Reply to comment

I noticed the reference to Roland Barthes at the top of the page Paul. That is very interesting that you would invoke him as a source of higher thinking and perspective.

Barthes and thinkers like him have had a tremendous influence on our cultural thinking in the last century.

The most telling of his comments to me, came in his essay 'The Death of the Author'.

In it he says, “Refusing to assign a ‘secret,’ ultimate meaning” to text “liberates what may be called an anti-theological activity, an activity that is truly revolutionary since to refuse meaning is, in the end, to refuse God and his hypostases—reason, science, law.”

Now when you couple that with Nietzche's remark, "I'm afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar."

What amazes me to no end... I find myself marvelling at their sophist rhetoric... is that these men author papers, and use words, to tell us that authorship and words have no objective or original meaning.

If words do not have any meaning, then what in the world are they expecting us to understand?

If an author or speaker cannot get across his intended concepts to the listener trapped in their own perspective, then what is the point in telling them anything, if in the end they refuse to come out of their tomb?

Personally I have great faith in grammar. I believe that you fully understand what it is I am saying. I believe that the fundamental laws of reason demand conscious and ordered analysis of all truth claims.

Those truth claims that deny thier own power and reason, are the most rediculous and desperate of all intellectual endeavors. They convey or project the power to liberate the mind, while denying that such power exists or is meaningful.

As Roland says, it is truely anti-theological, or anti intellectual.

2 Timothy 3:5 having a form of godliness but denying its power.

Romans 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.