>>Is there a scientific way to distinguish between the two, pure and applied?<<
If you mean a reasonable or systematic way to distinguish between them, I don't think that it is difficult to distinguish between them. What I called "applied interpretations" clearly refer either to either a specific time period or a particular individual or set of individuals. If the circumstances change (as with the end of the Soviet Union referred to by the Guardian in _Citadel of Faith_), the interpretation may no longer be relevant. As I see it, the difficulty is not in distinguishing between pure and applied interpretations. It is determining whether, with respect to the Guardian's suggestions to individuals, a particular statement was an applied interpretation (assuming some of them could be classified as such) or only the Guardian's personal opinion. In any event, the Guardian indicated that these suggestions are not binding. >>Unlike other organizations, differences of this nature caused them to split >>into two separate camps.<< Yes. In that respect, I think that the absence of a living authoritative interpreter is a call to individual and community responsibility and an invitation to greater polydoxy. IMO, Ruhi may represent an abandonment, hopefully temporary, of that responsibility. Regards, Mark A. Foster • http://markfoster.net • [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger." ---- Abbie Hoffman __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/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/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
