{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024057738572574178, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.971291866028708, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Theology and Dialogue: Essays in Conversation with George Lindbeck

learned book; and, in many respects, they were fulfilled. Still it probably will have little impact on the very debates C. wishes to influence. The neglect of the many postmodernisms is part of the problem. He also fails to locate the postmodernism he criticizes within the debate about modernity. The result is that the book stands as a confrontation between postmodernism and premodernism without much attention to modernism itself. Furthermore, even in the refutation of postmodernism, C. gives remarkably little attention to the very people, Derrida and Rorty, who have come to represent it. The genealogy squeezed them almost completely out. Lastly, in the constructive part, C. chooses to stress metaphysics instead of epistemology because he sees epistemology as moving in a hopeless circle. I understand that decision, and yet the decision does in many ways put his final argument outside the conversation which involves Derrida's Grammatologie and Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. To be effective, a critique has to be part of the conversation it criticizes. A difficult task in this murky conversation, almost as hard as deciphering rock music.