@mike Can you elaborate on this? Presumably you don't intend to deconstruct your views on things you firmly believe, say, the majority position on climate change or LGBTQIA+ rights. I understand your deconstruction as preparation for building up a whole new set of beliefs. Deconstruction can have an important place in one's journey, but isn't it more of a course correction than a destination?

Or am I construing something as serious that you meant only as a joke?

@RobertFrancis @mike

My point of view on this is that deconstruction is holding things up to a light and seeing what they truly are. Things like climate change and LGBTQIA+ rights stand the test of deconstruction, as do many other fundamental truths.

@Jeff @mike Thanks Jeff. It's a relief to hear acknowledgment that there are fundamental truths in a community that, as far as I can tell, is generally uncomfortable with admitting they exist even though 1)they are the subtext of everything that is talked about and 2)they give rise to careful safeguards that are enforced through social pressure, as is typical for any community.

@RobertFrancis @mike

If you listen to The Liturgist podcast you will find that there are truths. The main truth being to cause no harm to another human, or cause as little harm as possible given a circumstance. Things like denying climate change and denying fundamental rights to a group of people because they don't hold your particular belief's are obviously harming to other humans.

@Jeff @mike Well, certain things may be obvious to you that are not obvious to me, and vice-versa. To preach deconstruction of everything while reserving certain things in a protected status would be inconsistent. If one really supports deconstructing everything, there cannot be exceptions for what one personally considers fundamental truth. If on the other hand one claims some truths are universal, that is moving to a very different stance than “deconstruct everything”. 1/

@RobertFrancis @Jeff @mike Hmmm... I would just point out that deconstruction absolutely does not equal destruction. As I understand the term, deconstruction is the critical examination of a concept or phenomenon and of all the suppositions it requires.

@Pondering @Jeff @mike Good distinction. Now, since deconstructing requires examination through the lens of our own interior vision, it is never purely objective. The effect of our biased temperament and worldview was acknowledged on the epistemology episode, and thus holding forum for a diversity of views was presented as a useful means to better ascertain the truth of something. 1/3

@RobertFrancis @Pondering @Jeff I think one of the most important ideas that Michael and I have explored in the arc of the podcast is that nothing is objective involving humans, and that all human knowledge is provisional.

@mike @Pondering @Jeff Mike, I now recall you saying on TAATR that you didn't care if the Liturgists is seen as an echo chamber because it's more important that the hurting have a place to feel safe in. This makes your suggestion to deconstruct everything (since you didn't say it was a joke) even more difficult to understand. An echo chamber/safe place indicates a reverence for shared beliefs, while deconstructing everything targets even cherished beliefs as fair game. Can you clarify?


@mike @Pondering @Jeff LOL... maybe your robot persona is a little too convincing!

But seriously, this is a good reminder for me that just because something I hear carries particular weight with me, it doesn't necessarily carry the same weight with the person who said it.

I recognize that the work of the Liturgists is often more about exploring than about laying down solid markers, and that this has its own advantages at times. Thanks.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
The Liturgists

This is an instance for folks who follow The Liturgists Podcast, The Alien Podcast, and other things The Liturgists create.