hint
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:36 am
Dear Richard:
Happyness and being on the way,
is not that complicated.
Majnun
Happyness and being on the way,
is not that complicated.
Majnun
https://bahai-library.com/forum/
Ovbiously you do not read the Baha'i remedies,
and it shows. We friends cannot undo the
mental spaghetti that drives your mind.
brettz9 wrote:Although it is not comparable to this, I might also add that in the other thread, BW, please do tone it down a bit with Abbas. It's fine (and appreciated) to offer points and counterpoints, but we don't need to force anything. It can be just as productive, and moreso without doing so.
epierce wrote:Baha'i culture, at present, is highly influenced by the "feel good" narcicissm of postmodernity. Postmodernists will engage in "inquisitorial" behavior (thought policing) against any form of expression that is considered "potentially offensive" to some "victimized" social group.
In general, violation of any group norm that is oriented towards "feel good" warm-fuzzy stuff (including premodern mythic structures that are "re-animated" in a religious subculture) will become "intolerant in the name of tolerance", "un-diverse in the name of diversity", and so forth.
The Universal House of Justice, addressing the "culture wars" of the 1990s in academia, told Baha'i scholars to adopt integral paradigms instead of rehashing old battles over "liberal vs. conservative" ideologies.
Instead of retreating from despair and hoplessness (that is pervasive in the world as a result of the collapse of the paradigms of modernism and postmodernism) into a cave of premodern archetypes and images, Baha'is should embrace the future, and try to see how spirituality is rapidly becoming seen as "evolutionary" by leading thinkers in the world.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:
What significance does it have at all that the "leading thinkers in the world" see spirituality as "evolutionary"?
Baha'i Warrior wrote:
The Baha'i Faith isn't a religion where you customize it for your own personal needs. It isn't a Dell computer. It is a religion sent by God.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:
First, one determines for himself: is Baha'u'llah sent by God? If the answer is yes, then he accepts that His teachings are infallible, and that if the UHJ was appointed to lead the Baha'i world, that whatever they decide is likewise of God. If Baha'is and Baha'i scholars were allowed to all be libertines, then there would be total anarchy (disunity).
richard wrote:Hello Eric,
I find your intellectual insights provocative and potentially helpful. I hope my follow up questions will not display too much ignorance of your chosen integral mental framework and vocabulary.
So then, would it make sense to suggest that “scientific,” “philosophical,” and “religious” memes are too often in conflict due to their partial premises and incomplete foundations? And if so, would it not be reasonable, logical, true & good to consciously integrate the three partial memes into a holistic meme that can evolve, grow, and progress with a greater perspective on the total universe realities of the relationships between and among material, intellectual, and spiritual manifestations?
Indeed, do you think there is some fatal barrier to such a seemingly sensible integration resulting in the conscious development and evolution of “The Holistic Scientific-Philosophical-Religious-Meme?” richard
epierce wrote:... not only are Bahá'ís urged to uphold the principle of unfettered search after truth, but they have also been encouraged from the time of the Faith's inception to pursue knowledge in all its forms and to excel in such attainments. ...
the Guardian stated (paraphrasing) that Baha'is should stay current on the leading edge of philosophy and science.
curt wrote:He knoweth the inner secrets of the hearts and the meaning hidden in the mocker's wink...We are, in truth, the one to judge. - Kitab-i-Aqdas, K 157
I spent an evening on integralinstitute.org to figure out just what the heck Eric was going on and on about. Well, all I want to say is THANKS Eric! I see what you are talking about and see profound applications personally and professionally. In a way, it reminds me of a yoga principle: expose your weaknesses to find strength, work the edge to find the center. I love yoga, love what I read on integralism, and love the Baha'i Faith. No need for any conflicts between them whatsoever.
Wishing you all the best,
Curt
Baha'i Warrior wrote:epierce wrote:... not only are Bahá'ís urged to uphold the principle of unfettered search after truth, but they have also been encouraged from the time of the Faith's inception to pursue knowledge in all its forms and to excel in such attainments. ...
Yes, we persue knowledge from all sources. We disgard the ones that don't work or that are not compatible with the Baha'i teachings. But what philosophers (or science) says bears no weight if what is said is a direct contradiction of some aspect of the Writings. Remeber: UNITY.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:You say:the Guardian stated (paraphrasing) that Baha'is should stay current on the leading edge of philosophy and science.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:And now science: A lot of science today is motivated by political interests, especially liberal ones. [Or it's just plain wrong (as you'll see with my coffee example)]. They dominate and give their funding for the politically correct research. You can't just hide behind "science" to say that Baha'is are wrong in a certain area of belief because some (pseudo)science says this or that. Also, though underrepresented because of certain factors including what I just mentioned, you can always find research pointing in the opposite direction. The whole coffee/caffeine issue is a good example. Some studies show 2 cups (or whatever it may be) a day add to the health, others don't show that, and yet others show that caffeine is bad for you. Similarly, some studies show that since caffeine stimulates the N.S., it actually gives you more energy. Others show that this increased energy, being restricted to the nervous level, only makes you feel like you have more energy. (Note that there are probably no politics behind coffee; I just used the example to illustrate the dichotomies that can be found in research—much of which is just plain bad science.)
Baha'i Warrior wrote:
Well Epierce, though you accuse Baha'is as not being open-minded and not investigating after truth, you still haven't given a convincing argument that Baha'is are doing such. Maybe the ones that you were around were a certain way, but you can't generalize it to all Baha'is.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:Personally I have family members who have rejected the Faith, including an ex-Baha'i. Listening to them talk, it becomes obvious that they are in fact much less open-minded than the average man, and they are also full of hatred, at least much more than you'd expect from an ordinary person. They have opinions about everything, which usually are (excessively) negative. Compare this with Baha'is who have benign love for one another. Whatever is "truth" will be manifested in the believer. Generally, if the message is "good," then the people who reflect the message will be "good" too; they are a mirror of the "good" in other words.
Regards.
Actually, you have it kinda backwards (as usual)
You appear to have either no idea what science actually is about in its totality (did you actually state on this forum that you are a pre-med student???)
in your apparently fevered imagination
epierce wrote:You appear to have either no idea what science actually is about in its totality (did you actually state on this forum that you are a pre-med student???), or you are fabricating a ridiculous distortion in order to avoid the real point, which is that the Baha'i teachings are clear that doctinal rigidity, fundamentalism ,etc, is incompatible with Baha'i theology.
epierce wrote:The fact is that you have repeatedly disregarded basic points made by the Universal House of Justice and in the Baha'i writings, and have refused to admit your errors, or apologised for misleading people or for your frequent distortions and insults.
epierce wrote:This is of course a serious and disturbing distortion of my previous statements. What I've done is describe patterns and tendencies in the dominant form of Baha'i culture that I've seen for over three decades in a dozen places across north america as well as in europe. I've talked to somewhere around 50 people, half of whom are Baha'i scholars, that have similar observations, and read material from that many more. I've had numerous friends attacked, usually viciously, by narrow-minded Baha'is that were abusers of authority. The rhetoric used is predictable. I've seen it used in public meetings, as well as behind the scenes. I've seen some of the worst abusers removed from their positions in Bahai administration by the World Center itself after years of complaints from the friends and famlies of those attacked and abused.
epierce wrote:There is plenty of "evidence" on this forum that Baha'is are closed minded, many of your responses provide perfect examples.
epierce wrote:Make no mistake, I do not think that you (BW) have any idea what I'm talking about
epierce wrote:Since I have no idea who your family members are, I can't comment on the specifics of their "hatred". If they are fundamentalists or evangelicals or conservatives, it is obvious why they would "reject the Faith". Besides that, if they have formed their opinions about Baha'i as a result of conversing with you, I can see why they might have some very negative reactions to it, or at least your presentation of it.
epierce wrote:The problem with most of your points on the topic as I see it is that you are incapable of admitting that the myth that "Baha'is are perfect", or "Baha'i institutions are perfect", or "Baha'i culture" is perfect, is incorrect.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:epierce wrote:You appear to have either no idea what science actually is about in its totality (did you actually state on this forum that you are a pre-med student???), or you are fabricating a ridiculous distortion in order to avoid the real point, which is that the Baha'i teachings are clear that doctinal rigidity, fundamentalism ,etc, is incompatible with Baha'i theology.
I never disagreed with this point ("the Baha'i teachings are clear..."), so I don't know what you're talking about.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:epierce wrote:The fact is that you have repeatedly disregarded basic points made by the Universal House of Justice and in the Baha'i writings, and have refused to admit your errors, or apologised for misleading people or for your frequent distortions and insults.
What "errors"? Obviously I have made errors, and I readily admit to them. That you think I made errors is your opinion, and besides that you are vague and frankly I don't know what you're talking about or what you're getting at.
epierce wrote:This is of course a serious and disturbing distortion of my previous statements. What I've done is describe patterns and tendencies in the dominant form of Baha'i culture that I've seen for over three decades in a dozen places across north america as well as in europe. I've talked to somewhere around 50 people, half of whom are Baha'i scholars, that have similar observations, and read material from that many more. I've had numerous friends attacked, usually viciously, by narrow-minded Baha'is that were abusers of authority. The rhetoric used is predictable. I've seen it used in public meetings, as well as behind the scenes. I've seen some of the worst abusers removed from their positions in Bahai administration by the World Center itself after years of complaints from the friends and famlies of those attacked and abused.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:The ex-Baha'i "rhetoric" is no less predictable.
epierce wrote:There is plenty of "evidence" on this forum that Baha'is are closed minded, many of your responses provide perfect examples.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:Many of my responses are based on my knowledge of the Writings, which while limitied nevertheless try to be in accord or harmony with the Teachings.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:If I fail in this, then by all means please let me know. But so far all you can say is that there is plenty of "evidence" in my responses that Baha'is are closed minded, which certainly leaves the reader with a sense of vagueness in your posts.
epierce wrote:Make no mistake, I do not think that you (BW) have any idea what I'm talking about
Baha'i Warrior wrote:If that's the case, I think I'll be forgiven for having no idea of what you're talking about,
Baha'i Warrior wrote: ...
as you obviously are not here on this forum to create unity among Baha'is, but rather to distort their intentions, generalize all of them into your categories, and through disunity try to make Baha'is look like they are disunited.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:If I may ask, why do you post on this forum anyway? Do you try to cover up the real reason you are on the forum by attacking individual Baha'is?
epierce wrote:Since I have no idea who your family members are, I can't comment on the specifics of their "hatred". If they are fundamentalists or evangelicals or conservatives, it is obvious why they would "reject the Faith". Besides that, if they have formed their opinions about Baha'i as a result of conversing with you, I can see why they might have some very negative reactions to it, or at least your presentation of it.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:Nice try. These are distant family members who I almost never meet, and had become ex-Baha'is long before I discussed the Faith with them.
epierce wrote:The problem with most of your points on the topic as I see it is that you are incapable of admitting that the myth that "Baha'is are perfect", or "Baha'i institutions are perfect", or "Baha'i culture" is perfect, is incorrect.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:Obviously you wouldn't have said that if you had actually looked at my previous posts, including the most recent ones.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:Now:
The U.H.J. is infallible when all the members are together to decide on certain Baha'i issues. The individuals themselves are not perfect, but the U.H.J.'s decisions are infallible.
I never said N.S.A.s were perfect, and I mentioned this in one of my most previous posts (where I said some N.S.A.s were shut down because of internal conflicts, disunity, etc.).
And also I never said Baha'is were perfect. You are most mistaken in that.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:
Personally, I'm not going to make any personal attacks (including fabrications) on you as you have done with me, because I'm not going to sink to that low of a level.
Baha'i Warrior wrote:This is the Baha'i difference, my friend.
Jonah, have you modified your statement that this site is "independent"