Christian Dilemmas

I am not so much of a post modernist. To begin with, I do not know what it means. To the best of my knowledge, post modernity simply means:

"A refutation of grand meta narratives" (Jimmy, 2005)

In other words, it means that all the world's philosophies (meta narratives), that are concerned with seeking some form of truth, or in reaching a final utopian state, is a false conjecture.

So Marx is wrong, because Man doesn't necessary have to progress to a state-less world; Hitler is wrong, because Aryans are not superior to begin with; Gramsci is wrong, because you cannot overthrow capitalism with hegemony; Fukuyama is wrong, because capitalism doesn't guarantee progress in society; Aristotle is wrong, because not everything is in flux; Aristotle's disciple, Plato is wrong, because Forms cannot reveal a greater reality; Habermas is wrong, because his theories of communication will not establish a better understanding in state-society relationships.

So all philosophies are wrong. And post modernity becomes an anti-theory theory, and the reasons why it is post modern and not neo theory is because it wants to get out of the whole theory paradigm.

And if a good theory is suppose to be parsimonious, have a predicitive accuracy, testable with other observations, then post moderniy suggests that the world is complex (as opposed to simple linear theories such as Hegel's History), doesn't guarantee any prophecy of the future, let alone allow us to come to a greater understanding of the present since every observation holds a subjective value to everyone.

So post modernists think that we cannot make sense of this world. But neither does post modernity in itself. But I think a strand of post modernity that make sense to me is that we are limited by the language that we used. We are unable to have enough 'language' to understand the world, and we are subjected to some sort of 'dichotomy' in our everyday language. So if I say that I am "blessed", it means that I have been "unblessed", if I am joyful, it means that there were times when I have been "sad", if I want to be "thankful", there were times that I have been "unthankful" etc. No adjectives exist by itself, and that is why we learn antonym in primary school. And some post modernists say that it is the lack of language that nails grand meta narratives.

I think sometimes, I'm stuck within this dichotomy in my everyday language with God. All the words that are used in prayer have a "silence" other half. It is almost as if my desire for some "hope", "joy","peace" with God is counter balanced with the supression of "hope-lessness", "joy-lessness", and "strife" in life. And so quiet time becomes a balancing act between the revealed lightness of biblical language and the other silenced darkness. The more you pray and express your faith, the more the devil plays into your mind regarding the things that you fear will arise.

And so the more that I hope in a person, the more hopeless I feel about that person. The more I want to be blessed by God, the more I fear that I'll be disappointed by God. The more I want to be moral, the more I am reminded of my moral-less.

So sometimes, I try to avoid the whole dichotomy by adding an 'a' to my language with God. I try not to put too much hope in a person, so that I am neither hopeful nor hopeless. I try not to focus too much about blessings, so that I am neither uplifted by blessings, nor angry with a lack of blessings. I try to be stoned in my emotions, so that I am neither joyful nor sad. So maybe one becomes amoral, "a-religious", a-symmetrical etc.

Gosh, how wrong can that be. Does anyone share the same dilemma? I need enlightenment!