Monday, January 29, 2007

Ben Eats Cake





12 comments:

J.A.H. said...

I love the cake video! Happy Birthday Ben! Josh and BreAne

buehrlefan said...

cute pics!

Postfoundationalism, like poststructuralism or postmodernism, leaves behind enlightenment assumptions. It is the belief that truth has no "foundational" basis because the epistemological process is rooted in dynamic processes of talk, community, and relationship. I think.

~Heidi 8) ~ said...

I like cake too :) ahh i so wish i was there too :) looked like great cake :) way to go sam heheh :) Thanks for putting up the video makes me feel that much closer to actually being there

B-U-R-L-Y said...

Heidi - We had a good time ... it would have been nice to have more family around ... but it was a long work day for me anyway.

buehrlefan: Can you identify yourself? You can be anonymous if you want to be, but at least email me your identity. I don't think you're trying to hide it because you're one of four or five possible people. Let me see if you can clarify (though this is a strange post in which to have this conversation;o). When you say that "the epistemelogical process is rooted in dynamic ..." you are referring to the "POST-" epistemological process. Is that correct. If so I would say, "yes." That's my understanding of it. It seems to me that though Vanhoozer (Drama of Doctrine) is not so much rejecting foundationalism (though perhaps he is) as he is calling for caution and humility in it's application. Bottom line: he's thinks foundationalism - if used as THE litmus test for truth is inadequate. Thoughts?

B-U-R-L-Y said...

In addition, my understanding of "post-" is beyond and not "instead of," necessarily.

Also, I don't really know in full what foundationalism is;o) ... just being honest ...

buehrlefan said...

Now that I think about it, the common term of use is "anti-foundationalism" rather than postfoundationalism.

I'm not familiar with how particular scholars are now defining "postfoundationalism," though postmodernism and poststructuralism use "post" to imply both moving beyond and replacing/ displacing.

So yes, postfoundationalism, if it is like anti-foundationalism, assumes the "foundation" for epistemology to be rooted only in a dynamic process.

PS you know who I am... you just sent me an e-mail!

B-U-R-L-Y said...

an email from your blogger account or a personal email ... because I can't figure out who you are ...

B-U-R-L-Y said...

Did I send it to your church account? If so, you got it late ... I sent that yesterday.

buehrlefan said...

Yes, the church account yesterday!

"foundationalism as the litmus test for truth is inadequate"-- well, foundationalism assumes some fixed and absolute reference point.

When theorists and theologians frame their arguments, they often make the mistake of assuming that they can speak from the vantage point of God.

From God's vantage point, yes, there is an absolute reference point for language, thought, and reality-- His spoken Word in Christ. From the vantage point of human experience, language is self-referential. We use language to explain language.

So, as a Christian, I embrace the foundational position that God's word determines reality. When I describe my experience as a language user to other language users, I can embrace a postfoundational position.

B-U-R-L-Y said...

"buehrlefan" (aka Mary Napier;o)): I would agree ... a.) to the degree to which I've thought it through ... and b.) to the degree I can wrap my mind around it.

buehrlefan said...

I'm not Mary Napier!

B-U-R-L-Y said...

I know you're not ... and I didn't mean to wink at Mary Napier.