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.
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]
