Ian, see my responses:
On Nov 19, 2007 6:51 PM, Ian Kluge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Ron,
>
> You write,
>
> "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.
>
Ian, I do not suggest understanding is wide open! I did suggest that
our understanding is far from perfect.
> The Writings set guidelines for our understanding e.g. that we cannot know
> essences directly in and of themselves but can only know them through their
> qualities (SAQ 220). This places very clear and strict limits on
> any theory of epistemology that intends to be compatible with the Writings.
>
> For example, Abdu'l-Baha is quite explicit in rejecting materialist
> philosophy, along with pantheism, reincarnation and the belief that the
> world is an illusion (SAQ 278). Thus, no understanding of the Writings that
> we develop should be endorse these philosophies or maintain these positions.
>
> Each of these rejections carries with it trainloads of philosophical
> implications/consequences that we must unpack if we wish to understand the
> Writings fully.
>
> You write,
>
> "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?
>
Wow. I suggest no such thing! 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 on should
attempt to presume to impose orthodoxy based on a theological
understanding of written interpretations.
> What you are suggesting is that this interpretation process can go on
> forever - the postmodernist trap, but there is no evidence in the Writings
> that this is the case. When Baha'u'llah forbids violent conflict about
> religion He means just that - and is not opening the door to endless rounds
> of speculation about what 'violent' or 'conflict' means. When He tells us
> all Manifeststations share the station of oneness in which they are
> identical, the meaning is clear. All we need to do is work out the
> consequences in various situations.
>
> Take the following:
>
> " Know that there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the essence
> of a thing and the knowledge of its qualities. The essence of a thing is
> known through its qualities; otherwise, it is unknown and hidden."
> (`Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions 220)
>
> Here we have a clear cut philosophical statement about the limitations of
> human knowledge. Its meaning is self-evident - though all the consequences
> that follow from the meaning are not and will be discovered over time.
>
> You write,
>
> "You insist in an all-or-nothing approach to every question. You insist
> that we must be able to determine a right or wrong response to every
> question."
>
> This really doesn't mean much as a general statement (esp. since I follow
> the Writings in being a moderate rationalist) and requires a specific
> example and explanation to respond to. It expresses frustration more than a
> rational critique.
>
> You write,
>
> "You claim to prove your points by setting up straw men and then
> logically deducing contradictions, which is about as erroneous a
> methodology as is imaginable, really breathtaking in its hubris and
> lack of insight."
>
> This is easy to say - but why don't you prove it with a concrete example?
> Prove that I have set up a straw man.
>
> My definition of relativism is the one used in standard philosophical
> reference works, my explication of postmodernism is standard as well.
>
> Ironically the postmodernists always complain about criticism being aimed at
> straw men and not at what they 'really' said. Ha ha . . . On their own
> principles we cannot know what they 'really' said (nor can they) because
> that would be privileging a particular interpretation, the 'real'
> interpretation opposed to the allegedly false one.
>
> You write,
>
> "You treat words as if they have some sort of foundational and precise
> logical connection with reality. Nothing could be further from the
> truth. You claim that sentences like the one I just wrote to begin
> this paragraph leads to "anything goes" which is totally incorrect.
> Words can and do have meaning to human beings and are a superb guide
> to analyzing reality and deciding relative truth claims about just
> about anything and everything; but words have no chance of proving any
> ultimate truth claims about reality whatsoever."
>
> This is one particular philosophical position - postmodern in fact - and
> explains your dissatisfaction with my posts.
>
> You realize, I'm sure that your claim that "words have no chance of proving
> any ultimate truth claims about reality whatsoever" is implicitly
> self-refuting since you are using words to make a statement about the
> relationship of words to reality. If what you say is true, you can't even
> hope to base this statement on anything but preference and assertion, i.e.
> will-to-power. That, of course, is where postmodernism ends - the
> will-to-power.
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.
>
> Are you saying that words cannot tell us at least some absolute truths?
> That's pretty extreme. I think they can tell us some absolute truths.
>
> What do you make of the statement 'The part is smaller than the whole'? 'God
> exists'? 'Every human being had a mother'? 'Fire is hotter than ice'?
>
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.
> You write,
>
> "Really, Ian, I find the uncompromising (and in my opinion,
> uncomprehending and simple minded) nature of the beliefs you are
> expounding to be most distasteful. If I had to accept your beliefs in
> order to be Baha'i it would be impossible. I suspect that an
> overwhelming majority of people, including most Baha'is, would find
> your line of reasoning to be unacceptable. I hope it never becomes
> Baha'i orthodoxy."
>
> This is more an expression of pique and frustration than a rational
> argument. I get the impression that what you don't like is careful/rigorous
> philosophical analysis of statements, and the philosophical approach to
> studying the Writings. De gustibus non est disputandum.
>
> As for philosophical reasoning being "unacceptable", I can only say that 27
> years of teaching high school classes on a philosophical basis have taught
> me that especially young people enjoy it once they get into it - and to
> varying degrees, the vast majority do.
>
Ian,
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.
Cheers,
Ron
> 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:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
> 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/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
>
__________________________________________________
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:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
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/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
