The epistemic fallacy and no/full access to Reality

Bryant's recent post on cynicism is interesting. As he was criticizing academic critique I kept thinking that in a way it sounds a lot like one of my criticisms of religion, including Buddhism. I.e., religions tend to be based on sin, or at least that this world is fallen, or perhaps that our regular mind is obstruction, etc. Sure enough he makes this connection, in that every position one might take is rife with hidden motives and agendas, "that everything is stained and dirty" and therefore pomo critique has "become the mirror image of the theologians." The difference of course is that pomo finds no transcendent truth that one can apprehend behind the facades, whereas theology (including Buddhism) posits such a Reality with direct access.


Bryant finds the obsession with critique to be counterproductive, in that it never makes the leap into the thing in itself (TII). Hence he thinks we need to "believe a little, to affirm a little, and to commit a little." He is adamant though that unlike theology this is not through a transcendent realm. And interestingly, he finds that critique in general, divorced from the TII, is stuck in the epistemic fallacy. While he doesn't then specifically apply this to theology, we might do so as well, as he did heretofore with sin. For it seems the epistemic fallacy is what in fact provides the tool by which we can go in the opposite direction of a transcendent realm with direct access.

How then do we "believe a little" without the epistemic fallacy and its resultant no/full access dichotomy? We've said plenty about this in the many pages of the IPS OOO thread, so catch up on reading it if you have yet to date. The answer(s) lies therein. (It's only 88 pages now, with 1136 posts.)