Thursday, June 16, 2005

Random and Unconnected "Reactionary" Thoughts

Being a bit mentally burned out from life-in-general, today's would-be blog feast possibly resembles last weekend's leftovers, or, even worse, a bowl of watery gruel that belongs in a 19th century English orphanage. Or perhaps this entry will resemble the Feast of Feasts --- microwave burritos with grape Gatorade! This thread is written with the secondary intention of giving Diane something amusing to read while at work.

(1) The anti-anti-postmodernists that I've seen have the same pretentious sneering towards the anti-postmodernists that the postmodernists in academia have when they spout their postmodernism [in whatever form it happens to be] to their captive students. It never seems to occur to the anti-anti-postmodernists that those of us who think postmodernism to be silly [at best] have actually read some of the original source material and find it to be a mixture of largely pseudointellectual nonsense and banal trivialities that are already well-known.

(2) Those who advocate some sort of "postmodernist" approach to the study of scripture as well as its dissemination have not, in what I've seen, shown just where the classical approach is deficient. But you wouldn't know that if you thought triumphalism was a valid argument form.

(3) Relative to what I've seen, the postmodernist's and anti-anti-postmodernist's best weapon is the reflexively offered argumentum-by-you-just-don't-understandem. This means that you never consider the fact that [as stated in (1)] some of us have actually read some of the source material of postmodernism, but merely deflect any questions or appeals for evidence by exclaiming YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND POSTMODERNISM until the interlocutor vanishes. Such an argument didn't work on me during my academic days --- why would a group of internet dilettantes think they can merely sneer away our skepticism?

Let's switch gears now:

(4) If I invaded people's blog threads and put up lists of grievances and replayed all of the mean things that meanies have said to me over the years, thereby interrupting the topic at hand, and if my site was littered with self-referential posts complaining or praising what whosits has said about me, often colour-coding the posts and boldfacing every mention of my name, wouldn't that seem like a manifestation of a serial Narcissus complex? And what if I put up a long list of quotes of praises and complaints regarding me, so that the world knew that it was ME being discussed? Wouldn't that seem inordinately narcissistic? This is just a theoretical question, obviously.

(5) Am I the last man in the world who finds tattooes to be eyesores, no matter how impressive the art? I mean, I can appreciate a flaming skull with a bloodthirsty snake crawling through one of the eye sockets like the next guy, but would I want the aforementioned image indelibly sketched on the part of my body that tickles the fancy that day at the tattoo parlor? There's nothing amoral about tattooes, but it is just something I ponder. When I play basketball with under-30 people --- an activity becoming increasingly futile at an exponential rate of augmentation --- I'm the only person [it seems] with a bare body.

(6) Dittos on (5) relative to earrings and piercings.

(6.5) Relative to (5) and (6), are the pierced and tattooed people looking at me and saying something like What a tasteless clod he is! He hasn't decorated his body at all!

(7) It seems as if everytime I see a driver in front do something stupid, careless, or inattentive, their right or left hands appear to be pressing against their ear. Hmmmm....I wonder what that means and if that has any connection....

(8) Time to expose my secret identity: I'm Frank Turk, aka Centuri0n.

(9) Hahahaha, just kidding. I'm really Phillip R. Johnson of Pyromaniac fame.

(10) Hahahaha, fooled you, didn't I? Actually, my legal first name is Peter and my father's last name was Protestant. When the great-grandparents arrived at Ellis Island early last century, they didn't have their paperwork, so the clerk gave them the surname Protestant as a sort of cruel welcome-to-America joke. People can be rather obnoxious at times.

(11) If you believe something as silly as (10), you'd probably take the Jesus Seminar seriously!

(12) News flash: the case for classical Protestantism or for whatever doctrinal position is in question is logically independent of whether Luther, Calvin, or any other "magisterial reformer" is correct on an issue. A solid Protestant --- not one who has invested himself into a cult of personality --- will treat Luther and Calvin the same way as he would any other writer of antiquity: neither with initial disrespect nor initial fawning, but with an eye towards the question of just how faithful to the Biblical texts they are.

(13) If you like Cheap Seats on ESPN Classic, we're on the same page humorwise.

8 Comments:

Blogger centuri0n said...

If you were really Frank Turk, you'd know that the proper name of the anti-anti-pomo fallacy is "argumentum ad non es videns pomo".

(4) violates the vision of being "Pedantic Protestant": The Pedantic Protestant is a nobody relative to the Christian Church. So criticizing Pastor Johnson by forgetting you place in the great chain of being gets you wet-noodled.

(5) (6) and (6.5) prove that you are stalking me. Not because I have Tats or Piercings, but because of comments I've left on some of the more unsavory blogs I visit regularly in order to preach the Gospel that some might be saved.

(7) Proves it in an even more startling way because you have obviously found some of my old (c. 1999) letters to the editor at NYPRess.com.

The rest is crazy talk. However, it did make me laugh.

Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:02:00 AM  
Blogger centuri0n said...

For those of you keeping score at home, "argumentum ad non es videns pomo" is grammatically correct. The word order, may, however, confuse you. The preposition "ad" takes the ablative case, and the noun "pomo" is in the ablative case -- The cases of "pomo" being:

pomo
pomo
pomo
pomo
pomo

It's irregular. So perhaps it would have been better to select the word order "argumentum ad pomo non es videns".

Thank you, Fr. Frankhauser, Dr. Brown, and the evil Dr. White.

Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:08:00 AM  
Blogger steve said...

A great post from the Pedantic Protestant!

Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:28:00 AM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

I don't see how the hypothetical in (4) would apply to Phillip R. Johnson. Seriously, d00d. I'm a Pyronoob, but he seems [so far] like he shares a similar mindset, though conclusions might be different at various places. The Hawaiian shirt thing --- that's still up in the air. For this attempt at a humorous broadside at Pr. Johnson, don't be surprised if you're moved from "Entertaining" to "Irritating," or, even worse, linked next to some Emergent site listed at Pyro.

As for crazy talk, we're still dealing with single-digit readership here, Frank. This blog needs to "go sexy" if we're going to hit the big 2-0 in terms of readership.

Finally, I'm not stalking you. I may go through your trash now and then and follow some five car lengths behind you on the phone; I may be able to fill out a log of what you did yesterday in five-minute blocs, but, no, my good man, I am emphatically not stalking you.

PP

Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:31:00 AM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Actually, Steve, the impetus for the pomo comments (1)-(3) really came from your Triablogue and Pr. Johnson's comments. In retrospect, I'm merely reinventing the wheel and being another [sigh] derivative voice in the chorus. It is rather difficult at times to beat others to the punch.

PP

Thursday, June 16, 2005 8:34:00 AM  
Blogger centuri0n said...

Sheesh. You have the marketing angle all wrong. If you want readers, you have to post commenst on other blogs. Now THAT'S how you get from here to sexy.

A little "Jesus is the answer" at some atheist blog; a little "you have the Gospel wrong" at a Catholic or Mormon blog; a little "you guys and your pomo bermuda shorts" at a faux-ecumenicist blog; a little "bloody heretic!" at an emergent blog. In 3 weeks you'll have more visitors than you want reading your smart remarks.

As for stalking me, I'm going to start eating more beans and greens just to put you off the scent (or to put the scent on you -- whichever you prefer).

Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:26:00 AM  
Blogger steve said...

<< Pedantic Protestant said...



Actually, Steve, the impetus for the pomo comments (1)-(3) really came from your Triablogue and Pr. Johnson's comments. In retrospect, I'm merely reinventing the wheel and being another [sigh] derivative voice in the chorus. It is rather difficult at times to beat others to the punch. >>

Oh, but your mag wheels are so much more stylish than my factory hubs--that makes it all worthwhile. Just make sure you don't park them fancy wheels a-yours in de hood! You might come back to a tireless car!

Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:40:00 AM  
Blogger Pedantic Protestant said...

Even if the wheels are more stylish, your car is much better: my blog is a Pinto when compared with your much classier El Camino.

PP

Friday, June 17, 2005 1:57:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home