IDK. It seems to me religious beliefs are simply a type of essentialism or maybe idealism. It's not that deconstruction (or intensive reduction) is no longer welcome, but that its further application produces nothing/tautology. The remaining pieces are atomic, reduction stops working.
In this way, Nick is just as religious as someone like Kierkegaard. I think the only thing that makes me non-religious is that I have no idea what I'm doing, where I'm going, or why I might go one way or the other. Anyone who claims to know what they're doing feels religious to me, including those why yap on and on about atheism. It's tough, though. When one of my clients starts yapping about "best practices", I always have to back up a bit and warn about inscription error and such. I don't know that I'm doing the right thing. But they don't fire me. So, c'est la vie. On 9/13/21 9:11 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > If one “read through” to a timeless intent, then how is originalism, > original? It implies that deconstruction is unwelcome beyond some point. > That it is essentially a religion. > >> On Sep 13, 2021, at 8:43 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/13/21 8:14 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >>> Being an 'originalist' is the sort of thing that bible school might teach >>> one to do? >> >> I don't think so, at least not in a naive sense. I've never been to Bible >> School. But my Church of Christ friend claims they were taught to "read >> through" the text, like a good modernist. So, they were very tolerant of >> metaphor. The grape juice and crackers were *not* actual blood and flesh. At >> least *some* subset of the protestants aren't batsh¡t. -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
