A meta discussion.
Readership: All
Length: 300 words
Reading Time: 2 minutes
Arch Angel brought up the topic of Scientism / Positivism in a mini-series on Modernism.
Since then, I’ve found myself reading more of Bruce Charlton’s work on Positivism and leaving a few comments here and there.
In one comment, I mentioned that Arch Angel has addressed the nature and place of Positivism in a couple recent posts, and I invited Charlton to give us some feedback about this topic.
In his response, Charlton offered his perspective of the Σ Frame blog.
“In passing; the way in which Sigma Frame blog is structured is itself highly positivistic — more so than any other blog I have encountered; and it may be that this innate positivism of form, impairs any deep critical engagement with the metaphysical assumptions of positivism.”
Meanwhile, Derek Ramsey (Ramman3000) observes something quite different.
“This blog is full of people with the gift of prophecy, but what it lacks is teachers who examine the scriptures and verify that what the prophets are saying conforms with scripture. This is what I do here, when I’m allowed to do so.”
These two viewpoints are diametrically opposed, and since I am not in a position to objectively judge my own blog, I thought I’d let readers sort this out. Here are a few questions to get you thinking.
- Is the Σ Frame blog Positivistic, as Charlton says, or is it Prophetic, as Derek says?
- Is the Σ Frame blog too Scientistic to be of value to Christian Faith / Mysticism, or is it merely not Scientific enough for Derek Ramsey?
- Is Charlton simply and politely saying that he doesn’t wish to participate in the discussions at Σ Frame, or is he offering constructive criticism?
- What is your impression of the Σ Frame blog?
Related
- Σ Frame: Testimonials
- Σ Frame: What is Mysticism?
- Σ Frame (Jack): A Mystical Approach to Meta Reality (2021/3/19)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Metaphysical Literacy (2022/9/21)
- Σ Frame (Jack): Meta Cognitions (2023/6/23)
- Σ Frame (Arch Angel): Why are We in this Mess? (2023/11/13)
- Σ Frame (Arch Angel): In Science We Trust (2023/11/27)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
@Jack — Thanks for quoting what I said — although your summary of it is not what I said!
What I said concerned the form of this blog, which is structured like a scientific paper / managerial executive summary — and that Just Is positivistic.
My question was whether this form might make it difficult for he blog genuinely to explore positivism; but I could have added that if the mindset behind the blog was the underlying reason for the blog’s positivistic form — then that would be even more of a problem.
You are correct to guess I don’t wish to participate in discussions here, because I have found that when fundamental (metaphysical) assumptions are not shared, then debate is futile — or more often counter-productive.
Hence I don’t engage seriously with comments on Any blog (not even the Orthosphere, which I co-founded, and where I do leave odd comments for old pals “Bonald”, Kristor and JM Smith) — except for William Wildblood and Francis Berger.
My interest in This group is mainly with Catacomb Resident — where I think the author has proven his sound discernment in terms of rejecting the temptations of the Litmus Tests. But this is a negative kind of agreement, and I have completely different fundamental assumptions than him about what Christianity is and should be.
His Christianity seems not fundamentally different from a pure-monotheism such as Judaism or Islam; and I detect no essential role in his theology for the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ — and no positive reason for Man’s mortal incarnate life. Both of these (i.e. role of Jesus and of mortal life) are core and essential matters for me; as are the problem of evil and the nature of free agency, which I regard as indispensable to Christianity, but which I find are not adequately explained by any historical theology.
As for this group’s focus on women; speaking as an ex evolutionary psychologist / psychiatrist; I have significant disagreements with many of the quasi-biological assumptions about sexes, their differences and roles.
And speaking spiritually, I cannot take seriously any religion that does not have an essential and core place for both sexes — indeed I regard this as going all the way back to the very beginning in the nature of God as a dyad of man and woman (my beliefs are much like the Mormons state in their metaphysical theology; and indeed I have gratefully taken several key elements of my Christianity from Mormonism — although I have never been a church member, nor even visited a Mormon church)…
Saying this I realize places me so far beyond the pale of this blog’s concerns, that you will see why significant engagement would be futile!
I am not interesting in defending my fundamental convictions in the face of those who find them abhorrent and alien. Past experience is that most blog commenters people are incapable of (or unwilling to) have metaphysical discussions, and get mixed up by ‘evidence’ that itself depends on the prior assumptions.
So I judge that there could never be any degree of genuine understanding here. I’d rather just get on with my own stuff, in my own expository (rather than argumentative) way.
But I am pleased to engage — as with Jack’s recent comments — “on my own turf”, at my blog — at least about more superficial matters! My objective being more to explain than to argue; and where I can simply refer to earlier blog posts for clarifications of my fundamental assumptions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You imply that orthodox Christian teaching does not have an “essential and core place” for women. Please clarify.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One thing is for sure: Many people are fighting for the ownership of the term “Christianity”. In the end the victory will go to Africa: Africans are going to define “Christianity” from the 22nd century by their sheer numbers. It will look distinctively different (and more occult) from what Westerners think about the term and Africans won’t care.
The “Join Christianity to save America (‘The West’)” (aka ‘DEUS VULT’) was a meme PsyOp successfully spread by GOP Republicans on social media to support Trump’s campaign. It was successful (in getting the candidate elected), yet it wasn’t true or of lasting effect. (The candidate barely lasted four years in office.) ‘The West’ cannot be saved, it has outlived its ~250 years live span like every civilization before it. As an Englishman you should be well equated with the history of ‘The Empire’, which had a similar lifespan.
Every generation of young men is doomed to make the same mistakes and fall for campaigns. Just like our Western ancestors were eagerly campaigning to go fighting in WW1 so did this generation join (evangelical) churches — at least they weren’t crippled and killed in the process like their great-great-great-grandfathers.
LikeLike
Bruce,
Thank you for clarifying your earlier comment.
By ‘form’, I guess you are referring to the format, and how there are lots of “axioms”, “case studies”, citations, Iinks, references, and Related posts. The reason for this is that, as this blog has matured, it has become increasingly crucial to couch every abstract / generalized statement, case study, and example in terms of the specific context in which it is relevant. Otherwise, readers tend to apply it to whatever context appeals to their imagination or applies to them personally. This tends to make posts longer and more tedious.
I am a professor of engineering, and my writings take after this style of thinking and verbal expression. Besides me, there are 3 lawyers, 1 psychologist, and 1 insurance adjustor on the authors panel, which adds to the philosophical and technical richness of the blog.
Although I am an analytical thinker, I do not consider myself positivistic at all, nor any of the other authors on the panel. I am very much aware of metaphysical realities and I attempt to present these ideas and impressions in terms of Christian faith and how it translates into real life applications. The content of expression arises from the heart, but the neurological process of articulating words is linked to brain function, so I (attempt to) describe these abstractions in a logical way for the sake of communicating them. This is quite difficult to do, and rare — I’ve only met 2 men in my lifetime who had trained their minds to juxtapose faith and science. Unfortunately, many Christians thoroughly reject all things scientific out of hand, thinking it to be incompatible with faith.
I only discovered Christian Mysticism 2-3 years ago (or Romantic Christianity as you prefer to call it), through Ed Hurst at Radix Fidem. It is difficult to accept in the beginning. The mind tends to impose some logical boundaries based on doctrinal learnings and past experiences that make it difficult to apprehend. I may have rejected it based on (commonly misunderstood) theological principles, except that my pastor agreed with Ed, saying in many words that it is the core of Christian faith, and that most Christians, even pastors, do not have the wherewithal to go that far in their faith. Since then, I’ve discovered that you, Francis Berger, and William Wildblood also write from this perspective. I hope that I might contribute to this field of discussion in the future. I believe that just as how the Red Pill was the great metaphysical breakthrough of the past decade, Christian Mysticism will be the next big landslide in conscientiousness.
BTW, I came across “Charlton’s Law” in one of your essays. It expresses an idea that I’ve often described in past writings, so I added it to the list of Σ Frame Axioms.
Σ Frame Axiom 37 (Bruce Charlton), AKA “Charlton’s Law”: Things must always get worse before they can get better; because otherwise they already would be better.
If you do not wish to respond to the questions directed towards you here, then please accept them as indicators of areas that may need to be further explained or explored in your future writings.
LikeLike
As is probably obvious — the above comment attributed to Anonymous 9:06 pm, is by me: Bruce G Charlton.
Apologies. I was not logged in to wordpress (don’t have an account) and I was expecting to be asked my name and e-mail before the comment would be posted — but I wasn’t. I was not even sure that the comment had gone through – since it just disappeared (or, so it seemed — I didn’t see the brief notice); and I sent it a second time, when I realized what was going on.
LikeLike
Bruce,
First time commenters are moderated. I have changed the settings to allow users to add their name and URL. I’ve added your name and website URL to your earlier comments.
LikeLike
Nice to see you here, Mr. Charlton. I’m Catacomb Resident, but Gravatar won’t let me use that nick. We have different assumptions, for sure. I always considered positivism a philosophical orientation that rejects divine revelation in the first place, so I didn’t give it much discussion by that name. Rather, I describe it as the crux of human fallen nature — a preference for what humans can figure out without referring or deferring to God. We agree that defending our convictions and assumptions are pointless, as are most polemics. There’s no harm in comparing notes.
The reason I don’t hammer on the theological issues you mention is that they have been overworked and argued to death. I disparage the majority of the early creeds in favor of a more ancient Hebraic approach. I don’t care much about the ontology, but the responsibilities indicated by affirming that Jesus is the Son of God.
I don’t regard this blog as philosophically positivist, but I agree that it seems structurally so. Carping over classical theological questions would simply bog it down so that nothing practical would come of it.
God bless you, Sir, and everyone else who reads here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you – And I’m sorry to hear about your recent travails at Sbstck (you must be doing something right…). But, anyway, let’s hope the account is restored soon.
LikeLike
Only people can be prophetic, as revelation—whether mystical, rational, etc.—flows through people. It is distinctly personal and spiritual. It is my opinion the kinds of men who are attracted to this blog are naturally oriented towards developing the spiritual gift of the prophecy. To wit:
I do not think the blog is prophetic.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pingback: Talking About Old Women - Derek L. Ramsey
@Jack – Thank you for your very courteous reply to my rather grumpy comment! But I am an irritable so-and-so – and while this trait can be diminished – and I try (sometimes), it is too deeply innate to eradicate.
Anyway, you and the others have persuaded me to chip in here when I see something on the positivism line coming up. Indeed, it is a difficult topic to resist.
[I’m afraid that what follows is longer and less focused than I would have wished, because I kept trying to back-up and explain what I meant…]
One reason is what Barfield called Residual Unresolved Positivism (RUP) – which is that state we share in which we can perceive, in a theoretical way, the wrongness of positivism (scientism, reductionism etc) – yet the habits of thinking and perceiving the world that way (and the fact that the whole world of public discourse is organized that way) are so ingrained that we fall into Positivism over and again – and indeed hardly notice we are doing so.
Much the same applies with Leftism (which is, indeed, not divisible from Positivism – albeit not identical with it) – which is everywhere, in the air we breathe and the life in which we swim. We all have many aspects of Residual Unresolved Leftism.
This RUP is evident in what you call Red Pill thinking. This accepts most of the framework of modernity, but makes a few twists. It is a partial and distorted kind of half-truth – and the problem with this is that people become satisfied with a half-way house that is still a part of The Problem as a whole.
But we cannot live life as a multiplicity of rearguard defenses against Positivism (or Leftism) – indeed we can’t even detect RUP unless we are operating from some positive motivation against which the RUP shows-up.
This is why we need religion, and why that needs to be Christianity, and why that Christianity needs to be genuinely positive – and not merely double-negative. In other words we need to strive for positive goals – and not be satisfied with double-negatives like resisting-temptation, reforming-sin, avoiding-damnation (which are the near-exclusive aims of traditional Christianity).
If this mortal life really was about avoiding stuff, then it would be more rational to avoid life altogether – yet God made us, and this world and life, and brought us together – for some good reason.
So, I think to avoid Positivism we must do more than reject it (double negative) – instead Positivism needs to be replaced (first as an ideal, later in practice – if possible) by a life of what Barfield terms Participation. That is, a life in which we no longer regard ourselves as separated from God, Men, nature etc.
And yet, as Christians, we do not want Oneness – we want a loving relationship with God, not a reabsorption into deity. So our participation is not a loss of the self; but a relationship between our-self and the many other selves/ Beings in our world; and we need to become conscious of these relationships.
And all this, in a world which excludes such a reality, and regards this as insane, dumb or evil! And a world with which we must engage, or else die (because the Positivist System has taken-over the leadership of all major public institutions and systems).
This is where I have found it vital to keep reminding myself that life is about learning, not about seeking perfection (a perfection for which neither we nor the world is designed). And learning is about engaging with life, but then messing up and repenting a lot of it!
So I think we need to strive to replace Positivism, probably with Participation of an exploratory, active and learning kind.
Enough!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Masculinity and the Manosphere: Part 1 - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Summary of the W!tchy War on Masculinity | Σ Frame
Pingback: Video Killed the Blogosphere | Σ Frame