Ian,
You make some very good points. I would like to discuss one point you
made though:
"" 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.
>
Actually, I like to keep the contradictions. There are contradictory
statements all through the Writings. Most (but certainly not all)
assertions in the Writings can be paired with contradictory assertions
elsewhere in the Writings that seem to say the opposite thing. Most of
the time, most of us tend to just pick and choose the statements we
like and forget the ones that seem to contradict our favorites. I
myself am certainly guilty of this.
However, I believe the contradictions are there for good reasons.
Reality is complex and contradictory.
To me, the crux of the matter is that our Writings, and all spiritual
literature, are trying to express and communicate in words in human
languages what is inherently not able to be precisely expressed in
human language. The only way to do that is to pair immense
incongruities with one another. The incommensurateness of the concepts
discussed in the Writings are an elliptical way of pointing us towards
spiritual realities.
Reality can not be completely expressed in words in human languages,
for reality is far more complex than human language. This does not
mean that communication is impossible because human language can and
certainly does point us in the right direction and allows good enough
communication to take place to get things done, but such communication
is never perfect.
Spiritual reality in particular is not easily amenable to being
expressed in words. Thus we see spiritual writing is full of
hyperbole, metaphor and contradictions. Still, good spiritual writing
can and often does point us in the right direction.
Anyway, that 's my take on it for now.
Ron
On Nov 8, 2007 1:31 PM, Ian Kluge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
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.
-----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]
>
__________________________________________________
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]
