Dear Christopher:

I haven't actually read the research for what it's worth. But I think that the basic idea to a creationist approach is that it isn't predicated on presuppositions, such as "things happen for a reason." In fact, the post-modern spirit, as I understand it, is fundamentally at odds with the classical principles of finitude and definitude and the modern principle of unitary/transcendental truth. I know that we can't so easily separate postmodernism from modernism. However, it is not the job of modernism to expose limits; all it does is "impose" limits. In contrast, it is postmodernism's own ideal to constantly challenge itself and extend beyond powers of fixation and apparatuses of control. So my answer to your question is 'no' for two reasons. For one thing, modern scientific reason is not equipped with the potential to expose limits and for the other, the postmodern notion of multiplicity is constantly at work against its own boundaries -- because basically it's always shifting.

Thanks for that Naeem. To be clear, I have not consulted the actual research either! But the report I read has helped me frame the question, which I regard as the important matter here. I think we have quite different understandings of what modernity and post-modernity are, and how they might interact. For me, post-modernism is merely a variant of pre-modernity. Suspicion and superstition. At bottom, it's concerned with emotion, not reason. Any nonsense you want to believe is true, as long as it makes you feel more complete. You should impose your beliefs on others, to justify your self to yourself.

For me, modernity was about objective reason. If your beliefs are demonstrably wrong, they're nonsense and you're not entitled to them. You should persue objective reason to render yourself objectively valuable. The two are wholly at odds. Since I believe in objective reason and universal principles, and consider those principles to be demonstrably universal, I consider post-modernism to be dangerous tripe.

I would like it very much if the latter could redeem us and save us from the former. Hence the question.

NOCK

According to science which We developed through LSIPI, there is one universal law that binds humans, namely the Law of Limitations. This is what makes modernity and postmodernity dangerous, where modern humans force themselves to walk above their limitations. Actually, the Limitations as a fact very need A NORMAL GUIDE, so the limitations are not themselves-destructive

Thanks. That's interesting. I'm glad to see someone defend the notion of a universal principle! I can't agree with your suggestion that modernity is abs bad as post-modernism. I understand why you claim it is, but for me the former promotes a form of reason that has greatly improved human well being. The latter glorifies destructive adolescence.

NOCK

Dear,

Prof. Nock

Thanks for the explanation.

I am glad that you have understood the Universal Law, that I have proposed. In the concept of Tawhed, the Law of Limitation is one of the "Universal Law of Creation" that Allah giving for every creature, including humans, as the most perfect creature of Allah.

Since the era of Adam until now, there is no somebody perfect in this world. Everybody, include the cleverest scientist, like Stephen Hawking and Einsten, they must submit to " the Limitations Law". their live are limitated by death. Why? Because, the death is the future history fact which limitate every man still live now. They all must die. like or dislike, every human must die. Because, the death is one of "the Universal Law" which Allah giving for every the living things in this world.

The modern and post- modern problem, we can dicussed its again. we have along time for that. we think, this poblem is very normal, because, between us and you have the conceps of science and culture different. We have not feel traumatic with our religion, and Europeans has felt the deeply traumatic with their religion.

We all hope, our civilization in the future will be better. We all created for collaborate, not for conflic.

Greeting from Us.

Darmawijaya.

LSIPI Malut-Indonesian.

I agree with your sentiment. Many thanks.

NOCK

Dear Christopher.

Thank you for getting back. Obviously, we have different perspectives.

The thing is, it is not practically possible to dissociate the two movements/currents in historical or philosophical terms.

But I have to beg to differ because, if I have no way but to refer to "post-modernity," post-modernity doesn't oppose reason as such and it does not distinguish between reason and emotion, let alone being concerned with emotion. Post-modernity attacks Renaissance and modernist notions of reason because, to put it simply, "look what they have brought on us!"

For a post-modernist, life doesn't contain a message to be discovered and truth isn't somewhere beyond the senses -- in this sense, it is modernism's false belief in transcendental truth (a universal principle) that constitutes the most dangerous superstition.

From this view, reality is all-encompassing. This view does not reduce reality to one thing. It embraces existence in its entirety. Nietzsche's notion of affirmation is solid ground for me to suggest that post-modernity is not about believing in just anything. It's not about believing at all. It's time we stopped asking questions about what things mean and started asking what things do and what we can do with things.

History has seen to itself numerous claims to universal principles and it's been, to my knowledge, mostly about colonizing innocent people, occupying foreign lands and other forms of savagery.

Now, it might seem unsettling to stop clinging to long-held ideas and common-sensical beliefs, but trust me, once you let it go, you're still going to survive.

Instead of adopting predefined notions that might help us overcome our fear of the unknown, post-modernism is about discovering -- for one's self -- what life has to offer.

Well, we don't agree. And why would we in a post-modern world? But I will always defend objective reason, even beyond the hilt. I don't see anything any good that post-modernism ever did in the world. It is a vile creed grounded most recently in the advanced syphilitic mind of Nietzsche who, like a nasty adolescent, could destroy everything and build nothing! Unless you believe he contributed to Naziism, of course! His sister did. And her beautiful inbred Aryans still press on in South America...be proud!

Without what you condemn, you'd have little healthcare, little food, a very short life expectancy, and no time to criticize or complain about it! How's that for post-modern irony?

NOCK

And I will add one more thing Nadaee. It's the fact of post-modernity that leaves us nothing to discuss. If you're committed to it, ie if it pleases your emotions, you should not talk of it to others! True post-modernists simply won't agree on exemplars, histories, correctness, nor anything else really! In the end, the pointlessness of it all will become apparent and your heart will be broken. There'll be no point to your work, institutions of learning, interactions with others, and so on. Unless, of course, you wish to exercise your will to power over them? Be aware of the horrors you're so keen to unleash!

NOCK

Dear Nock:

Why of course we have a lot to discuss!

Your comments confuse me; you're contradictory about your concerns but I can respect that because contradiction is so characteristically postmodern -- implying that we're already in the post-modern condition despite your probable unwillingness to confirm so. You first implied that centering on emotion is not a good thing while your arguments vibrate with heartfelt emotion. And I like that.

With much respect, I think that your idea of postmodernity is flawed. And I'm not surprised because it's a common but distorted understanding of difficult-to-read philosophy. That's not really true that postmodernists can't agree on things! We just can't agree that the reality constructed by a certain mode of thought in a certain historical era is all there is about life. 'Maybe try a different one, huh?'

Post-modernity is not about vandalism, anarchy, Nazism or any other form of fascism. Your argument about Nietzsche's sister was definitely fallacious. Post-modernity is about not being stuck in the past and letting centuries pass by without developing much further. It's not about refuting the achievements of objective, scientific, experimental reason. It's about not turning it into yet another religion. Science evolves, accepted facts turn out to be wrong and get replaced by new ones. Nothing's permanent, right? But there's nothing to be afraid of, it's just human and we've lived through that.

And no! I'm actually very happy that I know there is nothing to take solace in. But that's just a starting point for absolute jouissance. Post-modernity doesn't posit that life is pointless. Its point is in creating our own life and producing meaningful connections on social and personal levels. Where did you get those ideas about postmodernists as hermits?

By the way, postmodernists would be pretty delighted to work out different institutions that could more effectively cater to the needs of society. I understand your apprehension, that you might find this alarming, but it's rooted in our fear to not want to change or, in the case of probable change, to go back to an earlier state of affairs where we would feel more comfortable. There lies the danger. Don't forget that it was Freud's idea that humans have an essential desire to go back to death (Thanatos) -- pretty modern, isn't it? But, look, nothing would come of not wanting to change because life is change. If we knew what truth was, there would have been no point in living. There is truth but everyone has a take on it. But it's not that everyone's right. There are criteria -- scientific, philosophical, ethical ones -- but even those are subject to change as humanity evolves.

Please, no more! We have nothing to discuss, at all. Nothing I say is fallacious. I need no lessons in post-modernism from you,, or anybody else. You're a very dangerous person if you actually believe what you're saying, which I doubt. Please stay where you are and destroy that society. Do not contact me again on this or any other matter. Many thanks!

NOCK

I take it that you're kidding :)

But if my comments have offended you in any way, and I doubt it very much, I must apologize -- the fact that you're a professional, an academic, tells me you've heard these ideas a million times, you could hear these from any one of your students.

Your argument, and I rephrase here, that "Nietzsche's sister contributed to Nazism makes him a fascist too" was a clear example of the "you too" fallacy. Nietzsche was a voiced opposer of fascism. Read here:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-leiter/nietzsche-and-fascism_b_5458843.html

And why would I think I could give you lessons? It's just my personal take on truth and you have all the right in the world to disagree.

Also, I wouldn't accept being accused of being dangerous -- that's unprofessional -- as I believe in humanitarian principles and democratic forms of communal decision-making. If that's dangerous, then you're so, so in danger because all these ideas originated in the West.

I'm closing my discussion with a clear statement that my personal reading of post-modernist philosophers is purely academically motivated.

And wish you luck.

Last chance! I am severely disabled and very ill. I have limited time left. I prefer not to waste any of it on the likes of you who hold views I don't and won't ever agree with. Given the fact that I asked you never to contact me again on this matter, I do now find you offensive! You should desist. Please ensure that you do so from here on in.

NOCK

I'm sorry to disappoint you but you can't insult me and then ask me to not respond to that! I reserve the right to defending my integrity, my dignity. You don't respect the most basic principles of communication.

If you didn't want to hear different views, you shouldn't have asked it on researchgate! At least, if you're doing this again, mention you don't want opposing views.

And I don't take orders! Spare me that.

Bye Nock.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's very difficult. But science should tend to it!