Practising postmodernism,
reading modernism" Reason is behind the impulse to control and subjugate and leads
to capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism, etc She offers a version of new
humanism an"existential aesthetics" that literature, rather that philosophy, can be
the model for social knowledge ...and create a "poeticised culture" To be fully
human is to imagine the situation of others, ..empathy will shape a more humane
world, etc.
WDwwebb wrote:
> There are UU humanists (the largest group percentage wise), UU Christians, even
> UU pagans. However, postmodernism seems to have made few inroads in UUism or to
> have had much of an influence on UU thought, which in many ways does not seem
> to have progressed past the 19th century. Perhaps this is due to
> postmodernism's aesthetic emphasis, whereas UU's favor a prosaic rationalism.
> Or it could be due to certain disturbing elements in postmodernism, such as the
> idea that language in its beginnings was arbitrary. This idea problematizes
> humanism or any other metalanguage in the same way that many UUs problematize
> Christianity. If you are sympathetic to PM, I would very much like to hear
> from you. Maybe would could form our own group.
>
> Dennis Webb
> Member, First Jefferson UU Church in Fort Worth, TX.
Dirk Coburn
bev porter <bev...@king.igs.net> wrote:
> At GA in Salt Lake Rev. Peter Weller gave a paper titled Humanism and
the
> postmodern challenge. Humanism, from the Renaissance, through the
Enlightenment
> became the intellectual foundation of the modern world. The
postmodern assessment
> is that this promise of modernism has failed. Witness the wars,
genocides,
> ecological poisonings, etc. The postmodern attack on the Enlightenment
has been
> directed, as well, at humanism Patricia Waugh in "Practising
postmodernism,
> reading modernism" Reason is behind the impulse to control and
subjugate and leads
> to capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism, etc She offers a version
of new
> humanism an"existential aesthetics" that literature, rather that
philosophy, can be
> the model for social knowledge ...and create a "poeticised culture" To
be fully
> human is to imagine the situation of others, ..empathy will shape a
more humane
> world, etc.
>
Thanks, Bev. This offers a nice foyer into the thought of postmodernism
as a religious implication. Could it be that this indicates a return to
any of various pre-modern traditions with an updated maturity on how to
handle them?
Hmm. Narrative, poetry, love and empathy. Where have I seen those
themes and devices? :-)
--Dirk
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
There are two kinds of people in the world.
One goes around saying things like"there
are two kinds of people in the world."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dirk Coburn
Dennis Webb, wdw...@aol.com (WDwwebb) wrote:
> There are UU humanists (the largest group percentage wise), UU
Christians, even
> UU pagans. However, postmodernism seems to have made few inroads in
UUism or to
> have had much of an influence on UU thought, which in many ways does
not seem
> to have progressed past the 19th century. Perhaps this is due to
> postmodernism's aesthetic emphasis, whereas UU's favor a prosaic
rationalism.
> Or it could be due to certain disturbing elements in postmodernism,
such as the
> idea that language in its beginnings was arbitrary. This idea
problematizes
> humanism or any other metalanguage in the same way that many UUs
problematize
> Christianity. If you are sympathetic to PM, I would very much like to
hear
> from you. Maybe would could form our own group.
>
Before this thread disappears into the archives, does anyone care to
contribute? I was hoping that someone knowledgable would give a concise
framework for the application of postmodernism (which I know as an
aesthetic and chiefly architectural movement) as a foundation for
religious community and moral guidance. Anyone?
Knute Rife
>> UU pagans. However, postmodernism seems to have made few inroads in
>UUism or to
>> have had much of an influence on UU thought, which in many ways does
>not seem
>> to have progressed past the 19th century. Perhaps this is due to
least its humanist majority, is still firmly shackled to the axioms of the
Enlightenment, in spite of nearly two centuries of criticism and dismantling.
UU has not meaningfully addressed Romanticism in spite of the Concord Circle.
If it had, we would not now be in at least the fifth decade of the current
war over the place of mysticism in the denomination. As for Modernism,
fuggedaboudit.
Post-modernism, though, I do not miss. It does have an actual
existence in architecture, where it is a backlash against the stultifying
effect of Bauwauhaus. A good idea in itself, but so far it has tended to
lead to things like the Experience Music Project here in Seattle, which looks
like someone blew chunks after a lobster feed. As for philosophy, it
addresses nothing not previously addressed, better, by various Modernist
schools. The only reason Post-modernism has a new label is that a new
generation requires one, even if it is every bit as derivitive of Modernism
as is the substance of its thought. My studied view of Post-modernism is
that there is no there there.
Back to the original point, UU is philosophically arch-conservative,
finding itself unable to move past the Enlightenment, a system now
wholly discredited and long since co-opted by the powerful and oppressive.
It should come as no surprise that UU has made no theological contributions
in this century, and the marginalization will continue unless we grow up,
and fast.
Dirk Coburn
Knute Rife <ri...@delphi.com> wrote:
> Dirk Coburn <dirkc...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >> UU pagans. However, postmodernism seems to have made few inroads in
> >UUism or to
> >> have had much of an influence on UU thought, which in many ways
does
> >not seem
> >> to have progressed past the 19th century. Perhaps this is due to
>
> Actually, UU has not progressed past the 18th century.
Interesting perspective. IMO one could do worse than study, aply, and
improve some landmark aspects of 18th-century thought. But I would say
that UU has in some regards become stuck there (taking you point) yet
also in some regards retreated from same. Even the Transcendentalists
who did respond to Romanticism did so in a manner that retreated from
the underlying assumptions of community that existed firmly and largely
unexamined as the Enlightenment developed. Another difference we have
from the 18th century is that we no longer have a central focus, as
illustrated by our chosen metaphor, the "web of existence." The center
of a web is a void. The chalice tends to indicate the possibility of if
not a replacement focus then at least an update. The light of the
flame. It speaks to energy, warmth, meekness, passion, love. But the
roundness and omnidirectional glow of that symbolic flame is not very
well reflected in our practice. Then again, should it be? At least for
any given church?
If post-modernism has an interesting implication for me, it is that
improvement may not always relate to "moving beyond" the "imperfect"
past. This thought is not antiprogressive necessarily, as so many have
alleged in dismissing certain famous examples of post-modern
architecture. The promise of post-modernism IMO is to examine the
possibility that when "we tried it before and we didn't like it" we then
threw out both baby and bathwater. I am still not sure just how
conservative it is to continue to affirm the intellectual tools that
gave rise to liberalism. Surely liberalism continues to have important
implications even as we move and seek to move to global integration and
global history.
It seems to me that we UUs indeed have one small group (the
"traditionalists") working hard to keep the camel's nose of change from
overturning their tents and a much larger group (the "progressives")
outside the tents wondering why all these tents are pitched where their
camels want to go (driven, as I think you suggest, by an "evolved"
18th-century notion of liberty and rights which is in a strange way a
connection between the two groups). Perhaps that hidden connection is
why the two groups remain together. Ultimately I think the
traditionalists among us admire the commitment of the progressives to
liberalism and the progressives respect the deeply considered principles
of the traditionalists. Our traditionalists are not conventional and
our progressives are not nihilist (there are undoubtedly extreme
examples to these statements on both ends). Perhaps then we presage the
dialectic fusion of modernism and post-modernism. Egad!
UU, or
at
> least its humanist majority, is still firmly shackled to the axioms of
the
> Enlightenment, in spite of nearly two centuries of criticism and
dismantling.
> UU has not meaningfully addressed Romanticism in spite of the Concord
Circle.
> If it had, we would not now be in at least the fifth decade of the
current
> war over the place of mysticism in the denomination.
Of course we would. We would still be sitting at the crosscurrents of
multiculturalism and creedlessness which creates rogue waves in the
debate over mysticism, and in other debates as well.
As for
Modernism,
> fuggedaboudit.
I am not sure that Modernism, in its implications for UU, was not all
bathwater. Certainly the modernist contributions to the worst of the
20th century tell a lot of us "don't go there!" On the other hand, UU
humanism in its flourish is decidedly 20th-century int its timing. And
I am not sure that a most of our humanists did not consider it
quintessentially modernist to raze the church spire and weld a flat
story of individual rights onto the top, perhaps in their view
completing the work of the Enlightenment.
Not co-opted. Founded. The second U has a better claim to ever
belonging to other than the elite. But even still, they were the
avant-garde of rural America in the early 19th century. The ones with
initiative. The innovators who quickly join the elite because they have
initiative, they use it, and so they gain power and authority.
I don't think growing up is the issue. Reseeding perhaps. Our
theological barrenness is a function of the perfect ripening of our
creedlessness into the headlong embrace of everything.
--Dirk
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
There are two kinds of people in the world.
One goes around saying things like"there
are two kinds of people in the world."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dave64052
> Back to the original point, UU is philosophically arch-conservative,
>finding itself unable to move past the Enlightenment, a system now
>wholly discredited and long since co-opted by the powerful and oppressive.
>It should come as no surprise that UU has made no theological contributions
>in this century, and the marginalization will continue unless we grow up,
>and fast.
>--
EXCELLENT! Well said, like a Viking attack, it you know what I mean. <grin>
Glad to get the European perspective, even if it is much like my own. I've
always wondered why UU's are stuck into "social movement" activism, while
neglecting mental changes that could liberate ourselves. (in a religious
sense). My guess, is that many UU's are more political, than religious. I
like them both, but when at "church" I think spiritualism should rank first.
If I understood you correctly, it is that the rational, machine oriented
universe of the Enlightenment has been replaced (in more knowing scientific
circles) by a model of irrational, chaotic, randomness at the molecular level,
anyway. And as we discover the DNA genetic codes, we may indeed find out that
they are more influence by irrational behavior (randomness) than by any
"intelligent" maker.
This means, of course, that God cannot be an omnipotent Intelligent Being, if
he wants to play with the "dice" as Einstein once suggested. Einstein himself
may have been stuck in the Enlightenment mindset, as he said he could not
worship any God that did gamble. Oh well..... Does love it, or leave it apply
here? LOL.
Regards,
Dave
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Life is either
a daring adventure or nothing at all... Helen Keller"