Tim Eastman - Untying The Gordian Knot

Untying the Gordian Knot:

Process, Reality, and Context

(Contemporary Whitehead Studies)

by Timothy E. Eastman (Author)

Publication Date: December 10, 2020

Amazon Link

In Untying the Gordian Knot: Process, Reality, and Context, Timothy E. Eastman proposes a new creative synthesis, the Logoi framework—which is radically inclusive and incorporates both actuality and potentiality—to show how the fundamental notions of process, logic, and relations, woven with triads of input-output-context and quantum logical distinctions, can resolve a baker’s dozen of age-old philosophic problems. Further, Eastman leverages a century of advances in quantum physics and the Relational Realism interpretation pioneered by Michael Epperson and Elias Zafiris and augmented by the independent research of Ruth Kastner and Hans Primas to resolve long-standing issues in understanding quantum physics. Adding to this, Eastman makes use of advances in information and complex systems, semiotics, and process philosophy to show how multiple levels of context, combined with relations—including potential relations—both local and local-global, can provide a grounding for causation, emergence, and physical law. Finally, the Logoi framework goes beyond standard ways of knowing—that of context independence (science) and context focus (arts, humanities)—to demonstrate the inevitable role of ultimate context (meaning, spiritual dimension) as part of a transformative ecological vision, which is urgently needed in these times of human and environmental crises. 

Editorial Reviews

"Timothy Eastman, eminent space scientist associated for many years with NASA and an important philosopher of science, has here produced a work of enormous significance. Cutting through a "Gordian Knot" of philosophical and scientific problems ranging widely from the mind-body issue, the nature of consciousness, freedom of the will, and the reality of temporal process, to the nature of quantum theory and the quantum measurement problem (to name a few), Eastman shows how an emphasis on physical context and employment of what he calls the relational logoi framework resolves such problems in a parsimonious and elegant way. The book displays astounding erudition producing a "consilience" of streams of evidence across numerous scientific and philosophical disciplines. Process philosophers and scholars working in the American pragmatist tradition will be especially drawn to this project as it resonates profoundly with central ideas found in Whitehead, Hartshorne, and Peirce."

- George W. Shields, University of Louisville

“We rightly marvel at the achievements yielded by the evolution of physics, from the Aristotelian paradigm to the mechanical paradigm to the field paradigm and finally to our current, stubbornly bipolar paradigm of quantum mechanics and relativity theory—that infamously double-edged instrument by which we define nature’s innermost and outermost extremes via mutually exclusive ontologies. This book charts a novel and compelling path forward toward a coherent relation of these incompatible fundamental theories—a path whereby naïve object-oriented realism is redefined as inherently contextual and relational—a groundbreaking synthesis of the ideas of Peirce, James and Whitehead along with modern physics, complex systems, information theory, semiotics and philosophy.”

- Michael Epperson, California State University Sacramento

"Timothy Eastman's book draws from and draws together many sources, from the humanistic to the scientific, inspired especially by the process philosophy of Whitehead and the semiotic vision of Pierce. Calling on these sources and inspirations, it presents an informed and informative synthesis in an integrative approach. It illuminates its fundamental notions of process, logic, and relations in a wide-ranging exploration; yet it is marked by a spirit which grants our fallibility, even as it proposes an ordered vision of things. It is engaging and illuminating in its impressive range of reference. Here we find a very thoughtful and synthetic voice that speaks in a constructive spirit. It witnesses to a new adventure of ideas, calling on the work of many thinkers who are cooperators in the field of constructive thought. Crossing boundaries between disciplines often kept apart, it is engaging and illuminating in its impressive range of reference."

- William Desmond, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

* * * * * * * * * *

website link

BIOGRAPHICAL DETAILS

Timothy E. Eastman

Sciences and Exploration Directorate - NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Director, Space Physics and Plasma Sciences - Plasmas International

Dr. Timothy E. Eastman is a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a consultant in plasma science. He has more than 40 years of experience in research and consulting in space physics, space science data systems, space weather, plasma applications, public outreach and education, and philosophy of science. This work included serving as a research scientist at Los Alamos National Lab, Branch Chief for the Magnetospheric Physics at NASA Headquarters, senior research scientist and faculty at both the University of Iowa and the University of Maryland, and Program Director for Magnetospheric Physics at the National Science Foundation.

Dr. Eastman discovered the Low-Latitude Boundary Layer (LLBL) of Earth’s magnetosphere (1976), and discovered gyro-phase bunched ions in space plasmas by analyzing energetic ion distribution functions near Earth’s bow shock (1981). The LLBL work, in particular, was further explored by two major multi-spacecraft missions – the Cluster spacecraft mission of the European Space Agency and NASA’s current Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission. He has published over 100 research papers in space physics, philosophy, and related fields.

In addition to an extensive research career, Dr. Eastman provided key leadership of the nation’s research programs in space plasma physics while program manager at NASA Headquarters (1985-1988) and NSF (1991-1994). For such program leadership, he was co-developer of key foundations for major international and interagency projects, including the International Solar Terrestrial Physics program, the Interagency Space Weather Program, and the Basic Plasma Science and Engineering program. He created and maintains major Web sites for plasma science and applications at plasmas.org and plasmas.com, and is lead editor of a book in philosophy of physics entitled Physics and Whitehead, published in 2004 by SUNY Press. Dr. Eastman’s interest in philosophy and philosophy of science extends over three decades with several journal publications in philosophy in addition to the SUNY volume; further, he is on International Advisory Boards for Process Studies and Studia Whiteheadiana (Poland), and is lead editor of a new volume entitled Physics and Speculative Philosophy scheduled for publication in 2015 with DeGruyter Press.

* * * * * * * * * *

Physics and Whitehead: Quantum, Process, and Experience

Leading scholars explore the connections between

quantum physics and process philosophy.

(Suny Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought)

Publication Date: January 8, 2009

Amazon Link

* * * * * * * * * *

Physics and Speculative Philosophy:

Potentiality in Modern Science

(Process Thought Book #27) 

by Timothy E. Eastman  (Editor),

Michael Epperson  (Editor),

David Ray Griffin (Editor)

Publication Date: Feb 22, 2016

Amazon Link

Through both an historical and philosophical analysis of the concept of possibility, we show how including both potentiality and actuality as part of the real is both compatible with experience and contributes to solving key problems of fundamental process and emergence. The book is organized into four main sections that incorporate our routes to potentiality: (1) potentiality in modern science [history and philosophy; quantum physics and complexity]; (2) Relational Realism [ontological interpretation of quantum physics; philosophy and logic]; (3) Process Physics [ontological interpretation of relativity theory; physics and philosophy]; (4) on speculative philosophy and physics [limitations and approximations; process philosophy]. We conclude that certain fundamental problems in modern physics require complementary analyses of certain philosophical and metaphysical issues, and that such scholarship reveals intrinsic features and limits of determinism, potentiality and emergence that enable, among others, important progress on the quantum theory of measurement problem and new understandings of emergence

* * * * * * * * * *

Big Bang: A Critical Analysis

by Hilton Ratcliffe (Author),

Timothy E. Eastman (Author),

Ashwini Kumar Lal (Author),

R. Joseph (Author)

Publication Date: October 26, 2011

 

A Word of Caution: The book, "Big Bang: A Critical Analysis," which I have listed under Tim Eastmen's name asks questions of modern day contemporary science. But rather than painting the study of cosmology as an area of "conspiracy theory" I would much rather approach sundry Cosmological Theories such as "The Big Bang" as one of many theoretical options which science is working through in answering contemporary queries of speculative science. The questions being asked in this book are no different than the ones being asked elsewhere amongst cosmologists, metaphysicians, quantum physicists, astrophysicists, etc. There is no "deep state" holding back information or forcing information into earlier molds of scientific theories. Hence, I personally feel the book's blurb should not be couched in the language of conspiracy but in the language of continual scientific inquiry as new ideas, instrumentations, technologies, and sciences comes out to play with older and newer data sets. Thank you. - Russ Slater

Book Blurb 

The theory that has come to be known as The Big Bang was originally proposed by a Catholic Priest, to make the Bible scientific. Critics have subsequently referred to the Big Bang theory as religion masquerading as science. Nevertheless, the Big Bang model is the generally accepted theory for the origin of universe. Nonetheless, findings in observational astronomy and revelations in the field of fundamental physics question the validity of the 'Big Bang' model, including the organization of galactic superstructures, the Cosmic Microwave Background, distant galaxies, gravitational waves, red shifts, and the age of local galaxies. Admittedly, the Big Bang research program has generated considerable research and there has been some confirmation for many hypotheses. However, outstanding questions remain and substantial alternative cosmology models, which also have been fruitful, remain viable and continue to evolve. Unfortunately, there has been a concerted effort to prevent research into alternate cosmologies. The Big Bang has become a sacred cow; which must not be questioned. One of the greatest challenges facing astrophysics is derivation of remoteness in cosmological objects. At large scales, it is almost entirely dependent upon the Hubble relationship between apparent brightness and spectral redshift for large luminous objects. However, this data has questionable validity. The assumption of scale invariance and universality of the Hubble law allowed the adoption of redshift as a standard calibration of cosmological distance. A major problem is the Big Bang model implies the existence of a creator. Why the Universe should have had a beginning, or why it would have been created, cannot be explained by classical or quantum physics. To support the Big Bang, estimates of the age & size of the cosmos, including claims of an accelerating universe, are based on an Earth-centered universe with the Earth as the measure of all things, exactly as dictated by religious theology. However, distance from Earth is not a measure of the age of far away galaxies. The Big Bang cannot explain why there are galaxies older than the Big Bang, why fully formed galaxies continue to be discovered at distances of over 13 billion light years from Earth, when according to Big Bang theory, no galaxies should exist at these distances. To support the Big Bang, red shifts are purposefully misinterpreted based on Pre-Copernican geo-centrism with Earth serving as ground zero. However, red shifts are variable, effected by numerous factors, and do not provide measures of time, age or distance. Nor can Big Bang theory explain why galaxies collide, why rivers of galaxies flow in the wrong direction, why galaxies clump together creating great walls of galaxies which took from 80 billion to 150 billion years to form. Big Bang theory requires phantom forces, constantly adjusted parameters, and ad hoc theorizing to explain away and to cover up the numerous holes in this theory. Finally, if at first there was a singularity, then the Big Bang was not a beginning, but a continuation.

Table of Contents

1. Big Bang? A Critical Review A. K. Lal, and R. Joseph, 2. Cosmic Agnosticism, Revisited Timothy E. Eastman, 3. Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance Hilton Ratcliffe, 4. Multiverse Scenarios in Cosmology: Classification, Cause, Challenge, Controversy, and Criticism Rüdiger Vaas, 5. An Infinite Fractal Cosmos R. L. Oldershaw, 6. Different Routes to Multiverses and an Infinite Universe. B.G. Sidharth 7. The Origin of the Modern Anthropic Principle, Helge Kragh, 8. Cosmos and Quantum: Frontiers for the Future. Menas Kafatos, 9. Infinite Universe vs the Myth of the Big Bang: Redshifts, Black Holes, Acceleration.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

RELATED READINGS

Amazon Link

The Quantum of Explanation: Whitehead’s Radical Empiricism

(Routledge Studies in American Philosophy) 1st Edition

by Randall E. Auxier (Author)

Publication Date: March 21, 2019

The Quantum of Explanation advances a bold new theory of how explanation ought to be understood in philosophical and cosmological inquiries. Using a complete interpretation of Alfred North Whitehead’s philosophical and mathematical writings and an interpretive structure that is essentially new, Auxier and Herstein argue that Whitehead has never been properly understood, nor has the depth and breadth of his contribution to the human search for knowledge been assimilated by his successors. This important book effectively applies Whitehead’s philosophy to problems in the interpretation of science, empirical knowledge, and nature. It develops a new account of philosophical naturalism that will contribute to the current naturalism debate in both Analytic and Continental philosophy. Auxier and Herstein also draw attention to some of the most important differences between the process theology tradition and Whitehead’s thought, arguing in favor of a Whiteheadian naturalism that is more or less independent of theological concerns. This book offers a clear and comprehensive introduction to Whitehead’s philosophy and is an essential resource for students and scholars interested in American philosophy, the philosophy of mathematics and physics, and issues associated with naturalism, explanation and radical empiricism.

Amazon Link

The Philosophy of Hilary Putnam

(Library of Living Philosophers #34)

by Randall E. Auxier (Editor)

Douglas R. Anderson (Editor)

Lewis Edwin Hahn (Editor)

Publication Date: June 30, 2015

Hilary Putnam, who turned 88 in 2014, is one of the world’s greatest living philosophers. He currently holds the position of Cogan University Professor Emeritus of Harvard. He has been called “one of the 20th century’s true philosophic giants” (by Malcolm Thorndike Nicholson in Prospect magazine). He has been very influential in several different areas of philosophy: philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of science. This volume in the prestigious Library of Living Philosophers series contains 26 chapters original to this work, each written by a well-known philosopher, including the late Richard Rorty and the late Michael Dummett. The volume also includes Putnam’s reply to each of the 26 critical and descriptive essays, which cover the broad range of Putnam’s thought. They are organized thematically into the following parts: Philosophy and Mathematics, Logic and Language, Knowing and Being, Philosophy of Practice, and Elements of Pragmatism. Readers also appreciate the extensive intellectual autobiography.

Amazon Link

Quantum Mechanics: And the Philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead

by Michael Epperson  (Author)

Publication Date: September 18, 2018

Amazon Link

Physics of the World-Soul: Whitehead's Adventure in Cosmology

 by Matthew T. Segall (Author)

Publication Date: April 29, 2019

Whitehead was among the first initiates into the 20th century's new cosmological story. This book bring's Whitehead's philosophy of organism into conversation with several components of contemporary scientific cosmology-including relativistic, quantum, evolutionary, and complexity theories-in order to both exemplify the inadequacy of the traditional materialistic-mechanistic metaphysical interpretation of them, and to display the relevance of Whitehead's cosmological scheme to the transdisciplinary project of integrating these theories and their data with the presuppositions of human civilization. This data is nearly crying aloud for a cosmologically ensouled interpretation, one in which, for example, physics and chemistry are no longer considered to be descriptions of the meaningless motion of molecules to which biology is ultimately reducible, but rather themselves become studies of living organization at ecological scales other than the biological.

Linus Learning Link

"Hi Russ. I just finished a logic book of the sort you describe, although it does incorporate the Boolean —but remember Whitehead gave Boole an algebraic interpretation in 1898, and Langer expressed Whitehead’s theory of extensive connection as an algebra that melded with his interpretation of Boole in 1937. I have operationalized that system adding set-theoretical functions and bringing it into a regimentation process of natural language that Langer and Whitehead do not have." - Randall Auxier

* * * * * * * * * *

Tim Eastman - Untying The Gordian Knot

Process, Reality and Context of the Quantum Theoretical Process

ZoomCast held on April 13, 2021

Introduction by Russ Slater

Today's zoom cast went well as I sat in and listened. I didn't expect to be introduced to 65+ scholars from all kinds of process fields. Nor be asked several times to contribute some of my thoughts I had typed on the chat bar to Tim Eastman and the group (many thanks to Randall Auxier for his helpful insights.) In my group introduction I spoke out what I hoped I would find in today's meeting held by John Cobb and the Cobb Institute. I discovered that relational process logic was actually being applied into quantum computing logic which, of course, will have a lot of import for greentech ecological societies. Especially as contra the reductionistic, Boolean science effort taking place appling silicon logic into quantum fields logic.

R.E. Slater

April 13, 2021

For the lecture itself Tim Eastman provided a summary of his discussion which is shown below. My own notes I don't believe would be as helpful as Tim's notes as I am presently learning and self-educating. Overall, my question was how to apply Whitehead's Process Relational Thought into the area of Relational Quantum Computing Logic. Essentially, it is being researched but as the technology medium is in the early stages of application it will be growing into itself over the next 100 years. Hopefully by utilizing all which Process Thought may provide to perceived reality, time studies, possibility and actuality, etc, within the quantum realm of quarks+ and light. - res

Notes - Russ Slater

Tim Eastman's discussion spoke to current studies in the Quantum Theoretic Process as opposed to transactional-based old-order Logic Systems. It is to be remembered that Alfred North Whitehead was first an English Mathematician before becoming a philosophical thinker who developed process philosophy and theology.

In any Semiotic System there will always be the Problem of Perspective: How to apply it to ontology (causation --> emergence) and epistemology (re constraints of knowledge).

SpaceTime - Is it a derivative of relationality? In process thinking it is. Therefore, "Yes".

The problem of Scientism - The postulation that science is complete in itself as a closed-end system; in Whitehead it is not:

Kurt Godel's Incompleteness theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - res

As in Science, so too Life events, Philosophy, Theology, Psychology, and Sociology, etc., are always circumscribed within existential, phenomenological, epistemological, and contextual roots or contexts. Can anything ever be free of context? Frankly, "No." As such, it is important to identify and acknowledge applicable contexts.

Generally, one must always ask the question, what is the context of the area of study:

• Science - claims to be context free but is contextualized by its area of study
• Similarly the Arts and Humanities are contextualized within the Anthropological realm
• Spiritual/Religious contexts will always be found in questions of cosmological metaphysics and ontology

Dyatic (sp?) Logic based in Boolean Logic - forces Quantum spin as either up or down, 1 or 0, yes or no. But a transactional Boolean system is never both. Boolean Logic does not negotiate the "Excluded Middle" nor do "Double Negations". These areas are neglected in it.

Non-Boolean Logic may be known as "Free Logic" (Question: Is this similar to "Fuzzy Logic"?? No. But there are similarities between each including the area of "Free Association") where potential relations correlate with potential outcomes.

As an example, Limited Potential Relations run through Constrained Contexts will have Limited Potential Outcomes.

Basically we are describing Process Logic by: "The Physics of Potentiality or Possibility to that of the Actaul Actuality." This is how Whitehead would describe "The Real". As the Physics of the "Possible-lism".

Question 1. When we quantumize measured or non-measured outcomes do we limit the quantum relational process transaction?? This would be described as a Transactional Process

Question 2. Or do we approach Quantum Logic by not limiting it to the transactional process at all? This would be describes as the Possibilist Process

How is Plasma Physics different from Quantum Physics? The former speaks to the electro-magnetic realm; the latter to the additional quantum realms of matter and force (besides EM there is gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and possibly a fifth quantum force).

Plasma is one of the four fundamental states of matter:

Bottom line George Boole did not include states for potentiality and possibility (in Whiteheadian terms prehension and conscreascence). These give us the theory of potency, involving the ability to measure general actuality or Real Time. All real events have potentiality for possibility.

We might redescribe Real Time as Relational Realism (per my comment to the group - res).

• SpaceTime --> The World is not a collection of things but a collection of events.

• There are three Categories of Events:
• Momentary or Temporal Events,
• Limited Duration Events,
• Persistent Events.

• Real Time is contextualized in the subject matter event in relationship
• to all corresponding previous and contemporaneous events

• Remember to include the panpsychic and panexistential root/context
• with any real process system

• Methodology must not limit ontology

Restated, the possible-actual proceeds the actual-actual. Similar to Stephen Hawking's description of a photon of radiation which travels to its destination before it actually travels to it, then looks back on the path it traversed, to then actually commit from its stage of potentiality to its stage of actuality. This is the weirdness of quantum physics. 

Quantum Stages of Development

• Standard or Fundamental Quantum Physics to  -->
• Anticipatory Quantum Systems to -->
• Model-Dependent Systems.

Summary: Memory-based, anticipatory complex systems --> Interleaved Complext Possibilities

Context? The process-relational perspective

Definitions

Wikipedia - Semiotics (also called semiotic studies) is the study of sign processes (semiosis), which are any activity, conduct, or process that involves signs, where a sign is defined as anything that communicates a meaning that is not the sign itself to the sign's interpreter. The meaning can be intentional such as a word uttered with a specific meaning, or unintentional, such as a symptom being a sign of a particular medical condition. Signs can communicate through any of the senses, visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, or gustatory (sic, feelings].

The semiotic tradition explores the study of signs and symbols as a significant part of communications. Unlike linguistics, semiotics also studies non-linguistic sign systems. Semiotics includes the study of signs and sign processes, indication, designation, likeness, analogy, allegory, metonymy, metaphor, symbolism, signification, and communication.

Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological and sociological dimensions; for example, the Italian semiotician and novelist Umberto Eco proposed that every cultural phenomenon may be studied as communication. Some semioticians focus on the logical dimensions of the science, however. They examine areas belonging also to the life sciences—such as how organisms make predictions about, and adapt to, their semiotic niche in the world (see semiosis). In general, semiotic theories take signs or sign systems as their object of study: the communication of information in living organisms is covered in biosemiotics (including zoosemiotics and phytosemiotics).

Semiotics is not to be confused with the Saussurean tradition called semiology, which is a subset of semiotics.

(1986) Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language - PDF, General Editor, Thomas A. Sebeok, Indiana University Press

Human Machine Symbiotics: On Control and Automation in Human Contexts

Abstract - The human-machine symbiotics, in its wider conception extends beyond the production game. It is about the symbiosis of hand and brain, a productive interplay between the user and the machine, and an interactive interplay between the objective knowledge and the tacit dimension. Central to this conception is the design of 'machines with purpose', an alternative vision to that of the instrumental rationality embedded in the computer. The paper reflects back upon the 1970s conception of symbiotics, exploring its evolution over the last four decades. As we now enter the world of cyber realities and fragmented selves on the one hand, and the world of cultural diversities and pluralities on the other, we ponder on whether neuroscience offers a route to a holistic symbiotics, which is even more relevant to the digitally mediated world we live in.

Contextualization

In computer science, contextualization is the process of identifying the data relevant to an entity (e.g., a person or a city) based on the entity's contextual information.

Definition

Context or contextual information is any information about any entity that can be used to effectively reduce the amount of reasoning required (via filtering, aggregation, and inference) for decision making within the scope of a specific application. Contextualisation is then the process of identifying the data relevant to an entity based on the entity's contextual information. Contextualisation excludes irrelevant data from consideration and has the potential to reduce data from several aspects including volume, velocity, and variety in large-scale data intensive applications (Yavari et al.).

Usage

The main usage of "contextualisation" is in improving the process of data:

Reduce the amount of data: Contextualisation has the potential to reduce the amount of data based on the interests from applications/services/users. Contextualisation can improve the scalability and efficiency of data process, query, delivery by excluding irrelevant data.

As an example, ConTaaS facilitates contextualisation of the data for IoT applications and could improve the processing for large-scale IoT applications from various Big Data aspects including volume, velocity, and variety.

Systems Theory

Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems, which are cohesive groups of interrelated, interdependent parts that can be natural or human-made. Every system is bounded by space and time, influenced by its environment, defined by its structure and purpose, and expressed through its functioning. A system may be more than the sum of its parts if it expresses synergy or emergent behavior.

Changing one part of a system may affect other parts or the whole system. It may be possible to predict these changes in patterns of behavior. For systems that learn and adapt, the growth and the degree of adaptation depend upon how well the system is engaged with its environment. Some systems support other systems, maintaining the other system to prevent failure. The goals of systems theory are to model a system's dynamics, constraints, conditions, and to elucidate principles (such as purpose, measure, methods, tools) that can be discerned and applied to other systems at every level of nesting, and in a wide range of fields for achieving optimized equifinality.

General systems theory is about developing broadly applicable concepts and principles, as opposed to concepts and principles specific to one domain of knowledge. It distinguishes dynamic or active systems from static or passive systems. Active systems are activity structures or components that interact in behaviours and processes. Passive systems are structures and components that are being processed. For example, a program is passive when it is a disc file and active when it runs in memory. The field is related to systems thinking, machine logic, and systems engineering.

Thomas Jay Oord: Postmodernism - What Is It?

An Introduction to Postmodernism

by R.E. Slater

I have submitted an older article on postmodernism by a contemporary theologian I have come to respect and appreciate in order to compare its updated self with which we have been working through within the body of this website since the commencement of Relevancy22. It will be curious to compare how a generation ago postmodernism was looked upon in "fear and wonder" as it was slowly becoming recognized by bible colleges across the nation. Especially in how it would affect Christianity's reading of itself, its traditions, dogmas, doctrines, God, church, bible, and beliefs. Most assuredly, postmodernism was believed to be negative in all its many forms to any-and-all of these undertakings.

So that today, in the summer of 2016, postmodernism has both matured and peaked, and is beginning to wane after a nearly 100 year run since the days of the Great Depression (1929 to the early 1940s) and World War 2 (1938-1945). In its place one might say has come the complete end of modernity in all its forms: from Early Modernity (1500-1600s), to the Age of Enlightenment (1700-1800s), and on into Late Modernity (1900s-mid/late 20th century). So that what is now arising continues to build on the movement of the succeeding (post)modern or (late)modern era towards both personal and social conventions of "participatory global communities seeking authenticity with one another." But rather than calling the beginning of this era a "post-postmodernism" we'll be content to recognize it under another moniker when it arises (examples: Age of Participation, or Age of Authenticity). And so, the hallmarks of late modernity's era (postmodernism) are many but have also been commented on many times throughout this website in correspondence to the church or social tradition being discussed.

Consulting Wikipedia comes the following observations:

USES OF THE TERM

Postmodernity is the state or condition of being postmodern – after or in reaction to that which is modern, as in postmodern art (see postmodernism). Modernity is defined as a period or condition loosely identified with the Progressive Era, the Industrial Revolution, or the Enlightenment. In philosophy and critical theory postmodernity refers to the state or condition of society which is said to exist after modernity, a historical condition that marks the reasons for the end of modernity. This usage is ascribed to the philosophers Jean-François Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard.

One "project" of modernity is said by Habermas to have been the fostering of progress by incorporating principles of rationality and hierarchy into public and artistic life. (See also postindustrial, Information Age.) Lyotard understood modernity as a cultural condition characterized by constant change in the pursuit of progress. Postmodernity then represents the culmination of this process where constant change has become the status quo and the notion of progress obsolete. Following Ludwig Wittgenstein's critique of the possibility of absolute and total knowledge Lyotard further argued that the various metanarratives of progress such as positivist science, Marxism, and structuralism were defunct as methods of achieving progress.

The literary critic Fredric Jameson and the geographer David Harvey have identified postmodernity with "late capitalism" or "flexible accumulation", a stage of capitalism following finance capitalism, characterised by highly mobile labor and capital and what Harvey called "time and space compression". They suggest that this coincides with the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system which, they believe, defined the economic order following the Second World War. (See also consumerism, critical theory.)

Those who generally view modernity as obsolete or an outright failure, a flaw in humanity's evolution leading to disasters like Auschwitz and Hiroshima, see postmodernity as a positive development. Many philosophers, particularly those seeing themselves as within the modern project, use postmodernity to imply the presumed results of holding postmodernist ideas. Most prominently Jürgen Habermas and others contend that postmodernity represents a resurgence of long running counter-enlightenment ideas, that the modern project is not finished and that universality cannot be so lightly dispensed with. Postmodernity, the consequence of holding postmodern ideas, is generally a negative term in this context.

POSTMODERNISMMain article: Postmodernism

Postmodernity is a condition or a state of being associated with changes to institutions and creations (Giddens, 1990) and with social and political results and innovations, globally but especially in the West since the 1950s, whereas postmodernism is an aesthetic, literary, political or social philosophy, the "cultural and intellectual phenomenon", especially since the 1920s' new movements in the arts. Both of these terms are used by philosophers, social scientists and social critics to refer to aspects of contemporary culture, economics and society that are the result of features of late 20th century and early 21st century life, including the fragmentation of authority and thecommoditization of knowledge (see "Modernity").

The relationship between postmodernity and critical theory, sociology and philosophy is fiercely contested. The terms "postmodernity" and "postmodernism" are often hard to distinguish, the former being often the result of the latter. The period has had diverse political ramifications: its "anti-ideological ideas" appear to have been associated with the feminist movement, racial equality movements, gay rights movements, most forms of late 20th centuryanarchism and even the peace movement as well as various hybrids of these in the current anti-globalization movement. Though none of these institutions entirely embraces all aspects of the postmodern movement in its most concentrated definition they all reflect, or borrow from, some of its core ideas.

I would like now to transition to Thomas Jay Oord's article immediately below to complete our review of postmodernism. Thank you for your interest.

R.E. Slater

April 14, 2021

* * * * * * * * *

POSTMODERNISM - WHAT IS IT? [1]

http://whdl.org/sites/default/files/Didache%201-2.pdf

By Thomas Jay Oord, Ph.D.

Eastern Nazarene College

January 2002

“The times they are a-changin’,” Bob Dylan sang in 1964. This message is still appropriate today -- at least Dylan apparently thinks so. He included the song on at least three different albums released in the past decade. The deep-seated intuition that change is in the air -- felt by peoples of diverse visions and convictions -- lies at the heart of the contemporary interest in postmodernism.

One might think that the question in this essay’s title, “Postmodernism – What Is It?” would be easy to answer. After all, an excess of materials has been offered -- both to academics and the general public -- under the label “postmodern.” Actually, however, answering the question, “What is postmodernism?” proves to be difficult. The main reason for this difficulty is that some notions flying under the postmodern flag oppose or contradict other notions under the same banner. When opposite or contradictory ideas get proposed as postmodern, how does one decide which is authentic? What is postmodernism?

Exposing what is not meant by postmodernism may be helpful when trying to define this word. Those who speak of “the postmodern era” do not usually mean a future time beyond what is contemporary or immediate. In other words, “modern” and “now” are not synonymous. Postmodernists are not concerned with transcending the temporal present. Rather, “modernity” refers to various ways of existing, assorted ideas and beliefs, or particular paradigms of thought. And “postmodernity” has something to do with getting beyond these modern ways, ideas, and paradigms.[2]

I define postmodernism, then, as the sentiment that the modern paradigm must be transcended. The times they are a-changin’, and, according to postmodernists, a change from modernity is here. Exactly how one should go beyond the modern and what distinguishes modernity from postmodernity, however, is widely disputed.

Some are surprised to find that a variety of postmodernisms currently vie for ascendancy in contemporary culture and scholarship. Unfortunately, individuals often speak of “the” postmodern way of looking at some issue, when, in fact, an assortment of postmodern agendas exists.

Because of this diversity, I will attempt to outline briefly, in the remainder of this essay, what I consider the dominant postmodern ideologies arising from and influencing philosophy and theology. My methodology for differentiating between dominant postmodernisms is rather simple. I will attempt to answer two questions of each postmodern perspective:

(1) “What ideas or practices does this postmodern tradition believe are modern?” and,

(2) “What ideas or practices does this tradition contend are postmodern and should be embraced when overcoming the perceived shortcomings of modernity?”

The listener should beware that, when tackling such a monstrous project in such a brief essay, I will be forced to make generalizations. I believe that my generalizations are essentially accurate, however, and I hope that specialists will momentarily set aside technical quibbling and acknowledge the general validity of my broad-brush strokes.

I should also note that I will not be addressing one particular strand of postmodernism that might be called “popular culture postmodernism.” This form draws from a variety of experiences, social structures, disciplines, and theories, which results in a kaleidoscope of giberishness and incoherence. Popular culture postmodernism’s one distinguishing characteristic, however, is its underlying attraction to novelty. This postmodernism is fascinated with the current, the latest, and the recent. This tradition is actually not postmodern as I have defined postmodernism above, because it equates postmodernity with mere contemporary innovation or with whatever happens to be in vogue. While this preoccupation with novelty affects philosophy and theology to a degree, its affect is minimal.

Deconstructive Postmodernism

Perhaps the most well-known postmodern tradition is the deconstructionist one. Although a variety of ideas and persons get placed under this umbrella, Jacques Derrida’s ideas provide the pulse for deconstructive postmodernism. In fact, no other philosopher’s ideas are as readily recognized as “postmodern.” Many of Derrida’s notions, however, can be correlated with notions proposed more than a century ago by Friedrich Nietzsche.

Among the ideas that Derrida rejects as modern are what he calls “the metaphysics of presence” and “logocentrism.” By these terms, he refers to the modern project of basing knowledge and language upon a certain center or sure epistemological foundation. Modernists are incorrect in supposing the existence of a transcendent center, argues Derrida, there is no certain foundation of Truth.

A central postmodern category for Derrida, which he uses when talking about the lack of transcendent center, is “differànce.” This word combines two infinitives “to differ” and “to defer.” Derrida contends that words inevitably defer to subversive meanings, because all words possess meanings different from the meanings the author intends. Differànce, which is “the disappearance of any ordinary presence, is at once the condition of possibility and the condition of the impossibility of truth.”[3] Differànce allows one “to think a writing without presence, without absence, without history, without cause, without archia, without telos, a writing that absolutely upsets all dialectics, all theology, all teleology, all ontology.”[4]

Derrida calls the actual practice of deconstructive philosophy “grammatology.” Grammatology is the “vigilant practice of . . . textual division.”[5] In a nutshell, the practice of literary deconstruction involves noting words and phrases in a text that undermine the original author’s intended meaning. As interpretation and reinterpretation occurs, the reader comes to realize that no foundational, final, or fixed interpretation is available. Words refer to other words, those refer to other words, and those refer to still others; the process has no end. Meaning is found in matrices, but these matrices are finally groundless. The practice of grammatology reveals the emptiness of logocentrism by deconstructing all concepts or norms tied to a center.

Deconstructive postmodernism is not interested in replacing an old system with a better one. It is interested in undermining the metaphysical, epistemological, and linguistic centers presupposed by most philosophies. “Deconstruction does not consist in passing from one concept to another,” Derrida says, “but in overturning and displacing a conceptual order, as well as the nonconceptual order with which the conceptual order is articulated.”[6] There is no center for meaning, says Derrida, all is discourse. There is no Truth; instead, a multiplicity of voices ring out.

Proponents of deconstructive postmodernism argue that this contemporary option provides many advantages over modern philosophies. Deconstruction provides the means for affirming radical heterogeneity, as opposed to modernism’s presupposed homogeneity. Deconstructive postmodernism emphasizes plurality; it rejects hierarchical categories. In doing so, this postmodern tradition calls attention to the other; it calls attention to what was previously disregarded because marginal. Deferring to the incomprehensible other provides a methodology that is no methodology.

Deconstructive postmodernism is also radically non- foundationalist, because it avers that knowledge amounts to interpretation and is, therefore, entirely subjective. We have no way of being confident that our language or thought corresponds truly with objects beyond ourselves. One result of this assumption, among others, is that history has no fixed meaning; the past is only what we interpret it to be. When humans realize that systems that subjugate and oppress have been grounded upon that which is itself groundless, they can become free to play in our multifarious world.

Much of what deconstructive postmodernism denies has, in the history of philosophy and theology, been the domain of divinity. While Derrida often implies that God does not exist, it should be noted that he does not finally wish to state this. His assertions are meant to denote the impossibility of speaking of any Absolute. One of Derrida’s foremost interpreters, John D. Caputo, identifies Derrida variously with the prophetic, the apophatic, the messianic, the apocalyptic, negative theology, and atheism.[7] To identify Derrida exclusively with any one of these traditions would miss the mark. But we come closer to grasping what deconstructive theology entails when we consider the traditions typically thought of as contrary to these that Caputo identifies with Derrida. For example, deconstructive theology opts for a negative theology over a positive one, apophatic theology over rational theology, and atheistic theology over traditional theism.

Despite deconstructive postmodernism’s broad appeal, it is not without its share of opponents. Critics contend that deconstruction is inherently negative, and philosophies cannot offer ways to attain well-being without some positive features. Derrida’s typical response to such critics is that their evaluations are based upon the very structures that need displacement (e.g., the valuations of “positive vs. negative”).

Critics also sometimes contend that differànce is the methodological center of Derrida’s own thought, so that not even Derrida can accomplish what he says must be done. Although Derrida and his interpreters argue otherwise, such counter arguments remain unconvincing to critics, because, in their arguments, deconstructionists utilize the very methods they contend are invalid. It should also be noted that relativism and nihilism haunt deconstructive postmodernism. In order for deconstructionists to evade the sting of these charges, they must suppose that which deconstructive postmodernism seeks to discard. The major line of defense deconstructionists take against their critics is the attempt to undermine the categories that lead to charges of relativism and nihilism.

While this deconstructive thought is the most well-known option available flying a postmodern flag, other options exist that attempt to overcome what antagonists argue are deconstructive postmodernism's glaring deficiencies. In many ways, however, those advancing other postmodern options must show how their own thought is preferable to notions made popular by the deconstuctive tradition before they will attract an audience.

Liberationist Postmodernism

The second postmodern tradition that I consider a dominant contemporary option is comprised of diverse groups and individuals, each with diverse agendas. What unites them -- despite this diversity -- is their shared desire for emancipation. I call this postmodern tradition “liberationist,” because each group placed under this umbrella seeks liberation from something they associate with modernity. The three major forms of liberationist postmodernism upon which I will focus are the feminist, ethnic, and ecological.

In general, postmodern feminism places the issue of gender – specifically, the aspects of femininity -- at the forefront of contemporary discourse. Although modern feminism also addressed gender issues, postmodern feminism typically critiques modern feminists for their acquiescence to modern epistemologies that consider detached and disembodied knowing to be superior. Some postmodern feminists believe that modern epistemologies are based upon the notion that abstract and universalistic thought provides the only or best way of knowing. By contrast, postmodern feminist epistemologies emphasize community, relatedness, and what Michael Polanyi calls “tacit knowledge.” In other words, the unique experiences derived from female bodies provide a basis for feminist epistemology.

Drawing upon Jacques Derrida’s discussion of logocentrism’s vacuity, feminists have also claimed that modern philosophies presuppose a hierarchical structure in which male is superior to female. Modern logocentrism is, as Luce Irigaray would say, a form of phallocentrism. Male is preferred over female, and those traits typically identified with masculinity are considered more valuable than those typically identified with femininity.[8]

One reason that males continue to be privileged, says many postmodern feminists, is that Western linguistic modes privilege masculinity. Many postmodern feminists have appropriated Michel Foucault’s work because it highlights this claim. Foucault argues that knowledge and power are linked in modern discourse, which implies that both our knowledge and language can be tyrannical toward women. Language can perpetuate ways of being that imply that women are inferior. Rather than continue the patriarchal ways of modernity, postmodern feminists call upon contemporary people to speak in ways that empower rather than oppress women.

Ethnic postmodernism places culture and race at the forefront of contemporary discourse. Those influenced by this postmodern tradition oppose what they consider modernism’s homogenous view of the human. The modernist position implied that biological similarities provide quality and a sense of value to minority groups. Ethnic postmodernists argue, however, that cultural uniqueness establishes one’s value and this uniqueness is the basis for one’s “voice.”

James H. Cone’s book, Martin and Malcolm and America: A Dream or a Nightmare, illustrates the difference between a modern and postmodern approach to issues of race, gender, and culture. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of the unification of blacks and whites and the equality of all people illustrates the modernist accent upon that which all humans share in common. Malcolm X’s dream was, by contrast, “a nightmare.” His solution to the Black and White crisis involved an accent upon what was culturally unique to African-Americans, and Malcolm called upon Blacks to withdraw to cultivate African-American identity.[9] One could call Malcolm X’s approach “postmodern,” then, because it accented diversity and plurality rather than uniformity and sameness.

Ecological postmodernism places the issues of environmental well-being at the forefront of contemporary discourse. This postmodern liberationist tradition identifies modernity with philosophies that deemed the world in need of human domination or an object to be abused. Ecologists argue that a postmodern era must be one that moves beyond modernism's anthropocentrism to a postmodern cosmocentrism; it must move beyond modernism’s rampant consumerism to a postmodern era in which humans responsibly nurture the earth and its resources.

As I said in the opening segments of this essay, one of my central agendas is to inquire into theology’s impact upon or contribution to postmodernism. Some who adopt the moniker “postmodernist” have closely identified theology and the dogma of various religious communities with modernism and modernism’s oppressive activity. For example, female experiences have been depreciated in the name of modernity’s Father God; ethnic minorities have been conquered and slaughtered in the name of modernity’s White Man’s God; the earth has been raped and debilitated in the name of the God who placed nonhumans under the dominion of humans. Others, however, have argued that theology and religion provide unique resources by which to establish a postmodern response to modernity’s anti-liberationist tendencies. God is essentially neither male nor female, say these postmodernists; God opposes the oppressor and sides with the oppressed and marginalized; God regards all creatures as intrinsically valuable and expects humans to treat all creation accordingly. One question yet to be decided is this: How much can or should theology and religion be transformed to accommodate these postmodern concerns?

Although liberationist postmodern thought has drawn from a variety of philosophical movements, this tradition has often been attracted to the most well-known form of postmodernism: deconstructive postmodernism. As we noted previously, deconstructive postmodernism undermines those structures that support oppression while calling attention to those residing at societal boundaries. For those consistently marginalized -- which includes minorities of all stripes -- any postmodern philosophy accentuating the value and concerns of those at the margins is initially attractive.

Some liberation postmodernists are finding, however, that deconstructive postmodernism fails to provide any basis for their own liberationist agenda. Derrida’s deconstructive philosophy denies that any values are absolute. The value of liberation, including its theories or practices, cannot then be legitimately privileged when deconstructive postmodern thought is adopted as one’s orienting strategy. Relativism and nihilism subvert attempts to instigate deliverance from oppression. Because of this seemingly insurmountable obstacle, many liberationist postmodernists are looking for alternative postmodern philosophies to give a backbone to their essential concern for emancipation.

Narrative Postmodernism

Whether when sitting with natives around a jungle campfire or lounging comfortably with business executives atop a city skyscraper, we tell stories. The stories that we tell divulge who we are and our perspective on life. The stories we tell and the way in which we tell them arise from a particular point of view. A person’s point of view is fashioned by how that person has been raised, what that person has been taught, and whom that person knows. In fact, it is the particular community in which any person dwells that provides the meanings of life. Because of this, the particular stories people tell are but variations of their community’s overarching narrative. The foregoing provides a nutshell explanation of narrative postmodernism.

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein offers the fundamental notions of narrative postmodernism, and many believe that this postmodern tradition overcomes two forms of modernity. Ironically, Wittgenstein holds the distinction of having his early thought typify one of the modern forms that his later postmodern thought overcomes.

Wittgenstein’s earlier thought inspired a group of modern philosophers called the "logical positivists." These scholars attempted to take philosopher David Hume seriously by stating everything through logical propositions that “picture” the world. Because the positivists assumed that the world is made up of independent elementary facts capable of empirical investigation, they believed that everything meaningful should be expressible in factual language. To say it another way, meaningful language always possesses a logical form that it shares with the world it pictures. Language, sentences, propositions, etc., that do not correspond positively with the pictured world should be discredited as meaningless. Metaphysical, ethical, and theological statements are listed among those things discredited as nonsense; only logic, mathematics, and the natural sciences provide genuine knowledge. This means, among other things, that any talk about God is meaningless, because God cannot be empirically verified, and purely rational arguments for God’s existence (e.g., Anselm’s ontological argument) are nothing more than empty tautologies.

The early Wittgenstein and the logical positivists are considered “modern,” because a driving force of their work was the search for certainty. This quest for certainty is often identified today as “foundationalism.” It was Rene Descartes who sought to tear down everything that could be doubted in order to rebuild again upon indubitable premises. Logical positivists regarded logic, mathematics, and the natural sciences to be the only adequate bricks for a meaningful philosophical structure.

The other modern tradition that narrative postmodern philosophy is said to overcome is actually found both in philosophies labeled “modern” and some philosophies labeled “postmodern.” The way of thinking that needs to be transcended considers meaning and truth to be ultimately relative to the individual and, therefore, should be decided entirely by each person. The relativism that emerges from this form of isolated individualism stands, according to narrative postmodernists, as modernity’s foul invention.

At the heart of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, which provides the basis for his narrative postmodernism alternative, are concepts he designates “language games” and “forms of life.”[10] Narrative postmodernism argues that many kinds of meaningful sentences exist, but the meaning of these sentences is found in, and arises out of, communal use. In the same way that children’s games have diverse sets of rules with no one rule applicable to every game, so languages have diverse sets of rules with no one rule applicable to all languages. While there is no objective all-encompassing standard by which to judge truth, one can make claims about what is true on the basis of a particular community’s language game. This language game emerges from the community’s form of life, which means that the meaning of a word is found in the way the community uses that word. There is no such thing as a private language, says Wittgenstein; language – including meaning and truth -- is sociologically constructed.

It may now be clearer why narrative postmodernism overcomes both logical positivism and the extreme relativism of philosophies that confine meaning and truth to individual capriciousness. In the first place, this postmodern tradition overcomes logical positivism by grounding epistemology in the community’s story rather than solely in empirical or logical verification. This means that, although metaphysical, ethical, and theological language may not be empirically supportable, this language can continue to have meaning when used in the context out of which it arose. In short, narrative philosophy is postmodern in that it overcomes a narrow modern assumption about what can be rendered meaningful.

Jean Francois Lyotard has been particularly instrumental in identifying how, in the second place, Wittgenstein’s narrative philosophy is postmodern. Lyotard argues that the myths (narrative discourse) we tell are not legitimated in something outside the myths themselves. Instead, authority is found in telling myths in the social setting (language game or form of life) in which they are meant to be told. There are no grand narratives or metaphysical schemes that account for all our stories; there are no certain foundations from which to build one’s outlook on life. Rather, the culture-specific myths themselves define what is right and true.[11] This postmodern notion, then, places authority in the community, not in the individual. Narrative postmodernism overcomes individualism’s epistemological and ethical relativism by placing truth in the traditions of various communities.

George Lindbeck, in The Nature of Doctrine, utilizes Wittgenstein’s narrative philosophy for a theological agenda. Lindbeck describes Christianity as a cultural-linguistic system that, at its core, is absolutely unchanging -- despite appearances to the contrary. To be a Christian, he argues, is to become a part of a community formed by the Christian socio-linguistic system.[12] This narrative understanding of the faith affords adherents the advantage of evading criticism by those outside the Christian community. Christians can evade this criticism because outsiders have not themselves been fashioned by the Christian cultural linguistic system and, therefore, cannot understand its distinctive truthfulness.

Although narrative postmodernism has found a prominent place in philosophical and theological circles, it is not without its critics. Opponents point out, first of all, that such an approach to language and custom allows no genuine space for criticism and reexamination of what has been “handed down by the saints.” For instance, if a philosophical or theological tradition has supported patriarchy, anti-Semitism, or ecological recklessness, there exists no transcendent standard by which to seek this tradition’s transformation. Because there can be no reference to an authority that transcends the community’s particular language game, say critics, it would illegitimate to appeal to universal truths or a Being who ubiquitously reveals (e.g., God). Interfaith dialogue also has no authentic basis if religious communities find meaning exclusively in their own linguistic tradition.

Secondly, critics of narrative postmodernism are often dissatisfied with the narrative model, or lack thereof, for how one should understand the person, human self, soul, or individual. While it may be true that modernism’s emphasis upon the unrelated and essentially autonomous individual undermines ethical norms, a model that allows no room for some measure of independence seems no better. Stifling communitarianism can be even more devastating than uninhibited individualism.

We began our discussion of narrative postmodernism by speaking about stories. Individual stories are fashioned from community stories, it was argued. Narrative postmodernists call attention to the communally derived status of the stories we tell. One way to transition into discussing the final form of postmodernism addressed in this essay is to ask this question: Is there a story big enough to be told by everybody?

Revisionary Postmodernism

The final postmodernism explored in this essay is less well-known. The thought of philosophers Alfred North Whitehead, C. S. Pierce, Henri Bergson, Charles Hartshorne, and William James provide the fundamental notions of revisionary postmodernism. The postmodern status of this tradition has been raised to consciousness primarily through the work of David Ray Griffin. Whitehead’s thought overcomes what this postmodern tradition believes is modernity’s unnatural fragmentation and compartmentalization of knowledge. This fragmentation and compartmentalization has resulted in the loss of a holistic perspective on reality. Whitehead’s postmodernism returns to holism and interdisciplinarity by affirming a speculative metaphysics.

In everyday language, the task of metaphysics is about figuring out how things work. The metaphysician attempts to construct an all-embracing hypothesis in order to explain the wide diversity of life’s experiences. Unfortunately, metaphysicians in the past have either failed to consider the experiences of those at the margins (e.g., women, minorities, nonhumans) or believed that, once a metaphysical scheme had been provided, reconsideration of that scheme was needless. By contrast, Whitehead argues that metaphysicians must always be prepared to “amplify, recast, generalize, and adapt, so as to absorb into one system all sources of experience.”[13] In light of this, Whitehead self-consciously attempted to construct a metaphysical hypothesis that was coherent, logical, applicable, and adequate. He hoped that this scheme would bear in itself “its own warrant of universality throughout all experience.”[14] This valuing of diverse experiences provides this postmodern tradition with a crucial link with liberationist postmodernism.

The task of constructing an adequate metaphysics is closely tied with what has come to be called “worldview construction.” Revisionary postmodernism overcomes the modern worldview by offering what it considers the most viable worldview for our time. This worldview accounts for a variety of sensibilities, including religious, scientific, ecological, liberationist, economic, and aesthetic. By contrast, deconstructive postmodernism overcomes the modern worldview through an antiworldview. Revisionary postmodernist David Griffin argues that deconstructive postmodernism “deconstructs or eliminates the ingredients necessary for a worldview, such as God, self, purpose, meaning, a real world, and truth as correspondence. . . .this type of postmodern thought [results] in relativism, even nihilism.”[15]

Another characteristic of modernity that this revisionary postmodernism overcomes is the modern claim that one’s knowledge about the external world can only be gained through sensory perception. Because many modernists discounted knowledge said to be gained any other way, fundamental notions like causation, love, value, and God were considered by these modernists as either unintelligible or unreal. Whitehead’s revisionary postmodernism speculates that perception is not limited to one’s five senses; nonsensory perception occurs all the time. Memory is a chief example of how knowledge can be gained through nonsensory perception, because the mind recalls events from the past without using one’s sensory organs. Dreaming is also an example of nonsensory perceiving. Revisionary postmodernists speculate that such nonsensory perception occurs even at less complex levels. Because of nonsensory perception, our awareness of value, love, causation, and deity, among other things, is possible.

The importance of nonsensory perception for theology is especially great. Although God, as spirit, is not perceptible to the senses, revisionary postmodernists can claim that creatures have direct experiences of God through nonsensory perception. Modern thought could only infer that God exists based upon indirect experience of what was considered the work of deity. Revisionary postmodernism also provides a means by which to account for our awareness of moral norms, standards of truth, and aesthetic intuitions, because this awareness is available to us through nonsensory perception. This revisionary postmodernism, then, provides an intellectually viable way to speak of the Spirit at work in all of creation.

Modernity, as revisionary postmodernists understand it, is also characterized by what might be called the mechanization of nature. Modernists considered living things to be nothing more than mindless machines; humans are only the most advanced of these purposeless mechanisms. By contrast, this revisionary postmodernism conceives of the structures of existence in organic categories. These categories provide a means to talk realistically about creaturely freedom and intentionality, two vital aspects of purposiveness. Furthermore, organismic philosophies emphasize the pervasiveness of experience. The revisionary postmodern doctrine of panexperientialism forwards the speculative hypothesis that, as Griffin puts it, “nature is actual and that the ultimate units of nature are not vacuous but are something for themselves in the sense of having experience, however slight.”[16] Although the hypothesis that things experience other things is speculative, the idea that they are devoid of experience is doubly speculative. After all, given our knowledge of ourselves, we know that it is possible for actual beings to have experience. However, we have no similar knowledge as to the possibility of actual beings that are without experience.

Finally, revisionary postmodernists agree with narrative postmodernists that creatures are not isolated individuals. Postmodernists of the revisionary stripe go further than narrative postmodernists, however, in affirming that all individuals, both human and nonhuman, are essentially interrelated. This interrelatedness provides a key insight and justification for the deep convictions of ecologists and environmentalists. The radical relationality of revisionary postmodernism provides a means for overcoming the dualisms of modernity originally established by Neo-platonic and Kantian philosophies.

The claim that creatures are interrelated should not, according to revisionary postmodernists, be equated with extreme relativism. Modern and deconstructive postmodern traditions do result in extreme relativism, because these traditions deny that there is any basis for holding that one system of beliefs corresponds to reality better than others. By contrast, revisionary postmodernism claims that those beliefs that we inevitably presuppose in practice, even if we deny them verbally, should be privileged. Whitehead formulated this principle as “the metaphysical rule of evidence: that we must bow to those presumptions, which, in despite of criticism, we still employ for the regulation of our lives.”[17] This points to a bottom layer of experience that is common to all humanity. “If we cannot help presupposing these notions in practice,” Griffin argues, “we are guilty of self-contradiction if our theory denies these notions. And the first rule of reason, including scientific reason, should be that two mutually contradictory propositions cannot both be true.”[18] This means that “any scientific, philosophical, or theological theory is irrational... to the extent that it contradicts whatever notions we inevitably presuppose in practice.”[19]

So what do the critics have to say about this revisionary postmodernism? Unfortunately, this postmodern tradition has not received widespread philosophical analysis. Theological critiques tend to offer two main objections, however. One objection is that this revisionary postmodernism conceives of God as essentially relational: God has always been related to a world. This form of relationality runs contrary to classical theologies, and it strikes some contemporary theologians as resulting in an overly dependent deity. Critics object to this revisionary postmodernism, secondly, because many revisionary postmodernists also conceive of divine power in relational categories. This conception imparts a doctrine of divine power involving the claim that God cannot entirely override or withdraw the freedom of creatures. The hypothesis that God cannot entirely override or withdraw creaturely freedom allows one to offer a solution to the problem of evil by affirming divine love unequivocally, and it also provides a basis for affirming theistic evolution. But some critics believe it also presents God as stunted or weak.

Conclusion

The times they are a-changin’. What the future course of life on this planet will entail is unclear. Which postmodern tradition will dominate and how its domination will affect life on planet earth is yet to be decided. Perhaps it would be good to close with a question, which postmodernism would you want to provide the vision for today and tomorrow?

---

[1]  This essay was originally written for my philosophy students at Eastern Nazarene College.

[2]  Some are inclined to distinguish between early and late modernity. Although I believe this approach has some validity, I will not be exploring this distinction explicitly in this essay.

[3]  Jacques Derrida, Dissemination (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 168.

[4]  Jacques Derrida, Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 67.

[5]  Jacques Derrida, Positions, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 36.

[6]  Jacques Derrida, “Signature, Event, Context” From Plato to Derrida, ed. Forrest E. Baird and Walter Kaufmann, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2000), 1197.

[7]  John Caputo, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion Without Religion (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1997).

[8]  Luce Irigaray, “The Sex Which is Not One,” trans. Claudia Reeder, in New French Feminisms, ed. Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron (New York: Schoken, 1981), 99-106.

[9]  James H. Cone, Martin and Malcolm and America: A Dream or a Nightmare (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991).

[10]  Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 3rd ed. trans. G.E.M. Anscombe (New York: Macmillan, 1953).

[11]  Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984).

[12]  George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984).

[13]  Alfred North Whitehead, Religion in the Making (New York: Macmillan, 1926; New York: Fordham University Press, 1996), 149.

[14]  Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology, corrected edition, ed. David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne (New York: Free Press, 1978; orig. ed., 1929), 3-4.

[15]  David Ray Griffin, Founders of Constructive Postmodern Philosophy: Pierce, James,

Bergson, Whitehead, and Hartshorne, with John B. Cobb, Jr., Marcus Ford, Pete A. Y. Gunter, and Peter Ochs (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY, 1993), viii.

[16]  Ibid., 3.

[17]  Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas (New York: Free Press, 1968; Macmillan, 1933), 223.

[18]  Griffin, Unsnarling the World-Knot: Freedom, Consciousness, and the Mind-Body Problem (Berkeley Calif.: University of California Press, 1998), 21.

[19]  Griffin, Reenchantment Without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2001), 36.