i welcome the eviscertaing post-modern critique of Modernity. in many ways, in fact, PoMo is the logical conclusion of Modernity and shows its poverty. but PoMo spins off into complete subjectivity, which is not only practically useless, but false.

we need a practical and rational balance of the objective and the subjective (i like to throw around 95/5, but that's just arbitrary). further, we need to find fresh ways of addressing the necessary place of authority, metaphysically and in human institutions. subjectivity, especially, becomes much more important in radical micro (eg quantum) and macro (eg relativity) situations.

/rambling

Perhaps my understanding of these terms is a bit too prejudiced by francophilic [1] and francophonic [2] intellectuals. Still, I think the important takeaway is that language and those things that come with it are not as valuable as we thought.

Federalism is often vilified because it makes geography matter. “How does it make sense that whether you can marry, how you may work, or how long you live depend on where you live?” Indeed, under federalism the Union as a whole has no coherent social policy. While some other country may have a reasonable, well thought out left-of-center social policy, and yet another may have a reasonable, well thought out right-of-center social policy, we are left with fifty policies that all contradict each other.

I would rather have our internal competition than their easily explainable laws.

Perhaps then I am not so much arguing against reason per se, as against reason as a measure of things. In that case “federalism,” “limited government,” etc are reasonable, even if they lead to unreasonable things, because by preventing us from acting reasonably & coherently it prevents us from doing great harm.

(It's interesting how reason leads us to limit the power of reason, and science leads us to limit the scope of scientific endeavour…)

Ah, the joys of trying to backtrack from some fun, but overbroad, rhetoric…

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/02/09/questioning-moshman-on-moral-and-advanced-psychological-deve.html
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/02/12/review-of-an-questions-for-in-the-name-of-identity-by-amin-m.html

we c i2i on federalism

it's simply 'reason from what standpoint?' 'to what end?'. too smart is dumb.

eg, imnsho, Calvinism is a Modernist theology that, sure takes certain premises (eg, the sovereignty of God) to their logical conclusions (eg, double presdestination). but those conclusions end up clashing with the source code itself (ie, the Bible). sometimes tension and paradox (though not contradiction) capture reality better than reason infinitely prosecuted.

one of the greatest things about the Constitution is it achieves balances through the use of tension. in a way, you could say it pits the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches against each other; the States and the Federal government. or it balances them against one another. big problems and weaknesses, but it beats every other system.

reason is not a world unto itself. it has to match up with the external data. external data is one of the reasonable limits (checks/balances) on reason.

why do i hang online with so many guys who engage in exaggerative rhetoric?

My favorite linguistic attack on linguistic knowledge comes from C.S. Lewis's “That Hideous Strength” The protagonist, Mark Studdock, is a sociologist. I forget the exact passage, but there is a section that compares the sociological knowledge of workers with workers' knowledge of their own lives, the sociological knowledge of shop-owners with shop-owners' knowledge of their own lives. Lewis' point was not just that science is limited, but that verbal-linguistic description can never capture the true essence of anything. But that other ways can.

Your comment about Calvinism reminds me of the Pope's recent speech. Whether or not Christ as Logos implies that all of logic should be included into Christianity is an interesting question. Of course, the speech has been notable for enitrely different reasons…

I like your discussion of the beautiful “tension” in the Constitution. I also like the idea of contradictions that are not meant to be synthesized. I wonder how a Hegelian [2] would respond to that?….

“why do i hang online with so many guys who engage in exaggerative rhetoric? ”

Because the alternative is superstition, fear and ignorance: the destruction of the civilization itself and inevitable dawn of a new dark age?

heh

[1] http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474
[2] http://amendmentnine.blogspot.com/