Beyond Silence

By David Fitch, co-pastor of Life on the Vine, and Betty R. Lindner Chair of Evangelical Theology at Northern Seminary.  He is the author of The Great Giveaway, and blogs at Reclaiming the Mission. 

Why are emerging church writers, leaders and followers drawn to deconstructive theology?

To me this is a no brainer. Deconstructive theology is an excellent rejection of the evangelical-fundamentalism of their youth and all its ills in the face of a radically pluralist, post-Christendom, post-modern world. Many emerging church folk are allergic to anything that smacks of a.) an intolerant judgmental exclusivism, b.) an arrogant, even violent, certainty about what we do know, and c.) an overly-rationalized hyper-cognitive gospel that takes the mystery out of everything we believe. If I have over-stated myself, forgive me. But I too have felt these pangs in relation to my own evangelical upbringing. Deconstructive theology is an excellent avenue of resistance to all these maladies.

I believe then what attracts so many emergent authors, friends and followers to Derrida, Caputo, Kearney and derivatives thereof is a theology which moves past these ills of modernity and provides the basis for:

a.) inclusive conversation that resists judgment,
b.) a comfortability with the limits of our knowledge,
c.) a window into a hyper reality that returns mystery to the center of our faith and practice.

In regard to a.) Deconstructive thought refuses to close off, resolve and thereby define permanently what a sentence, creed, or text might mean. The coincidence of meaning and being is no longer assumed even at “the origin” of the text itself. The meaning never finally arrives. The truth is always “yet to come.” In all of this, there is something very compelling to us recovering fundamentalists, especially if we can see our way out of the classic modern terms of moral relativism (which I think deconstruction at least tries to do). If you’re a recovering fundamentalist, conversation sounds good and deconstructive thought is compelling in the way it calls for keeping things open to the new, the other and the absolute future which is to come.

In regard to b.) Deconstructive thought shows how all speech in the Western tradition discloses a violence. Us recovering fundamentalists find this irresistible. We have seen the brutal effects of power-driven abusive interpretation of the Bible in the world. We are looking for humility and yet a way to live a way towards truth. Deconstruction uncovers the violence and helps us live with ambiguity and a search for the truth to be revealed in this moment for this time.

In regard to c.) Deconstructive thought makes way for a revealing of Truth (God) from its concealment (Heidegger’s alethia). This Truth, the God who comes in this way, is removed from our control and the control of systems (onto-theology). Caputo’s “hyper-reality” offers us a way to keep God from being usurped by a power agenda of some sort. Some of us recovering fundamentalists have seen that happen. Caputo’s Khora (that chaotic space wherein God comes into being for a moment) comforts us against the dangers of religious fundamentalism. We can return to mystery and quit worrying that we have to prove God apologetically via reason or science like our parents seemed obsessed about.   

I too, along with many emerging church people, confess to also being a recovering evangelical fundamentalist fed up with evangelicalism’s modernist maladies of self assured judgmentalism, a violent arrogance in the way outsiders are approached with knowledge, and the loss of all mystery and transcendence in the face of modern rationality and science.

Beyond Silence

But might these same gains be produce by another road? Is deconstruction the only way out of the fundamentalist cul-de-sac? 

Peter Rollins in the introduction to his book How (Not) To Speak of God (p.xi) quotes Wittgenstein’s last words from the Tractatus - “What we cannot speak about, we must pass over in silence.” He then proceeds to write an excellent theological description of deconstructive theology for the Emergent church as an extension of this assertion. But is there another response available?

How about those who have indeed followed Wittgenstein himself (in Philosophical Investigations) in his attempts to overcome the failures of the Tractatus, in his attempts to go beyond the Kantian delineations that limit how language can function.  What if we cast aside the modernist language-world dichotomy and instead see language as that by which we participate in reality, a way of life that then enables us to experience things which cannot be captured in language alone. When we see language like this, we notice it can show/reveal realities instead of just speaking about them. And by participating in these languages, learning a way of life, we are transformed into seeing and experiencing what could not simply be talked about. These paths have already been well worn by Lindbeck, Hauerwas, McIntyre, Milbank, Stanley Fish (to an extent) and others.

I think I know why the emergent writers are at least a little hesitant to follow these thinkers. It is for the same reasons they are drawn to deconstructive theology. Because the deconstructionists (and emergent thinkers) believe these theologians (Lindbeck, Hauerwas et.al.) are prone to lead us to another sectarian fundamentalism, the very thing we are all running away from.

To this I respectfully disagree. I think the category of narrative/cultural linguistic (McIntrye-Lindbeck) requires openness and conversation. I think the hermeneutic of community limits our arrogance and violence. And I think the via analogia (or analogia entis) of the Milbank crowd paves a way towards mystery and transcendence in a profoundly liturgical way. I suggest that this avenue also provides fruitful ground to cultivate the very things we seek: inclusive conversation, humility in knowledge and mystery in engaging God. These voices offer it all in a way that embodies physically a mission into the world that helps us avoid Slavoj Zizek’s complaint about deconstruction. For Zizek argues that such post structuralism (read: Derrida) produces “… an endless quasi-poetical variation on the same theoretical assumption, a variation which does not produce anything new … a flabby poeticism …which does not affect the place from which we speak.” (Zizek The Sublime Object of Ideology p. 155).  While I have learned much from the deconstructionists, I think emerging voices can learn much more from these voices from Yale, Duke, Cambridge et al.

Comments

[Jason Hesiak]

First of all...right around the time of Jason Clark's post here on Baudrillard, and a bit after as well...I've been having a conversation elsewhere about simulacrum. I was struck and surprised, D.F., by your take on hyperreality as a window into mystery. This seems to take the whole thing even further than Rollins. I'd like to hear more of your logic there. I was wondering about it a for a bit after I initially read your post...the only thing that comes to minds is maybe how the notion of hyperreality blurs the line between word and referrent, reality and representation, and such things...leading to a participation beyond passive controlled spectacle.

My initial thought is that this is actually a more critical issue than that of "depth" (but related). But, still...I see hyperreality as problematic in ways that you don't here seem to be aknowledging? I mean...I'm an architect; you see lots of little meaningless doo-dads on the sides of buildings these days thanks to a design process that occurs in the realm of simulation that totally blurs the line between representation and reality, the land of the living and the land of the dead.

Its interesting that you go from there to a heading "beyond silence", because simulation also totally blurs the relationship between Silence and Light (the two Grounds of Jewish mysticism)...which is only encountered through actuality, the face, however you want to put it.

Secondly, I went to the "analogia entis" link. I read the first two paragraphs and it arose so much in me that I got chill bumps in my anger at Barth. Unusual, these days. I think it was the audacity of his comment: “invention of the anti-Christ” and “the only good reason not to become Catholic”! Good gosh. Put a knife in my heart and twist. Makes me which I knew more about your crowd of theologians listed here.

All in all...aknowledging my lack of knowledge of those theologians...I wonder if there is another route to active "participation" without total absorbtion into the void (while totally - and necessarily totally - forgetting the other side of the coin on which appears the self-emptying Void). I mean, the Jewish mystics weren't in meaningless-doo-dad artwork space. But then I can see why Rollins would say that its not healthy to study medieval mystics by themselves. But I don't like meaningless doo-dads on the sides of buildings. Participation with Nothing is either the easiest or most difficult thing. Where's the line?

[Marvia]

Thanks for another great article. I only recently began paying attention to writings on Emergent Churches. Your take from the position of a 'recovering Evangelical Fundamentalist' is both candid and informative.

I enjoy Deconstructive thought and how this benefits contextual theological enterprise , and allows us to hear legitimate theological voices from places other than the West. Without subscribing to any labels such as Emergent Church (another Western construct)I am happy for anyone who is emerging from the haze of Evangelical Fundamentalism.

I am yet to explore all your writings, however it would be interesting to see how you propose to correct (if we need to)heading off into the void or abyss following the path of open-ness to new truth.

Will read more...

[len]

David, a loaded post. As usual, I can't completely track with you, but the pieces I am catching are helpful and provocative. I'm remembering Jason Clarks post on the will to act, something so easily lost in our fragmented, choice saturated, analytical quasi-rationalist, Cartesian culture. I'm thinking the direction of your solution in one sense is so simple: incarnation, founded in loving engagement. When we care, we act. No one can witness the suffering of a child, for example, and turn away.

Finally, you write of the potential connection between symbol (language) and the reality to which it points. Jason then brings out the connection to the Hebrew worldview. The word for word in the Hebrew (dabar) does not distinguish between the vocative "call" and the reality.. to speak is to bring something into the world. That's a lovely connection to make in the Easter season when "the word became flesh and tented among us." May we learn to participate in that incarnational event daily.. by the grace of God and the power of the Spirit.

[Dennis Miller]

I don't mean to sound antagonistic but all of you emergent christians remind me of a bunch of Beatniks who like to gather in coffee houses and spew out your theology in hyper intellectual rote impressing one another with your intellect. What I'm waiting to see is what you are willing to do with what you think you know. I invite you into the depths of depravity in our society, the jails and prisons where drug addicts, prostitutes, murderers and thieves are gathered and present the hope you have for them in your decontructive theology. I see plenty of evangelical fundamentalist in the trenches getting close to man's castaways but where are you? In the Ivy league colleges and lectures halls and nice little coffee houses telling each other how wrong your parents and their generation were and how you've all got the answers? Well, what is it? Lets see it put to practical use, get in the trenches and put your words into action.

[David Fitch]

Dennis,
I mean no offence, but I am a pastor, have planted a church starting with 10 people, have spent time in a jail, time with a recovering prostitute, time with a thief,and a drug addict, not to mention alcoholics, and depraved materialists ... all in the last three years. I think the questions we're engaging here are important so that we have churches, pastors and followers of Christ doing the things you describe. Sorry it strikes you as ivory tower. I agree it can be. But it is the lack of theology that leads to churches like the kind you are so idignant about.
peace bro ...

[len]

Dennis, have you ever heard of the sin of presumption.. because you just committed it. My wife and I are involved with addicts, have frequently had them in our home, and my wife works in a transition house making half what she could make with her RN qualification in a hospital. Question is.. how about you?

[Dennis Miller]

David,

I will admit that maybe I misunderstand the whole emergent church movement and that could be because of the poor representation I have heard and seen locally to date. I should not sterotype the whole because of the part I have witnessed, I apologize for that error. To me the whole emergent Chruch philosphy is to throw out all reference and practice of separation and holiness for this greater need to be relevant to a world that is lost by being just like them. In my day, the last great youth revival, The Jesus movement, we too saw the hypocrisy of our parents and their Church and believed we could show them a better way. In many respects we were successful in tearing down walls and strongholds and forcing change but then we got old and lost our zeal in the doldrums of life and ended up leaving our children with the same feelings of hopelessness and hypocrisy, shame on us who knew better. I hope your generation can stir up the revival fires again, but use Godly wisdom and know that only those things truely led by the Holy Spirit will last and accomplish anything for Christ.

[Dennis Miller]

Len,

I am blessed to hear of you and your wifes ministries and involvement in the community. I think you can tell by my response to David that I feel badly for my assumptions in my earlier post. I could answer your question "How about you" but I feel like that would just create a contest atmosphere which is not necessary since we are not in a contest. Just so you don't think it's a cop out I will list some of the activities I do each week. Music minister, Pastor, teacher, counselor and volunteer. On top of that I work full time 2nd shift as a maintenace electrician. I am also about to plant a new Church in our community. As you can see I am serious about the work and calling of God and I am glad you are also.

[RODNEY NEILL]

I can only admire the people posting on this thread for their balance between theological conversation and practical faithful living but the quote

'Church of Beatniks who like to gather in coffee houses and spew out your theology in hyper intellectual rote impressing one another with your intellect.'

is so true of IKON in Belfast which is hailed as one leading lights of EC groups but has no social outreach, no pastoral care - just meetings that match the above.

Rod

[RODNEY NEILL]

My thoughts turn to Jack Caputo-

What are his credentials in terms of a practical outworking of his Justice theories or is he just an individual who can write speculative theoretical theology within the confines of the rarified atmosphere of ivory walled academia. Why choose him as such a major dialogue partner in the next Emergent conference?

Rodney

[Tim McGee]

There seems to be a shared assumption floating around here, about a split between theorizing and practice. However, assuming most of us are Christians, we should be quite concerned by this assumption: the central debates about theology (that led to our creeds) were very dense and seemingly obscure, but they were, in fact, very central to our form of life. In other words, the history of Christian doctrine should show us how theological discourse is not over, above, or separate from the concrete embodiment of our faith.

I also want to point out that Foucault provides more support for the idea that our shared social discourses shape who we are and what we do. Learning to think differently (e.g., about power, or about our relationship to ourselves) is itself a concrete counter-resistance to certain forms of politics, and it opens up a whole field of other tactics of resistance that would not have been available otherwise.

[RODNEY NEILL]

'the history of Christian doctrine should show us how theological discourse is not over, above, or separate from the concrete embodiment of our faith.'

I agree with this statement by Tim but Caputo is the main speaker who will shape and direct the future theological thinking of the EC movement - is there any embodiment, hint or disclosure in his lifestyle/conduct that refutes the idea that his theology is nutured ONLY within the ivory walls of academia. Why not invite a host of more explicitly Christian theologian/thinkers/philosphers instead of a non-theistic liberal like Caputo? I appreciate the EC is a diverse grouping but is this the general direction it wants to go with an antirealist approach and a willingness to give up any idea of being located within the Christian tradition? Is the end goal a movement of a radical secular theology ( keep the ethics, all views of God are only a human social construction) such as Don Cupitt?

Rodney

[Geoff Holsclaw]

rodney,

good questions. I can't speak for the EC, or Emergentvillage for that matter. But this conference is dubbed as a 'conversation', and the most interesting conversations are between people who don't agree. I think it is great that EV wants to talk with Caputo as a conversation partner. But yes I agree with you that Caputo might not make the best theological future for the EC.

The goal for this site and for that conference, is that interaction with theologians and philosophers would sharpen our thought, spur our imaginations, and commit us to more faithful action.

[len]

Dennis, thanks for that, I confess you ticked me off. I"m glad to avoid the comparison contest, and admit I'm in need of daily grace in this life. Peace.

[Jason Hesiak]

Tim,

I think what you might have read as everyone's separation of theoria and praxis was actually just "eveyrone's" reaction to Dennis. Regardless...lets assume for a moment that Dennis himself sees no separation between theory and practice...I think there is still a legitimate question as to the particular SITE (place, location, somethin' or other?) of the thea-praxis. Jesus calls us the particular places of the down-and-out ("out" itself being a kind of placement).

Jason :)

[Jason Hesiak]

"...calls us TO the particular places of the down-and-out..." Oops.

[Tim McGee]

Rodney,
I fully agree that Caputo represents a return to the familiar (and I think dangerous) ground of liberal protestantism. But I want to make a separation between how someone actually embodies their theology and the form of life articulated by someone's theology. Thus, one could be a helpful conversation partner even if they aren't embodying their thought in ways we would like to see.

With Caputo, I think there is a problem on this second ground: it articulates a problematic form of life. In short, it seems to reinstate the modern project, with all of the racialized politics still lurking around under the surface.

[adrian walker]

Dear David,

Thanks for this outstanding post. I think that you have defined the issue at stake for Christians in the appropriation of deconstruction (the philosophy of Derrida and co.): granted that Derrida and co. are a corrective to fundamentalism, are they best guides on the path beyond it? I hope that all of us participating in this discussion, indeed, this website will keep focussed on this absolutely crucial question.

I think your approach to Derrida and co. is just right: you understand why they are appealing to recovering fundamentalists, yet you invite us to be cautious about jumping on the deconstructive bandwagon---not, to be sure, in order to return us to fundamentalism, but because you think there may be a better way of achieving the laudable goals that Derrida and co. help recovering fundamentalists glimpse. Excellent.

Let me add my own two cents. I see two risks facing recovering fundamentalists who are tempted to an uncritical appropriation of deconstruction. The first one is theological: there is a risk of throwing out the Christian baby with the fundamentalist bathwater. Put another way: the recovering fundamentalist is in danger of identifying orthodox, ecclesial Christianity with fundamentalist exclusivism and so of rejecting both at once. The antidote to this, I think, is not just the later Wittgenstein filtered through post-liberalism---though that, too, may help---but a rediscovery of Jesus Christ, alive in the Church, as the unique mediator of God’s universal saving will. In other words: the uniqueness of Christ does NOT commit us to a theology of selective predestination, which divides up the world into those who know they are saved and those whom the saved know for certain aren’t. Selective predestination, not modernity, is the deepest root of the problems of fundamentalism that you outlined (though modernity surely complicates the picture even more).

The other risk for the recovering fundamentalist in an uncritical appropriation of deconstruction is philosophical: there is the danger of instrumentalizing Derrida and co. in a way that is profoundly unfair to them as thinkers. That is, the recovering fundamentalist is in danger of approaching Derrida and co., not as philosophers, but as a panacea for the ills of fundamentalism. To do that, however, is to co-opt Derrida and co. for alien purposes, to fail to engage them precisely on their own terms. The related danger of degrading Derrida and co. to the level of a cheap, covert apologetical ploy also lurks in the background. Much better to wrestle with Derrida and co. as “our best foes” than to use them in unphilosophical ways. Of couse, someone might be sincerely convinced by deconstruction---but then that person has to be willing to deal seriously with the question of its compatibility with Christian theology.

One last point: to recover from fundamentalism is a good thing, but every recovery risks becoming a reaction, and every reaction risks becoming just as one-sided as what it’s reacting against: “Do the fundamentalists emphasize X? Well, by God, I’ll emphasize anti-X!” The problem with this is that it overlooks the possibility that there is a better, non-fundamentalist version of X. Take the example of so-called propositional truth: since fundamentalists abuse it, recovering fundamentalists are tempted to deny it altogether---which, in the end, is not to affirm the finitude of the human condition, but to abolish that finitude. How? By pretending that talking about the world isn’t something that we always already do anyway by no choice of our own. This is not an argument against recovering a richer notion of truth. On the contrary. What I am arguing against,though, is the assumption that a richer notion of truth doesn’t need to account also for propositional truth---a kind of truth that is willy nilly going to be involved in the very discursive articulation of that richer notion of truth itself. So the key is not to throw out the prospositional baby with the abusive fundamentalist bathwater, but to think creatively about what propositions are in relation to that richer, more comprehensive understanding of truth.

Doing justice to reality in all of its complexity---which includes propositional truth and a lot of other things recovering fundamentalists are tempted to jettison or downplay---is more important than recovering from fundamentalism. Indeed, the only way really to recover from fundamentalism is not to reverse this order, but to be more concerned about doing justice to reality than about getting beyond an unfortunate past. Perhaps the key is to learn to forgive even the fundamentalist traditions that have abused us. Then we can move on without being conditioned by the dialectic between fundamentalism and anti-fundamentalism.

Cordially and gratefully,
Adrian Walker

[RODNEY NEILL]

In my experience ( I spent 10 years out of the church as a disillusioned ex-believer) it is so easy for those disillusioned by participation in evangelical fundementalism to swing to the opposite extreme of a denial or a extremely liberal watered down version of the Christian faith - hence my worries about the future of the emergent church I raised in my earlier post. Whilst I appreciate that thinkers like Caputo might provide theological conversation/reflection that lead to more faithful service I worry that his ideas will be uncritically endorsed in full. Thus many in the EC will continue on a path towards a non-theistic secular liberal theology where there will be no room for the reality of God. I am sorry to bang on about this subject again but the stakes are high for the future of the EC movement as a whole. I do appreciate there is a wide spectrum of opinion in the EC so I know I run the risk of oversimplification.

My thanks too for an excellent post by David Fitch. I would also really like to echo what Adrian has said in his usual highly articulate way.

Rodney

[Kim]

David,

I hope you don't mind me double posting here as well as your site. I'm hoping for some input here as well. At your site I referred to myself as "once again playing "devil's advocate."" I didn't like that and wished I hadn't written it as soon as I posted it. So, I'm going to leave that part out here.

As an older architect and Believer, I have seen the "Modern", "Post-Modern", "Contextual" and "Deconstruction" movements make their way from the universities to literature, art and architecture, the popular culture and finally to church culture. What I mean by "finally" is that the "Deconstruction" movement was an architectural movement that began in the late (actually mid) 1980's.

I'm just wondering if the criticisms that seemed to diminish the "Deconstruction" movement in architecture will do the same thing in the church culture. See the Wikipedia entry for Deconstructivism

I completely agree with your assessment of why the ECM is attracted to Deconstruction, but it leaves me wondering... if the general church and popular culture find the new theology (and I would argue that it is "new") as disturbing as the architecture is (or can be)...

Peace, Kim

[Kim]

I think a very well written critique of Deconstruction from the architectural perspective can be found here:

Thursday Architects

Of course, much of the critique is aside from architecture and addresses the ideas put forward by Deconstruction. The author quotes Solzhenitsyn, de Tocqueville, Chesterton, CS Lewis.

Architecture is a wonderful analogy to the ECM because it is a collision/fusion of ideas/art and the physical world. You can do all of the philosophizing and designing, defending and justifying, but in the end a built structure is produced and stands there for all to use, misuse, discuss, love, hate, judge, idolize, demonize, critique, criticize, mutate, simulate or copy.

I used the phrase "stands there" above purposefully. It's a phrase that I think has an analogy in the ECM. There really is no "post-structuralism" in architecture. There are forces to which terrestrial architecture must respond to be considered "architecture." First and foremost is the presence of gravity. Let alone, program, human scale and budget for now. Every "ism" or "ion" is ultimately draping flesh over some skeletal structure that "stands there" in deference to gravity.

I think this quote from the above link is especially relevant:

"Deconstruction is the descendant of these modern philosophical traditions, notwithstanding its profession that its goals are different, that it seeks no new "systems," that it is a critique of all systems and a liberation from the oppression of inherited constructs. That it is itself a construct is truly inconvenient, especially if you begin with premises that deny the possibility of evaluating the validity of all constructs. As ACSA conference panel member and critic Catherine Ingraham has written, "the ‘unthinkability’ of a world without structure is what deconstruction tries to think about."[2] This, I think, exemplifies the problem that Chesterton identified: the impossibility of fashioning coherent philosophical arguments--ontological, ethical, or aesthetic--apart from the acknowledgement of first principles. Deconstruction may be likened to C.S. Lewis's arresting image of "taking one's eyes out to look at them." "

This emergent/fundamentalist rift is part of what's been making me so melancholy of late. I believe a large part of what has driven the ECM is the arrogance, the lack of humility, compassion and empathy that we fundamentalists (yes, I'm including myself there for now) have shown on the home front (read wife and children) and in the public forum.

I've described the "arrogance" (as opposed to the humility that would have been desired) as:

"What I know is true. It's logic is irrefutable. I do not value your point of view, where you come from, what you bring to the table, or what your personal experience is. What you think and feel is not relevant. Truth is immutable, immovable, set in concrete. I will wield this sword of truth indicriminately. Nuance, gentleness, subtlety are not in my vocabulary. You're either in or out. Etc. etc."

This has driven the next generation of Believers to the place where they have embraced Deconstruction. Of course, every generation must find its own way...

I'm praying that we can turn towards grace, forgiveness, self-control, non-judgment, peace, humility and unity in love.

Blessings, Kim

[Geoff Holsclaw]

Kim,

well said. you are right to say that architecture is similar to the ECM because we are hoping to actually LIVE and not just talk. Just as you say architecture must account for the gravity of rock hurled through space, so too the ECM must account gravity/reality of Christ crucified and risen from the dead.

It thought it was interested that you said that there is no post-structuralism in architecture because you can't deny the force of gravity and still have a building stand. Now I for one have been nurtured and raise among post-structuralist philosophers and am very grateful for this in general. but I agree that the ECM can't live in a post-structuralist/deconstructive theology which denied, or strong refrains from particularity.

Just as it is a disaster to denied the particularity of gravity in architecture, so too will the denial of the particularity of Jesus spell disaster for the EMC.

[John Doyle]

It seems that deconstructive architects are trying to represent deconstructive philosophy metaphorically or metonymically. Each building looks like a world that's consciously not built according a single structural principle. You get the sense of explosion, of multiple axes acting independently of one another, lacking even the tension or tragedy generated by the co-presence of alternative but incompatible axes. The architectural deconstructionists seem to have inherited this architecture-as-metaphor aesthetic from classical architecture. Because there are eternal foundations and universal principles in the world, say the classicists, each work of architecture should emulate these foundations and principles.

Poststructuralism doesn't call for the abandonment of structure; it "only" says that the structures of human artifacts like language aren't necessarily determined by the structures intrinsic to the world. Baseball is a structured game that only "works" if the players follow the rules of the game. But baseball doesn't seek to emulate the structure of "The Universal Baseball Association" where God is the Proprietor (cf. Robert Coover's postmodern novel of the same title). A potentially limitless number of versions of baseball can be envisioned, each with its own internal coherence, structure, and set of rules (12" softball, 16" softball, slow pitch, 5 players on a side, etc.). It's even possible that the Proprietor enjoys other games besides baseball.

A poststructural architecture should be able to disconnect the "language" of architecture from the poststructural metaphysic that makes the disconnection possible. The signifiers of a particular architectural aesthetic don't have to signify anything outside the realm of architecture, nor do they have to represent an ideal form of architecture. Even if God established the universe according to certain principles, architects need not emulate those principles or represent them metaphorically. Multiple design aesthetics become possible, each with its own integrity internal to itself -- and, of course, an external integrity that keeps the building from falling down. No rules of the architectural game can stake any privileged claim to being the universally true architecture.

Architecture is a realm of human endeavor that cannot escape the physical parameters intrinsic to our corner of this universe. However, architecture as a human endeavor can "float free" of the design parameters that God might have used to establish the universe. There is no master race that is most godlike, no writing style that most closely emulates God's, no cityscape that most closely parallels the New Jerusalem. Who knows -- maybe the Bible is so sketchy about what heaven is like just to keep people from trying to copy it on earth.

[Jaosn Hesiak]

Although I like the idea of "the sense of explosion, of multiple axes acting independently of one another", "lacking even the tension or tragedy generated by the co-presence of alternative but incompatible axes" is what I can't handle. I can SENSE that lack when I "experience" a "post-structuralist" building, such as one by Peter Eisenman; and I can also sense the explosion behind it, to which I am actually drawn.. The lack, however, seriously makes me want to puke, or jump out of my skin in some absurd non-mystical way, or scream, or...I don't even know. Something very strange that makes no sense to me at all.

I can't handle that secularized of a space; like literally, I think, I can't handle it. With a mysticism...or with kenosis...in reality there is something to hold onto, and that's what leads and allows you [me] to let go. Life-in-death and death-in-life (to quote Yeates, and Caputo), although its a bit pagan, I can hanle (with the understanding that its a bit pagan, at least sort of). Deathless death...that I can't handle.

Also: "Poststructuralism doesn't call for the abandonment of structure; it "only" says that the structures of human artifacts like language aren't necessarily determined by the structures intrinsic to the world." What if agreement itself is "intrinsic to the world"? Sounds overly simplistic, maybe. Propbably is over talked-about. But there's a whole argument of biblical interpretatin centered around the thought of "covenant"! As I noted at Fitch's blog, "The signifiers of a particular architectural aesthetic don't have to signify anything outside the realm of architecture" is only one of the ways to interpret this side of reality in which we live, in which we can't see what's on the other side of the mask or curtain. The other is that the architecture points at least a small bit blindly. The speaking man who points at the moon might be a bit of a old blind one, like Homer :)

Maybe Hitler was just a fool for thinking in terms of "copying" (Baudrillard, maybe...to whom I am so easily drawn), whereas a more properly ordered terminology might be "imitate" (Aristotle, Thomas a Kempis), "emmulate" (Frank Lloyd Wright - whose buildings look nothing like his mentor's Louis Sullivan, but yet Sullivan really is his mentor, teacher, and even in a sense, source), or "approximate" (Plato, perhaps).