Dear Ron,
RE:
> "But the Baha'i Writings have to be understood. Writings, all by
> themselves, have no meaning, its only when understood by human minds
> and put into action that they have effect."
>
> That the Writings have to be understood is obvious - but understanding is
> not wide open free-style opinionating as you seem to be suggesting.
>
You write,
"Ian, I do not suggest understanding is wide open! I did suggest that
our understanding is far from perfect."
I'm glad you've cleared that up - which is why I wrote "as you **seem** to
be suggesting."
Because our understanding is "far from perfect", does it mean we are always
wrong, i.e. there is no true knowledge? That would be contradicted by the
Writings. Moreover, relativism does not allow the attribution of error, only
difference of viewpoint.
Or does it mean sometimes we get it right and sometimes we get it wrong? In
that case we can get true knowledge. If some have true knowledge, then some
might have it wrong - something which relativism does not allow.
RE: ,
>
> "And having authoritative Interpretations doesn't help this one iota,
> for the Interpretations also must be understood by human minds and put
> into effect."
>
> So Baha'u'llah was wasting His time and just teasing us when He appointed
> Abdul'-Baha as the official interpreter to clear up problems? So He isn't
> really helping us understand the Writings through the interpretations of
> Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi?
>
You write
"Wow. I suggest no such thing!"
I disagree: look at your own words about having authoritative interpreters
"doesn't help this [interpretation problem] **one iota.**"
If it "doesn't help one iota" to have divinely appointed interpreters, then
it is kind of frivolous for God to appoint them in the first place. Teasing
actually . . . . trickery - 'I give you two official interpreters (but they
won't help you much).'
You write,
"Authoritative interpretations help us,
especially to set standards of conduct, rules to live by, laws of
orthopraxy. But interpretations, like the original Writings of the
Manifestation, are in words, and we are not able to understand them to
reveal ultimate reality to our limited minds. Thus, no one should
attempt to presume to impose orthodoxy based on a theological
understanding of written interpretations."
You are contradicting yourself. How can you say "Authoritative
interpretations help us, especially to set standards of conduct, rules to
live by, laws of orthopraxy" - when according to you we don't really know
for sure the meaning of those moral injunctions given to us in words? After
all, the words are telling us the "ultimate" truths in morality/ethics. Why
are the words used to give ethical injunctions different from the words used
to tell us about reality.
You are also mixing up two distinct and separate issues: (a) not imposing an
interpretation on others and (b) language not being able to tell us about
ultimate reality (there's a second confusion in that one and I deal with it
below.) The two are not the same.
No one is suggesting that we should impose an interpretation on anyone -
that's why I wrote we can all adopt the attitude 'Everyone has the right to
be wrong.' However, that does not mean we cannot test people's views on the
basis of logic, their consequences, their ability to harmonise with a wide
variety of Scripture and explicit guidance from the Universal House of
Justice.
You write: the Writings "are in words and we are not able to understand them
[the Writings] to reveal ultimate reality to our limited minds."
That is absolutely correct - another example of an absolute truth from the
Writings! We will never exhaustively understand ultimate reality.
However, nowhere do the Writings indicate that we cannot gain true knowledge
about reality if we follow the correct procedures. Indeed, they promise the
opposite i.e. that if we follow the guidelines laid out in the Writings we
will, in fact, gain true knowledge about reality. This knowledge will not be
exhaustive - but that doesn't mean it's not true.
That is precisely why the Writings provide so much guidance for our
philosophical thinking - no pantheism, no materialism, no reincarnationism,
no monism etc - so that we will develop true understanding of reality.
You write,
"No, no no, I am pointing out that we can base our ideas on the
Writings, but we can not ever be certain that we have the whole truth
and nothing but the truth. You twist my words into all -or-nothing
statements because that's all you an understand. Reality isn't like
that."
How can you say "Reality isn't like that" when you have just told me "we can
not ever be certain that we have the whole truth and nothing but the truth"
about ultimate reality?
You are misreading me. Nowhere in any post have I ever said that we can have
the "whole truth" - indeed, I have painstakingly pointed out to various
people that 'incomplete knowledge' is not the same as 'false.' Our first
grade knowledge of addition is incomplete knowledge - but true. These two,
'incomplete' and 'false' are often confused and conflated, especially by
postmodernists.
You write,
"You use words above to point towards obvious truths. Bu none of those
truths is Ultimate at all. You make my point well, words are very
useful and can be used by humans to communicate and to reason well;
but if you think any of those language fragments you typed above are
Ultimate truths, then you are sadly deluded."
I have never said they expressed "ultimate truths" - I have just given them
as samples of statements that we can be sure are 100% true. This is
precisely what is denied by sceptics, relativists and postmodernists.
You may think that these samples were all random - but they weren't. The
statement about Khomeini not being a duckbilled platypus deals with the deep
philosophical issues of identity, essences, nominalism, accidental and
essential attributes just for starters.(The Writings get into these.) The
statement "God exists" gets to the heart of a huge debate raging since Kant
about the limits of phenomenal reason (also covered in the Writings); 'fire
is hotter than ice' deals with the reality of accidental and essential
attributes (also dealt with in the Writings). 'Every human being has a
mother' deals with the whole issue of historical truth.
Each one of these statements points to - or away from - particular ways of
analysing reality.
You write,
"A little intellectual humility woudl go a long way. If you think you
hafe accdess to ultamte truth , so be it. But of couree yoiua re
wrong."
Please find me a passage where I claim that I - or any philosopher - has
access to "ultimate truth." I do not think you will be able to find one.
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.
__________________________________________________
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]
