Hi Mark, well, don't know about all this name-dropping. Lonergan was a guy
who worked toward reconciling theological and scientific method, I think.
Don't know about "intellectual conversion" but I could google it if you
think I should know more about it. Foucault was a linguist, I think, or
worked with another French guy who was a linguist name started with an S.
Intuitional grammar, I think. I always remember Chomsky's "Colorless
green
ideas sleep furiously", devoid of meaning but universally recognized as
grammatically correct.
So I am only marginally familiar with structuralism through linguistics.
I
could guess that post-structuralism finds fault with the idea that we have
an inherent structural system of order that we perceive, but as I said, it
is just a guess and sounds just so negative to me. I know you aren't a
negative guy, so I guess you need to tell me about how you label yourself.
Personally I guess I am a reasonablist. I believe in taking a step back,
looking at my actions and my words as they would appear in a newspaper,
not
a scholarly journal. For example I don't talk about ghosts and
channeling,
but rather inspiration and eternity, not about shunning Covenant Breakers
but about avoiding contentiousness, not about how to correctly abolute but
how to maintain the spirit, not about the laws so much as the teachings.
> Once a person is othered, or
> marginalized, one can conveniently dismiss what they say and then be
> socially rewarded for doing so. It is really a kind of
> institutionalized ad hominem fallacy.
Exactly.
> However, I
> am willing to shun Covenant-breakers in spite of my conscience.
Exactly. Wow. What a thing to say. I am not willing to "shun" in the
sense of isolate, punish, otherizing them, and I don't believe that was
intended. I think it is about minimizing the damage they can do to the
unity of the Baha'i Faith, which in my opinion is notsomuch.
There is no cogent group of Covenant Breakers anymore, there is no danger
from them anymore, there is no list of them that I am aware of. If
someone
has been labeled a Covenant Breaker and someone knows about it and is
willing to tell me that the person is a Covenant Breaker, well, it hasn't
happened yet, but I would just avoid talking to them about the Baha'i
Faith.
That would probably be the end of it because this cyber community only has
so many axes to grind. But should it ever come up I probably wouldn't
invite them to my home. But that is because in order to be known as a
Covenant Breaker they must be quite disagreeable people to be with. It is
a
reputation thing, not a command from God.
There are so many on the TRB that fit the bill of being disagreeable I
don't
need to know if they are Covenant Breakers or not in order to decide not
to
invite them home.
> To me, faith has
> nothing *directly* to do with rationality (in the sense of inductive
> evidence).
OIC! You are equating *blind faith* with a "pretense of certitude" (in
Berger's words). Huh!
It is so true that the idea of "faith" is generally perceived through the
Christian dominated *belief of the improbably* in just about every circle
I
find. But I wasn't equating the concepts until you mentioned it. And I
see
a lot of good from challenging blind faith, so I withdraw my criticism of
a
"pretense of certitude". Just don't call my faith a pretense, because I
define my faith differently from the Christian norm (as you do).
> These days, I almost never hear it. To me, that is unfortunate.
Yep. So you should quote it. Loudly and often.
> I think that there needs to be more of a
> "routinization of charisma.
As much as I am disappointed by what p***** for Feast in many Baha'i
communities, I am much more disappointed by what p***** for wor****p on
most
Sunday mornings in my little town. Don't get me wrong, special events,
presentations, most sermons and all the choirs are wonderful, but they
steal
from the individual a responsibility to inspire others, to impart an
understanding, to grow and help. That shared spirit of mutual help is
what
I see as the unifying principle that we can and should cultivate. It is
present in events that include the spectators, which is why Feast is
better
than Christian wor****p. But I think "charisma" is a misnomer. It is a
sharing spirit, a unity of purpose, a shared vision of the im****tance of
sharing the vision.
> Yes, to be a lover of humanity. That is what the Master said.
Thanks.
--Kent
"Foucaultian" <drfosternotfromgloucester@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:nOednQCD6Ouy4bTVnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 12, 8:38 pm, "Kent Johnson" <k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Hi Mark, it has been a while, and I have a few questions about your
>> evolving
>> beliefs.
>
> Hi, Kent. I would not say that my beliefs have exactly evolved (aside
> from hopefully having increased understandings of some issues).
> However, my approach to those beliefs changed drastically about a
> decade ago. I had what Bernard Lonergan called an "intellectual
> conversion," although my metanoia was nothing like Lonergan's.
>
>> First off, how do you get them to admit they are pretending? I mean,
it
>> has
>> been my experience that religionists of all sorts are motivated by fear
>> when
>> they choose their beliefs. Recently a thread with Susan just brought
up
>> the
>> subject of Covenant Breakers and hijacked the conversation.
>
> I was not around for that particular discussion. However, generally
> speaking, Covenant-breakers, in certain Baha'i contexts, fill a very
> similar role to Satan, demonic, demon possessed, etc. among many
> devout Protestants. It is often used as, what we commonly call in
> sociology, an "othering" strategy. Once a person is othered, or
> marginalized, one can conveniently dismiss what they say and then be
> socially rewarded for doing so. It is really a kind of
> institutionalized ad hominem fallacy.
>
> Personally, I avoid those designated "Covenant-breakers," not because
> I enjoy it, but only out of obedience to the House of Justice. I
> actually dislike shunning in principal - and immensely dislike it.
> Doing so is contrary to my conscience (or personal will). However, I
> am willing to shun Covenant-breakers in spite of my conscience.
>
>> But pretense of certitude is a hard charge to prove. So Berger's
belief
>> in
>> a general pretense is itself a doubtable certitude. And those who take
>> up
>> that certitude for what reason? They show very little faith in the
>> generality of humanity, which is not a Baha'i thing to do. We are
>> supposed
>> to inspire even the stones to take up God's cause, and that sort of
>> cynicism
>> is not likely to inspire.
>
> I don't know. I have never felt intellectually convinced by any
> supernatural beliefs. In fact, I can come up with as many intellectual
> arguments to entirely reject those beliefs (or to replace them with
> other supernatural beliefs) as I can to accept them. To me, faith has
> nothing *directly* to do with rationality (in the sense of inductive
> evidence). My faith is purely a matter of my feelings of closeness to
> Baha'u'llah and my personal insights (such as they are).
>
>> Good, then maybe we should talk. 'Cuz I have some problems with those
>> rigid
>> social constructions. I mean, for example, would the Adminstrative
Order
>> inspired by the Writings of Baha'u'llah have a problem with me
pointing
>> out
>> that our religion is not synonymous with their Administrative Order?
>> That
>> our purpose is to unite the human race with universal teachings, and
some
>> of
>> those teachings come from the Baha'i Faith? Our purpose is not to
teach
>> their interpretation of some of the Writings of Baha'u'llah?
>
> I would go so far as to say that being a Baha'i is not synonymous with
> being a member of the Baha'i Faith. `Abdu'l-Baha's definition of being
> a Baha'i, in one of the chapters of _Baha'u'llah and the New Era_ He
> approved, is much different from the stricter one provided by the
> Guardian. I suspect that they are both valid definitions, and neither
> should be allowed to trump the other.
>
> Back in 1970, when I embraced the Faith on Long Island, it was common
> to hear Baha'is refer to `Abdu'l-Baha's definition of being a Baha'i.
> These days, I almost never hear it. To me, that is unfortunate.
>
>> It sounds like cross purposes, but I don't think it is. I think it the
>> Baha'is who need to hear that these teachings are universal, that the
>> secular crowd already knows it. That religion is one of the biggest
>> obstacles to overcome in uniting humanity, and the Baha'i Faith is one
>> such
>> religion.
>
> The Guardian always said that Americans (sorry to any readers not in
> the U.S.) tend to place too much attention on the Administrative Order
> and not enough on the spiritual aspects of the Faith. To use a
> sociological term again, I think that there needs to be more of a
> "routinization of charisma." Max Weber coined that term to refer to
> the extent to which a religious community was effective in channelling
> the spirit of the founder of a religion into whatever institutions and
> practices succeeds them.
>
>> Our teachings, if interpreted my way, are universal. If interpreted
>> according to the current rigid social constructions they are
exclusivist.
>> But they are Baha'u'llah's teachings as recorded in His unchanging book
>> of
>> revelation. When we see it one way we should knock on doors and ask
>> people
>> to become Baha'is.
>
> I agree. I would say that the Baha'i approach to soteriology
> (salvation theology) is inclusivist. In other words, we can't say for
> sure that everyone will draw close to God. (We don't have that
> knowledge.) However, we also know that people who are not members of
> the Baha'i Faith, as well as many Baha'is, can draw close to God.
> God's Will is sovereign, and the Kingdom of God is not a Ticketron
> outlet.
>
> My view is that we should work on becoming spiritualized through
> prayer, meditation, deepening, and service. However, we should not
> worry about the rest. "The dominion is God's."
>
>> When we see it the other way we need to better ourselves to such an
>> extent
>> that people beg us to know why we do what we do. And only then offer,
as
>> you would a gift to a king, inspirational, life changing, challenging,
>> deed-oriented universal teachings. The exclusivity of the Religion of
>> God
>> is that of the doer, the maker of purposeful action. Deeds are the
mark
>> of
>> the religion of God. What is the mark of a Baha'i?
>
> Yes, to be a lover of humanity. That is what the Master said.
>
>> "Left sociologists"? Do you mean lefitists, left leaning, liberal? Or
>> those who remain?
>
> The term "left sociologists" refers to sociologists, like myself, who,
> for the most part, used to regard ourselves as Marxists and neo-
> Marxist sociologists. Although I still identify with much of Marx's
> approach, my views have been moderated considerably by Foucault.
>
> Mark Foster
>
>
>
|
