Dear Ron, I do not deny that the statement "religious truth is not absolute but relative" is important - but it must be understood correctly, i.e. in its immediate context, in the context of other absolute teachings (e.g. the existence of God; Baha'u'llah is the messenger of God for this age) as well as its logical coherence. We can't just take an isolated phrase and make it the key signature of the Writings.
Nor does my understanding of it make it "null and of no effect" - but rather qualifies it so that it does not (a) contradict other statements in the Writings and (b) disintegrate into logical nonsense as all unqualified assertions of relativism do. You write, " Many Baha'is simply ignore any parts of the Writings that don't fit a literal, legalistic mindset. After all, one can always find other statements in the Writings that seem to contradict statements like religious truth is not absolute but relative" because there are also plenty of literal, fundamentalist type statements in the Writings also." That may be what some Baha'is do, but I don't think I've done that - and if I have please show me what relevant quotes I have ignored. We cannot ignore the "religious truth..." statement, but we cannot ignore the absolute statements either. They must be reconciled - and the easiest way to do that is to say that relativity of religious truth applies to the "nonessential", historically conditioned outer expressions of the "eternal verities" but not to the "eternal verities" themselves. These historically conditioned outer expressions change throughout progressive revelation as we evolve materially and spiritually but the "eternal verities" do not change. IOW, we have what I call (in my paper, "Relativism and the Bahai Writings") an "evolutionary Platonic perspectivism." 'Evolutionary' because our perspectives develop, grow and expand throughout history. 'Platonic' because the "eternal verities" themselves never change. 'Perspectivism' because our perspectives change and may be various. However, because perspectives may be various i.e. *many* perspectives may be true does not mean *all* perspectives are true and all are certainly not equal. (This was Nietzsche's error.) If all perspectives are true, none could be in error - yet the Writings frequently mention erroneous views and even say a few religions are the "outcome of human perversity."(Gleanings 217). Since some are in error, not all can be equal. Moreover Baha'is claim precedence for Baha'u'llah's revelation since he -and no one else - is God's Manifestation for this age. Could you give some examples of what you consider "fundamentalist type statements in the Writings"? How are you defining 'fundamentalist'? Best wishes, Ian Kluge -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ursus Maximus Sent: November 7, 2007 3:04 PM To: Baha'i Studies Subject: Re: Deconstructionism Ian, I disagree with you. To me "religious truth is not absolute but relative" is a most important statement. Your understanding go that phrase makes it null and of no effect, which is unacceptable to me. This is symptomatic of a bigger issue. More and more, I find that many, maybe most, Baha'is essentially reject all of the assertions in the Writings that I find most important and foundational. Many Baha'is simply ignore any parts of the Writings that don't fit a literal, legalistic mindset. After all, one can always find other statements in the Writings that seem to contradict statements like religious truth is not absolute but relative" because there are also plenty of literal, fundamentalist type statements in the Writings also. Its a dilemma ;-)) Since msot people seem to have a more straightforwrd, literal kind of mindset than I do, I am forever in a small minority that feels left out. So be it. Ron P.S. But the Writings support a flexible mindset as well as they support a narrow mindset; how could be otherwise? Reality cannot be accurately described in words, even by a Manifestation. That is as clear as the noon day sun, to me ;-)) On Nov 7, 2007 5:40 PM, firestorm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ian, > yup. :"Rorty holed up in the position that > "consensus" was the only way to avoid deconstructionism's extraordinary > difficulties on this issue. This "consensus" could be the consensus of > experts, as well as (and he says this) nice progressive liberals like > himself whose greatest horror is causing pain to anyone." > and? let us look at the bull approaching and see the horn of deus populi as one horn, and Absolute Authority on the other. how do we dance? > > > to get "real" here, > :"Its point is that all communication > is inherently problematic and ultimately, impossible since every statement > is subject to endless self-subversion." is exacctly true. and was added to the lit imnho most clearly, if not originally, by de sade. it forms a core message from which manifests the literary output of de sade. which is, in my verrry firm and actualised opinion, is the reason the UHJ would think the issue of deconstructionism noteworthy. de sade opines that the >>>only<< time there is certitude in communication, and thence intimacy, and thence belonging, is when one is interpreting the moment of infliction of pain and the resulting scream of the recipient. society is doing this to itself. erica troussant offers in some talks the idea that "since we all belong to God, we all want to belong." and in my head i now see a qed. > i now add the concretely useful philosopher fred rogers, in his stunningly effective psa for gulf storm i..."children will ask "who will take care of me? "they are not selfish for doing so...it is the only question they can have." > this isn't about us. and as u note so well, not about japanese restaurants. > > :"deconstruction as a > method of analysing discourse/action can make anything - anti-semitism - > into anything else - philojudaism - i.e. turn Mother Teresa into Dr. Mengele > and vice versa." as can any kind of sophistry. the Master notes in re something or other aristotle offering a ptolemaic "proof" for astronomy, and later a copernican "proof" which was not widely circulated. > at this existential moment i am waiting a phone call about whether my skill set will be utilised by people who studying whether social engineering can be achieved thru facebook aps. this is accomplished by deconstructing their responses to choice until the "buttons" are found, at which point the buttons can be painted with the coulour of the moment into a new construct. one might erview the work of the concrete philosopher phillip zimbardo for examples. or ruhi 3 or 5. > and thus back to the virtue of necessity and the meaning of treasure. > Baha'u'llah seems to have nice things to Say about socrates in the Lawh-i-Hikmat. from a wiki-ish watering down of the phaedrus, :"After Theuth remarks on his discovery of writing as a remedy for the memory, Thamus responds that its true effects are likely to be the opposite; it is a remedy for reminding, not remembering, he says, with the appearance but not the reality of wisdom. Future generations will hear much without being properly taught, and will appear wise but not be so, making them difficult to get along with." does derrida point us back to this? for many, yes. the issue is then possibly, to cite otis redding, "where'm i gonna go from here?" > i would offer that this central issue "difficult to get along with" is an apt description of the world described in aDj. > i would offer that derrida, as an example of one too busy pointing out he has the chariot reins in his hand to direct the flight is a poster boy for the phenomenon he descries and decrys. > i would however also offer that the relevant issue is the deconstruction of "approaches" to Text and implementation, and creating direct experience, to the extent possible of the >behaviour< the Text describes as the useful conduct of the charioteer. > > i find that in your answer to sen we have a great deal of common ground, towards finding the bull's back. > :"notice the self-contradiction if we read "relative" in a simplistic > way: how can there be a "fundamental verity" i.e. a changeless foundational > truth, if this itself is subject to change and is only relatively true?" > easy. fundamental verity : life. algae and eagle, equal participants in a fundamental verity. almost entirely disparate in their responses to it. > > i offer a concrete to ur analysis, in the hope of increasing the common ground. > years ago david frost in a tv showw "that was the weeks that was" had a bit where a klansman and an afrocentric radical debated. the klansman stated: "the negro is 2 million years behind in evolution." the afrocentric retorted " the black man is the original man" i offer that this is a prime example of subverting of meaning by juxtaposition. others might see it as iconoclastic. others as simple friday night humour. with in this iconoclasm/deconstruction dialectic, where do u put it? > > :"Deconstructionism could never accede to this statement given its intrinsic > assumption of a privileged viewpoint." can deconstruction say "God changed his mind" in between sips of coffee? > > :""what is known is known in the manner of the knower."" ok. my recall of the Most Great Unity is that the manners of knowing, quaakitiatively and quantifiably must not of themselves become causes of differentiation, and would thus hold equal "value to the "holder". > > > > > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. > > > __________________________________________________ > > > You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st > Baha'i Studies is available through the following: > Mail - mailto:[email protected] > Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st > News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st > Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist > Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
