Comments for An Area Adjacent to a Location http://loganfidler.wordpress.com Please find enclosed the last man on earth Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:36:46 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Atheism and Ideology by loganfidler http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/atheism-and-ideology/#comment-61 loganfidler Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:36:46 +0000 http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/?p=111#comment-61 Morsecode, I agree with you. The sign should not have been stolen. Morsecode, I agree with you. The sign should not have been stolen.

]]> Comment on Atheism and Ideology by loganfidler http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/atheism-and-ideology/#comment-60 loganfidler Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:48:22 +0000 http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/?p=111#comment-60 Thanks for your input, Jesse. My experience of atheism has shown me time and again that atheism inevitably bears the marks of the religion it opposes. Granted, atheism isn't just an obscene other of religion, although at times it may seem that way. Additionally, I'm not trying to define atheism wholly out of a Christian worldview (as I do not ascribe to one) and I do apologize if the post seemed to imply that. I tried to clarify that this post is commenting only on a particular group of atheists, not every atheist. I think your following statement: "the Christian view is that one Christian speaks for all Christians" should be clarified further because I think it's as flimsy as the assumption that atheism is a monolithic entity ruled by Richard Dawkins. Christian thought and theology is as varied as atheist thought and atheology; I think the relationship engendered between atheism and Christianity has forced Christianity to, in a sense, become more like atheists in their variety. Thanks for your input, Jesse. My experience of atheism has shown me time and again that atheism inevitably bears the marks of the religion it opposes. Granted, atheism isn’t just an obscene other of religion, although at times it may seem that way. Additionally, I’m not trying to define atheism wholly out of a Christian worldview (as I do not ascribe to one) and I do apologize if the post seemed to imply that. I tried to clarify that this post is commenting only on a particular group of atheists, not every atheist.

I think your following statement: “the Christian view is that one Christian speaks for all Christians” should be clarified further because I think it’s as flimsy as the assumption that atheism is a monolithic entity ruled by Richard Dawkins. Christian thought and theology is as varied as atheist thought and atheology; I think the relationship engendered between atheism and Christianity has forced Christianity to, in a sense, become more like atheists in their variety.

]]> Comment on Atheism and Ideology by morsec0de http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/atheism-and-ideology/#comment-59 morsec0de Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:35:46 +0000 http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/?p=111#comment-59 "however, just because 25 percent of Washingtonians don’t affiliate with a religion doesn’t mean 25% of Washingtonians are represented by, or would even agree with, the atheist sign placed at Washington’s Legislative Building." You are correct. As an atheist myself, I find many of the things on that sign a bit tacky (at the least.) But I hope that 100% of the people of Washington support the right for that sign to be there. Sadly, that isn't the case, as at least one person tried to get rid of it illegally. “however, just because 25 percent of Washingtonians don’t affiliate with a religion doesn’t mean 25% of Washingtonians are represented by, or would even agree with, the atheist sign placed at Washington’s Legislative Building.”

You are correct. As an atheist myself, I find many of the things on that sign a bit tacky (at the least.)

But I hope that 100% of the people of Washington support the right for that sign to be there. Sadly, that isn’t the case, as at least one person tried to get rid of it illegally.

]]> Comment on Atheism and Ideology by Jesse http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/atheism-and-ideology/#comment-58 Jesse Sun, 07 Dec 2008 04:20:21 +0000 http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/?p=111#comment-58 I enjoyed your post, but your premises do not fit your conclusion, which seems to be that Atheism is merely its own ideology, just like Christianity. This is flat-out false, and is structured by a Christian worldview, such that if you define something on Christianity's own terms (by ideologizing it through basic, instilled analogy) then you give it a finite essence that may then be reciprocally destroyed (even if Christianity itself engenders this otherness; ie, atheists are just the witches and demons of the 20th/21st century). The cliche is that Atheism is post-ideological. It's more accurate to think of it as pre-ideological. Similarly, the Christian view is that one Christian speaks for all Christians. Atheism is just the opposite: one atheist speaks for him or herself, and no other. Thus if one speaks of "Atheism" as a coherent thing unto itself, like some sort of 527 group, one has already committed the error of failing to recognize the plurality that is a prior assumption of atheism. Barker doesn't represent anybody but himself. No one does. I enjoyed your post, but your premises do not fit your conclusion, which seems to be that Atheism is merely its own ideology, just like Christianity. This is flat-out false, and is structured by a Christian worldview, such that if you define something on Christianity’s own terms (by ideologizing it through basic, instilled analogy) then you give it a finite essence that may then be reciprocally destroyed (even if Christianity itself engenders this otherness; ie, atheists are just the witches and demons of the 20th/21st century). The cliche is that Atheism is post-ideological. It’s more accurate to think of it as pre-ideological. Similarly, the Christian view is that one Christian speaks for all Christians. Atheism is just the opposite: one atheist speaks for him or herself, and no other. Thus if one speaks of “Atheism” as a coherent thing unto itself, like some sort of 527 group, one has already committed the error of failing to recognize the plurality that is a prior assumption of atheism. Barker doesn’t represent anybody but himself. No one does.

]]> Comment on Saskatoon: Paris of the Prairies by Paul http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/saskatoon-paris-of-the-prairies/#comment-45 Paul Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:56:37 +0000 http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/?p=87#comment-45 Great photos.. especially the Broadway Bridge. Good luck. =Paul Great photos.. especially the Broadway Bridge. Good luck.

=Paul

]]> Comment on Picture Blag #1 by Matt http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/2008/10/06/picture-blag-1/#comment-44 Matt Sun, 12 Oct 2008 04:49:01 +0000 http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/?p=66#comment-44 ..is it a blag when it has pictures? ..is it a blag when it has pictures?

]]> Comment on Depressive Realism and the Objet Petit a by naillij http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/depressive-realism-and-the-objet-petit-a/#comment-21 naillij Thu, 20 Mar 2008 03:12:41 +0000 http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/?p=43#comment-21 Zizek, oh zizek. I just made him the quote of my first post. Also, according to the white people's blog--I'm whiter than ever now that I can reference him. Zizek, oh zizek. I just made him the quote of my first post. Also, according to the white people’s blog–I’m whiter than ever now that I can reference him.

]]> Comment on Depressive Realism and the Objet Petit a by Dominic http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/depressive-realism-and-the-objet-petit-a/#comment-18 Dominic Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:36:36 +0000 http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/?p=43#comment-18 <em>The depressed gaze in my view, is an eschatological gaze, it sees into the future, and in the future it sees nothing. The eschatological gaze of the depressed subject indelibly marks everything he/she sees with the empty vision of the future. The eschatology of the depressed subject is a realized eschatology where the events and conditions which belong to the eschatological consummation (which he/she sees as nothingness) are described as if they already belonged to present experience.</em> Excellent! That is the cold world precisely: the world of the end, of realized eschatology. The depressed gaze in my view, is an eschatological gaze, it sees into the future, and in the future it sees nothing. The eschatological gaze of the depressed subject indelibly marks everything he/she sees with the empty vision of the future. The eschatology of the depressed subject is a realized eschatology where the events and conditions which belong to the eschatological consummation (which he/she sees as nothingness) are described as if they already belonged to present experience.

Excellent! That is the cold world precisely: the world of the end, of realized eschatology.

]]> Comment on fantasy of love and sex by Derek http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/2008/01/26/fantasy-of-love-and-sex/#comment-6 Derek Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:35:57 +0000 http://loganfidler.wordpress.com/?p=29#comment-6 Great thoughts. I'm wondering if you think the quality of the ideal presented in the romantic film is equal, on a moral level, to the quality of the ideal presented in pornographic film? Great thoughts.

I’m wondering if you think the quality of the ideal presented in the romantic film is equal, on a moral level, to the quality of the ideal presented in pornographic film?

]]>