Ian,
You are taking my words our of context and deliberately
misrepresenting what I said. it is not possible to have a meaningful
conversation when you do that.
You quoted me and commented :
""""""
"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).'"""""""""
Ian, You oh so dishonestly failed to include that I pointed out IN
THE VERY SAME POST and elsewhere in the thread that our authoritative
interpretations are useful and important! And as for my "And having
authoritative Interpretations doesn't help THIS one iota" quote above,
the "doesn't help one iota" clearly referred to THIS, which THIS is
the issue I pointed out right above in that post's previous sentence
that.
" Writings, all by
themselves, have no meaning, its only when understood by human minds
and put into action that they have effect." And our human minds can
understand and put into effect but not perfectly. It is not all black
and white, right or wrong. Most of the time, we are partly right and
partly wrong, in differing degrees and to differing percentages, which
you just keep ignoring in your all or nothing approach.
You are not trying to reason together, you are trying to win debating
points by any means necessary.
I have no desire to converse with such behavior. I don't know what
your motives are in all this, but they cant be good when you resort to
this kind of deceptive debating tactics.
Ron
On Nov 20, 2007 12:57 PM, Ian Kluge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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]
>
__________________________________________________
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]
