Blinded by Science--or Something

In class last week, there was a lot of talk about things that seemed to appear in triads. The readings regarding structuralism and post- structuralism appear to continue this theme. In the mix is the presence of religion, even though not so conspicuously as in past readings. Religion strives to prove that there is "something" that centers the universe, and that man possesses an essence that is immutable and eternal. Philosophy (at least the philosophies discussed in the text which are firmly in the nihilist camp) frequently appears to argue that there is in fact nothing and that there is no center, no essence. Science tries to prove whether or not something either is or is not using a set of standards; however, even these standards are occasionally the subject of scientific inquiry. Religion fosters and expands its control through guilt and promises of reward. We are creatures of a god that is able to place at least a part of his word in us, and who gives us access to definitive powers. Philosophy removes the element of guilt from the occasion, and as the text states, replaces it with post-structuralist anxiety. We are not the creative word, but created by the word, and therefore, not in command of its powers. The reward is a relativistic euphoria where all is free-floating and unattached (60). Where there is no gravity, there is no real fear of falling. Science , or structuralism, attempts to remove both guilt and anxiety by examining that which may be known and identifying its "essence".
The two ends of the scale both require a great deal of faith in "the word". The world and all in it were spoken into being by a personified word. To believe this, an attitude of mind called faith is required. Philosophical post-structuralism
has a Big Bang theory that talks about language exploding "into multiplicities of meaning" (70). Post-structuralism is also described as an attitude of mind. This attitude of mind requires us to believe that a text possesses a "textual subconscious." A group of words that have no real meaning, always in a state of flux, contained within the confines of a piece of paper has a "subconscious" state--but no essence? That's one heck of a Credo. All the while the structuralists are trying to determine whether our texts (and ourselves) bang, wheeze, fizzle, or simply float away in the light of parallels, echoes, balances, patterns, symmetries, etc. Have we moved past the attempt to define and control truth into the more simple endeavor of trying to define and control reality?