Logs of Talisman Discussions of Bahai Faith 11/95, pt. 1
From mcfarlane@upanet.uleth.caWed Nov 1 11:37:02 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 01:16:58 -0700
From: Gordon McFarlane
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Is Science on a Par with Religion?
Dear Chris B., Rob J., Dan O. Stephen R.F. et. al.
Concerning the question, "'is science on par with religion" and "can
science ever constrain statements in the Baha'i writings re. the physical
universe" - i.e "every fixed star has its planets and every planet its
creatures" I have several observations.
1. Someone said in a previous post " . . . I have heard some Persian
Baha'is say that the *science* referred to in the Baha'i principle of the
harmony of science and religion is not really Western science as we know it.
Any comments?
I would go further and suggest that "western science" as we know it today is
not the same as the western science that was known during the mid to late
19th and early 20th centuries. Science is evolving, and hopefully our
understanding of our Faith has been evolving with it.
2. Etymologically, "science" simply means knowledge. It comes via Old
French science from Latin scientia, a noun formed from the present
participle of the verb scire= "know". It early on passed via "knowlege
gained by study" to a particular branch of study, "but it's modern
connotations of technical mathematical, or broadly 'non-arts' studies did
not begin to emerge until the 18th century. (my own note: this was the
Northern European Renaissance period that resulted, in large part, from the
contact with Islamic and other cultures) The derivative scientist was
coined in 1840 by William Whewell: (Ayto's "Dictionary of Word Origins)
Interestingly "religion" originally meant "obligation or bond " and was
derived from the verb religare= "to tie back, tie tight" and came to denote
the "bond between human beings and the gods".
It does often seem that religion "ties back" or constrains the knowlege,
for better or for worse. In the Baha'i Faith, it seems to me than religion
is intended to channel, or direct knowledge rather than bind or constrain
it, just as it was during the formative age of the Christian, Islamic and
other dispensations. (It's also true that there is a lot of superfluous
knowledge which is rather a waste of intellectual energy and I, for one, do
not have a great deal of intellectual energy to waste on superfluosities.
Therefore I have no objections to having my reins pulled and being steered
back in a direction in which my energies can be put to best use. These
restraints, constraints- call it what you will, are not imposed upon me - I
have submitted myself to them).
3. Abdul' Baha seems to have stated quite unequivocally that science
IS on a par with religion in a talk recorded in Promulagation of Universal
Peace (pg 394)
". . . religion must conform to reason and be in accord with the
conclusions of science. For religion, reason and science are realities;
therefore, these three, being realities, must conform and be reconciled. A
question or principle which is religious in its nature must be sanctioned by
science. Science must decalre it to be valid, and reason must confirm it in
order that it may inspire confidence, If religious teaching, however be at
variance with science and reason, it is unquestionably superstition. The
Lord of mankind has bestowed upon us the faculty of reason whereby we may
discern the realities of things, How then can man rightfully accept any
proposition which is not in conformity with the process of reason and the
principles of science? Assuredly such a course cannot inspire man with
confidence and real belief.
4. If a passage in the Baha'i writings clearly conflicts with the
process of reason and principles of science, how then, are we to reconcile
it with our Faith in the infallible guidance of Baha'u'llah. I consider a
number of possibilities.
a) That there is an intended metaphorical meaning to this
statement, just as there is to Abd'u'l Baha's assertion in TDP that -
"Should in Greenland the fire of the love of God be ignited, all the ices of
that continent will be melted and its fridgid climate will be changed into a
temperate climate . . . " (pg 49)
b) Our faculties of reason, and our science are far less advanced
and sophisticated as we would like to believe.
d) That the passage was not intended as a "piece of revelation" but
only an observation based on the state of "scientific knowlege" at the
time. ( We can be rather certain, that much of what we believe today to be
scientific truth will be scoffed at 100, or even 10 years from now just as
martians, leeching (which I've heard Baha'u'llah also acknowledged as a
valid medical treatment) or the idea of a "luminiferous ether" is scoffed at
now). Again useful metaphors can be derived from discredited theories.
3. Is acceptance, or non acceptance of this particular passage, as
"divine revelation", relevant to the central theme of the Baha'i
dispensation i.e. the oneness of the world of humanity? Does it
constitute an "ordinance" which all Baha'is are called upon to "observe"?
I don't think so. If I refuse to accept the "every fixed star line, as
literal truth, It is not a rejection of the infallibility of Baha'u'llah's
guidance but only a reflection of my own lack of understanding of the
significance of those words. The existence of extra-terrestrials
is certainly and interesting and entertaining subject to speculate about but
it is pretty much out of the realm of practical considerations, at least for
the time being.
4. > The prosecution of this vast enterprise [the creation
> of a global civilization] will depend on a progressive
> interaction between the truths and principles of
> religion and the discoveries and insights of scientific
> inquiry. This entails living with ambiguities as a
> natural and inescapable feature of the process of
> exploring reality.
The last sentence of this passage should not come as a startling
revelation to anyone - least of all scientists - were it not for ambiguities
(ie. an idea, a statement or expression capable of being understood in more
than one sense), there would be no need to need to delve as deeply into
reality. Thank God for ambiguities!!!
>______________
>In response to the questions . . . .
Is science really on a par with religion? ABSOLUTELY!!!
>Can science ever constrain statements in Baha'i texts regarding the
>physical universe? AMBIGUITIES ARE UNCONSTRAINABLE !!
I have a poster, (which perhaps many of you have seen) designed by
James R. Norquay - It bears the words "And God Said:" ( followed by
Planck's Constant which I can't duplicate on my keyboard - - -) " . . . and
there was light!" I'm not a physicist so I haven't got a clue what Planck's
Constant is all about but I have no doubt that it is as valid as the words -
"let there be light" . Neither the words "let there be light" nor
"Planck's constant" constrain one another - nor does either phrase bring
us a thousandth of a hairsbreadth closer to an understanding of that mystic
utterance of the Almighty that packed such an infernal whollop! But
meditation upon either of them may give us a glimmering of the infinite
magnificance of creation.
A number of years ago I wrote an essay on "Science and the Romanitc
Imagination", dealing with the polarization of science, arts, humanities
and religion, which had it's most extreme expression during the Romantic
period in literature. This period immediately preceeded and overlapped the
early days of the Baha'i Revelation. Since that time there has been a
reconvergence of science, arts, humanities and religion. I was prompted,
by this question on Talisman to dig out that paper and begin reworking it.
Because it's quite long, I'm reluctant to post it on Talisman but I would
appreciate some suggestions from anyone who is interested in looking it over.
Forgive me my wordiness
L.B.G's Gord.
---
Gordon McFarlane e-mail: MCFARLANE@upanet.uleth.ca
Public Access Internet
The University of Lethbridge
From TLCULHANE@aol.comWed Nov 1 11:38:00 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 02:13:50 -0500
From: TLCULHANE@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: re: reforms and elections
Dear Friends,
While I am not sure that incumbancy is a problem in and of itself but
I offer the following by way of a solution to problem number six mentioned
in Juan's post.
6) The Bahai electoral system
Solution : a) Seperate or distinguish the "Executive " function fron the"
Legislative one ." This would mean treating secretary and treasurer positions
for example as paid staff positions . This would allow the membership of the
NSA to focus on strategic issues and consultation appropriate for a
legislative body rather than being involved in day to day administrative
details which are properly staff functions.
b1) Expand the membership of the NSA from nine to - say- nineteen
members . Given the current voting patterns this would probably result in a
good deal of natural turnover . David Langness could probably tell us how
many people would be elected with a few votes as a result . This also has the
benefit , it seems to me of broadening the range of voices that are taken
into account in the consultative process and render the consultation
potentially more reflective of the hopes joys and sorrows of the believers
.b2) A subset of this proposal would be to divide the country into
representative electoral disricts from which members of the NSA would come.
This could be done via Tablet of the Divine Plan regions for example as has
been suggested with regard to de-centralization . I am not aware of anything
which would preclude members of the NSA from being elected on the basis of
electoral regions. This would have the benefit of greater personal
familiarity by the believers with the views and qualities of those they were
electing . I assume this would reqiure approval of the House of Justice .
There is my two cents worth .
warm regards ,
Terry
From mfoster@tyrell.netWed Nov 1 11:38:40 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 01:13:18 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Talking about it, maybe
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Bud Polk wrote to talisman@indiana.edu:
C >I said in my first post to Talisman that regarding mental illness the
C >Baha'i community is:
C >1. ignorant
C >2. prejudiced
C >3. patronizing
C >4. lacking in compassion
C >5. full of "happy" and empty platitudes
C >6. in denial
Bud -
I have a close Baha'i friend from Long Island (New York) who has
suffered since I have known him (25 years) with schizophrenia. He has
had periods of relative well-being alternating with hospitalization,
paranoia, delusions, perceptual distortions, etc. He is a wonderful
soul, a jazz pianist, and a poet. However, he has almost never been able
to hold down a job and continues to be on SSI (supplimental security
income - which, as I understand, comes out of U.S. Social Security
funds). He is now 47 years old and, although he is of above average
intelligence, there is, unless by the grace of God, little chance that
his situation will change.
My friend has, for the most part, not been treated (by Baha'is) in
either a prejudicial or patronizing fashion. Rather, I think that the
problem relates to your first point: ignorance. Most people, Baha'is
included, do not know how to deal with this issue. I think that there is
a feeling of powerlessness. Well, I know that I have often felt that in
dealing with him. I have always wished that I could do something to help
him. But I never knew what to do - other than to be there for him when
he wanted to talk.
To me, part of the answer, at least from the standpoint of human
relations, is in recognizing that mental illness is a physical problem
which, although it may prevent the power of the soul from manifesting in
the body, cannot directly harm the soul. Therefore, I think that part of
the answer is to deal with our problems with materialism - with
attributing so much importance to this physical vehicle which will,
after all, as Meher Baba liked to say, drop away in a few years leaving
only the spiritual substance.
In interacting with each other, the challenge, I believe, is to look
at one other with God's eyes, i.e., from the perspective of the divine
teachings. I cannot take away someone else's hurts, but I can begin to
see the other in a continual state of potentiality. It is this potential
character of spiritual development which makes it not only wrong, but
actually impossible, to judge another soul. I have no idea what the
destiny will be of another soul. I can only observe, using my inner
vision, that person's manifested spirituality and pray for and support
that soul in its future progress.
Loving greetings,
Mark
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 07:20:58 -0800
From: an assistant to the auxiliary board
To: 'Juan R Cole'
Subject: RE: election turnover
Dear Juan,
From: Juan R Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu]
>Thanks for your (private?) reply.
You're welcome. And, yes, it was private. Do you have any
reason to believe otherwise?
Since I was not amongst the people present when the National
Spiritual Assembly hashed over the Dialogue affair, I don't
know the facts. I am, therefore, not in a position to say
precisely what is fact and what is conclusion. I'd like
to say I trust your judgement in this, but, to be frank, I
don't. That's not because I disagree with your views or
I think the reforms you press are bad reforms. It's based
upon my experience with other statements you've made, some
of which I've already brought to your attention.
I can, however, address your specific salary question:
>So I would be very interested in an Economics 101 explanation of why the
>Secretary, whose previous business has now failed, should not wish to
>hold on to his well-paying job (which, I will admit, pays in the right
>range considering the $17-million budget he oversees).
You're claiming that an inequality is true (present remuneration >
opportunities outside the National Spiritual Assembly). However
your factual information, up until the above quoted paragraph, has
consisted solely of data which lies on the left-hand side of that
inequality. Moreover, the one bit of information you've offered
about the right-hand side of that inequality has been completely
misrepresented.
Robert Henderson's business has failed. Why? Is it because
he's not skilled at running a business? Can't be. He wasn't
there to screw it up. We have to turn to a different question.
What were the prospects of continued success in that
business before he was elected General Secretary of the
National Spiritual Assembly?
What are Mr. Henderson's prospects for gainful employment,
self or otherwise, outside the National Spiritual Assembly,
and what are Mr. Henderson's perceptions of those prospects?
I don't know the answers to these question, and my point
isn't to attempt to answer them. I ask them in order to
point out the speculative nature of the questions that must
be answered if you want to adeqately support the conclusion
you have reached.
So, your line of reasoning is based upon a mathematical
inequality, but you haven't adequately developed both
sides of the inequality. You've done very little to
establish the outside-the-NSA side of that inequality,
and it would be pure speculation for you to even attempt
to do so. And you do all this in order to justify an
imputation of the motives of another human being--an
elected member of a National Spiritual Assembly no less.
Above all, I think you already knew, at least intuitively,
evertying I've said above before I ever brought it to
your attention. Hence, I remain very firm in the belief
that you are pressing arguments which are not worthy of
your abilities.
Warmest Regards,
Rick
From caryer@microsoft.comWed Nov 1 12:12:30 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 07:56:49 -0800
From: "Cary E. Reinstein"
To: "'David W. House'" ,
Talisman
Subject: RE: Arguments
Dear David,
What an glorious post! If all of us cited the spiritual writings first and
foremost and cooled it just a bit on the legalism, linguistics, and
personalities, what a rich and wondrous resource Talisman would be to the
entire Baha'i world. Well, actually I think is already is such a resource but
it might benefit from a little self restraint.
I find Talisman challenging and enriching to a great degree. However, I confess
to deleting many posts after just a glance because of their tone or other
characteristics that vaguely discomfort me. I treasure and save all of yours
and Rich Schaut's as well (he's also a fellow Microserf!), and of course, all
of Quanta's poetry.
I'm glad that you are attempting to refocus the discussions. Keep it up, my
friend,
With love and respect,
Cary
----------
From: David W. House[SMTP:dhouse@cinsight.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 31 October, 1995 10:50 AM
To: Talisman
Subject: Arguments
Dear friends,
I note that some of us have been discussing argumentation, criticism, etc.
recently. I wonder if it seem to any of you to be valid that the tendency to
argument and criticism (which I share) is an expression of our belief,
nurtured culturally, that God will not establish justice; therefore its up
to us to do so.
That is, if we had certitude, would we not realize that we should:
Consort with all men, O people of Baha, in a spirit
of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a
certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others
===============================
"There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, the seas sleep, and the
rivers dream; people made of smoke, and cities made of song. Somewhere there's
danger; somewhere there's injustice, and somewhere else the tea is getting
cold! Come on Ace, we've got work to do!" (Dr. Who)
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduWed Nov 1 15:07:30 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:12:03 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Dear Juan, Terry and All,
1. The American Baha'i: in response to David Langness' letter,
the NSA mentioned that the American Baha'i was never intended
as a newspaper; it was designed as a means of communication from
the National to individual Baha'is. I think that this is a valid
reason.
However that does not mean that there could not be (an)other
publication(s) which could function as a newspaper - presently
that would entail review. But with the emergence of electronic
discussion, there are already unreviewed (if "uncola" can be a word
so can "unreviewed" ;-) groups; Talisman happens to be the global
one and there are numerous and ever-growing regional Baha'i
mailing lists.
For the time being the US NSA and Universal House of Justice
have not said anything that would stop these email groups - in
fact they see great potential here. I think it is a good guess
that depending on the development of the various *open* email groups,
we may see the emergence of more accessible print media.
2. NSA Salaries: from the NSA's Annual Report one can deduce that
the highest paid member(s) [three members in all] of the US NSA
earn(s) in the neighborhood of $75,000. Is that fair compensation?
I think so - the NSA states that they use the salaries of
charitable organizations as a guide which seems reasonable to
me especially knowning that some of the bigger ones have executives
that earn six and nearly seven figure salaries. And I would want
someone who is working full-time for the Faith to not have
to worry about his/her finances - he/she can be better focused.
I really do not see a problem here: the US NSA has a lot of
responsibility and there is no way to accomplish all of the
work without paid NSA members - I personally think that making
the Secretary an appointed position would reduce the efficiency
of the consultation.
But I do have a couple of suggestions:
a) as suggested by others: increase the term of service
on the NSA from one year to two or three - this would
add continuity and some security for those who are elected
to paid offices.
b) reserve a fund for paid officers who do not get re-elected;
something like 75-80% of the original salary for one year or
when he/she finds a job, whichever comes first.
Even though it does not occur often, there is no guarantee
that a person will get re-elected to the NSA and re-elected
to the same office.
3. I like Terry's suggestion about expanding the number of
NSA members [I believe that the Seat of the House of Justice
has 19 offices for House members] - I think Baha'u'llah simply
required it to be higher than nine and if is more it is also O.K.
Terry's point about representation based on population is a good
one also.
regards,
sAmAn
From dhouse@cinsight.comWed Nov 1 15:09:58 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 09:10:28 -0800
From: "David W. House"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Juan, friends,
At 01:10 AM 11/1/95 -0500, you wrote:
>A. Problem 1: Lack of civil society; the lack print space for frank and
>open discourse; censorship practices.
>
>Solution 1: In my view, if Review is abolished, everything else can follow.
> ...
>[discussions take place,] But for it to flourish, the governing institutions
>must withdraw from censorship practices and agree to press freedom,
>uncensored stage plays, and so forth.
I'm not sure who would do this, given that such reviews were established at
the behest of the Guardian. If anyone is not aware of this, I will offer the
requisite quotes. In any case, evidence offered by this forum does not lead
me to believe that uncensored is better.
>B. Problem 2: Derailing of the Baha'i [Encyclopedia] for silly reasons...
Forgive me for being so ignorant of this issue, but I am not aware of the
history. From discussions which I have seen, however, I thought this was a
decision of the Universal House of Justice. If so, then following a logical
syllogism, it would seem that what is being said... well, I will not
specify. It should be clear.
>Solution 3: Why not just be open with the Baha'i community and
>publish the details of NSA salaries and perks?
If such information would inspire more such discussion, I would suggest that
we never be offered the opportunity. Far better for us to be sheep than
wolves, if that is our only choice. What is clear, at present, judging by
the level and nature of discourse on Talisman, is that we are not mature
enough to properly integrate this information. As Americans, we clearly
mistrust our institutions, and that mistrust has exacerbated the problems of
the Institutions of the Faith in this country immensely, profoundly, deeply.
Beyond this, many implications unfold from the reality that Baha'i
Institutions do not have a constituency. The fact of the matter is that the
NSA is not bound to provide this information, and while we might, with the
greatest deference and humility, request it (although I, for one, cannot
imagine that it is of any significance to us), the National Spiritual
Assembly of the United States may choose not to offer it. If we cannot
accept that, we have accused ourselves of immaturity, demonstrating the
initial point.
>Problem 4: Widespread disgruntlement with the NSA
>judging cases where it or its members are interested
>parties.
This is presumptive, in the sense that no evidence of this is provided. I
hesitate, however, to point this out, since it would seem to be a request
for such information, and I can assure you that I do not want it.
The generic point is that such issues are the exclusive perview of the
Institutions, and the only possible outcome of raising it publicly is to
diminish the general level of understanding that such is the case, and to
provide grist for the mill that would grind up the Faith, if it could. That
is, in response, as these words are in response, we begin to discuss the
pros and cons of this as if we had either some right to do so (and if we do,
it would have to be a *much* more civil and indeed more in the form of a
deepening, discussing the implications of various quotes), or more
pertinently, as if we had some power to choose or change, which we clearly
do not.
>E. Problem 5: Baha'i individuals who have their rights removed do
>not have the right to see the evidence against them; do not have the
>right to confront their accusers; and, indeed, have no rights at all
>except that of appeal (which the NSA insists be done through it!).
Sigh. See response above...
>Solution 5: A bill of rights for Baha'i individuals needs to be
>devised and appended to the NSA by-laws.
A th roughly American solution, no doubt. Have we forgotten that the by-laws
of the NSA were approved by the Guardian? If the thought is that these
by-laws have a fundamental flaw, then what is being said about the Guardian,
and indeed the Covenant? How often, in the past, have calls which appeal to
an incompletely realized understanding of the Covenant led to mischief and
suffering? A reading of the history of the Cause should cause us to fear for
the life of our very souls, should we determine to do battle with the
Institutions of the Faith.
>Problem 6: The Baha'i electoral system does not work very well
>and tends to produce a sort of elective dictatorship. All criticism of
>policy is cast as "negative campaigning," leading to a virtual ban on
>creative thinking.
It may also be that valid responses to such comments have not yet been
addressed. So far, I have not seen even a modest fiction of an analysis
which would demonstrate that there is an iota of truth in the assertions
being made. As I previously pointed out, statistical analyses of the past
are interesting, but not predictive, and thus cannot provide proof of the
assertion. Was any other evidence provided? If so, my apologies, for I
missed it. Apparently it bears repeating that when we say that we believe
errors which are glaring, fundamental, structural, and of long history exist
in the NSA and its workings, then we are necessarily saying that the
Universal House of Justice cannot or does not or will not address these errors.
The system being criticized was established through the workings of the
Covenant, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Covenant is
therefore under attack, although my profound hope and current assumption is
that this is not the motive.
I for one feel drained, aghast, shaken, and stunned as if I had been bitten
by a snake. I am not being pejorative, truly; I am rather trying to share
something of my emotional state, and the response which my cells provide to
me, in order to offer some insight into any intemperance my words might reveal.
Beyond this, if such discourse, with such a tone and so wounding to the body
of the Cause continues, I intend to recommend, as one member of the
Community of the Most Great Name, that the National Spiritual Assembly
consider closing down this forum.
[I cannot as yet imagine the response that will get... Batten the hatches!
The smoking lamp is out! Dive, Dive! Ahhhooogahhh! Ahhhooogahhh! Torpedoes
incoming!]
I do not intend to offer this as a threat and I apologize if, in context, it
might seem as such. I very much enjoy discussion, and look forward to
reading the latest on Talisman. Indeed, since joining I have spent far too
much time reading and writing; and it has been, for the most part, a source
of considerable enjoyment to me. But friends, let's face it: if we continue
on this course, it will not matter if we request it ourselves, for it will
be done in any case.
Freedom of any sort implies commensurate responsibility. We cannot insist on
our rights without being passionate about our responsibilities, and I
believe we are too ready, in some instances, to do the former without
undertaking the latter. When the balance has been too greatly ignored, it is
no longer a personal issue: it becomes a community issue, and requires that
the community act to protect itself.
If I found the content merely offensive, I would simply quietly slip away.
But this, for me, is becoming a Covenant issue, and I feel about attacks on
the Covenant like I feel about attacks on my children. I must fight to
retain a sense of balance and to make appropriate responses. Absent the
Covenant, mankind will certainly plunge into irredeemable darkness, and my
children, and my children's children, will certainly suffer. If I must
choose between my suffering and theirs, I will choose mine.
As such, although it would clearly be unjust, and would cause difficulties
for some, if we cannot discover our proper boundaries then I cannot see that
such discourse serves the community, and some of us must suffer the
dissolution of this forum as the price of our inability to police ourselves.
I would also suggest that many of the painful decisions (painful for either
them or us) made by the Institutions have this sort of damned if you do and
damned if you don't quality. I think of Solomon offering to cut the child in
half for the two disputing women. In the end, however, that scene is
instructive, for the two women (the ruled), by their insistence on their own
position, provided Solomon (the ruler) with no better choice. Our own
misdeeds, ignorances, immaturities, and refusals to change our course when
offered gentler advice will also lead to similar consequences.
And if we blame the Institutions, we are far too cavalier regarding our own
part in the problems.
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
From 73613.2712@compuserve.comWed Nov 1 15:10:52 1995
Date: 01 Nov 95 12:58:25 EST
From: Steven Scholl <73613.2712@compuserve.com>
To: Talisman
Subject: Election/Convention Reforms
Dear Friends,
We have all noted that Shoghi Effendi praises turnover of membership on NSAs,
and we have observed that turnover is not the case. Term limits has been
advanced as one solution, but some argue that this conflicts with the ideal of
the delegates having the freedom to vote with their conscience. The difficulty
is that once the community grows to a certain level it is impossible to have
personal knowledge of who the best candidates are for the job. Especially under
the current system where there is very little access to information about the
quality of our elected leadership, their beliefs, their goals, backgrounds, etc.
Two solutions come to my mind. First, we need a more open community with
independent publications that will have the freedom to ask hard questions of our
leadership. Baha'u'llah praised journalism as did Abdu'l-Baha, and Shoghi
Effendi encouraged the development of *INDEPENDENT* Baha'i periodicals. Review
must end and greater openness must evolve before we can even begin to get down
to revisioning and finetuning the system for the needs of an ever-advancing
civilization. I find it a tragedy that the Baha'i community has less
intellectual vigor and a more tightly controlled system of censorship than the
Mormons, Christian Scientists, and, geez, even the Fundamentalist churches. As
has been argued before on Talisman, we need not fear frank and open consultation
of our affairs once Review is abolished. Sure, some dirt will get out to the
public from time to time, but the dangers of maintaining our closed community
will be disastrous.
Second, I suggest that we move to a two-step election process for our NSAs.
Shortly after the election of delegates, there could be a first stage by mail
vote for the NSA. The top 19 (or 27 or whatever number makes the most sense)
individuals receiving votes will then be the pool for choosing the next NSA.
Those 19 or 27 individuals will submit a brief background statement along with a
description of their vision for the community, and specific ideas they have
regarding national affairs. These statements will be published in The American
Baha'i. At National Convention in the Spring, the delgates would come together
and vote from the first stage pool. This would eliminate the objection to having
nominations in that there would be no nomination process but merely a means for
developing a wider group of knowable worthy potential members who are able to
address some of the issues prior to the second stage vote. The two-step voting
system thus establishes a wider group of potential NSA members without the
unsightly and un-Baha'i process of self-promotion. The delegates are simply
going through a more systematic way of finding qualified candidates. I am
familiar with the basic core of teachings and principles on Baha'i elections and
do not see anything that should cause this two-step approach to be
objectionable. I would love to see whatever pros and cons others may see with
regard to this suggestion.
I also suggest that the NSA form an ad-hoc committee comprised of delegates and
individuals with relevant experience and background to examine how to reform
national convention. This should be a task force that will look at how our
national convention works and does not work and consult on how to make it
reflect fundamental Baha'i principles and yet evolve to a new level of maturity.
The task force should also look at how other groups, religious and secular,
handle their national conventions to see if there are good models being
developed that will be of help to us. The committee should be given at least two
years to fact find and develop suggestions. Their suggestions should be
presented to the community via The American Baha'i and then discussed at Feasts
and town hall type meetings and regional conventions. After there has been a
full round of discussion within the community, then let the NSA, the
Counsellors, and relevant staff begin implementing the fruits of this
consultation.
I believe that we have to find ways of bringing the entire community in on
developing new ideas and solutions in a fashion that is systematic and produces
greater consensus on major issues.
With love,
Steve Scholl
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Nov 1 15:13:47 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 11:36:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Administrative reforms
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Just a quick note saying that I've very much enjoyed this thread
and hope that we continue having energy for it. I also
appreciate the fact the everyone is trying to keep their comments
to a pH level of 6-8.
An important principle to keep in mind with various suggestions
towards reform, in my view, is that they should be universally
applicable. Often it seems that some of the suggested reforms
make sense only in the context of American Baha'i community or of
interest to a relatively small segment of community.
I suggest we adhere to the Guardian's call: Let your vision be
world-embracing.
With that:
1. I like to second Saman's excellent suggestion that the term
of office for National Spiritual Assemblies be extended from its
present annual to 3 years duration. As he pointed out, this
ensures increased continuity and since over 75% of our NSA are at
least 15 years old, then I believe its propitious for the House
of Justice to consider this possibility.
2. I further suggest that national conventions continue to be
held on annual basis (including district conventions) and that in
the two interim conventions (when elections are not taking
place), a detailed and open consultation take place about the
condition of the community and its strength and opportunities.
3. Due to relatively immature state of local elections and large
quantity of "newer" LSAs, for now, the election of the Local
Spiritual Assemblies to remain annually.
4. The problem that I see with increasing the membership of the
NSAs to 19 or whatever other number significantly larger than 9,
is that it will greatly increase the meeting cost for many of our
third world NSAs. Further, I'm not sure that at this stage NSA
members are so overburdened that they need some significant
relief in form of added members. And further, many of our
younger NSAs (less than 20 years old) are still struggling with
developing good consultative habits. As such, increasing its
membership will unduly make consultation more difficult for them.
5. The difficulty with using some kind of proportional scheme to
elect NSA members, is that in so many countries of the world, the
Baha'i population data is unreliable for such purposes or can
easily be manipulated. For example, its relatively easy to
launch a massive mass teaching campaign and significantly alter
the election base. Therefore, in that setting, any mass teaching
effort will be looked upon with suspicion. Therefore I think
that the present scheme of members coming from the totality of
Baha'i population serves the global interest of the Faith best.
6. Much like Saman and others, I am against publishing the NSA
members compensations here in the United States. People have a
right to privacy. It is unheard of in industry to publish
people's salary. In fact, in DuPont there are severe
administrative punishment for discussing or disclosing one's
compensation; its simply a private matter. Members of NSAs
should have their privacy protected. How much they are
compensated is simply no body else's business -- it is between
them and the NSA and God.
Again, want to say how much I have enjoyed this discussions and
hope that we'll be able to explore them a while longer.
much love, ahang.
From burlb@bmi.netWed Nov 1 15:21:37 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 10:53 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: "David W. House"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
>
s
>for some, if we cannot discover our proper boundaries then I cannot see that
>such discourse serves the community, and some of us must suffer the
>dissolution of this forum as the price of our inability to police ourselves.
>
>Dear David:
As Bugs Bunny would say: "Unlax, Doc. Ya sound like yer goin' for the
conclusion jumping competition in the '96 Olympics!"
Before some one flames you and politely refers to you as some sort of
fascist neo-nazi suppressionist from Hell (no one would *really* do that!)
let me assure you that I have *never* for a moment doubted the loyalty to
the Covenant by anyone posting on Talisman, let alone someone as steadfast
and dedicated as Juan Ricardo Cole. The free exchange of ideas, the
exploration of concepts, the God-given right to make mistakes, misunderstand
and be misunderstood, and the right of the individual to self expression are
all part of the fundamental purpose of the Baha'i Faith: to safeguard the
interests and promote the unity of the human race, and to foster the spirit
of love and fellowship.
Diversity of thought, temperment, and opinion are to be welcomed lovingly.
Juan and I do not agree on the things in this pile: <....>, but we agree
100% on the things in this pile:
<.....................................................................>
Plus the Baha'is are all united, even though it is unity in diversity,
because our purpose is harmonized -- we all desire to exalt God's Word.
To eliminate or suppress conversations (Don't talk about THAT!") is contrary
to the spirit of the Cause, as is Censorship. Read the Guardian's
statements about the press in the future, freed from control by religous and
political interests, giving exposure to the full range of human thought and
opinion. Within the stronghold of the Covenant we have nothing to fear but
God. We are big kids. We can talk. We can disagree. We can go out to dinner
together and have a good laugh and a hearty discussion and then go to a show
or bowling or give a fireside together. I know I am opinionated. It is no
secret..but I don't mind being wrong so I can be corrected in my opinions. I
learn from everyone, even those I disagree with. Hey, I even got into it
with Mrs. Ruhe in the Pilgrim House back in '78! Saw her again recently and
she remembered me :-) Got a letter from Dr. Ruhe yesterday where he
mentioned that he was pleased to see that I was as outspoken and opinionated
as ever!
So, lighten up, David, whichever David you are....or otherwise I will have
to police what you say, or tell you to stop saying it in public, then in
private, then not to think it, or even think about thinking it....:-)
Your pal,
Burl
PS: in the meantime, I am writing up a slip and placing it in your file. Two
more of these and I'm sending a note home to your parents.
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 1 15:31:18 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 14:12:35 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: DWHouses' comments
David, I do not have time to respond to your entire message. I had no
intention of writing anything today as I am extremely busy, but I must say a
few words.
First, I want to comemnt about your remarks on the Encyclopedia - something
about which you know nothing. My husband was the general editor of that
Encyclopedia for years. Indeed, when we lived in the U.P. of Michigan, he
would leave me and the boys behind in the middle of winter to go to meetings
re: the Encyclopedia. This might not sound like anything to you, but it was like being stranded in Siberia. Still, It was for the Cause... so I didn't complain.
Then, he was hired full time to manage the Encyclopedia. He was paid a paltry
salary and a good part of our home was taken up by the project. Our life was
often in turmoil because of this project. I won't go into details but I often
regretted that he was involved. However, when I read some of the articles
being produced and saw what a magnficent publication it would be, I felt proud
that John was the editor of it. I also thought that the Faith was
extraordinarily fortunate to have people such as him, Will van den Hoonard,
Todd Lawson, Hesmat Mooyaad, and others on the Board. Will and John wrote many
of the articles and both are brilliant scholars. But they were hardly the only
ones. Baha'is who were pioneers, counselors, even a couple of UHJ members
wrote articles, not to mention our other brilliant scholars, such as Moojan
Momen, who took over the project int the early 90s.
Even when John was not paid any salary, he spent a good part of his time
working on the Encyclopedia. There was no monetary compensation. He should
have been working on his own scholarly things, but he has always been too
dedicated to put himself first. So, he continued to edit and write.
Then, suddenly, like a bolt, we are told that the tone of some of the articles
is not exactly what is desirable. Which articles? the Board asks. Figure it
out yourselves, the UHJ replies in so many words. I wish for the life of me
that I were free to post the correspondence. Even this is going to get my
husband mad at me. But, I don't really care. As far as I am concerned, no one
has the right to assume that there is any justifiable reason for closing down
the Encyclopedia Project. When I talk about the institutions "throwing good
people away" this is one of the matters I am speaking about.
No regard was taken for the personal sacrifice - years of it - that were made
by individuals and their families. The closing of the project makes it look as
thought there was some flaw in the people who worked on it. I know the people
who worked on it. One of them has been my husband of many years and few
people are as brilliant or saintly as he is.
So, please refrain from making comments on something of which you know nothing.
You also made the serious mistake of insulting another dear friend of mine -
Juan Cole. How Juan endures the abuse he takes on Talisman and from all sorts
of directions, I don't know. But he keeps on plugging. I don't know whether
to admire him for his tenacity or just declare him insane. If you don't like
his ideas, then argue with him - just as Ahang did over the issue of elections.
Don't declare him a Covenant breaker.
Sorry if this upsets the meeker members of Talisman, but I won't sit by and
allow people who mean something to me to be abused. Linda
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Nov 1 15:33:25 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 14:42:32 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: "David W. House"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Covenant and Criticism
David House writes:
__________________
The system being criticized was established through the workings
of the Covenant, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that
the Covenant is therefore under attack, although my profound hope and
current assumption is that this is not the motive.
I for one feel drained, aghast, shaken, and stunned as if I had been
bitten by a snake. I am not being pejorative, truly; I am rather trying
to share something of my emotional state, and the response which my cells
provide to me, in order to offer some insight into any intemperance my words
might reveal.
Beyond this, if such discourse, with such a tone and so wounding to
the body of the Cause continues, I intend to recommend, as one member of the
Community of the Most Great Name, that the National Spiritual Assembly
consider closing down this forum.
_________________
RESPONSE:
Covenant and criticism are not antithetical. Only what the
beloved Guardian termed *vicious criticism*. When criticism is
constructive, it can lead to transformations that further evolve the
World Order of Baha'u'llah.
It should not be assumed that, just because the present
Administrative Order came into being through the operation of the
Covenant, that criticism undermines the Covenant itself. It may be
that criticism is an expression of fealty to the Covenant when the
best interests of the Faith are at heart.
Juan Cole has dedicated his life to serving as a pioneer on
frontier of the Academy. The threat David House has posted is
understandable as a gut reaction, but there is nothing serpentine
about frank and candorous consultation.
It takes courage to openly discuss shortcomings in the present
system, and to suggest possible solutions for refining it. Is this not
one of the reasons Shoghi Effendi valued the advice of Horace Holley?
-- Christopher Buck
From LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduWed Nov 1 15:34:06 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 14:55:35 EWT
From: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: a bit more
Excuse me for writing twice in one day. I am not sure the system can handle
it.
However, I would like to correct Juan. He said that the reasons for closing
the Encyclopedia down were "silly." As far as I could determine they were
non-existent. Therefore, there could be no discussion. Linda
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Nov 1 15:34:39 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 12:15:32 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions (go sit in the corner/I love you)
Hi,
re:
> Date sent: Wed, 1 Nov 95 10:53 PST
> To: "David W. House"
> From: burlb@bmi.net (Burl Barer)
> Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
> Copies to: talisman@indiana.edu
...snip
> Before some one flames you and politely refers to you as some sort of
> fascist neo-nazi suppressionist from Hell (no one would *really* do that!)
Thanks for the wonderful message, because of it I was able to delete
a file containing a nasty response instead of sending it to talisman!
...snip
> So, lighten up, David, whichever David you are....or otherwise I will have
> to police what you say, or tell you to stop saying it in public, then in
> private, then not to think it, or even think about thinking it....:-)
...snip
> PS: in the meantime, I am writing up a slip and placing it in your file. Two
> more of these and I'm sending a note home to your parents.
>
> *******************************************************
> Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
> *******************************************************
>
Just wanted to add that reactionary language leads to yet more
reactionary language, do we really need to keep doing this
dysfunctional waltz of polarization, or can we try to use reason
and inspiration to focus on the specific problems and issues
that are begging for our attention that relate to building the
foundation of an advancing world civilization?
EP
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Nov 1 15:35:31 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 15:24:56 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Open Letter to UHJ re: Encyclopedia
Is there any support for an open letter to the House regarding
the Baha'i Encyclopedia Project? Would it do any good? Are open letters
sanctionable, or acceptable?
If this is seen as a positive, if not necessary action,
permission from the past editors would have to be forthcoming, I
presume. If so endorsed, I would come forward to collaborate on a draft.
A dialogue with the House is an expression of fidelity to the
Covenant. After all, the Baha'i Encyclopedia Project came into
existence as a mandate from the House (correct me if I am mistaken).
I ask David House: Which is more faithful to the Covenant: to
support the Baha'i Encyclopedia Project or not? Juan is supporting it
by raising a question about the issues involved.
Had we a clearer understanding of the House's reasons for putting
the Project on ice, then perhaps the academic community as a whole
could enter into a dialogue with the House that might somehow result in
a transformation of how Baha'i scholarship is undertaken and perceived.
I had previously posted a letter from the beloved Guardian in
which he had NOT capitalized person pronouns for which the Master was
antecedent. No one seems to have picked up on the significance of this
precedent for Baha'i scholarship. Will my book, _Symbol and Secret_,
fall under attack for the way in which pronouns were not capitalized?
Even though I only wrote three articles, I would be just as
concerned had I wrote none.
From the Ivory Tower opposite the Watchtower in the Crimson Ark,
Christopher Buck
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comWed Nov 1 15:56:11 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:42:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh
To: Talisman
Subject: subtleties of the Covenant
In "The Vision", the Juan's translation of Kahlil Gibran,
it is written:
"No, my brother, do not make inferences about the reality of a man
on the basis of appearances, and do not take some saying or some
deed of his as a token of his innermost essence. Many a person you
consider ignorant - because he lacks eloquence or speaks in a
colorless tone - has an awareness that leads to wisdom and a heart
that serves as a cradle of revelation. And many a person you despise
because of repulsive features or a vile livelihood nevertheless was a
gift from heaven and a breath from God...
No, my brother, days and nights are not their outward appearances, and
I - I who am walking in the pageant of days and nights - am not these
words that I cast before you, except insofar as these words convey to
you something of my silent interiority. Do not reckon me ignorant, then
, before you probe my hidden essence, and do not imagine me genius before
you strip me of this acquired essence. Do not say...R, call me not
carefree until you touch my bleeding wound."
Perhaps, a tone which is royal to the inner and dictates of the soul
is more appropriate and beautiful and more faithful to the covenant than a
tone which is pretty but insipid and much concerned with the appearance.
Perhaps that is why the one which was ready to strangle the Bab on the
Last night became His dearest companion.
There are many subtleties in the way of God.
Farzin
From jrcole@umich.eduWed Nov 1 15:59:05 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:53:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole
To: "David W. House"
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Dear David:
I am sorry that my post so upset you. It was meant to be constructive.
If it did leave you shaken, then I can only suggest that Talisman may not
be your cup of tea. This is not meant in a mean-spirited way, as a "love
it or leave it" sentiment. It is heartfelt. Talisman is a subculture,
and is not for everyone. Why upset yourself?
I am sorry you chose not to reason with my points, but to engage in a
litany of "you cannot say that." I can hardly reply, having been
forestalled by being silenced. There is no argument for me to engage.
In some instances you admitted you knew nothing about the issues
involved, and did not want to know. So you will excuse my inability to
respond to your points; it is not meant as a slight.
I find your invoking of the Covenant in order to silence me deplorable.
(Have you, by the way, ever risked your life for the Covenant?)
But it is good in a way for us all to be reminded of this ultra-Right
political culture that has such sway in the American Baha'i community.
What a wonderful New World Order, where we are all dictated to and if
anyone raises a peep, she can be shouted down by the word "Covenant." I
sigh, I weep. Please read Orwell and think again.
As for the threat to "have Talisman closed down," this is also deplorable
and unacceptable. I can understand and respect your saying "I want no
part of this." But to take it upon yourself to decide what discourse the
rest of us can engage in is arrogant and authoritarian. I am
unimpressed, by the way. When I was pioneering in war-torn Beirut, I was
working for a newspaper and had occasional problems with the Syrian
censor. Now, the Syrian government slaughtered 10,000 of its own
citizens in Hama just three years later. So I have been censored by the
best. These stiff-necked American Baha'is cannot measure up to Hafez
al-Asad, however fearsome they think they are.
cheers Juan Cole, History, University of Michigan
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduWed Nov 1 18:20:47 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:10:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Dear David, Steve and All,
1. I think David House's comments serve a very good
purpose. He is emptying his cup and being frank in his
expression - basically what many say is lacking in the
Baha'i community. The difference is that he is saying what
is labled as "the party line".
I for one don't have a question about the motives of any
one on Talisman - as Burl said, we all are trying to advance
the Cause of Baha'u'llah.
But lets say that instead of David, a new Baha'i who has not
yet learned about the workings of the Faith was hearing
the tone of our discussion. Or an internet-wise youth. Is the
possible damage less important than the adjectives that some feel
must be used? For the life of me, I just don't understand.
Without a doubt there is a need for a more open way of
discussing issues facing the community - while I understand it,
it is troubling that the Baha'is in Houston (only 100 miles
away and I had very little idea of the recent challenges) did not
feel that they could openly express their concerns to
Dr. Henderson and Mrs. Conrad. If we are one family, then
we have to find the way.
I hope David stays.
2. Two-step elections: it seems to me that the goal of Baha'i
Administration is to identify the best ideas and implement
in the most efficient way - the individuals elected to an
Assembly may not necessarily be the originators of those
ideas.
I can understand that some of Institutions of the Faith
are not as efficient as desirable. But I think the solution to
the problem lies in making the process work better.
I think if we have a system where a few express their goals
and desires for the future of the community, they would
in effect become responsible to their constituency.
regards,
sAmAn
From JRuhl@tchmail01.tchden.orgWed Nov 1 18:21:40 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 15:17:00 PST
From: "Ruhl, Jordis"
To: 'talisman'
Subject: Goodbye for now
Taliswomen and Talismen,
This is the deal.
I sit here at my computer at work, spending sometimes upwards of three hours
a day pouring over Talisman postings. My boss keeps walking by, looking
into my office. She can't understand why I'm always reading my email.
(Evidently, she's never gotten 173 email messages over a long weekend.)
Truth be told, I'd much rather read Talisman than anything else here at
work. Since my job is an inconvenient, but undeniable, reality, I'm
temporarily signing off.
Before I leave you, I want to say that the thing that's struck me about
Talisman is the honesty of the communication. Forget "tone." I am much
more interested in getting the straight, gut response rather than a
contrived, sweet-smelling version, which is what many of us Baha'is confuse
with "proper tone." Proper tone to me, and I'm sure this is culturally
based, is honesty, gentleness and passion.
I hope to return to you one day, when I'm a lady of (more) leisure.
Thank you all.
Jordis Ruhl
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 1 18:22:10 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 13:30:35 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Personal Attacks !!!!!
My dear Talismanians
As I notice the lovely subject of Review , Censorship , NSA reform and
the Covenant
are once more come upon us . May I request the honourable members do
not doubt the
beliefs of each other and engage in discussion of the issues only which
ever end of the
mythical thought spectrum you considor the other to be . I thought that
is what we had
agreed too the last time around.
As far as my good friend the much maligned Juan Richardo Cole is
concerned.
I know you all will be delighted to hear he was awarded a major honour
this
week and now has the letters C. G. S. P. after his name , a little
respect is in
order I think .
Kindest Regards Derek Cockshut
From 100725.315@compuserve.comWed Nov 1 18:22:28 1995
Date: 01 Nov 95 16:37:08 EST
From: Janine van Rooij <100725.315@compuserve.com>
To: talisman
Subject: metaphysician, alchemist, sorcerer
Sheila, you made me really laugh with your apt answer!!!
<>
(still laughing)
janine van rooij
amsterdam, holland
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduWed Nov 1 18:22:59 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 16:45:45 EDT
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: subtleties of the Covenant
>Do not say...R, call me not
>carefree until you touch my bleeding wound."
Dear Farzin;
In a different context, generally speaking:
Will I you cut in me another wound?
Will you leave me behind bleeding too?
Or, are you androgynous?
For none is Bab! Many have done the above.
lovingly,
===========================================================
"When diverse shades of thought,temperament and character
are brought together, under the power and influence of one
agency,then, will the glory of human perfections be made manifest"
===========================================================
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Nov 1 18:26:26 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 14:39:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: various
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
My apologies for posting a second time today too. But can't help
it ...
1. I deeply appreciate and was very much touched by Linda's
defense of the main editors of Encyclopedia project. From the
few articles that we've seen posted on Talisman, one can tell
that when it comes out, without any doubt or exaggeration, will
be among the community's most important literary contribution.
2. I also my grateful that she spoke up in Juan's behalf, as I
appreciate Burl and Chris' postings too. Its getting extremely
tiresome to see people for no good reason at all, constantly
flame, insult and in general pick on Juan Cole. I think its best
for newer people to lurk for a while on Talisman and figure out
the caliber of the people that they are dealing with, before
passing judgment. There are many issues that I argue with Juan
or with other esteemed members -- after all what Talisman is for
-- but it turned my stomach to see accusation of
Covenant-breaking. How dare people insult fine, indeed
exemplary, believers as such!
3. I'm against discussing the Encyclopedia project or writing to
the House of Justice. The reason is I like to see the process
unfold in the privacy of Haifa's Council chamber and editorial
board. The rest of us can only damage this process. The reason
I say this is I think (and its only a guess!) that even on the
House of Justice there are multiplicity of views about the Ency.
-- some members like it, some don't and some are in between. If
we force the issue into the open, start a letter writing campaign
or begin to discuss it openly on Talisman or other places,
invariably, the House of Justice will shut it down just to remove
the subject as a source of disunity. (Lets learn from the
"Service of Women" episode of late 80's.) I sincerely encourage
those who like to see this book to come out, to please continue
exercising self-restraint and avoid commenting.
best wishes, ahang.
From 100725.315@compuserve.comWed Nov 1 18:30:42 1995
Date: 01 Nov 95 17:13:06 EST
From: Janine van Rooij <100725.315@compuserve.com>
To: talisman
Subject: yes... I am back
Hi everybody!
For those of you who were here last June/July when I unsubscribed, yes, I am
back. Somebody kept forwarding me Burl Barer's posts and I finally I could not
resist longer and out of fear to miss anything funny (and besides that,
worthwhile) I decided to subscribe again. So, here I am again, mainly because of
Burl, of whose posts I have become a great fan, but also for Mark Fosters very
gentle and sensible contributions as well as Brent Poirier's. Robert Johnston's
postings have always interested me. To my happiness I see that there are more
women contributing here and I am very grateful about that. This is too much a
men's list!!!
I do not know whether I will be able to contribute much. I do not have much time
or patience right now.
For those who were not here in June/July: something happened here on Talisman,
what, that I will not want to bore you with, which made me feel obliged to
unsubscribe. I was not in agreement with the way that particular situation was
handled, and i still am not. However, I do not bear a grudge to anybody and I am
sure that most of the people involved, especially the listowner, had good
intentions. For those who are really interested to know, you can always email me
and i will tell you my view on the matter.
greetings,
janine van rooij
amsterdam, holland
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduWed Nov 1 18:31:59 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 17:18:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Allah'u'abha! I've two questions re: possible new structures to increase the
possibility of more frequent turnover of membership in the NSA-US.
1. Are there any statistics (in any country or worldwide) to indicate that
during or immediately following periods of large expansion of a Baha'i
community, there is more turnover of membership in National Spiritual
Assembly? If so, then perhaps one of the key areas for reforms or solutions
might be on the level of teaching--i.e., increasing & making it more effective.
[BTW (and tangentially) why are some people "opposed" to mass teaching, in
Houston or elsewhere? It's not my preferred approach to teaching, but I see
an important place for it in the Baha'i community.]
2. Is it possible that decentralization reforms already underway in the US
(to create regional councils) might help create a larger pool of experienced &
visible people with a real possibility of being elected to the NSA? What has
been the effect in this regard of similar decentralization (whether involving
regional committees or elected state/province level assemblies as in India)?
BTW, there are some interesting ideas being discussed on this thread - I don't
mean to discount those by asking the above questions.
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
Michigan State University
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 1 18:32:43 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 11:29:30 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: Juan R Cole , talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Here we go again:
We should always be careful to select our friends wisely and I have to
suggest to David House that he need not consider me his buddy, even though
I -- alone and unarmed among the multitudinously arrayed Talismanic guns --
am about to offer him support. Damn it: why does the tenured doctor get
all the support when he says things which are downright stupid and
offensive? I don't give a stuff that Juan Cole did anything with his
life. I don't give a stuff if he outsmarted some halfwitted middle eastern
censor, or was a pioneer to whereever. I do give a stuff when he says a
decision of the House was "silly", and so on.
Not that I am mad about it, mind you. I am a veteran of Cole conflict. I
generally ignore what he writes. In my view, it is shameful crap mostly.
What I am mad about is the fact that I see all these SILLY letters of
support. I expected more from certain Talismanians.
Chris Buck had a good idea: write to the House about the Encyclopaedia.
Let's do it.
Did you know that flax smells like horse sweat?
I told you I could be uncouth.
Robert ["Talismanic but definitely not of Juan Cole's fictional
subculture"] Johnston
From Dave10018@aol.comWed Nov 1 18:38:45 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 17:37:38 -0500
From: Dave10018@aol.com
To: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Men,symbols, continuity in art(reply to Sonja)
In a message dated 95-10-30 14:37:07 EST, Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl writes:
>Subj: response to dave taylor's post
>Date: 95-10-30 14:37:07 EST
>From: Sen.Mcglinn@rl.rulimburg.nl
>Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
>To: talisman@indiana.edu
>
Sonja, I know this is an inflamatory subject. I merely suggested(admittedly
at great length last time out) that the rule against women on the House may
have a justification in historically based symbolism which -may- I perhaps
too optomistically suspect, ultimately be disentangled from their historic
association with sexism, an association which may have been inevitable
earlier in human development but may(indeed, must) be severed now. This
allows me to categorically reject all statements which involve deducing some
inability of women or men serving together with women(Dan Osborne) from the
rule about the House of Justice. By asserting that the rule is a holdover
from religious history, a minimal remnant of a symbolic system of patriarchy,
I point to such history as a source of the symbol, and I am arguing that it
is an effect of history which it is ours to minimize in practical effect as
much as possible by women having a voice everywhere, including Haifa, (or
even, if the House comes to feel it can, by changing the rule)and by our
realizing that the rule is not in any case a statement about the abilities of
women.The House has already said that the rule is not to be seen as a
statement about the abilities of women. In particular I want to emphasize
that I made this argument to dismiss "practical" arguments in favor of the
rule against women because such arguments do have sexist implications. In
order to do this I make a distinction between sexist implications drawn from
symbols and symbols and the things represented by the symbols. This series of
distinctions is important to the logic and consistency of my argument which
allows me to envision the House as it is functioning in a non-sexist society.
Now, it is a theoretical argument. I do not have it as revealed writ of
course, and may be barking up the wrong tree, but that is my argument and if
you simply refuse, as you do, to allow for the categorical distinctions I
make it makes little sense. I admit readily that the rule should be seen
almost as a ritual exclusion to be minimized in practice as much as possible.
To me the great practical difficulty is all in how explicitly this may be
done if we are not able to immediately change the rule. Perhaps this cannot
be done to your satisfaction or even to mine at present and the best we can
do is hope people will be willing to overlook it as the people who put
together the Beijing conference pamphlet were doing when they wrote about the
prominence of women in Baha'i administration without daring to mention it.
I make a distinction between the use of old forms in the translations of the
Writings (a decision made by Shoghi Effendi) and "sexism in the language of
the Writings" for the same reason and to the same purpose. I agree that we
should not ape Shoghi Effendi's style, and agree wholeheartedly that we would
do better to speak more of the oneness of --humanity-- and note with pleasure
that at least since "Promise of World Peace" the House Itself is doing so
more and more. I am sure also that our image of the Divinity is becoming and
will continue to become more abstract, but there may, I would humbly suggest,
be reason for both the male and female imagery used. It may be as simple as
Baha'u'llah having been male and the phrase "He is God" referring to Him, but
if we admit that symbols and the meanings we ascribe to them are not the same
things it becomes, I think, easier to talk about them. .
For instance I wrote:
>"The impulse to throw out all symbolism tainted by sexism is
>understandable, and many have symbolized their devotion to feminism
>(a good cause!) by attempting to do so, but this impulse runs counter to
>this organic method of development."
You reply:"I interpret a rejection of sexism in a similiar light to a
rejection of
>racism" equating symbols tainted by sexism, or at least their use, with
sexism. Symbols are signifiers which may have a number of uses and fill
various needs. To equate a signifier with one of the things it may signify
for some people makes talking about that signifier and its possible meanings
more difficult. It is a way of talking that forecloses discussion.
Now, you had some objections to my ideas "as an artist" which I found
surprising.
I wrote:
>"New forms grow out of old forms in such a way as to preserve
>connection."
You reply:
>As an artist I find this a funny idea. New forms grow out of old forms
>because that is where the artist/writer or whoever, is coming from.
As an artist I find your view of artmaking puzzling. If art is always totally
new then what is it? You seem to view artmaking as unrelated to history, as
if it were always and automatically one activity and an artist's use of her
or his environment and choice of materials and forms a mere accident of
history. I do not believe in mere accidents. Every sequence of events, no
matter how painful, becomes meaningful narrative as we look back at it. This
is the way our brains work and the way our spirits work. As Yoko Ono sang on
"Walking on Thin Ice", the song she and her husband had just finished when he
was shot,"When our lives return to Ashes, it'll be just a story."
>Artists such as Cezanne, Picasso, even van Gogh or to mention some
>more contemporary artists, John Cage, Meret Oppenheim, Eva Hesse, or
>Joseph Beuys were concerned with discovery and search not
>continuation.
Of course large groups of artists in the fifties and sixties( Beuys, Yoko
Ono and other members of the Fluxus group as well as Cage and other members
of his circle such as Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg and Allen Kaprow,
who invented "happenings," Oldenberg, Warhol(in the sixties) and many others
including pop and minimalist artists,dancers, the first video artists and the
first performance artists and conceptual artists) devoted themselves to an
ideal first propounded by the Futurists and then by the Dada group after
World War I especially and most brilliantly Marcel Duchamp. That is, in a
nutshell,they sought to dissolve the boundary between life and art and make
every activity art and every person an artist. This is a beautiful radical
and fruitful ideal and has generated much art of all kinds and many ideas.It
has generated, in spite of itself, a tradition that continues to unfold and
to be memorialized in publications and collections and museums. To some
extent these "neo-avant-gardists"(to use the term coined by Marxist
theoretician Peter Burger) have been successful in popularizing to a degree
their outlooks and procedures. To some extent they have failed as their
predecessors did. The recognition of this partial success and partial failure
is the basis for postmodern art theory. If the avant garde had succeeded we
would not be talking about building a new world order because artists would
have brought it and we wouldn't be talking about "art" as a discrete activity
of "artists" because "art" as such would have ceased to exist.
Now, to characterize Cezanne or Van Gogh or even Picasso as avant-gardists in
the same sense as Joseph Beuys is more than a stretch. Cezanne did make a
remark about wanting to burn down the museums, but he wasn't very serious
about it. More typical of him was his ambition to combine the color and light
of the Impressionists with the solidity of the works in the museums. Neither
he nor Van Gogh contemplated an end to tradition. Rather both sought to plumb
the depths of their art, which they both saw primarily as an art of
representing things in front of them, through devotion to working from life
but also through studying and even copying the work of other, especially
earlier, painters and sculptors. As for Picasso and Matisse, surely you do
not really think the Fauve Matisse or the Matisse who made the paper cutouts
was less radical than Picasso, or the "neoclassical" Picasso of the twenties
or the surrealist Picasso of the thirties less interested in the forms and
heritage of the art of the past than Matisse! Even at the height of hermetic
cubism Picasso's "search" involved a search for the values of tradition. Not
only did the cubists seek to build on the formal lessons of Cezanne and the
conceptual and formal strategies, as they understood them , of "primitive"
art, but in rejecting color contrast (until 1911 or so) in favor of value
contrast and using a palette of browns and greys, they sought to evoke the
sombre atmosphere of painting before impressionism. Gertrude Stein of course,
collected both of them.
If one is worried about continuation, one is likely to
>reproduce what already exists, which is fine if you want to make art
>like Matisse did. He said he wanted his art to relax a man in an easy
chair ....But I think you as an artist know how dangerous it is for
creativity to
>be dominated by a concern with retaining 'continuation'.
I merely said that continuity is a value as innovation is a value. For most
artists both values are operative to some degree. Painting, especially, is
tied to tradition, which is why minimalism was sculpture and why so many
times artists and artwriters have said that painting is dead.
Of course, Mary Cassatt was a great painter, an impressionist. I am at a loss
as to what this fact has to do with anything.
>Creative acts are all about looking for the new, seeking, and moving on.
Yes. In a way. Inconsistency and paradox are important. In particular the
insistence that everything be practical and exist on the same level of
utility I find a very unasthetic and (pardon me)flimsy idea. Once again, if
the distinctions I have made between signifier and thing signified are not
allowed, my argument makes no sense. Making those distinctions, I think it is
--possible-- to conceive of both the anomalous rule of membership on the
House of Justice and the many patriarchal images in the Writings as"He is
the King" et cetera as not contradictory to feminism.
cheers!
david taylor
From 100725.315@compuserve.comWed Nov 1 18:38:56 1995
Date: 01 Nov 95 17:13:09 EST
From: Janine van Rooij <100725.315@compuserve.com>
To: talisman
Subject: Where's Jeff & another laugh :)
Robert, thank you very much for the great laugh I had through your funny style
of writing!!!
The neighbours came to see why I was laughing so hard, and found me on the
floor.... :)
as always,
janine van rooij
amsterdam, holland
From richs@microsoft.comWed Nov 1 18:39:36 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 14:36:14 -0800
From: Rick Schaut
To: 'Ahang Rabbani' ,
"talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: RE: Houston's teaching project
Dear Ahang and Talizens,
First, Ahang, I want to commend you for sharing some
information with us about what must be a difficult process
for you to go though.
I just want to shed some light on one of your comments. Before
I do, I'd like to point out that I've been rather heavily involved in the
effort to bring Sai'd Khadivian to Seattle and to institute the process
of entry by troops here. I've participated in a number of meetings
with members of the Auxiliary Boards, their assistants, members
of Local Spiritual Assemblies and members of the National Teaching
Committee.
From: Ahang Rabbani[SMTP:rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com]
>3. Its a great mistake to involve NTC with such projects. Our
>perception is that when there was a great deal of enthusiasm and
>positive publicity, NTC was more than happy to get involved
>(really to hold up the banner and claim all the credits, as if
>they actually had anything to do with the project!), but at the
>first sight of troubled waters they begin to act like fine
>bureaucrats that they are and put as much mileage as they could
>between themselves and Houston.
I think these remarks are very unfair to the members of the NTC.
I've met, and had a chance to discuss this process, with both Ken
Bowers and Sylvester Scott (as far back as July of this year). At
no time did I get any indication from them that they wanted to take
credit for the process. They were delighted that the process had
begun and wanted to play whatever supportive role they could play.
In fact, both of them have made great pains to say that the National
Teaching Committee neither endorses the process used in Houston
nor do they say that the friends should avoid employing many of
the same techniques in other areas.
Ahang, I don't know where you got the impression you convey above,
but the information I have would seem to indicate that your impression
is very wrong--180 degrees wrong.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From HGEYER@KENTVM.KENT.EDUWed Nov 1 18:43:57 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 95 17:48:36 EST
From: theo cope
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Comments/accusations
Well...finally out of lurching i am.....
Like Linda, i couldn't just sit back, reading this latest and not
commenting about it. I know both of the parties in this Juan and David House
discussion, and not that this gives me any insights, i think i will stick my
neck out here:
It is apparent that David felt threatened by what he has read from
Juan, and read into it what was not the intent of the author. It has taken
much courage for Juan to continue to voice his thoughts and ideas in the hope
that some good would come from it, even though i think he has received little
in the way of confirming this. It seems that David's tone was more reflective
of his attitude, of his position, than it was of Juan's perceived threat to the
Covenant of Baha'u'llah, but i may be wrong. Projections are tricky things...
When many of us discuss religion, mayhaps especially "our religion",
emotions often preceed rationality, as it is a very emotional issue.
I never read in Juan's post that he was advocating that we undermine
the Covenant nor administrative system, but, like he has been wont to do since
Talisman began last year, voice his concerns, ideas and basis for what he sees
as ways to "encapsulate" the issues and problems as he sees them...which is,
as i grasp the covenant, what we should be doing. I served on an LSA before,
and, i made one tragic mistake (among many others, perhaps) one day. I said
aloud: "I wonder why we even bother meeting, as it seems that we never accom-
plish anything." Well, i was literally shut down by a couple of folks on the
LSA, and even though i was the elected Chair, and quit attending the meetings,
NO ONE EVER BOTHERED TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH ME!!! I would much rather have had
it "out" with them, and heard their words, and them mine...but this was not to
be.
I recall that in the realm of conscience, as the Master said, only God
and the soul has sway...or should.
What would the service otothe Cause be to have this format shut down?
Dispassionate discussion is indeed a formidable challenge when it is
about "our religion", but as can be seen here, it needs to be done.
Threats to shut down a medium by accusing members of being bordering on
"Covenant breaking" seem simplistic and overreactive...to assert that one will
investigate this is surely within one's rights....it happened with "dialogue"
magazine and happened because of rumors and inuendoes, not facts.
Some of us lovers of the Blessed Beauty remain quiet when it comes to the
administrative system...it allows us to adhere to His Love without getting
frustrated and lose interest......others, like Juan, take the opposite approach
and has intimate concern for this system.......and risks what some of us would
pale under........
take deep breaths.....become detached....threats don't serve much.....
theo (wart) cope
From s0a7254@tam2000.tamu.eduWed Nov 1 18:46:28 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 17:22:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Saman Ahmadi
To: talisman
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
Dear Robert and All,
Something must be up when you see me argue with Robert J. in public.
WARNING: Mild Mail Bonding Alert!
I save most of the things that Juan posts and
I don't think that I am the only one (sounds kinda like
John Lennon :)
What I wish is that we found a way where no one would be
personally hurt by the comments of another - people on the right,
people on the left, people on the fence, those who pinoneer to one
side or another on occasion and Burl ;-)
So lets "imagine" a little.
not working on what I should be working,
sAmAn
P.S. The sale of concentrated sodium hyroxide will probably go up.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 1 18:46:44 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:24:49 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: C.G.S.P. The Honour given to a fellow Talismanian .
What is C. G. S. P. : Many , in fact 12 , have posted to me asking what
is this , only the Giver of the award and the One who receives it
should inform . I believe the person to ask would be Juan Ricardo Cole
who may chose not to inform , a sense of decorum has to be observed you
know in these cases .
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From cbuck@ccs.carleton.caWed Nov 1 18:47:15 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 18:26:41 EST
From: Christopher Buck
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: Christopher Buck
Subject: Three Strikes & You're Out Review
An open letter
to our beloved Robert Stockman
and esteemed Talismanians:
As some of you know, I do submit my work for review.
At the same time, I happen to agree with many of the points of
criticism Juan Cole and John Walbridge have raised in the past. But I
am simply trying to do the best I can to work within the system.
I'm sure to the amazement of some, _Symbol & Secret_ actually
passed Baha'i review. Without the rarefied sensibilities of Robert
Stockman, a Harvard Ph.D., I am not sure the review system could have
handled a work quite like _Symbol & Secret.
So I was not trying to "buck" the review system when I made my
*three strikes and you're out* proposal on Talisman. I was wondering
what you (Robert & Talismanians) thought of it?
In case anyine online had not read it, I proposed that the review
system waive the requirement of review after an author has passed
review on three consecutive publications (not simply submissions), so
that the review system, in effect, can be seen as a *temporary* restriction
within the author's lifetime.
This proposal could be subject to a safeguard stipulation in which,
on specific, preordained grounds, the NSA could reserve the right to
*review* the integrity of an author's post-review writings if
problems arise.
Unless concrete proposals are put forward from time to time,
there might otherwise be no other tangible outcome of the Talisman
experience in terms of making a contribution of some kind to the
Faith, in which words can function as deeds.
Christopher Buck
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:21:31 -0800
From: an assistant to the auxiliary board
To: 'Juan R Cole'
Subject: RE: election turnover
Dear Juan,
From: Juan R Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu]
>Nor do I see that as thinking, spiritual human beings we are in a
>position always to suspend judgment.
As a thinking, spiritual human member of the Baha'i Faith, I
must, at all times, endeavor to ensure that my own behavior
conforms to the guidance and principles of the Faith.
Among this guidance is the following:
"The greatest need it seems everywhere inside the Cause is to
impress upon the friends the need for love among them. There is a
tendency to mix up the functions of the Administration and try to
apply it in individual relationships, which is abortive, because the
Assembly is a nascent House of Justice and is supposed to administer,
according to the Teachings, the affairs of the Community. But
individuals towards each other are governed by love, unity,
forgiveness and a sin-covering eye. Once the friends grasp this
they will get along much better, but they keep playing Spiritual
Assembly to each other and expect the Assembly to behave like an
individual."
(Shoghi Effendi: Directives of the Guardian, pages 41-42)
That is how I believe I should treat members of these institutions
regardless of their faults or misbehavior. It also forms the basis
for how I would choose to handle the information the friends had
sent to me about their circumstances. I believe I'd turn whatever
facts I had in my possession, while maintaining the strictest
confidentiality, over to a member of the Auxiliary Board or to
a member of the Continental Board of Counselors (Stephen
Birkland or Jacquiline Left-Hand Bull Delahunt seem likely
candidates to me).
There are other bits of guidance. Baha'u'llah's constant
insistence on detachment from all things save God is one that
I've discovered to be very important. The constant striving to
make one's deeds acceptable to Baha'u'llah (and to have no
other motive) is another. This one actually has a number of
implications for me. I can discuss them if you'd like, but I
prefer not to be a burden on these things.
Let me be clear. I'm only trying to convey to you the thinking
which lies behind my approach to these problems. We, each,
have to live by the dictates of our own conscience and live
with the consequences of our choices.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comWed Nov 1 18:57:26 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:51:23 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
I guess this means that nobody has heard tape or read the transcription of
Peter Khan's talk in Wilmette?
It is a real eye-opener
Margreet
From 100725.315@compuserve.comThu Nov 2 00:17:44 1995
Date: 01 Nov 95 18:58:46 EST
From: Janine van Rooij <100725.315@compuserve.com>
To: talisman
Subject: Copy of: Comments/accusations
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: Janine van Rooij, 100725,315
TO: theo cope, INTERNET:HGEYER@KENTVM.KENT.EDU
DATE: 2-11-95 0:55
RE: Copy of: Comments/accusations
Hi theo,
that was a nice post. What you said about the "mistake" you made while serving
on the LSA, I recently have thought the same.
One of my friends (a BAhai) said, when i expressed this, that yes sure we have
to grow and mature and many seem to take the view of the world around us to
assembly meetings, so instead of being spiritually originated, they are full of
the things of this world. We feel important, we feel the duty, and we only know
how models of importance and duty behave and we try to have the same attitude.
Which only results in our meetings becoming very business like without any real
contact between the members. WE are acting, without really experiencing unity.
But in this process we learn, and through this process, the Bahai concept is
kept alive, in form, not so much in spirit, but in time the spirit will take
over the form. Until that time it is necessary that some order, some way is
kept. This was a concept I could work with. Maybe I do not see any growth, but I
can draw strength from the idea that at least by attending the meetings, and
trying to be as connected as possible to the spiritual realm, I can contribute
in keeping the form alive. I am currently feeling burnt out and slowly
recovering from that (burnt out as to the bahai community). For some time I did
not see the value or anything of anything that had to do with the community. I
was doubting the practicality of the system as created by Baha'u'llah, and it
was pretty awful, I can tell you! Because somewhere somehow I know it must work.
I think I experienced one of those crises in faith which some people seem to
have to experience once in a while.
I think it is extremely difficult for us people to have patience and
see/feel/hear the process that is going on and taking place in the world.
Because there is growth, there is a change in attitude. Only it goes slowly and
it is a quiet process, while the downfall of society is much louder, therefor
not very visible/audible. We need patience and most of all we need to learn to
think, to listen to our own heart and express ourselves. Preferably without name
calling :)
In that way I can respect everybody who expresses his/her views here, only I am
also afraid that the old world order attitude of judging from somebody's
background instead of looking squarely at ideas presented, may influence some of
us still. To be able to find truth, we are requested to open our hearts and be
detached from everything, be it personal knowledge of the person, knowledge of
his or her titles, knowledge of his or her esteem or lack of esteem in society
or our Bahai community. Often the most useful insights come from unexpected
corners, which we may miss if we do not detach ourselves from standards which
are currently in use. Detached from either love or hate.
So, I started this out as a personal message,but halfway thought of also sharing
this with the rest of talisman.
Sorry to be so present today.... and that after expressing doubt about my
contributions! (grin).
Sinking back into silence again,
janine van rooij
amsterdam, holland
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 15:31:48 -0800
From: an assistant to the auxiliary board
To: "'David W. House'" ,
"'Juan R Cole '"
Subject: RE: reforms and solutions
Dear David and Juan,
I'm sending this to both of you because I want neither
of you to feel singled out. Beyond the two of you, this
message is private.
David, if justice lies in the purview of the institutions,
surely the question of Covenant breaking lies there
as well. We should do our best to educate both
ourselves and others about the Covenant and the
principles of Baha'i Administration. This, too, is a
part of the process of maturation. Let's embrace it.
Juan, while David's reaction had a knee-jerk element
to it, so did yours. The labels you invoked were just
as pejorative, and, I believe equally unwarranted. Did
you honestly think that your remarks would have any
effect but the escalation of hostilities?
Let's remember at all times Baha'u'llah's urgent
insistence that we should wish well those who would
do us harm. This, too, is the example set by
`Abdu'l-Baha Himself.
If you ask me, I think each of you owes the other,
and the subscribers to Talisman, an apology.
Warmest Regards,
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzThu Nov 2 00:19:45 1995
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 1995 13:03:59 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: buttermilk sweet house music
In the name of impartiality...
David House wrote:
>Beyond this, if such discourse, with such a tone and so wounding to the body
>of the Cause continues, I intend to recommend, as one member of the
>Community of the Most Great Name, that the National Spiritual Assembly
>consider closing down this forum.
What's the fuss with this statement? David is perfectly within his right
to make it. I am at a loss to know why this forum would wish to censor such
a statement. The standard of the Faith is not compromised by it. What
should Talismanians wish to avoid review by the parent institution of the
the US community? Who's hiding what here? Huh? (Who has got a stack of
"Playboys" undertheir bed!)
Indeed David's offer should be supported. What other path to legitimacy is
there other than through the goodpleasure of God?
Juan's response was deeply offensive primarily because of its ad homenem
nature, but also because it was labelistic and replete with un-called for
puffery. In the spirit of fairness I ask you to read again the following
(sample) -- of ye defenders of it. How can it be justified? I strongly
recommend that Juan's name be removed fromn this list ;-} At least a
SINCERE apology is in order.
>I find your invoking of the Covenant in order to silence me deplorable.
>(Have you, by the way, ever risked your life for the Covenant?)
>But it is good in a way for us all to be reminded of this ultra-Right
>political culture that has such sway in the American Baha'i community.
>What a wonderful New World Order, where we are all dictated to and if
>anyone raises a peep, she can be shouted down by the word "Covenant." I
>sigh, I weep. Please read Orwell and think again.
>
>As for the threat to "have Talisman closed down," this is also deplorable
>and unacceptable. I can understand and respect your saying "I want no
>part of this." But to take it upon yourself to decide what discourse the
>rest of us can engage in is arrogant and authoritarian. I am
>unimpressed, by the way. When I was pioneering in war-torn Beirut, I was
>working for a newspaper and had occasional problems with the Syrian
>censor. Now, the Syrian government slaughtered 10,000 of its own
>citizens in Hama just three years later. So I have been censored by the
>best. These stiff-necked American Baha'is cannot measure up to Hafez
>al-Asad, however fearsome they think they are.
Sweet as buttermilk,
Robert.
From Abbas.Hooshmand@caa.gov.auThu Nov 2 00:20:33 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 11:29:00 +1000
From: "Abbas Hooshmand (06) 268 4947"
To: Baha'i Announce
Subject: PRAYERS FOR PAKISTAN
Allah'u'abha
Speaking with the secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly of Pakistan
on the phone last night, I enquired about the way Pakistani resident Baha'is
of Karachi cope with the turmoil in Karachi.
I was given re-assurance that the Pakistani resident Baha'is were okay and
content with God's will, whatever it is. But he asked me to say prayers for
the 1200 Persian Baha'i refugees in Pakistan, many of them suffering dire
adversity. Having spoken with some refugee arrivals in Australia before, I
became aware that quite sadly a great proportion of the Baha'i refugees in
Pakistan are suffering from severe financial hardship since the U.N. is not
as receptive as it used to be in the past. Quite a large number of them are
refused U.N. assistance and God knows how they are coping with life and day
to day necessities. The situation is very depressing.
If we can't do anything for them at least we can pray.
God bless you all.
***********************************
abbas.hooshmand@caa.gov.au
Abbas Hooshmand
From margreet@margreet.seanet.comThu Nov 2 00:21:04 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 16:12:30 -0800
From: "Marguerite K. Gipson"
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solutions
At 05:18 PM 11/1/95 -0500, Donald Zhang Osborn wrote:
>Allah'u'abha! I've two questions re: possible new structures to increase the
>possibility of more frequent turnover of membership in the NSA-US.
>
>1. Are there any statistics (in any country or worldwide) to indicate that
>during or immediately following periods of large expansion of a Baha'i
>community, there is more turnover of membership in National Spiritual
>Assembly? If so, then perhaps one of the key areas for reforms or solutions
>might be on the level of teaching--i.e., increasing & making it more effective.
>[BTW (and tangentially) why are some people "opposed" to mass teaching, in
>Houston or elsewhere? It's not my preferred approach to teaching, but I see
>an important place for it in the Baha'i community.]
What ever happened to good old fashion deepening the new believer after
their declaration? Now days, if someone signes the card, they are left to
their own.... and not nurtured into the community and DEEPENED.
>2. Is it possible that decentralization reforms already underway in the US
>(to create regional councils) might help create a larger pool of experienced &
>visible people with a real possibility of being elected to the NSA? What has
>been the effect in this regard of similar decentralization (whether involving
>regional committees or elected state/province level assemblies as in India)?
I am mad as a hornet regarding this statement, and the folks elected to the
NSA were elected by the folks you elect as your delegates at convention last
year. I have seen time and time again at convention a silent way of
operation where any new believer ask the question, "What did we just do, and
why are we here?" Us older Bahai's just do every thing by rote... Makes me
sick. We have to deepen ourselves in the Covenent and share what we know
with the new believers. Sure, every night I read some passages in the
Books, and I deepen my self. But I have been a Bahai for over 25 years, and
in my family for 4 generations. So I know better. I just read a
transcription of Peter Khan's talk... That needs to be discussed here on
Talisman. And taken to heart... and maybe a lesson or two may be learned.
>BTW, there are some interesting ideas being discussed on this thread - I don't
>mean to discount those by asking the above questions.
> Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
> Michigan State University
Margreet
From richs@microsoft.comThu Nov 2 00:21:29 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 14:21:46 -0800
From: Rick Schaut
To: "''"
Subject: Discussion of Reforms
Dearest Talizens,
Woah! Slow down, friends! Can we take this a little more slowly,
please?
I suggest that we follow the general guidelines laid down for
consultation:
1) Identify the problem fully and adequately;
2) Identify the principles involved;
3) Arrive at a solution by applying the principles identified in
2 to the problem identified in 1.
At this point, we are not all in agreement about the true nature
of the problems, and we've shown some disagreement in the past
regarding the principles involved.
I can't speak for other people, but I suspect that the ill feelings
which stem from the most recent discussion about reforms are
directly related to the fact that a number of folks have jumped the
consultative gun, as it were. If we can follow the guidelines
for consultation, the calls to shut down Talisman might very
well be quelled in an amicable fashion and without confrontation.
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduThu Nov 2 00:23:28 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 19:22:20 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: talisman@indiana.edu
CC:
Subj: Baha'i Encyclopedia
I posted this several months ago. I am posting it again, updated slightly,
for the benefit of new members. I am somewhat limited by an
obligation as a former encyclopedia board member to be discrete, but it also
seems to me that there are a lot of rumors going around about the
encyclopedia that need to be addressed. I have strong opinions on the
matter, having devoted eleven years to the project, four full time, but
the present statement is intended to be a dispassionate summary of the
current situation.
John Walbridge
******
In the interests of accuracy, I should say that the Baha'i Encyclopedia
is a project of the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, which
has paid virtually all the costs connected with it. The Baha'i Publishing
Trust is the presumed lead publisher, although it is not their project
as such. It is run by an editorial board consisting of Betty Fisher,
the general editor of the American Publishing Trust; Larry Bucknell,
the former general manager of the BPT; Firuz Kazemzadeh, who
is an emeritus professor of history at Yale and the longest serving
member of the American NSA; and Will van den Hoonaard, Heshmat
Moayyad, Todd Lawson, and myself, who are all professional academics,
and Moojan Momen. I was the original general editor, until I left for
another job in 1991, after which Moojan Momen took over, until his
resignation this fall. Will van den Hoonaard was also for most
of the history of the project the editor for articles on the sociology
of the Baha'i community. The editorial board is responsible for
setting policy and for review, both editorial and Baha'i. When the
project was proposed, the prospectus was reviewed successively
by the Publishing Trust, the American NSA, and by the House of
Justice before the American NSA finally committed to the
project. The editorial board was set up so that review could
be done as the project proceeded, rather than by third parties
at the end, though articles of special concern to particular Baha'i
institutions were normally sent to them for comment--i.e., NSAs were
sent the articles on their own countries, and articles on various
aspects of the World Centre were sent there. The project has received
a great deal of cooperation from the World Centre over the years,
but it belongs to the American NSA.
We estimate that the encyclopedia would be two volumes of
about half a million words each--somewhere between 1500 and 2000
pages. Cost to date has been something in excess of $500,000 US
over a ten-year period. (Serious encyclopedias cost about $500 per page
to produce.)
The articles are generally directed at informed adult Baha'i readers,
although that varies somewhat depending on the content. The
average article is probably a little over a thousand words, although
they vary greatly, depending on content with the longest articles
over 10,000 words (about 10-12 double-column large pages).
Last year a committee at the World Centre formed to review the
article "Baha'i World Centre" raised a number of questions about
the tone and content of that article. Further correspondence made it
clear that the concerns of the House did not have to do with a single
article but touched on the most fundamental editorial aspects of the
project. Dr. Momen then resigned as general editor, leaving the project
without day-to-day staff, so most work ceased. On reviewing the current
draft of the first volume, the House of Justice stated that it was concerned
about the content of a number of other articles and about the tone and
fundamental methods of the work as a whole. The House also instructed
the Board not to procede further with the encyclopedia until these
editorial issues were resolved to the satisfaction of the House. There
has now been another letter from the House on the matter. As a result of
this last letter I have resigned from the Board on the grounds that (1) in
view of the House's attitude, it is not responsible to spend more money
and effort on the project and (2) the House of Justice believes the
members of the Board to have been intellectually dishonest in the
way that they proceeded in producing the encyclopedia.
The House's concerns dealt with the propriety of an official Baha'i
publication using the methods and tone of neutral scholarship about
fundamental Baha'i topics. They also had concerns about matters
of accuracy. I believe that these concerns were not well founded and
that they reflected a lack of understanding about the nature of
encyclopedias and of scholarship in general.
Given that there is now no editor and no
immediate prospect of solving the policy problems that have arisen,
I am convinced that the encyclopedia will not now appear.
John Walbridge
From JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.eduThu Nov 2 00:23:52 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 19:23:19 EWT
From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: List standards
1) I wish to remind the esteemed members that this list is run by me
in my capacity as a professor at Indiana University. I therefore cannot
--and do not wish to--enforce standards of religious orthodoxy.
Any serious threats to either the list or its members will be forwarded
to the university's lawyers.
2) I do, however, enforce standards of good manners. Members are
reminded that attacks on the good faith of other members are not
acceptable. I will expell members from the list who persistently violate this standard.
3) Members are free to discuss whatever topics they see fit, provided they
abide by the list rules.
John Walbridge
List Owner
From burlb@bmi.netThu Nov 2 00:26:11 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 95 16:30 PST
From: Burl Barer
To: Robert Johnston
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Stupid & Offensive, Ltd.
Robert Johnson, our beloved brother in New Zealand, thoughtfully posed the
following conundrum concerning his co-worker in the vineyards of the Lord,
Juan Ricardo Cole:
"why does the tenured doctor get all the support when he says things which
are downright stupid and offensive?
To which Burl, at the risk of sounding silly, replies:
Juan has the same right as you or I to be stupid and offensive. It is a
God given right, and as I support Juan's right to wax flaxen on occasion, I
also recognize your established ability to be every bit as offensive as he
when the opportunity presents itself. I am of the current opinion that
saying things which are stupid and/or offensive is an excellent technique
for getting to the heart of a topic. I have often said things that were
stupid, although that was not my intent at the time. I have often said or
done things that were offensive, and meant to do it most of the time. Were
it not for stupidity, how could wisdom be known? We need a touchstone of
stupidity from time to time as a solid reference point. If Juan says
something stupid, it only proves his versatility, his willingness to throw
his most ill-conceived concepts on the table for the world to see -- how
selfless! How noble! How daring yet self-efacing! What a living example! By
uttering the unuterable he frees me to say what I think, what I feel --
between you and Juan I have been liberated from a cage of inhibitions --
fretfully weighing each and every cell of zygotian ideas still-born from
lack of public airing.
But seriously....If you say "I think the UHJ's decision is silly" that is
*not* an attack on God's Covenant nor on the Divine Nature of the
Institution or does it deny that the decision is of God. It is another way
of confessing one's inability to comprehend the wisdom of a particular
decision. Perhaps the proper tone would be to say "Gee...I must be
silly...I don't understand the wisdom and an explanation is not forthcoming.
But, silly me will go along because that's my part of the deal" A "silly"
decision by God today proves to be of Infinite Wisdom later on. Lots of
Baha'is thought Abdul Baha was silly to ask us to build a House of Worship
in zip code 60091. They didn't fight against it, they went along with it,
they helped build it...but they thought it was silly. Later, they said
"hmmmmm.....nice House of Worship. Guess it wasn't so silly after all."
When Abdul Baha came to America and met the friends, (Baha'is, silly, not
Quakers) he did not look up the ones who petitioned him not to raise the
House of Worship and whack them over the head with his cream colored fez. I
think he hugged them, praised them, and all that other mushy stuff that
reeks of unconditional love, acceptance, and unity.
>Not that I am mad about it, mind you. I am a veteran of Cole conflict. I
>generally ignore what he writes. In my view, it is shameful crap mostly.
>
"shamefull" crap? As opposed to delightful, fulfilling crap? Creme de le
crap? If poor Juan is misguided, lovingly encourage and guide him aright --
the good shepard does not use his rod to beat the sheep. As for me, I
never ignore what either you or Juan writes -- I fear I might overlook a gem
of insight from an unsuspected source, an almond in the porridge, so to speak.
Besides, Robert, one really good reason to be sympathetic to Juan is that he
faces a problem that you will, God willing, never face: he is becoming
"known" and that puts him in danger of being elected forever to our NSA!
YIPES!
Your ever supportive co-worker,
Burl
PS: I don't have to agree with someone to support them. If you need proof,
simply note my 17 year old daughter :-)
PPSS: Just because Ringo is your "favorite Beattle" doesn't mean you don't
like John, Paul, and George.
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From carl@skipper.grapevine-sys.comThu Nov 2 00:30:16 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 19:58:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Carl Hawse
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Houston's teaching project
Selected excerpts:
> ahang speaking again:
>
> all about. As SE/UHJ have said (only a few thousands times):
> expansion and consolidation must go hand in hand.
Without doubt!
>
> 2. It is a gross mistake to assume that all Baha'is are mass
> teaching oriented -- we learned that the hard way. A tremendous
> amount of disunity surrounded this effort from day 1 (really
> before!) since many of the friends were distrustful of any mass
> entry undertakings. I am glad to report that of these naysayers
> a large percentage (over half) were won over during the course of
> the project.
Perhaps it is not necessary to win over anyone. Could not the
"naysayers" provide the needed consolidation and deepening? What were
their concerns? Perhaps we can learn a bit about the psychology behind
different approaches to teaching the faith. Were all of their converns
met with love and understanding or with arguments instead?
>
> 3. Its a great mistake to involve NTC with such projects. Our
> perception is that when there was a great deal of enthusiasm and
> positive publicity, NTC was more than happy to get involved
> (really to hold up the banner and claim all the credits, as if
> they actually had anything to do with the project!), but at the
> first sight of troubled waters they begin to act like fine
> bureaucrats that they are and put as much mileage as they could
> between themselves and Houston.K
What are some ways that the NTC could have helped? How could you have
helped the NTC to understand? Are they aware of your concerns? Did you
ask about their concerns? (It sounds like this "Houston thing" can be
seen as a great chance to improve communications between all levels of
administration!)
> However, along the way he became so singularly focused on this
> project that he neglected his business and some other things
> which is best for me not to comment. At any rate, because of
Another lesson. In all things, moderation. Maybe even teaching.
>
> 6. One of things that we learned along the way was the
> importance of having our LSAs involved with the process. Even
> though from day 1, all of our 12 LSAs were involved and approved
> the process, but their actual day-to-day involvement varied some.
> After a couple of months into the process, though, all of our
> LSAs were discussing nothing by teaching work and entry by
> troops. I have never seen a group of Assemblies mature faster
> and assume their responsibilities towards teaching the cause more
> readily than what I observed during this period. Bravo!
Interdependence is what it's all about! Bravo, indeed!
I just pulled some key words from this next part:
pretexts
couldn't stand
they had failed
campaigns to discredit
trouble makers are found in all Baha'i communities.
inept Baha'i institutions (more national than local)
incompetent way that this situation was handled
poisoning the mind of friends against mass teaching efforts.
Sounds like you don't trust these people. I would like to hear how you
think it *should* have been handled. Even the stinkiest manure can be
food for flowers.
> course people were not going to discuss *real* problems in front
> of several hundred other Baha'is! I am sorry for saying this
> (and I hope someone will share a copy of this posting with
> responsible folks in national), but in the course of their
> comments, it became manifestly clear that Wilmette is thoroughly
> uninformed of the issues and the depth of problems caused by the
> campaign of disunity by these few individuals.
I'm sure they would love to hear from you, if nobody else is doing it!
They even have email addresses! Just call the National Center!
>
> area during this entire process. When finally ABM for protection
> came, poor person had no clue what was going on. And now the
The ABMs probably have email, too! Perhaps reports could be sent to them?
OR to the National Center? Or just to interested people? I'd love to
know more about what is going on around the country (ok, so I'm nosy...)
so why not share the news? It sounds like the Houston project has some
complex dynamics!
Is anybody keeping a logbook with problems, solutions, ideas, etc? No
teaching method is 100% perfect, but maybe a lot could be learned about
teaching in general, the psychology of declaration, inter-assembly
dynamics, etc! Disunity or not, the whole thing seems like a chance to
learn and grow. I'm miles away and not at all emotionally attached.
(intrigued, curious, excited by it all, yes, but not attached!) Maybe
you folks should arrange for a visit away from all the action--take a
little vacation from the stress of it all? I'm sure Sherman the Cat
would love visitors, right Derek?
>
> I just read over the post and realized how much remained unsaid,
> specially what we are doing now and where we stand. That must
> await later. Now, pillow case in hand, we go collect candies.
> Wish me well ;-}
Good luck! Sorry for the overly optimistic post--I'm not usually like
that... but I'd love to see how it's working out there. I was a
door-to-door canvasser for an environmental group and it was the worst
experience of my life (well it was miserable anyway...).
Warm and fuzzy regards,
-Carl Hawse (carl@grapevine-sys.com)
-cant remember if this email program has an auto-sig....
From a003@lehigh.eduThu Nov 2 00:31:03 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 20:05:50 EST
From: a003@lehigh.edu
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Review
Dear beloved friends on Talisman:
Christopher Buck has asked about Review and whether or not we think it
could be eliminated after three "successes".
It has been said that Review is a form of censorship, that Review is a way
of protecting the Faith, that Review protects authors, etc.
It is also pretty clear that Review is a pain for just about everyone
involved.
I had to have my play *Kingfisher's Wing* reviewed before I
could perform it publicly, and it was a tough bit to keep in my mouth.
Several of the comments I got regarding the piece suggested mature depth
of understanding of the Faith and important principles in the Cause--i.e.
accuracy, the importance of dignity in treating certain figures--but I
didn't sense a strong appreciation for the requirements of dramatic style
or what it means to perform. Never the less, I was allowed to pass.
I wanted my work to go through the review process because I wanted my work
to be closer to the Covenant. Perhaps this is an aspect of review that
has not been fully explored.
It's hard to communicate this idea. I can make work in my garage all the
time. About Baha'u'llah, or about Racism, or about the color of leaves
and the music of clouds; but I want to make Baha'i Art. How does one do
that?
There is a power within this Cause--a mysterious power--far, far,
far away from the ken of men and angels; that invisible power is the
cause of all outward activities. It moves the hearts. It rends the
mountains. It administers the complicated affairs of the Cause.
As an artist, an actor, one who takes on the characters of others, one
must accustom oneself to "being in-spirited by" ... to open oneself to
the Spirit of the Faith. The Spirit of the Cause manifested in this
world is found in the body of the Writings and in the Institutions. What
is the Baha'i Faith? It is both an intangible unreachable Reality and how
that reality manifests itself in the believers. As a theatre artist, one
who works with a public art form, I recognize that my work must live now,
be a embodiment of the intangible unreachable Reality as the present
believers can now swallow it. Review is a sacrament. I would be very
careful not to throw away the spiritual value it imparts the individual
who endeavors to approach the sacred threshold.
I fear I have not made myself clear. We say there are no rituals in the
Baha'i Faith, but we must recognize that Review is one that all those who
wish to participate in publicly representing the Cause must undergo. I
say this so we might see it as not so much about censorship as it's
opposite, opening an even wider channel of this mysterious power behind
the Cause into our work.
Could this be true?
Sincerely,
Bill
From richs@microsoft.comThu Nov 2 00:31:52 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 16:15:13 -0800
From: Rick Schaut
To: "talisman@indiana.edu"
Subject: Rigor Mortis (was RE: Arguments)
Dear Talizens,
It seems as though multiple posts from one person are the
order of the day. My apologies. I'll endeavor to be brief.
First, thanks to David House for having posted some of the
guidance from the Writings. It's interesting to note that
there is a dual standard to endeavor never to give offense
and never take offense. I'm always fascinated by the way
Baha'u'llah manages to enunciate a standard of conduct
and tell us how to get there at the same time.
There's an objective way to encompass both of these and
still allow for frank and honest consultation to obtain. Ideas
are fair game. People are not. If we but keep this in mind
both when we write and when we read, I think our relations
would be far more amicable.
That said, there's a pallor which has begun to settle in
over Talisman. At it's very heart, I believe, lies a lack of
rigor in our arguments accompanied by opposingly rigid
modes of thinking. Loose arguments and rigid thinking
are precisely the opposite of the kind of scholarship
toward which we should be striving. Hence, the subject
line: rigor mortis.
Working for Microsoft, I have the bounty, from time to time,
of having some of the worlds great thinkers drop in for
a company or divisional meeting. At our recent company
meeting, James Burke spoke about mental boxes, and
the need to break out of them if we are to come up with
anything new. I wish I could bottle those remarks up and
deliver them to Talisman in some way.
But boxes seem to be much the problem. If we could
stop putting people, both ourselves and others, in boxes
(which is, really, a form of ad hominem argument) and
allowing those labels to color how we understand what
others say, I think we'd be moving much more rapidly to
a harmonious resolution of some of our gravest difficulties.
If we don't break out of this pattern, if we don't start
thinking much more freely and arguing with much more
rigor, I'm afraid Talisman will be dead whether any
institution decides to shut it down or not. It's life will
have withered away into the nothingness of vain
imaginings and selfish desires.
Perhaps we need to seek the Truth(TM) a little less and seek
understanding a little more?
Warmest Regards,
Rick Schaut
PS to those who have saved my postings for whatever
reason, I'd like to remind you that I am but a single
human being of limited understanding. So, if you quote
me, and it turns out that I'm wrong, I'll deny it emphatically!
From mfoster@tyrell.netThu Nov 2 00:32:10 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 19:06:17 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: reforms and solution
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Saman Ahmadi wrote to talisman@indiana.edu:
S>Talisman happens to be the global one and there are numerous
S>and ever-growing regional Baha'i mailing lists.
Hi, Saman -
Just a brief note: Actually, most of the BCCA (Baha'i Computer and
Communications Association) lists are global; the Baha'i Women's list is
global; and the Baha'i Intuition list (operated by the Institute of
Noetic Sciences) is also global.
Sorry to "consume" band width with this posting. ;-)
Blessings,
Mark
From dhouse@cinsight.comThu Nov 2 00:33:29 1995
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 1995 17:10:46 -0800
From: "David W. House"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: DWHouses' comments
Linda,
>So, please refrain from making comments on something of which you know
nothing.
We certainly agree that I know nothing, which is in part what I said on the
subject. Your sacrifices should not be minimized, either, nor the work done
by the many fine people you listed: nor did I minimize any of these things.
What I thought, and it turned out to be a matter of fact, was that the
Universal House of Justice had made the decision.
The pain that results is no less real for that being the case, but as you
counseled me to take due care, that was indeed all I was saying as well.
Even given the pain and the sacrifice-- and clearly both were considerable--
are we justified in calling a decision of the Universal House of Justice
"silly"? Mind you, this is, to my mind, considerably different from writing
with a polite request to review the decision, asking for more specifics,
etc. etc.
The limits you describe are acceptable to me, and I can only apologize if
transgressed them. It may be, however, that in your pain you did not
carefully read what I said, for I tried very hard (though I apparently
failed) to discuss the issue with regard to the feelings of others, holding
to the standards about which I previously (fools rush in) posted. I will
review my posting again, and no doubt as time passes I will increasingly
find phrases for which I will repeatedly chastise myself. In the meantime,
all I can do is assure you that I did not wish to harm anyone, nor do now.
>You also made the serious mistake of insulting another
>dear friend of mine - Juan Cole.
About this we may still have some disagreement, for even in re-reading the
post, I cannot find the insult (or insults). It is clear to me that Juan is
an intellect of considerable stature, and his passion for the Cause is
likewise clear. Still, it does not seem to me that in discussing his post I
did anything differently than you have done in discussing my post, which is
to disagree with some of the points made.
>...[But] Don't declare him a Covenant breaker.
Again, I missed the declaration on my part. What I rather said was that we
need to have a due regard for our own limits, and that if we did not have
such regard, we were in danger. I believe you said much the same to me, and
I accept that we are both right about that.
Linda, I cannot claim to have gone through your pains. But pain in general
is familiar to me. My wife and I spent a year, mired in poverty, watching
our first daughter die. She was, to me, the most beautiful child I have ever
seen. I would note in passing that although we were active Baha'is, we got
no visits from the local friends, nor support from the LSA.
The choice I faced at the time, and I find I face it daily, although it is
not so sharp and cutting, generally, is whether to accept that God's wisdom
exists or to reject that. As I implied in a previous post, my personal
understanding is that I either feel the grief, or I must live forever with
the pain and anger. I chose the grief.
"Sorrow and joy have embraced." SE
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
Computer Insight
From PayamA@aol.comThu Nov 2 00:36:45 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 20:31:52 -0500
From: PayamA@aol.com
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Voice of America
I heard that there was an interview with Ruhiyyih Khanum (in Persian) on
Voice of America. It was heard by the friends in Iran or they knew about it.
Not sure which.
Does anyone have any further information on this?
Payam
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduThu Nov 2 00:39:33 1995
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 17:44:37 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce"
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: List standards (tid bit from the archives)
> Date sent: Wed, 1 Nov 95 19:23:19 EWT
> From: JWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
> Subject: List standards
> To: talisman@indiana.edu
> 1) I wish to remind the esteemed members that this list is run by me
> in my capacity as a professor at Indiana University. I therefore cannot
> --and do not wish to--enforce standards of religious orthodoxy.
> Any serious threats to either the list or its members will be forwarded
> to the university's lawyers.
>
...
----- forwarded from talisman archives (names deleted) -----
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 11:03:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Juan R Cole
To:
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Guilt by Association
1. xxx: And *I* am sensitive about lay Baha'is spying on and acting as
informants against their coreligionists. I have lived in police states
and this sort of behavior leaves a bad taste in my mouth. That it should
be proclaimed a norm and "appropriate" by Baha'i institutions is very
disturbing to me.
I am unable to perceive in what way a statement on Talisman could
possibly be construed as a "rebellion" against any institution.
As for John Walbridge's statement that Talisman is run as his research
project at a state university, and any interference with it would have to
be reported to the concerned university authorities and professional
organizations, this is not a "threat." It is simply ordinary academic
procedure. Researchers looking into the Church of Scientology have been
routinely harrassed, and they have reported this back to their research
sponsors as well as writing about it publicly. A researcher has a
responsibility to report the conditions of research, and it would be
irresponsible to paper over any official interference in such a project
by a religious organization. Talisman is being widely archived; messages
may well be reprinted in Baha'is scholarly journals; I have incorporated
some of my messages into my forthcoming book on Modernity and the Origins
of the Baha'i Faith, being considered by the University of California
Press; and the archived messages will prove an invaluable resource to
future researchers of the *mentalite-" of the Baha'i community. This is
therefore a bona fide academic project. Moreover, Indiana University, like
any state university, is bound by the separation of religion and state.
As you kno