Comments on: Interrogating the Emergent Church: II http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/17/interrogating-the-emergent-church-ii/ Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:39:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: The Postmodern Mind · Notes From Off-Center http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/17/interrogating-the-emergent-church-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-3329 The Postmodern Mind · Notes From Off-Center Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:09:46 +0000 http://www.tatuskofam.com/off-center/?p=160#comment-3329 [...] There are two passages to which I want to call your attention for my comments here, but the post is worth reading in full if that is your cup of tea or if you have no clue what the hell postmodernism is anyway (and I think this also applies to many of the Emergent persuasion as well since the term is often overused in my judgment; an argument you can find here and here). [...] [...] There are two passages to which I want to call your attention for my comments here, but the post is worth reading in full if that is your cup of tea or if you have no clue what the hell postmodernism is anyway (and I think this also applies to many of the Emergent persuasion as well since the term is often overused in my judgment; an argument you can find here and here). [...]

]]> By: Drew http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/17/interrogating-the-emergent-church-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-576 Drew Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:21:15 +0000 http://www.tatuskofam.com/off-center/?p=160#comment-576 I think you are on track. The result for Lyotard is paralogy which is essentially a way of reasoning that goes against the norms of a legitimated form of knowledge. But it is hard to discern exactly what this looks like other than incommensurability of competing rationalities. If it is not exactly dysfunctional, it seems counter productive. I think you are on track. The result for Lyotard is paralogy which is essentially a way of reasoning that goes against the norms of a legitimated form of knowledge. But it is hard to discern exactly what this looks like other than incommensurability of competing rationalities. If it is not exactly dysfunctional, it seems counter productive.

]]> By: dtatusko http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/17/interrogating-the-emergent-church-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2236 dtatusko Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:21:15 +0000 http://www.tatuskofam.com/off-center/?p=160#comment-2236 I think you are on track. The result for Lyotard is paralogy which is essentially a way of reasoning that goes against the norms of a legitimated form of knowledge. But it is hard to discern exactly what this looks like other than incommensurability of competing rationalities. If it is not exactly dysfunctional, it seems counter productive. I think you are on track. The result for Lyotard is paralogy which is essentially a way of reasoning that goes against the norms of a legitimated form of knowledge. But it is hard to discern exactly what this looks like other than incommensurability of competing rationalities. If it is not exactly dysfunctional, it seems counter productive.

]]> By: Looney http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/17/interrogating-the-emergent-church-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-570 Looney Mon, 18 Feb 2008 05:03:58 +0000 http://www.tatuskofam.com/off-center/?p=160#comment-570 It looks like I would need to do a lot of reading just to be partially conversant with you on this topic. The item that jumps out at me is the generalized criticism of meta-narratives. My understanding is that meta-narratives are the product of inductive reasoning, although they can be received from others, including God via revelation. Inductive reasoning is, however, the foundation of human intelligence. Certainly a particular meta-narrative can be problematic or applied beyond a reasonable scope, but a generalized dissing of meta-narratives because they are meta-narratives can only lead to intellectual dysfunction. It looks like I would need to do a lot of reading just to be partially conversant with you on this topic.

The item that jumps out at me is the generalized criticism of meta-narratives. My understanding is that meta-narratives are the product of inductive reasoning, although they can be received from others, including God via revelation. Inductive reasoning is, however, the foundation of human intelligence. Certainly a particular meta-narrative can be problematic or applied beyond a reasonable scope, but a generalized dissing of meta-narratives because they are meta-narratives can only lead to intellectual dysfunction.

]]> By: Looney http://notes-from-offcenter.com/2008/02/17/interrogating-the-emergent-church-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2237 Looney Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:03:58 +0000 http://www.tatuskofam.com/off-center/?p=160#comment-2237 It looks like I would need to do a lot of reading just to be partially conversant with you on this topic.<br><br>The item that jumps out at me is the generalized criticism of meta-narratives. My understanding is that meta-narratives are the product of inductive reasoning, although they can be received from others, including God via revelation. Inductive reasoning is, however, the foundation of human intelligence. Certainly a particular meta-narrative can be problematic or applied beyond a reasonable scope, but a generalized dissing of meta-narratives because they are meta-narratives can only lead to intellectual dysfunction. It looks like I would need to do a lot of reading just to be partially conversant with you on this topic.

The item that jumps out at me is the generalized criticism of meta-narratives. My understanding is that meta-narratives are the product of inductive reasoning, although they can be received from others, including God via revelation. Inductive reasoning is, however, the foundation of human intelligence. Certainly a particular meta-narrative can be problematic or applied beyond a reasonable scope, but a generalized dissing of meta-narratives because they are meta-narratives can only lead to intellectual dysfunction.

]]>