Talisman Bahai Archives Dec. 13-14, 1995
Dec. 13-15, 1995
T951214
Talisman emails, received 12/13/95-12/14/95
Note: I was unable to locate the first three 64k dumps of this online session, so the 12/14 log is incomplete and starts in the middle of a post.
+++++++++
about this issue. We all ( myself included) have a
long way to go before we really understand "the" letter, and this issue in
general, the continued dialogue here can only lead to a clearer understanding
for all of us.
- Daniel (what has this issue got to do with polygamy anyway?) Orey
=END=
From: Rick Schaut
To: Juan R Cole
Cc: "Talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: RE: Conscience
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:33:23 -0800
Dear Juan and Friends,
I don't recall ever saying that one should not follow one's
own conscience. However you choose to make your
bed is no business of mine. I don't have to sleep
in it.
I just find myself unable to say that my conscience
would prevail in any particular circumstance. Why?
My conscience is not a static entity. It changes, and
will change. I can only say that, faced with a conflict
between my own values and a decision of the Universal
House of Justice, I will spend a great deal of effort
questioning the validity of my values relative to the
Writings.
This may be nothing more than a semantic difference.
But a statement that one will always follow one's
conscience implies that one is not open to this
process of self-doubt--that one has shut the door to
the idea of questioning one's own values. I think this
stance is as morally wrong as the belief that one should
always bow to authority regardless of the dictates of
one's conscience.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
=END=
From: Stephen Bedingfield
Subject: Re: Polygamy & the Baha'i community
To: MBOYER%UKANVM.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 15:31:46 MST
Cc: osborndo@pilot.msu.edu, talisman@indiana.edu (Talisman)
Hi Milissa:
While others have commented on whether a polygamous man must divorce his
wives, except for the first wife, upon converting to our Faith--the answer
is no--I wanted to touch upon our attitudes to polygamy by posting the text
of a comment to the Universal House of Justice, and its reply.
The following question was submitted 6 January 1994 to the
Universal House of Justice for its consideration:
If the House of Justice would allow me the following comment regarding
the issue of monogamy, and the manner of its introduction by Baha'u'llah
whereby He was enabled to "outwardly permit two wives in the Kitab-i-
Aqdas but uphold a condition that enabled `Abdu'l-Baha to elucidate
later that the intention of the law was to enforce monogamy" (note 89).
In my view, the statement and elucidation of this law in this manner
allows the Baha'i community to build bridges between those peoples who
traditionally practiced polygamy and Baha'u'llah's new World Order.
As a case in point, among the Inuit of northern Canada traditional
marital practice allowed for more than one wife. These arrangements
were usually a matter of urgent survival or socio-economic support, for
example, where a widow would join an established family. In this
situation it was deemed proper for the head of the family to enter into
a marital relationship with the widow, and would have been deemed
improper to do otherwise. The taking of a second wife in these
circumstances would have been viewed as an act of mercy.
Some anthropologists have suggested that within isolated communities
polygamy may have served to diversify the population genetics.
Like many other aboriginal peoples, polygamy among the Inuit has now
disappeared largely from the direct influence of Christian missionaries
who haughtily assumed the moral highground; but the price was feelings
of guilt among the new converts.
In my view, Baha'is should be able to honestly appreciate and respect
the historical function of polygamy within aboriginal societies, such as
Inuit society, without assuming a superior moral attitude, while
applying Baha'u'llah's counsel "that tranquillity and contentment derive
from monogamy" (note 89) to the present social conditions. Would the
Universal House of Justice consider this a proper Baha'i perspective on
the issue?
The reply of the Universal House of Justice dated 6 April 1994 was:
"Your view that Baha'is "should be able to honestly appreciate and
respect the historical function of polygamy within aboriginal societies,
such as Inuit society, without assuming a superior moral attitude" is
commendable. Of course, when a member of such a society becomes a
Baha'i, he is then bound by the Baha'i law in this regard. The Baha'i
Faith accepts as valid marriages those polygamous unions that a man has
entered into before becoming a Baha'i, whether these unions were
solemnized under civil or religious law or by tribal custom. To require
such a man to give up one of his wives would destroy a family unity
which has already been established, and that would be against the spirit
of the Faith. However, once he has become a Baha'i, such a man becomes
subject to Baha'i law and cannot enter into any more marriages. Even
should one of his wives die or be divorced he cannot replace her unless
the time comes when he is entirely without a wife; only then would he be
free to marry again."
Loving regards,
stephen
--
Stephen Bedingfield | "We desire but
Box 115, Cambridge Bay NT X0E 0C0 | the good of the world and
Canada (403) 983-2123 | the happiness of the nations"
email: sbedin@inukshuk.gov.nt.ca | - Baha'u'llah
=END=
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:05:48 +0100 (MET)
Subject: conscience
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Mark foster said that "individual conscience represents
nothing more than one's, particularly primary, socialization
(or, in a sense, conditioning)."
Which would leave us with determinism: our environment
forms our concience, our conscience determines our actions,
our actions determine our environment - or that of the next
generations. Important though social conditioning is, two
aspects are missing here: 1) the individual's knowledge of
him/herself (know his own self) and of the immediate
situation (those things which lead to loftiness and honour..),
both of which make it impossible to simply apply social
norms, and make an internal reflective capacity necessary,
and 2) the individual capacity for transcendence, for
freedom, for spiritual insight, which distinguishes us from
animals and frees us from materialistic determinism. To
reduce conscience to conditioning reduces the human
person to a sophisticated animal.
One measure I've always found useful in dealing with
ethical questions comes from Oscar Wilde, who said "I
have learned that, though it may not matter what one does,
it does matter what one becomes" (my paraphrase). For
instance, a raffle ticket now and then is not gambling away
the means of livelihood, unless one's livelihood is
extremely slender, but in my case I observed that I lived in
the interval between buying the ticket and seeing the draw
in a sort of slightly abstracted reality. The consequences of
immediate decisions were slightly fuzzed in the fog of
optimistic expectations. It takes little wisdom to see what
kind of person one becomes by continuing in this way - so
I don't buy raffle tickets, lotto, prize bonds, etc.. In my
book, there is no way that social conditioning can substitute
for self-knowledge. And granted a modicum of self-
knowledge, a degree of moral responsibility and ability to
transcend conditioning follow. Which I should have thought
was a rather fundamental premise of the Baha'i life?
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=END=
From: Stephen Bedingfield
Subject: Research Dept letter on Homosexuality
To: talisman@indiana.edu (Talisman)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 16:00:42 MST
Sorry for using up the bandwidth here. Can someone email me a copy of
the Research Department's recent letter on Homosexuality; it must have been
posted when I was temporally unsubscribed to Talisman recently.
Thanks, stephen
--
Stephen Bedingfield | "We desire but
Box 115, Cambridge Bay NT X0E 0C0 | the good of the world and
Canada (403) 983-2123 | the happiness of the nations"
email: sbedin@inukshuk.gov.nt.ca | - Baha'u'llah
=END=
From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:06:34 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Ishraqat dating?
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Can anyone help with a date for the composition of the
tablet of Ishraqat?
Thanks
Sen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn ph: 31-43-216854
Andre Severinweg 47 email: Sen.McGlinn@RL.RuLimburg.NL
6214 PL Maastricht, the Netherlands
***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
and the individuality of each,
thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=END=
Date: 13 Dec 95 18:54:09 EST
From: David Langness <72110.2126@compuserve.com>
To:
Subject: An Experimental Suggestion
Dear Talismanians,
My, what an embarassment of riches we have had during the past few days
here on good old Talisman! Sonja's wonderful dream and video, Sandy
Fotos' piece on fractals, Burl's fractured humor (Hey, B., it's Highway
*61,* not 51, and wasn't the middle name of that guy you were looking
for *Zhang?*), Terry and Juan's persuasive posts on conscience, and most
especially Bud Polk's *White Shoes with Velcro Closures* piece, which
reduced me to tears right here in the office, and which I hereby nominate
as the year's most moving and powerful Talisman post.
Counselor Birkland and I had a wonderful breakfast together on Monday, and
we talked about the high quality and penetrating insight modeled by some
of the posts here. He praised Talisman's impact on the larger community,
and suggested something to me that I thought should be passed along.
His suggestion, and I probably won't do it justice, went something like
this: why not take a suggestion/problem/item that comes up on our little
forum here, and apply the same rules of consultation to it that apply in
any Baha'i administrative environment, thereby coming to at least some
tentative conclusions? Several paradigms for such discussion have surfaced
on Talisman, the one I remember most clearly put forth by Mary Kay Radpour,
and certainly others might come forward, as well. The good Counselor
inferred that our discussions here could bear fruit in other quarters if
we were able to manifest some unity amongst our admittedly diverse
viewpoints.
Anyone want to give it a try? Or at least talk about the process we might
need to go through to attempt it?
Love,
David
=END=
From: Member1700@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 19:26:59 -0500
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Polygamy & the Baha'i community
Ooops! Hit the wrong key. :-)
Tony
---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: Re: Polygamy & the Baha'i community
Date: 95-12-13 13:20:36 EST
From: Member1700
To: osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
It is true that, while the laws of the Faith forbid the taking of more than
one wife (well, at least, now they do), if one has a polygamous marriage
before becoming a Baha'i or before knowing about the law, that marriage is
recognized as legitimate within the Baha'i community. This does commonly
happen in Africa, for instance.
Also, I have seen instances in Africa were even active Baha'is, finding
the need to take a second wife (say, because of the serility of the first
wife) in accordance with the customs of their culture, have done so. And the
Baha'i community has been decidedly tolerant of that decision. In some
cultural situations, taking a second wife is virtually obligatory--say, when
a brother dies leaving a widow who must be taken care of. I asked an
auxiliary board member for Africa about that once, and she just shrugged her
shoulders and said, "Well . . ."
It is my impression that strict monogamy is not made too much of an issue
of in Africa. Even in accordance with the strictest interpretations of
Baha'i law, if one is unaware of the law, or if one does not sufficiently
appreciate the importance of the law, then one is not responsible for
violating it--and any marriages that result are valid.
We had a situation in our community, for instance, where a Baha'i had
been inactive for a few years and got married. She knew about the Baha'i
marriage laws, but thought that since she was inactive they were not relevant
to her and got married. Then she became active again, and this came out.
The National Assembly advised us that since she had not sufficiently
appreciated the application of the law in her situation, she had acted out of
(relative) ignorance and therefore did not need to have a Baha'i marriage.
Her marriage was recognized and valid in accordance with Baha'i law.
So, there is more flexibility in application of (positive) Baha'i law
than some would lead us to believe.
Warmest,
Tony
=END=
From: "Mark A. Foster"
Subject: Re: conscience
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:30:57 -0600 (CST)
Eric Pierce wrote the talisman@indiana.edu:
P>Lacking much interest in the predictable and tedious theoretical
P>aspects of this discussion, I would like to ask Tim, Rick, Robert,
P>Mark:
P>If you were in Jane's shoes, and in the extremely unlikely event
P>that the House of Justice told you to turn Mary's address over to
P>the Bloomtown LSA, and you complied, and that action resulted in
P>Mary's allegedly vicious husband finding her and killing her,
P>would you consider her blood to be on your hands, the hands of the
P>House, the hands of the husband, or all of the above?
Eric,
That is a strange one! I am not sure what to say - except that I
would certainly obey the Universal House of Justice. However, if I felt
that there were extentuating circumstances with which the House might
not be familiar, I might want to provide the Supreme Body with additional
information and ask it to reconsider. But in the event that I was still
asked to comply, I would do so - trusting in the wisdom of God. If
something tragic like you mentioned were to happen, I would not blame
anyone except her husband.
Loving greetings to you,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Kansas Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality (Info. on Request) *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
=END=
From: "Mark A. Foster"
Subject: Re: Conscience
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 18:30:43 -0600 (CST)
Two messages are included in this post - to K. Paul Johnson and Richard
Hollinger. First, for Paul...
Hi, Paul -
I agree with you that the capability to develop language is a good
analogy for the development of conscience. However, because the human
brain has the capability to learn language, that obviously does not mean
that one language or the other is favored. Likewise, although the
capacity to develop a conscience (the way one's mind is made up) exists
in the individual, it does not seem to me that any particular moral
framework would be inherently more "natural" than another. A personal
conscience is, IMO, a result of reactions to events; i.e., it is a
consequence of one's moral and behavioral choices. As such, individual
consciences (generalized others or superegos) generally reflect the
collective consciences of one's significant moral communities (culture
and subcultures).
P >O Son of Being! Thy heart is my home; sanctify it for My
P >descent. Thy spirit is My place of revelation; cleanse it for
P >My manifestation.
Yes. I agree that the above passage relates closely to the subject
of conscience. However, the Baha'i teachings also speak of the
susceptibility of the heart to deception. It was for that reason that I
wrote a few days ago, in relation to individual conscience, about the
difficulty in distinguishing between intuition and imagination. From
personal experience, I know how one can strongly, passionately believe
that one is correct in some area only to discover subsequently that one
had sorely misunderstood.
P >What about it? Must it be a black/white either/or distinction,
P >argued on the basis of scriptural proofs?
My point is that conscience is not an innate faculty of the soul. It
is a mental attribute which develops as one internalizes a dominant
normative framework. In that sense, while conscience is useful as a
measure of one's own spiritual development, it does not, IMO, carry the
same weight as the decisions of the Universal House of Justice. I am a
structural sociologist (Durkheim, Marx, etc.), not a sociological
behaviorist or micro-exchange theorist (a la Homans, Burgess, etc.), and
I tend to view reality holistically or sui generis.
P >Mark, it is most unlike you to demonize your ideological
P >opponents, but that is what the following passage seems to do:
Well, my intention was not to demonize anyone. I always try to
distinguish between ideas and the thinkers behind them. I have nothing
but respect for my fellow Talismanians. However, I do disagree with some
of the metaphysical, epistemological, and eschatological assumptions
expressed by a few of my colleagues and others. Most of the points I
made in my early morning post, I have stated here previously. I doubt
that they were any surprise to many people. However, I think that you
were on your first hiatus from the list at the time I made my postings
on these subjects.
The either-or version of "standpoint epistemology" I referred to is
based on several postings I have seen over the last nine months dealing
with what I would perceive to be a compartmentalization of science and
religion, an "autonomous realm of human reason," and a belief which, as
best I understand it, that if one is viewing reality from the spiritual
level, one cannot simultaneously treat it on the level of materiality.
Several Talismanians appear to me to more or less agree with one or
another of these perspectives. As someone who has, several times, taught
courses in social science research to graduating seniors, each of these
seems to be based a nominalist/reductionist methodological framework.
About the review process: To my understanding, though I may have
misinterpreted what others have said, some of the posters do regard
review as a conscience violation. However, as you say, I do not know if
that is "solely" the reason why they have issued calls for it to be
immediately "abolished."
Regarding democracy: There have been several postings recently which
have argued that the Baha'i system should be a democracy. Several months
ago, there was a message (and I generally prefer not to mention names
unless I am prodded ) which stated that, now that we no longer have a
living Guardian, we have the opportunity to reshape the Baha'i world
order model according to a democratic framework. Others seemed to agree.
However, Shoghi Effendi said that democracy was only one of the
recognized forms of government to which parallels to the Baha'i system
could be drawn. IMV, `Abdu'l-Baha's praise for democracy should be seen
in the context of the time - and especially by comparison to the
nineteenth-century Near East and her institutionalized denial of basic
civil liberties. By itself, assuming the existence of a strong basis in
moral community, democracy is certainly preferable to most other
political systems.
About infallibility: I agree with you that the folks I am referring
to *might* not believe that the doctrine of the infallibility of the
House of Justice is in itself dangerous. However, that is not what I
said. My point was only that some of the posters appear *to me* to
believe, based on an examination of the primary sources, that the House
of Justice is not guaranteed infallibility - or perhaps just not in the
common sense of the word. Indeed, there have been some such postings in
the last several days. I do not know Arabic and Persian, so I am really
at a loss here. However, from my POV, this denial, if that is the right
word (and I am not trying to damn anyone!), of the infallibility of the
House of Justice appears *to me* to contradict what the Guardian and the
House itself have written.
P >Explain further? This sounds like marginalizing opponents by
P >name-calling. A time-honored Baha'i tradition, of course, but
P >not one that needs to be upheld.
I do not think that I am calling anyone names, and, again, I have
been careful to leave personalities out of it. I was only describing,
accurately I hope, the methodological/metatheoretical perspectives of
some of the posters. There is nothing inherently wrong with nominalism
or reductionism, if that is how one views reality. And, recognizing the
intelligence of others on this list , I am fairly sure that those who
have been taking this approach recognize it themselves. It is not one
that I would choose to avail myself of, but I know many people who find
it useful.
P >NOTHING MORE?!? Do you *really* mean that? Talk about
P >reductionism! "Nothing more" is always a clear symptom of it
P >in such a context.
As I see it, the conscience is the socialized self. That was the
view of philosopher/pragmatist/sociologist George Herbert Mead and is
one which I also accept. By saying "nothing more," I meant that the
conscience itself is, IMV, not innate in the individual. It is emergent
or, as Mead might say, telescopic.
P >"All men are created equal" is obviously false at one level, but
P >isn't there truth behind it?
Rather than "equal," I would prefer to say "equitably" - at least
from a God's-eye viewpoint.
Namaste, my friend,
Mark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, Richard -
I agree with you about the importance of carefully electing souls to
serve on the Universal House of Justice. However, personally, I think
that the most important quality to consider is justice - a proven record
of investigating truth through their "own eyes and not through the eyes
of others."
Blessings to you,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Academic Director, Foundation for the Science of Reality *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
=END=
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 17:48:42 -0700 (MST)
From: "[G. Brent Poirier]"
To: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Law and Communion
On Tue, 12 Dec 1995 TLCULHANE@aol.com wrote, in part:
> I dont think the Faith of Baha ullah is about legalism at all and I am
a > Bahai , somewhat mystically inclined at that.... > I would argue that
the Faith of Baha u llah is about creating a religious > community
centered around the esoteric - The Mashriqu'l Adhkar - and > structuring
that , institutionalizing that reality in dalily life . It is > intended
to be , in my view , a community that builds itself around > supporting
the esoteric truth of life...
I see part of the message of the Seven Valleys as a breaking down of the
traditional barrier between the "legal" approach and the "esoteric"
approach of individuals of different temperaments in response to the
Revelation. Both seem to me to be essential parts of Baha'i life. I
agree that in the West we have under-rated the inner dimension of the
Faith. It's already in there; we have not fully appreciated it or applied
all dimensions of the Faith to our working daily understanding of what it
is to be a Baha'i. We got too much of Robert's Rules in there, and not
enough of the spiritual qualities. Those spiritual qualities are front
and center in Shoghi Effendi's "Baha'i Administration," and he kept trying
to get us to stop clogging up the works with regulations and focus the
Assemblies instead on encouragement and liberating people's energies and
true selves. This, to me, is the connection between the "Seven Valleys"
and "Baha'i Administration." Each has a goal: The first, to draw the
soul closer to God, and the second, to embody the spirit of the Cause in
institutions which function in consonance with the Revelation. The
foundation of each is the qualities of the believer. This is explicit in
both books.
Brent
=END=
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 20:36:30 -0500
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Conscience again
Dear Friends ,
I do not think conscience is a mere function of socialization nor do I
find it to be "merely " our sense of right and wrong . Socialization
structures the capacities of the soul and one of the principle manifestations
of those capacities is what we call conscience . To suggest it is nothing
more than socialization seems to me a fine explanation at the level of Nasut
but hardly a comprehensive understanding . It is its own form of
reductionism.
It is perhaps what Aristotle and Jefferson :) understood by a "moral sense"
common to all human beings . I think there is justification for this in Abdul
Baha 's remarks in Paris talks as well as in his Commentary on the Hidden
Treasure hadith. It is this moral sense which represents the basis for
equality before God and before the Law . In this I find one of the
significances of "recognition" in the Aqdas . Baha u llah suggests , I cant
find the quote at the moment in Gleanings , that this faculty of recognition
was intended to be more developed in humanity at the time of his appearence
but appears to have regressed . This faculty it seems to me is a " moral
sense " or conscience .
I am surprised that some would , who frequently champion the value of
broader perspectives than scientific positivism or the historical -critical
method, resort to to a form of social behaviorism to justify the inadaquacy
of conscience vis a vis the relinquishing of conscience in favor of the House
. This seems curious to me .
warm regards ,
Terry
=END=
From: "Mark A. Foster"
Subject: Homosexuality/Conscience
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 20:09:33 -0600 (CST)
Again - two messages: First to Dave Taylor (homosexuality, etc.) and
then to Sen McGlinn. First to Dave...
Hi, Dave -
I agree that the House's ruling on the subject of homosexuality may
be a burden for many souls. Since I first read the message, I have been
especially praying for those individuals who might have been dishearted
by it. I am, like yourself, on America Online (in fact, as remote
staff), and, therefore, I have had the opportunity to read each of the
postings in the Baha'i folder in the Gay and Lesbian Forum. I was deeply
touched both by the pain experienced by some of these individuals and by
their willingness to remain in the Cause and be firm in the Covenant in
spite of the fact that, outwardly, it might have been *easier*, say, to
be a Unitarian-Universalist, a Hicksite Quaker, or even an Episcopalian.
We are certainly, those of us who are Westerners or members of
Western Baha'i communities, a long way from the high standards of the
teachings. Unfortunately, probably due to our collective Christian
heritage (though I have never been a Christian, personally ), we may
sometimes focus more on the problems associated with homosexual than
heterosexual promiscuity. In reality, both indicate a need for growth.
Certainly, unnecessary condemnation is not the answer. We are the
generation of the half-light, and we need to be patient with ourselves
and with each other.
About aesthetic realism: I was not promoting it - only indicating
that it has been used by some people who wished to change their sexual
orientation. I recognize that it, like all current approaches, is not
terribly successful. However, I do like its dialectical philosophy.
Seigel, of course, did not specifically develop aesthetic realism as a
"treatment" for homosexuality. As laid out in his _Self and the World_,
it is an applied moral philosophy. I am a native New Yorker (born and
raised in the city), and I heard about it while I was living there from
a friend (a gay male member of the Unification Church).
I look forward to discussing these subjects (yoga and Tantra?) more
with you. As you may know, I am a trained hatha yoga teacher and have,
in the past been taught ("initiated" into) two forms of yogic meditation
(both variations of Shiv Dayal's surat shabd yoga). I am immensely
interested in Indian religion, especially the Kashmir Shaivite school of
Tantra and its marvelously esoteric ontology.
Blessings to you,
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Sen -
Thanks for your note. I agree with you. Essentially, I suppose, I am
a structural "determinist" (though I don't much care for the word
"determinist" ). I believe that the narrative framework one accepts
has a significant influence on one's thoughts and feelings (including
one's conscience), decisions, and actions. As I did this morning, I
would relate the development of the conscience to early childhood
socialization, as stated by the Master.
Warm greetings to you,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Academic Director (& Kansas Director), Foundation for the Science of Reality*
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
=END=
From: "QUANTA DAWNLIGHT"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 21:46:48 EST
Subject: QUANTA'S HOME PAGE
Here it is folks,
You can see Quanta at her cyberhome!
http://fllab.chass.ncsu.edu/~dawnliqu/test.htm
*** ***
* *
*
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:50:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
To: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Conscience
Tony Lee writes
tn> Note: Faithful obedience is NOT the same as blind obedience.
>
tony> Will someone kindly explain the difference?
>
Aha! this is a good question and may lead to some true progress!
What is the difference between doing something faithfully and
doing it blindly?
I think the disagreement about obeying the House of Justice may
lie precisely in this: some of us see no difference between
obeying faithfully and obeying blindly. Others see a great difference.
Thank you Tony for this significant question.
Tim Nolan tan1@cornell.edu
=END=
From: "Mark A. Foster"
Subject: re: Conscience again
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 20:52:24 -0600 (CST)
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Terry -
I think that we may be talking terminology. One of my passions is
the exploration of what I regard as the twin purposeful powers of the
soul (the human spirit and the spirit of faith) and their respective
manifestations (such as the mental faculties, bodily coordination, will
power, the innate character, the magnet of faith and service, the
faculty of inner vision, and the the portion of grace). However, the way
that *I am using the term conscience*, I am not referring to any of the
manifestations of spirit specifically but to the result of using and
developing those powers.
For example, how I choose (using my will power) to direct my mental
faculties of imagination, thought, understanding, memory, etc.,
including on the physical level of immediate acts and attributes (using
the coordination of bodily functions), gives me my mental/emotional
makeup (or conscience). My choices (the expression of will power,
through the brain, as free will), however, are largely determined by the
narrative framework of the moral community I identify with and am
socialized by. If I turn my mental faculties to the Kingdom revealed
(the condition which is the spiritual animus of this world), the realm
of purity I can now access, my human spirit will be assisted by the
magnet of faith and service (spiritual love) and inner vision (spiritual
knowledge) and soul growth will be promoted (enlarging my portion of
grace or spiritual capacity). I will then, as the teachings say, be
possessed of a "spiritual heart and conscience." It is, IMHO, a state I
need to attain through constant spiritual work.
Therefore, as I see it, one's conscience is the *result* of one's
choices. As the Master reportedly said, one can turn the reflective
mirror to the physical world or the world of the Kingdom. My conscience
will, within the context of a supportive, moral community, be whatever I
make it.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Academic Director (& Kansas Director), Foundation for the Science of Reality*
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 16:45:26 -0900
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl, talisman@indiana.edu
From: robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Robert Johnston)
Subject: Re: conscience
ffolks,
Sen wrote:'>Mark foster said that "individual conscience represents
>nothing more than one's, particularly primary, socialization
>(or, in a sense, conditioning)"' and went on to make a case for self
>construction.
Comment: If one widens "social context" to include the presence of the
Unseen and Its Abha forces, then Sen's and Mark's positions may be
reconciled. Sen makes a distinction between self-construction and social
construction, but in a profoundly real sense self is never isolated --
never non-social.
In a postmodern/social-constructionist context thinkers typically argue
against what is seen as a Cartesian kind of unitary self identity. Of
course they don't really allow for the Unseen, though, so while we Baha'is
probably like their inter-connected conception of self, we do like to think
that there is sufficient autonomy to make possible such things as stands on
points of principle. This autonomy should however -- expressed briefly --
be seen as self-in-the-presence-of-God-and-the-S/supreme-c/concourse.
Robert.
Robert..
A bird in your hand is useless if you want to blow your nose.
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 16:40:12 -0900
From: robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Robert Johnston)
Subject: Re: Impact on the individual (was conscience & infallibilit)
Dear Sandy,
I am particularly impressed by the mild and even nature of your
position. In much of this discussion there is polarisation, with blind
obedience and the dictates of conscience being heavily contrasted. You
articulate a moderate position regarding House. And why not? This is the
religion of the middle way, afterall. Why should the thought of the House
making decisions become the occasion for a conscience crisis? ;-} "Extreme
case scenarios" will always be challenging, but -- mostly --
life-with-the-House is not like that.
I hear something of the
unity-of-affirmation-in-response-to-decisions-in-view-of-any-wrongness-there
by-
righting-itself advice in your letter. However, I would be reluctant to
apply this advice to House decisions...
You write of decisions sometimes favouring the many and disadvantaging the
few, or disadvantaging the many and favouring the few, or disadvantaging
the present and favouring the future. I suppose you are right. If you are
I'd better chose my positions well (sometimes a democrat, sometimes a
monarchist) and live a long life!
Best wishes,
Robert.
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 06:56:37+030
From: dpeden@imul.com (Don Peden)
Subject: Re: art & entertainment-reponse to Bev
Dear Sonja:
Your statement "art is not entertainment" was not stupid, just human. I
don't like the word stupid much...it has too many negative judgemental
associations. To err is human. I've enjoyed your comments and questions
very much. I agree with many of them completely and there are a few which
are interesting and important to pursue.
>Now this means a discussion of jsut how one would would
>classify something as art.
>A comic book is entertainment but is it art? Just as an oil
>painting of some sunflowers created to amuse the painter
>on their Sunday afternoons?
>
>Here I am aksing questions of intent rather than form (and
>a large part -at least from my perspective that is- of
>postmodernist concerns with representation deal with form-
>whether a comic book is art because it is a comic book.)
>I'm asking hte question because the comic book's intent was
>to entertain.
For example, comic books. You don't feel that comic books are art because
the intent was to entertain. At a certain level, this is true. I would
suggest that the intent of comic books was to get little kids (like me) to
spend our money at the candy shop on a soda and a "Casper". The motive "to
entertain" might be aiming a little high. It is interesting to note a third
role, however, in that comic books have had a huge impact on an entire
culture...an impact that artists could only hope to achieve. Because of
this, museums have included exhibitions of comic books. The graphics are
great, and a craft in and of themselves, so much so that Pop artists used
the comic book form to create art and a statement about the effect of art.
That would be an interesting avenue of thought to pursue, wouldn't it? What
about things which have the affect of influencing an entire nation's
thinking, daily dialogue, taste and imagination? The intent was commercial,
and yet the art of it has swept a nation. How do we classify that? I don't
know how I see this issue, and would appreciate a more in depth discussion.
I'm not even sure how I want to phrase the question. The question could
also expand beyond the visual arts to media which affects culture. For
example, the written word, "pulp fiction", which dates well back to our Wild
West Days and the exploits of Billy the Kid here in North America. What was
the intent of Charles Dickens? Mark Twain? (This needs the historical
context they wrote in, the audience they intended, and the medium they used
before we agrandized them.) What about soap operas, Oprah Winfrey, etc.?
(I am horrified that Oprah has made International fame over the boob tube, I
can't stand it! Nice lady, but the sensationalism is revolting to me.
There is no way you can treat some of the issues she deals with with dignity
in such a public format. It is like a modern day gladiator arena...and don't
get me started on Geraldo and kind!)
As to the Sunday Painter, I have learned over the years to appreciate their
efforts to develop a craft, to explore some of the issues of art, and, in
their own fashion, they do make a kind of art. If you take seriously the
abstract impressionist school, then you also need to take seriously the
sunday painter. I say this in the sense that the abstract expressionist was
enamoured of the elements of colour, line, form, and interested in the
relationships between them. They were also interested in the psychological
response to these elements. The Sunday painter also responds to these
elements, or they would take up baking cakes on a Sunday, or shopping, to
satisfy their consumer needs. I have learned to appreciate the Sunday
Painter for their response to colour, to the satisfaction of "making", and
the psychological pleasure and satisfaction they get from the act of
painting. Sunday painting is rarely involved in making statements, but it
does have it's place in the art world...in fact it would be great to see an
exhibition of Sunday painters in a gallery sometime.
>I would not call Maori dance 'art', but I would call it a
>'craft', not to assume it is less, but that it has another aim -
>to share the familiar. We recognize the skill, the stories,
>etc. However at the same time there is no real dividing line
>between what is art or craft. Rather more differing
>perspectives that are sometimes easier to discern and at
>times not. And I find it significant that Baha'u'llah always
>refers to both in his Writings. But if there is a way to find
>a difference, I would say it lies in the intent of the
>creator/maker/performer rather than in the form. So
>someone using Maori dance form could use it to make
>some statement/discovery (however non-evident this may be
>the the viewer).
This is a good point. But, again, like with pulp fiction and comic books,
this craft has the ability to shape the imaginative and thinking responses
of a society. At what point do we classify one form of dance as craft, and
another as art? Is ballet or jazz a craft or an art form? Do we classify
it because it is what we are familiar with, or have been educated to think
of as "high art" as opposed to "ritual art"? Where would that leave much of
the early Christian art which carried from church to church to be used
during Mass, and the intent of which was to tell the story of Christ, and to
inspire the illiterate to partake in the ritual of communion?
>>How can an artist control whether a person will be
>>entertained or enlightened by what the artist gives form
>to?
>I think the artist should be able to read their audience - I
>believe that is part of the art presentation and an artist
>should present her/his work in an appropriate way. Now,
>this may sound extreme. What I mean is that, there is no
>neutral way of presenting an art work, and so how the artist
>chooses to present/show their work is as important as the
>very making of the work. If the artist is conscious of
>how/where/the environment/society that they are presenting
>their work in, then they will be able to influence the way it
>is read by others. No one can control another's reactions,
>even when presenting hard facts, so why would an artist
>want to try to do this anyway? But to influence (share
>with) others is I believe, the reason most artists would
>present their work.
>If this doesn't make sense-ask me to give some concerte
>examples to explain what I mean.
This statement makes a lot of sense; it also presents an assumption on which
to base this argument. What I mean by this is that to assume this position,
art becomes defined as an act or form created with the express purpose of
display to an audience, and with the hope of an effect on that audience.
Would that mean that everything else would be relegated to "craft"? Has art
been defined as this? Doesn't that limit the possibilities somewhat, and
create a kind of "ivory tower" elitism?
>
>I would not call story telling entertainment because of its
>form, but if it's purpose was just to literally repeat what
>already was/had happened.
Some tribes in Africa have story tellers who are the holders of the history
of the tribe. Their "job" in life is to memorize the history and geneology
of the tribe...they are the memory of the people...which is quite an art in
itself. This is then "sung" and performed at significant gatherings, so
that people develop that sense of who they are. Is this art or craft? Do
we not make art to reflect "who we are"?
>
>Your comments/questions are great! Perhaps some other
>artist Talismanians would like to comment? I'm sorry I
>have to run!
>love, Sonja
>
I'd love to get more feedback too, and not just from artists. It would be
interesting to see how non-artists, i.e., scientist types, social
scientists, psychologists, respond to these issues.
I'll be away over the Christmas break, and will not be here to receive
E-mail. So I hope someone saves any comments and responses to this topic
for me, and will forward them on my return. I'll be gone from the 19th to
the 26th, and then from the 1st to the 7th of January.
Love,
Bev.>
>
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 10:48:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy A. Nolan"
Subject: Re: conscience and obedience (back to Appleville and Bloomtown)
"Eric D. Pierce" writes:
>
> If you were in Jane's shoes, and in the extremely unlikely event
> that the House of Justice told you to turn Mary's address over to
> the Bloomtown LSA, and you complied, and that action resulted in
> Mary's allegedly vicious husband finding her and killing her,
> would you consider her blood to be on your hands, the hands of the
> House, the hands of the husband, or all of the above?
>
Before answering the question, I want to ask one. Why was the Universal
House of Justice asked in the first place? As someone else has noted,
it may be better sometimes not to ask, but rather to struggle and work
it out for ourselves. Once you ask them, then you have to live with
the issues raised by their response.
There is a hidden assumption in the problem as stated. That is that
neither Jane nor Mary nor the LSA has any cleverness or subtlety.
It is certainly possible to think of ways to reveal Mary's address
without actually revealing where Mary can be found. Here is an example:
You say to Mary, "Please rent a room at 21 Maple St. for the date
of January 5th. You don't ever have to go there, just rent the room
for that day. On that day, Jan. 5th, I will inform the LSA that your
address is 21 Maple St. You, Mary, will actually live somewhere else,
but since you rented the room, it is literally true that 21 Maple St.
will be your address at the time I inform the LSA." You can probably
think of many other ways to accomplish this. I think the problem
is stated with an unfair condition, namely that none of the participants
is clever enough or subtle enough to obey the House of Justice
without putting Mary in danger. If you think about the problem, it is
possible to do that.
First, the husband is clearly directly responsible, no question about
that. There is a question about whether I or the House of Justice are
*indirectly* responsible for this tragedy. With regard to my
responsibility, it depends. If I obeyed the House blindly,
without thinking, as a robot, then yes I would be indirectly to blame.
I agree completely with those who say obedience to the Covenant
never absolves us of moral responsibility for our own actions.
But if I obeyed the House of Justice faithfully, I might have said to them,
"In my opinion, revealing Mary's address will put her life in real
and grave danger from her husband. In view of this do you still want
me to reveal her address to the LSA?" If, after hearing this, the House
still told me to reveal where Mary could be found, then the right thing to do
would be clear: obey the House of Justice. I don't know if I actually
would obey in that case, but I hope I would never claim disobedience
was justified.
This is a very significant difference. To disobey the Universal
House of Justice because of weakness or fear or laziness or stupidity
......that is one thing; I do that frequently. But to claim that
I have the *right* to disobey the divinely guided House of Justice,
to claim that there is any justification for my disobedience of
the "truth and the purpose of God Himself".... that is not just
immoral, it is illogical and silly. I would have to be very foolish
indeed to believe, on the one hand, that the decisions of the House
are unerring guidance from God, and on the other hand believe that
I ever have the *right* or justification to disobey that institution.
Those two beliefs, like fire and water, cannot exist together
in one heart or one mind.
With regard to the responsibility of the House of Justice; my
understanding is they are never responsible for anything evil.
After all, no one forced that husband to commit murder; he had
the choice to act with decency or brutality. It is true that
the decisions of the Universal House of Justice may cause hardship
in individual cases. This does not mean the decisions are bad
nor even unwise.
Tim Nolan
=END=
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 23:09:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Cheshmak A Farhoumand
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: attention sbeding@govt.nt.ca statement on homosexuality
Earlier tonight i noticed someone (sorry i do not know who anymore) had
asked for the statement on homosexualiy. i forwarded it to you and deleted
your message. Well, the mail came back, i think i may have missed a letter
or something in your address. If you have not received the statement from
someone else already, just write back to me and i will forward it to you.
thank you Regards,
Cheshmak
=END=
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 23:20:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonah Winters
To: talisman
Subject: History according to student bloopers
Response has been encouraging, so I guess it is time to share a sense of
history with my Talisman friends. Please read the following closely: wait
until you see the quiz! ;^)
PS- as a local Promoter of Levity, I send out selected Internet humor
gems to a growing mailing list. Let me know if you want your name added
to the list...
-Jonah
The World According to Student Bloopers
Richard Lederer
St. Paul's School
The inhabitants of Egypt were called mummies. They lived in the Sarah
Dessert and traveled by Camelot. The climate of the Sarah is such that the
tivated by irritation. The Egyptians built the Pyramids in the shape of a huge
triangular cube. The Pramids are a range of mountains between France and
Spain.
The Bible is full of interesting caricatures. In the first book of the
Bible, Guinesses, Adam and Eve were created from an apple tree. One of their
children, Cain, asked "Am I my brother's son?" God asked Abraham to sacrifice
Issac on Mount Montezuma. Jacob, son of Issac, stole his brother's birthmark.
Jacob was a partiarch who brought up his twelve sons to be partiarchs, but they
did not take to it. One of Jacob's sons, Joseph, gave refuse to the Israelites
=END=
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 22:42:00 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: U.S. Supreme Court, faithful vs. blind
Dear Juan, Tony and All
1. Juan made the analogy between the U.S. Supreme Court
and the UHJ. I think while there may be similarities, there
are vast differences. Where is the shift in paradigm if
we equate the two?
2. Tony asked about the difference between faithful and
blind obedience. As I see it, blind obedience is following
an order without reflection or question. Faithful obedience is
following an order with reflection and possible question - that
is, one accepts the "goodness" of the order but continues to
search for its wisdom.
One natural question may be: what if one does not see the
wisdom of a decision - even after a lengthy effort - and in fact
sees something wrong with the decision?
If I find the answer I will let you know - in the meantime,
reading the Fire Tablet can not hurt.
regards,
sAmAn
=END=
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 23:32:48 -0600
To: talisman@indiana.edu
From: kseiden@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Ken Seidenman)
Subject: Re:Homosexuality and Biology cont...
Dear Sen you wrote:
>However social species, including our own, also need to
>have a social logic of continuity analogous to the
>biological/reproductive logic of survival. Could
>homosexuality not be a natural mechanism which ensures
>the continuity of the social group?
I think this is a formal possibility, but if it's truly advantageous for
the continuity of the social group, why isn't it much more widespread than
seems to be the case?
> There are societies in which young men in families without daughters are
>trained
>to act and function as women, because this partially
>satisfies a need in regard to family balance and continuity.
Do these men tend to be homosexual? Is it accepted, within these
societies, that these young men will also function sexually as women?
>I recall one rat study which found that the incidence of
>homosexuality rose when a rat society was stressed.
A rat society!? In this study, were the rats given a "choice" between male
and female, or were all the stressed out rats of the same sex? If they
were given a choice, please give me the reference, because it would be the
first time I've heard of "homosexual" rats in that context.
>Might there not be a degree of genetic potential homosexuality in
>human beings which is actuated, to produce more actually
>homosexual persons, in a society in which the levels of
>agressiveness are unhealthy, population density is excessive,
>etc?
I doubt it, since the human genome was pretty much the same as it is now at
a time (let's say 25,000 years ago) when the human population was no where
near "excessive density". There would have been no selection pressure for
reproductive restraint.
It should be noted that in natural-selective terms, it would be a losing
proposition to maintain "homosexual potential" (i.e. generating offspring
that wouldn't reproduce) UNLESS there is some net selective advantage of a
"heterozygous" maintenance of that trait in the population. The classic
case is sickle cell anemia, where heterozygotes have one functional and one
defective hemoglobin gene; a combination which confers resistance to what
was undoubtedly a very serious health threat: malaria, without causing
sickle cell anemia. Unfortunately, those unlucky offspring (1/4) who got
two defective hemoglobin genes (i.e. they are homozygous for defective
hemoglobin) would die. The natural-selective calculus is still in favor of
maintaining this homozygous-lethal gene since not having it would mean
succumbing (4/4 times possibly) to malaria. The question then, is what
might the heterozygous "carrier" advantage be for "homosexual potential"?
In the spirit of consultation,
Ken
Kenneth J. Seidenman
Department of Neurobiology & Physiology
Northwestern University
kseiden@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
=END=
From: "K. Paul Johnson"
Subject: Re: Law, Kohlberg, esot.
To: dann.may@sandbox.telepath.com
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 11:44:12 EST
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Dear Terry and Dann:
According to dann.may@sandbox.telepath.com:
>
>
> Dear Terry, I would agree with both points. The Bahai Faith does seem to be
> making a greater place for the esoteric dimension.
Greater place than what? Since my affiliation is with esoteric
groups and not with mainstream religions, I hope I can
recognize what is and is not hospitable territory for
esotericism. Baha'i may in the future open up in this
dimension, and there may be elements in the writings that would
nurture such a development. But if we define, for the sake of
argument, legalism and esotericism as polar opposites, Baha'i
is clearly way out on the legalistic end of the scale. It is
all about internal vs. external locus of control.
Quick and dirty definitions, subject to challenge: legalism in
religion is characterized by a) defining the divine, the
sacred, the deity(ies) as a source of detailed laws governing
human behavior and b) centering one's definition of religious
obligation around obedience to such detailed laws and the
institutions that uphold them. Whereas esotericism defines the
sacred or the divine as accessible to the individual without
mediation from social or religious institutions, and defines
spiritual obligation in terms of obedience to/harmony with
one's own individual access to divine truth/wisdom/love.
Furthermore, Gilligan's
> work on moral development may be a much better place to center this
> discussion.
Please offer details. Kohlberg is no idol for me, but I would
suggest that the direction of evolution appears to be away
from, rather than toward, the kind of totalistic authority
structure found in Baha'i. One could argue this from a variety
of points, Theosophical of course but on a more mainstream
basis Berger's heretical imperative or Jung's individuation
suggest the same conclusion.
=END=
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 22:23:01 -0500
From: "Ahang Rabbani"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Salmani's memories
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Back on Talisman again and wouldn't you know it, Salmani's book
is back again ...
Juan wrote:
> For instance, if the House ordered me to delete a passage from a primary
> source readied for publication, I could not in good conscience do so
> unless it was a matter of life and death. In 1982 the House ordered
> passages excised from Salmani's *My Memories of Baha'u'llah*, apparently
> on grounds that those passages did not reflect well on the Faith (Salmani
> teased Azal by putting onions in his food, e.g.). In this instance, you
> have three imperatives in play: 1) there is a presumption that a Baha'i
> will try to obey the House; 2) there is the House's own concern with the
> image of the Faith; and 3) there is the issue of the reporting
> of the truth to which a historian such as myself is sworn. Here I have
> no choice but to go with 3), or otherwise I would be betraying my own
> most deeply-held values and would be reduced to a guilty hypocrite. I
> recognize that as a professional historian at a public university I have
> obligations that the House does not necessarily share.
Firstly, I'm not sure why Juan's "most deeply-held values" is being
compromised on a Kalimat Press project which apparently had nothing
to do with Juan, unless as the Persians say, there is bowl under a
half-bowl ;-} Why is he outraged?? If anything, Marzieh Gail, as
the book's translator, should have raised concerns and to my
knowledge she did no such thing.
Secondly, what the House instructed was perfectly reasonable. They
did not order *destructions* of these few sentences; the House
simply asked that a few passages be left out from the English
printing. By analogy, Shoghi Effendi left out passages of Nabil's
narrative, or only partially quoted Tablets in the Gleanings (only
one Tablet quoted in full). So, why all the fuss about leaving out
a few passages in Salmani's narrative in English version?
Thirdly, this project was *not* some university project which
"partial" publication of the manuscript would have reflected badly
on Prof Cole; it was a publication activity of a Baha'i Publishing
house, namely, Kalimat Press, and rightly the House, as the Head of
the Faith, was concern with the image of the Faith.
I think the remarkable thing in this entire episode was the
gracious way in which the House of Justice decided to look the
other way when the editors of Kalimat Press ignored most of the
House's explicit instructions for editing of this book by
"creatively interpreting" them.
So, my dear Juan, the problem with such stories are that they are
two-edged swords ;-}
regards, ahang.
ps. One last note on Salmani. I'm well familiar with the original
version (in Persian) and actually am puzzled why would anyone want
to print this narrative. Balyuzi had used all the relevant
information from it and the original text is of very limited
interest. On the other hand, Salmani's poetry is absolutely
magnificent and why it has not received greater (any?) attention is
yet another puzzle I can't fathom.
=END=
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 01:48:30 -0500
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Inter-faith dialogue
Dear Friends ,
I have returned from a nearly four hour conversation with a Conservative
Rabbi and Regional Director of the Anti -Defamation league . Here I am with
my oatmeal ,walnut raisin cookie and cup of tea pondering the significance of
our conversation .
My part early on in the conversation was to dispel their sense that Baha
i's were well meaning but had an essentially sectarian approach to the world
. I found myself defending the Faith of Baha u llah from critiques based on
various exclusivist or triumphalist perspectives they have heard from Baha is
. That was the sad part ! This is not an intellectual argument this is
real people speaking of and about real human beings and the efffects
religious perspectives have on real human beings .
Some of the questions raised were ones that have appeared on Talisman ,
seperation of church and state and whether if Bahais believe that their
administrative institutions are destined to "rule " is this not hypocritical
while at the same time talking about unity of religion ? What is the
difference between Christian triumphalism and that of Bahais ? What do you
mean when you claim your institutions are divine in origin ? This one they
found particularly chilling . Does divine in origin apply to all religious
communities or just yours ? Why is your claim to divine origin different or
bettter than that asserted by other human groups throughout history? and what
is to,prevent that from degenerating into a self rightous pogrom other than
your mere assertion that it wont happen? Or is it that you believe God is on
your side and the paricular forms of your community are therefore ordained by
God ? Does this apply to other religious communities or just your own ? What
about abrogation and the assumption Bahais possess "The Truth" of which
others are bereft or at least a better truth ? How does this square with
unity ?
As you can see it was an exhilarating evening . I told them they ought
to subscribe to Talisman . I might add I did not try to defend any of these
positions .
I find it fascinating that people who have had little contact with Baha
is but who have read some have come away with the aforementioned perception
of the "meaning" of the Faith of Baha ullah . I would like to think these
people came away with a different sense of what it means to be a Bahai .
These are folks who we are in the process of engaging in interfaith
worship services so I got to put in my plug for the Mashriq u l Adhkar as the
spiritual center of Bahai community and daily morning prayer as the central
ritual of community anf how spirituality radiates out from this central
shrine to encompass all of ones life . This was the really fun part . And
yes they wondered if spirituality was in distinction to social action and my
reply was of course not in the context of the Mashriq for it is an
institution devoted to the translation of worship into active service to
human kind . I qouted Abdul Baha on the radiant hearts being the Mashriq .
Lets see we spoke of mystical things and the midrash and Rabbinic
tradition and thank godness for "standpoint epistemology" and Juans
translation of the Surah of the Sun . They described the Jewish P`shat,
D`rash and Sod ( long 0 ) . That is the literal meaning , the meaning of the
thematic narrative and the secret or hidden meaning . This was my in to
address many of their perceptions of the Faith , some see the literal meaning
only and think Husayn Ali was BAHAULLAH incarnate , some see the themes of
his life and work as well and tryt to apply them to current life and some see
the hidden or esoteric meanings as well . So not to worry or worry as the
case may be( this brought laughter ) Bahais are not a whole lot different
than other religious communities. In the course of this particular discussion
we touched on the meaning is in the spaces between the letters and the words
and the role of the prophets is to release that meaning . And I was able to
touch on one of my favorites of Baha u llahs from Epistle "ye are the letters
of the words and the words of the Book .
We also had a marvelous discussion on education , knowledge scholars and
teachers and the great worth of such souls in a community. Which led to a
discussion of interpretation and its boundaries in the Bahai community .
Interesting stuff listening to the perspectives of another tradition .
I will close this with a practical result . We are of course going to
continue our dialogue and worship activity and the local Bahai community now
has a source for reasonably priced hard wood coffins for burial . We just
made a deal to allow Bahais to purchase them from the local jewish Burial
service . So who says dialogue cant result in commerce and practical but
meaningful results. Oh and we did discuss our similiar viewpoints on burial
practices . Enough for now . I hope this weekend to put together the manner
in which I dealt with the questions that were asked . My replys relied
heavily on the Tablet of All Food and Abdul Baha's Commentary on I Was A
Hidden Treasure .
In case anyone wondered I did assert Bahau llah was a firm supporter of
constitutional democracy . :)
warm regards ,
Terry
=END=
Date: 13 Dec 95 23:51:43 U
From: "Dan Orey"
Subject: Homosexuality and Biology
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Reply to: Homosexuality and Biology
Ken asked, " what might the heterozygous "carrier" advantage be for "homosexual
potential"?" a very interesting question... I'd like to share the following in
reply tho first:
Homosexuality as it presents itself in our society is a phenomenon unique to
our society. It is not the same as the homosexuality of Ancient Greece (or the
late 19th Century Middle East - plagiarizer's note here ) , for instance.
Thus simply, to think that one can set up an isomorphisim between one or more
genes and those features and activities which we today label "homosexual" is
both naive and doomed to failure. Such an effort assumes bad biology, bad
psychology, and bad history. Yet, having said this much, there are threads
linking homosexuals. Culture may be crucial for homosexual identity. It is a
lot less obvious that it is crucial for homosexual orientation. There is good
reason to think that this is a transcultural phenomenon, and as such ( at
least) plausibly a candidate for a biological explanation.
Found in _Homosexuality: a philosophical inquiry_ by Michael Ruse (1988) New
York: Basil Blackwell, Inc. p. 138.
This book is highly regarded, and comes with a large number of respected
recommendations. A very detailed examination and thorough discussion can be
found in this resource. It represents hundreds of sound works in the field,
that I wish our friends in the head shed had read , and why I am deeply
concerned for us.
To answer Kens' question: the answer lies in society's needs for creativity and
spirituality not just in procreation ...... Daniel
=END=
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 03:05:28 -0500
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: Law,Kohlberg esot..
Dear Paul ,
Since it is late i will confine myself to a few short remarks though
i would be happy to continue this another time .
I understand the polarity you set up between legalism and esotericism
. It may be a useful analytic distinction a la Weber and ideal types but i
don t think it is descriptive of what Baha u llah is about. Therefore i will
not base my position on that distinction . I am willing to concede that a
good deal of religious history is built around these poles . It seems to me
exactly this point that Baha u llah is attempting to eliminate .
I am a Bahai and a mystical one at that . this means i do not
understand the meaning of the religious community centered around Baha u llah
to be one built on legalism . I may be an aberration but a Bahai none the
less . There are significant elements of the Faith of Baha u lah that are
hospitable to esoteric dimensions of life . I would argue that the inner or
batin dimension of Baha u lah or what i referred to as the *Remembrance * of
the Merciful is at the heart of this Faith. Do I think the Bahai community as
a whole sees this dimension fully . No . But then i dont regard the community
as synonomous with the Faith of Bahau llah .
If legalism is a conception of religion as " a source of detailed laws
governing human behavior and (b) centering ones definition of religious
obligation around obediance to detailed laws and the institutions that uphold
them ." I can only say that this is a curious version of the Faith of Baha u
llah . Where are these detailed laws ? The Kitabi Aqdas has a mere handful .
If we mean ethical prescriptions we could make a case that there is a great
deal of comment on ethical action in Baha u llah's Faith . So it seems to me
the first part of the definition is inapplicable . If by contrast we mean no
laws at all then the esoteric becomes reduced to some new age form of mental
masterbation in my view . A source of ,personal pleasure perhaps but not
productive of much else . If thw first part of the legalism definiton does
not hold the second becomes suspect . No detailed laws no centered
obligation to tie identity to institutions that uphold them . If we mean
legalistic to be the presence of institutions per se then we need to jettison
any governing forms in religious or political communities all together . This
would leave the othher end of the pole as anarchism equals the esoteric . Now
I believe the Faith of Baha u llah is a spiritual democracy , my Irfan
republic this does not mean I equate the presence of institutions in human
life with legalism. As a practical matter there is the issue of children .
If esotericism defines the sacred as " accessible to the individual
without mediation from social or religious institutions ... " where is the
Faith of Baha u llah fall off the esoteric pole . This is a religious
community without clergy - spiritual democracy - the Administrative
institutions do not provise me access to or deny me access to that is mediate
my relationship to God. each od us must come to our individual understanding
of that relationship . In fact Baha u llah and Abdul Baha it seems to me go
to great lengths tp pont this out . Do you mean institutions as symbolic
presence or structured sacred space are anti thetical to the esoteric ? If so
them, virtually every religious commmunity in human history becomes non
esoteric by definition . Institutions facilitate the emregence of an
awareness of the Presence of Being in the world and within ourselves . In the
case of the Faith of Baha u llah my argument is tha the Mashriq u l Adhkar
is intended to do just that so that each day and each generatiuon is not
reinventing the wheel spiritually . It also is intended to translate that
sense of the sacred , worship into service to humanity . The administrative
inistitutions are meant to protect and safeguard that process; the
realization of the inner and outer reality of what Abdul Baha describes with
reference to the lovers of Beauty as " . .he is the dawning place ( mashriq
) of the manifestations of all the Names and Attributes, one of the Divine
Names is manifested most strongly and apears most intensely in each person .
Thus his being originates from this Name and returns unto it ." The role of
administrative institutions is to protect this process of "recognition" and "
observance". It has profound ethical implications . This is my spiritual
democracy . The Mashriqu l Adhkar has a role in engendering this
*remembering* and providing a forum in which it can be experienced and
translated into action . As an esoteric i am sure you are aware of the role
community celebration of the sacred plays in fostering this reality . And it
celebration that Baha u llah speake of in the context of Mashriq.
I have before commented on the reasons I believe the American Bahai
community has taken the administration as an end in itself route .
My general conclusion is that Bahau llah is challenging both to Bahais
and those of other traditions precisely because he is attempting to break
down the divisions betwen the poles you mentioned . I will close for now
but will pursue this further if you wish .
" At one time We spoke in the language of the lawgiver ; at another in
that of the truth seeker and mystic, and yet Our supreme purpose and highest
wish hath always been to disclose the glory and sublimity of this station ."
Baha u llah on Unity human and divine . There is another pole here if you
will that embraces and includes the law and the mystic lover and yet
transcends them both .It is the City of Unity ; the beautific vision realized
or as Abdul Baha might say 'witnessing' the station of the "Essence
witnessing the Beauty of its Essence within its Essence. " And it "desires"
to be "known" in this plane as well .
warm regards ,
Terry
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:18:44 +1300 (NZDT)
To: Member1700@aol.com, talisman@indiana.edu
From: robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Robert Johnston)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Polygamy & the Baha'i community
Tony wrote:
> Also, I have seen instances in Africa were even active Baha'is, finding
>the need to take a second wife (say, because of the serility of the first
>wife) in accordance with the customs of their culture, have done so.
"Serility": now there's a word! Sterility perhaps. Or senility. If it is
the second case, then maybe the Baha'i should have married a younger woman.
Not that I'm ageist.....regardless of what Sonja thinks... ;-}
Robert.
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:30:18 +1300 (NZDT)
To: "Eric D. Pierce" , talisman@indiana.edu
From: robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Robert Johnston)
Subject: Re: conscience and obedience (back to Appleville and Bloomtown)
Dear Eric,
You wrote:
>
>Lacking much interest in the predictable and tedious theoretical
>aspects of this discussion, I would like to ask Tim, Rick, Robert, Mark:
>
> If you were in Jane's shoes, and in the extremely unlikely event
> that the House of Justice told you to turn Mary's address over to
> the Bloomtown LSA, and you complied, and that action resulted in
> Mary's allegedly vicious husband finding her and killing her,
> would you consider her blood to be on your hands, the hands of the
> House, the hands of the husband, or all of the above?
No, no, probably, no. And you? (Play fair now!)
Robert..
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 21:47:56 +1300 (NZDT)
To: dpeden@imul.com (Don Peden), talisman@indiana.edu
From: robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Robert Johnston)
Subject: Re: prayer
Dear Bev,
I think we are in general agreement, and especially as the Faith
emphasises the need for deeds to match words, the value you give work seems
a good tonic to one as wordy as me. However, I cannot match your optimism
concerning the value of the works of those outside the Faith. That is not
to say that because I am a Baha'i my trivial and worthless deeds have a
higher value in the sight of God than the deeds of a non-Baha'i dung
collecter in the wastes of Africa. It is to say, rather, that the Faith
alone is the shelter of beseiged humanity, and that only when humanity
consciously recognises this fact and makes it the foundation stone of its
collective life will it be on the path to that which is genuinely wonderful
in this day and age.
Best wishes,
Robert.
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 22:09:45 +1300 (NZDT)
To: "Ahang Rabbani" , talisman@indiana.edu
From: robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Robert Johnston)
Subject: Re: Salmani's memories
ffolks,
Juan writes that he would go against a House decision in a particular
literary instance "otherwise I would be betraying my own
>> most deeply-held values and would be reduced to a guilty hypocrite. I
>> recognize that as a professional historian at a public university I have
>> obligations that the House does not necessarily share."
Sure. Why not? Go ahead. But why make such a fuss about it? Especially
in the presence of lesser mortals who put obedience to the House above all
else, even as they struggle to obey...
If Juan's conscience dictates such a response then it certainly is none of
my business. It is between himself and the House, and himself and God. I
certainly am not burdened with the extreme weight of a "professional"
historian's reponsibilities (and nor was Shoghi Effendi) so I simply cannot
comprehend the moral dilemmas such persons face nor the wonderous
supernatural confidences they must be party to as they struggle with
them...
From my rather dim reading of the Writings, however, I would not advise
such a course of action, if he asked me. Which he won't ;-}. Thank
goodness.
Robert.
PS
Nice to see you Ahang!
=END=
From: "K. Paul Johnson"
Subject: Re: conscience, polygamy, homosexuality
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 16:40:05 EST
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
According to LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu:
> inferior condition of women, etc. Now, the basis of the argument that the
> position on homosexuality could be changed is that there is scientific
evidence
> to suggest that a person is essentially born a homosexual. He or she fits
into
> a particular category by virtue of his genetic makeup. There is an increasing
> amount of scientific evidence to show that this is true. To talk about
> homosexuals then as perverted, abnormal, unnatural beings is to exclude them
> from full participation in the community. I, at least, see a distinction
here.
> I don't know about others. Linda
>
The emergence of scientific evidence for genetic factors in
homosexuality is only the latest round of relevant information
that should indicate that Shoghi Effendi was wrong on
this subject. The clinical experience of a great many
professionals for generations now has led to a widespread
consensus internationally to the effect that homosexuality is
not a disease, is not abnormal, and cannot be "cured." More
than 20 years after the AMA, APAs (psychological and
psychiatric) and their equivalents in other countries have
concluded this, the House is still advising gay Baha'is to seek
a cure. Maybe they can find the occasional wild card doctor or
therapist who believes in curing homosexuality-- but chances
are they will be much the worse for their encounter with such
quacks. Any mainstream therapist or physician will tell them
what one told me twenty years ago in essence: "the problem
isn't you, it's your religion."
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 00:42:59 -0800
To: "Dan Orey" , talisman@indiana.edu
From: Safa Sadeghpour
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biology
At 11:51 PM 12/13/95 U, Dan Orey wrote:
> Reply to: Homosexuality and Biology
>Ken asked, " what might the heterozygous "carrier" advantage be for "homosexual
>potential"?" a very interesting question... I'd like to share the following in
>reply tho first:
>
>To answer Kens' question: the answer lies in society's needs for creativity and
>spirituality not just in procreation ...... Daniel
>
>
Salutations,
Ken's question is quite legitimate. If it is to be accepted that
homosexuality (as a
sexual phenomenon) has *some* genetic influence then this influence has
to be fitted under some Darwinian logic. Under the Darwinian paradigm
the fittest of genes survive, that is, those genes that cause some sort
of advantage when compared with the phenotypes of other genes will tend
to spread themselves in the species. So, genes for stronger muscles,
for instance, might be favored in an heavy-labor
environment since these would permit the individual that possesses them
to survive longer and procreate.
This has little, if anything, to do with what "society's needs" are. The
question
of the procreativity value of the homosexuality gene is biological, and
not sociological in origin. For some phenotype, in this case homosexuality,
to have
an accepted genetic origin a reasonable explanation must be provided
for the value of this gene in the procreation process, and so, in the
transfer of the genetic
material.
Actually, the homosexuality gene, if any such gene or combination of
genes even exists, not only does not have any procreativity value
for the male descendancy, but also it tends to have a destructive
effect (stopping or limiting the procreation of the male). But, this
is not enough to make it impossible for "gay genes" to
exist. Why is this so?
Let's naively assume that the male homosexuality gene (if it exists) does not
have any beneficiary or harmful effects to the survival of the carrier (a
female). This is not entirely naive since we might ask ourselves what
influence would
an inactive male homosexuality gene have in the reproductive cycle of
heterosexual
female. Thus, it seems that this assumption is, although simplistic, quite
well founded.
Under these conditions the presence or absence of this gene would follow
a random walk. It would become a totally probabilistic matter not depending
on its worthwhileness for future male generations. The transfer of
the gene would occur at fertilization, and therefore any procreation-value
that it might have for future male generations does not play a role in its
immanence.
Therefore, the gene might exist not only when it does not provide any
particular benefit to the male descendant, but also in cases where it might
be perjudicial to the survival of his descendancy, which in this case it is.
It is also under this framework that destructive genetic disorders are passed
from generation to generation without them having any intrinsic benefit
to the procreator, and in most cases, having a damaging effect on the
receiving end.
Hence, a particular gene that provides no particular benefit may remain in
the species if it
does not cause any peculiar damage to procreator before the transfer of the
genetic
material.
Of course, a gene that has an actual positive procreativity value for the
heterosexual
carrier would tend to spread itself quite fast, and become a big percentage
of the
population. But this is exactly opposite to what we see in the case of
homosexuality
and this might by itself be a proof of the non-procreativity-value of this
gene, and
the random walk it follows through the narrow alleys of human evolution.
Take care.
Safa
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"My goal is simple. It is complete understanding of the universe, why it as
it is and why it exists as all." - Stephen Hawking
"Truth decays into beauty, while beauty soon becomes merely charm. Charm
ends up as strangeness, and even that doesn't last, but up and down are
forever." - The Laws of Physics
"The shining spark of truth comes forth only from the clash of differing
opinions." Abdu'l-Baha
Safa Sadeghpour (think@ucla.edu)
http://www.smc.edu/homepage/maclab/maclab.web/web/safa.web/safa.htm
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 03:24:49 -0800
To: cybrmage@niia.net (Bud Polk), talisman@indiana.edu
From: margreet@margreet.seanet.com (Marguerite K. Gipson)
Subject: Re: White shoes, velcro closures
Dear Bud... How truely precious you are. I can see you are on the mend
when you can see in the future. The fact that you recognized a need to come
is a sure sign of recovery.
I had tears when I read this...
I, too have had to deal with depression somewhat to the point of not being
able to get out of bed for two or three days, but not to where anyone
diagnosed me as depressed. I have been able to realize something is wrong
and get out of the house and go do something. I have to pray every day
and work hard to keep my spirits up and going. And eat chocolate. Gads, if
it was not for chocolate, I'd be lost. And yes, I have a peaches and cream
complexion. You and your family are in my prayers, and we (here on
Talisman) hope this radical change in meds is what is needed to bring you
back to good health. I look forward to your postings. You have a wonderful
knack of writing.
God bless you,
Margreet
At 11:13 PM 12/11/95 +6.00, Bud Polk wrote:
>I walked onto the psych unit of a small community hospital in
>Michigan City, Indiana Thursday, November 30. The paint was
>peeling, the carpet needed cleaning and the furniture was broken
>down.
>
>I walked in wearing white shoes with velcro closures.
>
>I had my first episode of manic-depression at age 18. I have seen
>eight psychiatrists and about 20 mental health workers and have taken
>about 30 meds. I have never been correctly diagnosed or treated.
>Behind me lay broken marriages, failed careers and the death of hope
>and the waning of faith. I knew something was terribly wrong, but
>could not name it.
>
>My real treatment for manic-depression -- 27 years after its onset --
>began in a small hospital in a small Indiana city on that recent
>Thursday.
>
>I began a long slide this past June and was hospitalized for nine days
>in September, but it did little good. While I deteriorated, my wife
>Linda and I searched for a psychopharmacologist. We did not want me
>to return to the same hospital and the same psychiatrist who had been
>of so little help for five years.
>
>We found the psychopharmacologist and got a call Thursday morning that
>a bed was available in the afternoon. My parents rushed from nearby
>Chicago, my six-year-old son Rocky went to school, and then Linda went
>to work (we have to eat).
>
>I was ultra rapid cycling, having mixed states and beginning to have
>auditory and visual distortions. But I asked my mother to take me to
>K Mart to buy me a few things. During a suicide watch, under which I
>might have been, they take your shoelaces and belt, for fear, I
>suppose, that you might find an unobserved moment and a sturdy place
>from which to hang yourself. I did not want to face the indignities
>of flopping shoes and pants held up by one hand.
>
>K Mart had rows of gleaming white men's athletic shoes -- only $9.99
>-- each and every pair with laces. We asked the saleswoman were there
>any with velcro closures. She dug around and found three pair. One
>fit. Then we found pants with elastic waist bands, sweatshirts,
>deodorant -- all those things you need for a trip away from home.
>
>We returned home, I shoved everything into a summit pack and I lay
>trembling under several comforters. Rocky came home, we drove to
>Linda's work, and then to hospital. Linda and I walked in. I was
>wearing white shoes with velcro closures.
>
>We went through a quick admission. We kissed, held each other and
>cried. And then came the moment when spouse and friend, lover and
>beloved must separate and stand on the two sides of a chasm deeper and
>wider than the Grand Canyon.
>
>I was on a unit more "serious" than I had been before. No one had
>shoelaces or belts. People walked around in sock-things provided by
>the hospital while holding up their pants. But not me. There were
>group and individual therapy, arts and crafts, indifferent food, three
>cigarette breaks by which we smokers measured the passing of the days,
>psychotic outbursts and the tedium of routine.
>
>I had a radical readjustment in meds. My psychopharmacologist asked
>me the following Monday if I wanted to go home. I packed, got
>instructions on meds, filled out more forms and yet more forms, and
>waited. Linda and I shared supper and a session with the unit social
>worker. Then we came home.
>
>I was wearing wearing white shoes, velcro closures.
>
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 09:12:07 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: science and religion
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Dear Stephen, I had not intended on posting today as I have so much work to do.
However, I cannot resist your posting.
Indeed, your mother's case does not strike me as unusual. Earlier on Talisman
we discussed the possible differences between male and female homosexuality.
Studies have shown that women are far more likely to "discover" homosexual
feelings later in life, after they have been married and have borne children.
I think that this needs to be explored further but, in a nutshell I do think
that there is far more likelihood that social factors play strongly into this
choice. If you talk to thereapists you find that many will say that women in
their middle years become so tired of being wives and taking care of husband
who are unresponsive to their emotional needs. They find that women are more
inclined to fulfill them emotionally. I doubt that sex is a real important
factor in this relationship. When other information is factored in, such as
data about women wanted to be "close and cuddled" by their mate rather than
engaging in the sex act, this seems to make sense. On the other hand, a male
homosexual is inclined to have a realization of his sexual orientation earlier
on. Again, this is a pretty off the cuff response to your well thought-out
posting on this subject but this is all I am able to do for the moment.
As for dismissing science as constantly changing, please consider the work of
biologists and biological anthropologists. We have been through this before,
but Darwin just keeps on coming out right. The core of his arguments are never
disproven, but constantly substantiated. Are we going to go around saying that
all this is just rubbish. That sooner or later scientists are going to
debunk Darwin? Please...Linda
=END=
From: belove@sover.net
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 19:41:03 PST
Subject: RE: polygamy smiggamy
To: Dan Orey , talisman@indiana.edu
On 13 Dec 95 14:47:25 U Dan Orey wrote:
> Reply to: polygamy smiggamy
Dear Dan, for what it's worth, I am so grateful that you continue
these postings.
I too take comfort from the the open minded and open hearted spirit I
find here on Talisman and do deeply hope that this is the Truer
manifestation of Bahai than what you've described on aol and what I
myself have seen among certain of the friends here locally.
Philip
-
>
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 12/13/95
Time: 19:41:05
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 09:44:43 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: just a couple more things
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Sen and Terry, thanks for wonderful postings today. Sen, for his explanation
of conscience and Terry for a wonderful argument for keeping the boundaries of
the Baha'i Faith permeable.
To those gentlemen who would feel that Jane's blood was not on their hands I
would like to say that, should anyone ever entrust his life to you, tell you
his or her deepest secrets, confide his worst faults, or whatever, please, tell
that person that you do not wish to hear such things. Only a friend who is
totally trustworthy, who would never reveal any such confidences to anyone
under any circumstances should be such a confidant. Mark, Eric's question was
not strange. Perhaps being a woman, my life experiences are very different
from yours. But I know what it is like to carry around the deepest, darkest
secrets of another person. And there is literally nothing that could get me to
talk. Trustworthiness is, to me, the most basic and most paramount virtue.
One should never betray a friend. If I had been the one to betray Jane's
trust, her blood would be on my hands. Linda
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 09:16:32 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: polygamy and polyandry
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Dear Don, honestly, why does everyone have to pick my pet subjects to discuss
today?! Your posting is very interesting. And I agree with you. I too know
of cases where polygyny is appreciated by women. These usually in societies
where there is a great deal of sexual seclusion and where women do the bulk of
the work. In this case, the women are relieved to have companionship and help
with burdensome chores. I am completely aware of this. However, we are hoping
to envision a society where women are not excluded and not burdened with all of
the work, making these advantages for polygyny passe.
As for polyandry, there are very few societies that have opted for this. The
advantage is when land is very scarce and families want to keep property within
the family system. So, brothers marry one woman and it does not matter whose
children she is carrying. She will only be able to have a limited number of
children and they will inherit the property in spite of who fathered them.
Must go. Linda
=END=
From: belove@sover.net
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 95 19:47:53 PST
Subject: RE: Conscience Cooking
To: Rick Schaut , 748-9178@mcimail.com,
talisman@indiana.edu
On Wed, 13 Dec 1995 14:33:23 -0800 Rick Schaut wrote:
>Dear Juan and Friends,
>
>I don't recall ever saying that one should not follow one's
>own conscience. However you choose to make your
>bed is no business of mine. I don't have to sleep
>in it.
>
>I just find myself unable to say that my conscience
>would prevail in any particular circumstance. Why?
>My conscience is not a static entity. It changes, and
>will change. I can only say that, faced with a conflict
>between my own values and a decision of the Universal
>House of Justice, I will spend a great deal of effort
>questioning the validity of my values relative to the
>Writings.
>
>This may be nothing more than a semantic difference.
>But a statement that one will always follow one's
>conscience implies that one is not open to this
>process of self-doubt--that one has shut the door to
>the idea of questioning one's own values. I think this
>stance is as morally wrong as the belief that one should
>always bow to authority regardless of the dictates of
>one's conscience.
>
>
>Warmest Regards,
>Rick Schaut
Dear Rick, this statement of yours certainly closes the gap for me
between our positions. I'd word it only slightly differently.
Like you, I would be profoundly uncomfortable to find myself in
disagreement with UHJ.
The question is then what? I think this is the crucible of moral
development. There are two ways to escape it. One is to die in the
pot and simply go with the authority of the House and the other is to
simply to insist on the correctness of own's own point of view and
jump out of the pot. The trick is to stay in the pot. That, of
course, is how one develops morally.
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 12/13/95
Time: 19:47:54
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 09:47:37 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: Persian radio
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Last night, someone telephoned me to say that he heard my name mentioned on the
Persian radio station broadcast, I believe, from California. He did not hear
in what context it was mentioned.
Did anyone else hear this broadcast? If so, could you tell me what was said.
I would prefer hearing this from someone other than Burl and Derek as I am
looking for factual rather than fictitious information. Please forgive me,
guys. I just know you have slight propensity for the imaginative. Linda
=END=
From: belove@sover.net
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 09:24:50 PST
Subject: Re: conscience, polygamy, homosexuality
To: "K. Paul Johnson" , talisman@indiana.edu
On Wed, 13 Dec 95 16:40:05 EST K. Paul Johnson wrote:
>The emergence of scientific evidence for genetic factors in
>homosexuality is only the latest round of relevant information
>that should indicate that Shoghi Effendi was wrong on
>this subject. The clinical experience of a great many
>professionals for generations now has led to a widespread
>consensus internationally to the effect that homosexuality is
>not a disease, is not abnormal, and cannot be "cured." More
>than 20 years after the AMA, APAs (psychological and
>psychiatric) and their equivalents in other countries have
>concluded this, the House is still advising gay Baha'is to seek
>a cure. Maybe they can find the occasional wild card doctor or
>therapist who believes in curing homosexuality-- but chances
>are they will be much the worse for their encounter with such
>quacks. Any mainstream therapist or physician will tell them
>what one told me twenty years ago in essence: "the problem
>isn't you, it's your religion."
That's quite correct, K. Paul (May I call you "K. Paul").
In fact, the plot thicknes a bit around this. There is a therapist in
L.A. who does have a method for the "corrective therapy of male
homosexuals" and his method involves a deep exploration of the male
patient's relationship with his father and -- I think I remember this
right -- the development of a transference relationship which, when
it becomes eroticized -- which he claims it will with a male
therapist -- then allows for an investigation of the underpinning
issues. But the eroticized transference is interpretted as somehow
"not okay." and this would be different than an eroticized
transference in a more mainstream therapy.
Anyway, the man does have a following and some successful case
histories but there is also a movement afoot to bring mal-practice
charges against him and his work is quite controversial within the
field.
The last I'd heard, it was still "okay" to treat homosexuality as a
dysfunction if it were presented so. If someone goes to a therapist
and says "what's wrong with me is that I want to have sex with men
and I want to stop feeling that way," then it's not malpractice for a
therapist to undertake treatment under those conditions. Although any
good therapist would, I expect, first and always maintain a meta-view
of the presenting complaint. The presenting complaint being the key
to all the issues.
So, if a person says, fix me, I'm afraid I might be gay. The doctor
has to say, why is that a problem for you? Emphasis on "for you."
The doctor would be ill advised to simply assume that being gay is a
problem in its essence. Even if the therapist is Bahai or Christian
or of some other ideological stripe which teaches that being Gay is
an action against one's own deepest healthy nature (that is the
teaching after all) the therapist can't let that opinion guide
treatment. Not according to current guidelines. Even if the therapist
is of the deep personal conviction that being gay is an action
against etc, that conviction cannot guide treatment.
It is the discipline of therapy to refer back to the patient's own
inner guidance. That was the point of the official de-pathologizing
of homosexual behavior.
Philip
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 12/14/95
Time: 09:24:51
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
=END=
From: "Mark A. Foster"
Subject: just a couple more thing
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:52:52 -0600 (CST)
Linda Walbridge wrote to talisman@indiana.edu:
L>Mark, Eric's question was not strange. Perhaps being a woman, my life
L>experiences are very different from yours. But I know what it is like
L>to carry around the deepest, darkest secrets of another person. And
L>there is literally nothing that could get me to talk. Trustworthiness
L>is, to me, the most basic and most paramount virtue. One should never
L>betray a friend. If I had been the one to betray Jane's trust, her
L>blood would be on my hands.
Hi, Linda -
I did not mean anything offensive when I said that Eric's question
was strange. I was merely surprised by it.
I believe that the Guardian, through his secretary, said that, if
requested by an administrative institution, one should not keep a secret
to protect someone, but, if not asked, that one did not need to divulge
it. Obviously, there is a place for *personal information*, especially
when it is a part of a private consultation. Revealing that information
would generally be inappropriate and would violate the confidence which
was placed in the individual. However, as I see it, the well-being of
the whole, as perceived by the Universal House of Justice, outweighs
issues of privacy. Since the Universal House of Justice is, in its
decisons, guided by the Bab and Baha'u'llah, if, after all parties have
had their say, it requests that someone takes a particular course of
action, I do not see how she or he could refuse.
Warm greetings to you,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion *
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society *
*Academic Director (and Kansas Dir.), Foundation for the Science of Reality *
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society *
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College *
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A. *
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home) *
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps) *
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet); *
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A (Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff); *
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
=END=
From: "Cary E. Reinstein"
To: "talisman@indiana.edu" ,
Dan Orey
Subject: RE: polygamy smiggamy
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:05:01 -0800
Dearest friends,
Do you all see what is going on here? A beautiful, struggling, and sincere
soul <> is being called a covenant breaker by fellow Baha'is
on America OnLine (AOL), a public forum accessible to 3.5 million
subscribers. A covenant breaker! How dare they do that? How dare anyone do
that this side of Haifa? I'd like to see outrage. I'd like to see shock. I'd
like to see compassion. And I'd like to see it stopped. Perhaps that's not
strong enough. I *demand* these expressions of support. Isn't this a
dangerous trend? Does it possibly foreshadow the growth of a fundamentalist
mentality, a sectarian attitude, and a threat to any misunderstood minority,
whether behavioral, biological, doctrinal, or any other? Since when does a
declaration of faith give anyone license to condemn anyone else especially
in such an ugly and damaging manner? Let's not have platitudes and smugness.
Let's expose the accusers so that they may become enlightened, chastised, or
just plain stopped.
And some of the locals in my area wonder why I'm afraid to get back into
community activity! I have the strength to change my life and correct a
profound birth defect but I wouldn't have the strength to be condemned by
people of the book. I would never be able to go on.
In sadness and frustration,
Hannah
PS, regarding the murdered women in rural Oregon: a suspect has been
arrested and is being extradited to Oregon at this time. Many women are
still afraid that they will be victims of further violence. On the Oregon
coast last week the home of a transsexual burned down. The deadly beat goes
on.
H.
===================================
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of
zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- Justice Louis Brandeis
"When even one American -- who has done nothing wrong -- is forced by fear
to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril."
Harry Truman
Ethernet (n): something used to catch the etherbunny <>
----------
From: Dan Orey[SMTP:dan_orey@qmbridge.csus.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 December, 1995 6:47 AM
To: snoopy@skipper.physics.sunysb.edu; talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: polygamy smiggamy
On the uglier side:
I am being accused of being a covenant breaker by some "well meaning"
friends
on AOL, simply because of my sexual orientation Thanks to my tutelage here
on
Talisman, I am able to refute this baseless and ill founded charge. This is
just the sort of thing that I feared, would begin with "the" letter. Too
many
gays and lesbians do not have a way to defend themselves from such "well
meaning" Baha'is, and I pray that folks will assist them as the pograms
begin.
Speaking of pograms. A gay Baha'i in the Houston area has been told by even
more well meaning friends to make a choice between being gay or Baha'i, he
has
been banned from all Baha'i activity. Is this what we are really about?
=END=
From: PayamA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:14:41 -0500
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Salmani's memories
Dear Ahang
Almost. . . . but not quite.
The House of Justice did not initialy ask for minor editing. They asked that
the publication be stopped. We were at that time at the printer. That is,
plates had been made, contracts signed and deposits paid. The National
Spiritual Assembly had approved its publication, so when the phone call to
stop came, we were caught off guard. After appealing the decision, we were
told that we could go ahead with the English translation if certain changes
were made. At that time a single word changed on a page meant a new plate so
we worked with the NSA and the House to minimise the changes. It is unfair
to say we ignored the wishes of the House in this matter, since we could have
said it was too late and the books had already been printed, and made no
changes at all. The Persian edition, however, had not gone to press so we
pulled it from our publishing schedule. The whole book (including the
poetry) had been hand written in beautiful caligraphy, so this cost had to be
absorbed.
I'm sorry I don't share your opinion that there is nothing worth while in
Salmani other than what had been previously excerpted. I hope one day we
will be allowed to complete this publishing project. By the way, since the
this publication was seen as a potential problem to the community, does
anyone know of any negative reaction to it since it first came out in 1982?
Payam
=END=
Subject: Polygamy & "Homogamy" (not smiggamy...)
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:15:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Donald Zhang Osborn"
Allah'u'Abha! Thanks to those who have helped clarify how polygamous
marriages are dealt with in the Baha'i Faith (and for related interesting
info. & diverse viewpoints...great education).
Since it was I who brought the issue up in the first place, let me try to
bring it around full circle. I have heard that in a Scandinavian country
(Denmark, I believe), the law now recognizes marriage between two people
of the same sex. If a homosexual couple, so legally married, declared
their belief in Baha'u'llah, how would their case be handled by their
Baha'i community? Although the cases of polygamy and homosexual couples
are in many ways different, does how the former is handled give any
insight as to how the latter should be handled?
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
P.S.- The laws and customs in Scandinavia seem quite liberal. There was a
case of a Swedish man who married two Zambian women according to Zambian
law. When he returned to Sweden with his family he had to push to get his
polygynous marriage legally recognized, but succeeded nonetheless (I don't
know how US law would handle such a situation).
=END=
From: dann.may@sandbox.telepath.com
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 95 09:47:27 -0600 (CST)
Subject: LAW, KOHLBERG, ESOT.
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Dear Paul,
As a philosopher with an existential twist, I am always a bit skeptical of
basing arguments solely on the basis of rather simplistic definitions,
especially if those definitions are made part of a polarized hierarchy.
Such hierarchies often turn "violent" -- that is, one of the two poles is
seen as dominant, better or preferred, while the other is often seen as
inferior or worthy of suppression or even destruction.
Frithjof Schuon argues in _The Transcendental Unity of Religions_ that the
esoteric and exoteric dimensions are found within every religious
tradition. Granted some religions emphasize the exoteric over the esoteric,
while others seem to emphasize the esoteric over the exoteric.
For those unfamiliar with Schuon's work, here is a brief summary: Schuon
identifies the esoteric dimension as the inherently more mystical of the
two, since it is generally characterized by a monistic realization of an
inclusive, absolute, undifferentiated unity or supreme identity that can
only be spoken of through symbols and myths, allegories and metaphors.
Accordingly, it is at the esoteric level that the concept of the unity of
religions is most often realized. According to Schuon, while this
realization is potentially available in any tradition or culture, only a
small minority of people in any given tradition ever achieve it. In
contrast, the exoteric dimension is concerned with doctrines and dogmas,
devotion to forms and ceremonies, and concerned with logical proofs and
concrete images. The exoteric level is usually characterized by a
monotheistic or dualistic exclusivism that recognizes, as correct, one
concrete form or expression over others. At the exoteric level, for
example, Islam is proclaimed to be the only true religion. It is at this
level that the world's religions are perceived to be both bewilderingly
diverse and mutually exclusive.
Schuon sees the esoteric and exoteric dimensions as embodied in two
distinct personality types found within all religious traditions, with the
majority of religious adherents being exoteric. This is very similar to the
philosopher of religion T. Patrick Burke's discussion of the "popular" or
"devotional" (exoteric) and "reflective" (esoteric) aspects of religion.
Like Schuon, Burke argues that the reflective (esoteric) personality type
has more in common with its counter parts in other religious traditions
than it shared commonality with those within its own tradition. The same is
true for the devotional (exoteric) personality. In other words, these
distinctions cut across religions traditions. Both Schuon and Burke argue
that both dimensions are essential or needed elements within each religious
tradition. The esoteric side keeps alive the sense of mystery and provides
a questioning dynamic that gives life to a religious tradition. The
exoteric side provides stability, security and a sense of direction.
Furthermore, all esoterics were once exoterics. The esoterics, with their
questions and more mystical orientation keep the exoterics "stirred up" and
engaged in the dynamic life of spirituality. The exoterics remind the
esoterics of their spiritual roots and the importance of the community.
Perhaps we can think of these two dimensions less as polar opposites and
more in terms of elements of a dynamic interaction similar to the Chinese
concept of the yin and yang forces, or in Tantric terms, the male and
female energies needed for life to continue in all its dynamic diversity.
Given this brief excursion into the work of Schuon, the Baha'i Faith like
any other religious tradition, contains both dimensions. While for some, it
is tempting to characterized the Baha'i faith as more exoteric or
legalistic, I would argue that this has more to do with Western practice.
As a Baha'i from a Jewish background once put it to me, "the Baha'i Faith
in America is a white Protestant religion." If we turn to the writings,
however, we find abundant instances of the esoteric dimension. In fact,
Baha'u'llah even encourages us to take a more esoteric perspective.
Certainly the mere existence of the _Kitab-i-Iqan_ or _Seven Valleys_
serves as a testimony to this point. I have often thought that the Baha'i
Faith is an attempt to mainline the esoteric dimension, that is, to
incorporate the esoteric perspective into the community at large, and not
merely keeping it the realm of a few elite practioners. For instance, the
unity of religion doctrine in all its complexity and associated concepts (a
more esoteric perspective) is a fundamental Bahai teaching, and is one that
every Bahai accepts, no matter how simplistically conceived.
On the other hand, even so-called esoteric practices have their legalistic
side. Zen Buddhism, Adviata Hinduism, and Sufism while clearly more
mystical in their orientations, embody a disciplined life often governed by
a code of conduct or a rigid ceremonial practice, or certain acceptable or
traditional practices. Furthermore, I have met, in my time, rather dogmatic
and rigid Sufis, Zen Buddhists, and Hindus who held rather exclusivistic
views.
But if we define, for the sake of
P >argument, legalism and esotericism as polar opposites, Baha'i
P >is clearly way out on the legalistic end of the scale. It is
P >all about internal vs. external locus of control.
P >Quick and dirty definitions, subject to challenge: legalism in
P >religion is characterized by a) defining the divine, the
P >sacred, the deity(ies) as a source of detailed laws governing
P >human behavior and b) centering one's definition of religious
P >obligation around obedience to such detailed laws and the
P >institutions that uphold them. Whereas esotericism defines the
P >sacred or the divine as accessible to the individual without
P >mediation from social or religious institutions, and defines
P >spiritual obligation in terms of obedience to/harmony with
P >one's own individual access to divine truth/wisdom/love.
I find it interesting that all the people you mention are male (Berger,
Jung, Kohlberg). Research on learning styles and brain functioning between
males and females suggests that men tend to construct abstract hierarchies
centered on the individual (Kohlberg's work certainly falls into this, as
Gilligan points out). Women on the other hand, usually construct relational
systems which center not on the individual but on the community. For
example, in the field of business ethics (which I teach) men are more
likely to engage in the construction of ethical codes of conduct and they
usually do this without consulting other people in the work force. Women
usually seek much greater input when attempting to deal with the question
of ethics and their approach to ethics are usually much less legalistic.
P > Furthermore, Gilligan's
> work on moral development may be a much better place to center this
> discussion.
P >Please offer details. Kohlberg is no idol for me, but I would
P >suggest that the direction of evolution appears to be away
P >from, rather than toward, the kind of totalistic authority
P >structure found in Baha'i. One could argue this from a variety
P >of points, Theosophical of course but on a more mainstream
P >basis Berger's heretical imperative or Jung's individuation
P >suggest the same conclusion.
Warmest greetings, Dann May, Philosophy, OK City Univ.
---
* WR 1.32 # 669 * The path to holiness lies in questioning everything.-Peck
=END=
From: "Cary E. Reinstein"
To: "talisman@indiana.edu" ,
"kseiden@casbah.acns.nwu.edu"
Subject: RE: Homosexuality and Biology cont...
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:41:05 -0800
I'm learning a great deal about gender issues recently out of necessity of
course. Regrettably, the largest body of information is about western
societies. Two categories of persons are generally classified as physically
appearing to be the opposite of their biologically assigned gender role.
Transsexuals are those persons who are unable to adapt biologically to their
birth gender. They have a lifelong identification with the opposite gender.
Typically they desire surgical means to correct their dysphoria. There is
some emerging evidence (MRI, autopsy, etc.) that points to prenatal hormonal
imbalances that may cause this condition. Regardless of cause, it is
incurable. The few that I have met personally are heterosexual. Some remain
married after their sexual reassignment surgery (SRS). Even long-term
hormonal treatment such as I'm starting in January does not alter their
original sexual orientation.
Transgendered persons are people who live most or all of the time in the
appearance of the gender opposite their birth gender. I have never met one
in person but from what I've read, I understand that they are very different
from transsexuals and will have a variety of sexual orientations from hetero
to bisexual to homosexual and that it's impossible to generalize.
By functioning sexually as women, do you mean entering into homosexual
relationships? That would probably depend on the particular culture and
social and ethical mores of that culture, wouldn't it? It's my admittedly
limited understanding that homosexual men in our culture function sexually
as men although with other men. They do not wish to become women. It's also
important to note that being homosexual does not necessarily equate with
being effeminate. Perhaps some of those cultures that revere effeminate men
as shamans and such also demand celibacy. There may be as many answers as
there are cultures. Even in modern western culture it's difficult to
generalize. Important to us is that, ideally, an unmarried Baha'i,
regardless of gender, birth sex, or genetic predisposition, will not
function sexually with anyone else. That is a Baha'i teaching. One does not
pick and choose their favorite teachings of course.
In the spirit of understanding and sharing,
Hannah
----------
From: kseiden@casbah.acns.nwu.edu[SMTP:kseiden@casbah.acns.nwu.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, 13 December, 1995 9:32 PM
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re:Homosexuality and Biology cont...
> There are societies in which young men in families without daughters are
>trained
>to act and function as women, because this partially
>satisfies a need in regard to family balance and continuity.
Do these men tend to be homosexual? Is it accepted, within these
societies, that these young men will also function sexually as women?
=END=
From: Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.com (Don R. Calkins)
To: think@ucla.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: Homosexuality and Biology
Date: 14 Dec 1995 10:05:28 GMT
> this influence has
> to be fitted under some Darwinian logic. Under the Darwinian paradigm
> the fittest of genes survive, that is, those genes that cause some sort
> of advantage
This is no longer a universally accepted idea among biologists. One of the
first arguments against it was that it would assume some kind of non-physical
link between an environment and the genes of the species inhabiting that
environment that cause a beneficial mutation to occur. More recently, the
argument has turned on the number of variations that have no survival value.
For instance, it is pretty hard to justify eye color differences as being the
result of an improved survival value, tho' there have been attempts.
Typically, the answer given tho is that a particular variation enhanced
sexual attractiveness at some time in the past. As has been pointed out,
this is a nice argument to propose when you have no answer because it can
never be proven or disproven.
There is an alternative idea that there is a constant process of variation.
(The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man in the Moon Marigolds?) These variations
will be maintained so long as that variation does not have disadvantages that
are significantly greater than the advantages, and they will be enhanced when
the advantages are significantly greater than the disadvantages. It thus
includes some elements of Darwin's research but also provides for other
changes that do not appear to fit his theory.
Don C
He who believes himself spiritual proves he is not - The Cloud of Unknowing
=END=
From: "Cary E. Reinstein"
To: "talisman@indiana.edu" ,
"Mark A. Foster"
Subject: RE: just a couple more thing
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 08:53:44 -0800
Dearest friends,
I believe that the possibility of the Universal House of Justice making a
decision such as has been speculated on in this forum is impossible. If the
House has accurate information, they would have an inspired solution and
would not make a decision that might cause the woman's death. To do so would
be more shocking to the believers than Tahirih removing her veil or Mohammed
changing the qiblih. Certainly, the House would not ask a person to violate
such a confidence. I can't imagine it. Are we not playing an intellectual
game? It's interesting but to what purpose?
Like Linda, I have held secrets about friends that I would never divulge. I
understand that perfectly.
Hannah
----------
From: Mark A. Foster[SMTP:mfoster@tyrell.net]
Sent: Thursday, 14 December, 1995 7:52 AM
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: just a couple more thing
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Linda Walbridge wrote to talisman@indiana.edu:
L>Mark, Eric's question was not strange. Perhaps being a woman, my life
L>experiences are very different from yours. But I know what it is like
L>to carry around the deepest, darkest secrets of another person. And
L>there is literally nothing that could get me to talk. Trustworthiness
L>is, to me, the most basic and most paramount virtue. One should never
L>betray a friend. If I had been the one to betray Jane's trust, her
L>blood would be on my hands.
Hi, Linda -
I did not mean anything offensive when I said that Eric's question
was strange. I was merely surprised by it.
I believe that the Guardian, through his secretary, said that, if
requested by an administrative institution, one should not keep a secret
to protect someone, but, if not asked, that one did not need to divulge
it. Obviously, there is a place for *personal information*, especially
when it is a part of a private consultation. Revealing that information
would generally be inappropriate and would violate the confidence which
was placed in the individual. However, as I see it, the well-being of
the whole, as perceived by the Universal House of Justice, outweighs
issues of privacy. Since the Universal House of Justice is, in its
decisons, guided by the Bab and Baha'u'llah, if, after all parties have
had their say, it requests that someone takes a particular course of
action, I do not see how she or he could refuse.
Warm greetings to you,
Mark
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
*Mark A. Foster, Ph.D., Sociologist of Religion
*
*President (1995), Kansas Sociological Society
*
*Academic Director (and Kansas Dir.), Foundation for the Science of Reality
*
*Founding President, Two-Year College Sociological Society
*
*Address: Department of Sociology, Johnson County Community College
*
* 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299 U.S.A.
*
*Phones: 913/469-8500, ext.3376 (Office) and 913/768-4244 (Home)
*
*Fax: 913/469-4409 Science of Reality BBS: 913/768-1113 (8-N-1; 14.4 kbps)
*
*Email: mfoster@tyrell.net or mfoster@jccnet.johnco.cc.ks.us (Internet);
*
* 72642,3105 (Staff, Three CompuServe Religion Forums);UWMG94A
(Prod.);*
* Realityman (America Online Ethics and Religion Forum Remote Staff);
*
* RealityDude (MSN);Realityman19 (CNet);Realityman (Interchange)
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
___
* UniQWK #2141* Structuralists Know the Lingo ;-)
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 11:10:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: Homosexuality and Biology
Dear Dann, Ken and All
Question from a less-than-layman biologist: assuming homosexuality
is 100% genetic, how can the evolutionary need for it change
in the span of a few thousand years?
regards,
sAmAn
=END=
Date: 14 Dec 95 09:21:22 U
From: "Dan Orey"
Subject: Re: RE: Homosexuality and Bi
To: caryer@microsoft.com, talisman@indiana.edu
Reply to: RE>RE: Homosexuality and Biolo
Hannah et al - we may not pick and choose but some of us certainly have
teachings that are our "favorites" ..... great post, thanx - Daniel (a manly
sissy)
=END=
From: "Cary E. Reinstein"
To: "talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: Always make your intent clear
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:16:32 -0800
An object lesson
----------
A professor of chemistry wanted to teach his 9th grade class a lesson
about the evils of liquor, so he produced an experiment that involved a
glass of water, a glass of whiskey, and two worms.
"Now, class. Observe closely the worms," said the professor putting a
worm first into the water. The worm in the water writhed about, happy
as a worm in water could be.
The second worm, he put into the whiskey. It writhed painfully, and
quickly sank to the bottom, dead as a doornail.
"Now, what lesson can we derive from this experiment?" the professor
asked.
Scott, who naturally sits in back, raised his hand and wisely,
responded, "Drink whiskey and you won't get worms."
============================
"'Where do you get your ideas?' has always been the question I'm most
confronted with . . . I'm afraid the answer is much more mundane: I don't
know where my ideas come from. I will admit, however, that one key
ingredient is caffeine." -- Gary Larson (FarSide)
=END=
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 09:52:02 -0800
To: Saman Ahmadi , talisman