Date: 7 Nov 95 23:07:17 U
From: Dan Orey <dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.edu>
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Re: News from the Front
Reply to: RE>Re: News from the Front
Yes, just pray he keeps his job - Dan'l
--------------------------------------
Date: 11/7/95 6:15 PM
To: Dan Orey
From: Juan R Cole
Received: by qmbridge.csus.edu (2.01/GatorMail-Q); 7 Nov 95 18:15:44 U
Received: from galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu by csus.edu with SMTP id AA18757
(5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.edu>); Tue, 7 Nov 1995
07:45:07 -0800
Received: from galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu by galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu (8.7.1/2.2)
with SMTP id KAA17183; Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:45:04 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 10:44:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
X-Sender: jrcole@galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu
To: Dan Orey <dan_orey@qmbridge.ccs.csus.edu>
Subject: Re: News from the Front
In-Reply-To: <199511070709.CAA18208@truelies.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951107104438.16829A-100000@galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Birkland really is quite impressive. Good luck!
cheers JRIC
From barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.comWed Nov 8 15:25:36 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 11:30:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Farzin Barazandeh <barazanf@dg-rtp.dg.com>
To: Talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: infallibility
I never understood what infallibility means and
how to dance with its stiffness.
But thanks God, I understand hierarchy and authority and the
necessity of courtesy towards them and even how to bow before them.
But what I desire is to feel true admiration and respect for the
ones I must bow before.
And these admiration and respect are beyond any pious improvisation;
they must be earned and not demanded by myself or any other.
And of course, there are two players in this story,
and none can hide behind the holy mountain of "infallibility".
Farzin
From Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.comWed Nov 8 15:25:55 1995
Date: 08 Nov 1995 10:02:52 GMT
From: "Don R. Calkins" <Don_R._Calkins@commonlink.com>
To: rstockman@usbnc.org
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Re: "New scholarly paradigms"
Rob said
> Perhaps paradigm is a bit misleading
I don't think so. A paradigm is not merely a point of view or perspective
but all that went into bringing about that perspective and the underpinings
that support its maintainance. Because a paradigm is more than a
perspective, there may be many paradigms that have points in common. Baha'i
scholarship, from this perspective then, is a distinct paradigm tho' it may
have many points in common with non-Baha'i scholarship.
On another level, each of us represent a particular paradigm that includes
not only our devotion to Baha'u'llah, but our past experiences. The Writings
constitute a meta-paradigm. It is our responsibility to make them operational
in our personal lives; and the collective of individuals involved in this
process define the current Baha'i paradigm. Because this paradigm involves
individual experiences, it can only roughly approximate the meta-paradigm of
the Writings. But each successive generation incorporates the experiences of
the previous one; only thru' this process of successive approximations will
we attain the maturity of the Golden Age. And only then will we understand
the potential of the meta-paradigm presented in the Writings.
Don C
- sent via an evaluation copy of BulkRate (unregistered).
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Nov 8 15:27:31 1995
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 95 09:57:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani <rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: review and Encyclopedia project
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
One of the suggestion that has been made regarding the present
Baha'i review system is to replace it with a peer review system,
similar to those in professional societies and academia. In a
recent article, ("Storming the barricades", New Scientist, 17
June 1995), the author argues in favor of no-review and
no-journal system where everyone can post their findings,
articles, etc, directly on internet via World Wide Web. He
points out to several advantages, including:
1. eliminating inept refereeing where often results in pointless
delays benefiting no one;
2. dealing with long-standing complains that peer review (or any
review) is a way of settling old scores and burying new research;
3. with a strict "no withdrawal" policy (on articles posted on
WWW), serious contributors will think twice about posting
off-the-cuff ideas or immature research;
4. changes the review by a couple of specialists to a collective
review where many have to think about the implications of the
article;
5. eliminates the need for printed journals as everything is
accessible via WWW.
The article has a number of other good points which I won't
attempt to summarize.
I am excited about this prospect. As such I like to put forth
the idea (actually credit belongs to a fellow Talismanian), that:
a. the entire Baha'i Encyclopedia be put on WWW for a
"collective" review. This is perfectly legitimate under the
existing Baha'i review rules which allows distribution of
work-in-progress;
b. a special file be placed on the same WWW location where the
readers (believers and scholars from both within and outside of
the community) will post their comments;
c. after passage of some time (2 years?), these comments be
compiled by the project Board and adjustments be made to certain
articles, if necessary;
d. then, based on such a *community* and *collective* review,
the (potentially) revised Encyclopedia by submitted to the World
Centre for approval of the printed version.
I think this proposal has a number of advantages: it breaks
through the current impasse on this project; allows for a
collective review; leaves the project in the hand of the current
Board; and, assist the Administration in better gauging the
community's reaction.
I think this last advantage is particularly important because so
often in presenting projects/proposal to the Administration of
the Faith, we neglect to provide them with data on potential
community's reaction/effect and expect them to somehow magically
gauge it. Well, I think we owe them a more mature presentation
and they deserve better from us. As such, I suggest put the
entire Encyclopedia project on WWW and collect some feedback over
a period of time so that the World Centre, in the course of their
ultimate decision making, will have the benefit of this
information as well -- which undoubtedly they'll be pleased to
have.
regards, ahang.
From burlb@bmi.netWed Nov 8 15:27:51 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 09:31 PST
From: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: the vocally impaired
Lions roaring in the forests of knowledge is preferable to pussies meowing
under the couch.
Burl (I'm sure that's a quote from someone, somewhere) Barer
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Nov 8 15:28:28 1995
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 95 11:53:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani <rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: North Texas teaching projects
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
As some of you may be aware, based on the extremely successful
mass teaching efforts in Houston (Jun-Aug 1995), a number of
other communities in the United States organized themselves
similarly and with Sa'id Khadivian's essential help have launched
entry by troops processes, though of a more moderate scale.
The attached note, posted on our Texas list, from one of the
friends in Dallas/Fort Worth area (north Texas) gives some
additional details which some of you will find of interest. The
author's email address is: FraninTX@aol.com
I should also point to one important correction in the attached
note: To their credit, the National Spiritual Assembly, on 2
November 1995, instructed the 12 LSAs in the Houston area to
continue full force with the entry by troops process and *not*
disassemble the existing organizational structure (IACTs). For
our efforts, this is an extremely important ruling from the NSA,
for which we are all very grateful.
Enjoy. ahang.
*****************************
Hi Lee Ann and others in the hut (Lee Ann asked about the Houston teaching
project, asking if I was in that area. I wrote such a good response :)) I
decided to share it with you all:
I'm in the Dallas - Ft. Worth area (IACT#5) and we are just starting our
Inter Assembly Committee for Teaching.
We have 5 groups or IACTs each has 5-7 Assemblies. Each has rented a center,
per our mandate the Centers were to be located centrally for all the LSA's
involved and to be within the budget of those areas, with all assemblies
contributing. We meet each Sunday evening, the mandate calls for each
Assembly to send 3 representatives to each meeting in a rotation so as not to
burden everyone and for those representatives to report back to their
Assembly and community.
THe major population centers, Dallas, Ft. Worth and Arlington have each
decided to not participate in this effort. It has been interesting to watch
how that affects each area. Our group of 7 LSAs (Carrollton, Lewisville,
Flower Mound, Denton, The Colony, Coppell and Addison) did not have any of
those Assemblies as part of it. Those IACTs that had them as part seem to be
functioning well and enthusiasm is running high. Interestingly enough
Houston is no longer a part of the IACT in that area,( Houston is in south
TX. we are in the North central area).
We are recreating the original plan as we progress. We rented a Center in
Lewisville, 10 miles north of Dallas and central to the geographical area of
our IACT group. We will have our first teacher training for all 5 IACTs the
weekend of Nov.17-19. According to the mandate we were to have acquired at
least 2 full time teachers, places for them to live, and have other plans in
place for this first teacher training. Houston kind of tapped out the full
time teacher market for now and it has been noted that one of the problems in
the Houston area has stemmed from insufficient funds to keep the ball
rolling.
Well we are taking baby steps and not overextending until we have a surer
sense of where we are going, so we are going to rely on local part time
teachers, and are encouraging all Assembly and community members to
participate in the teacher training.
Each IACT sends a representative to a liaison meeting once a week so each is
apprised of the plans of the other and ideas are shared that might be useful
to others.
The original mandate also calls for a coordinator's office, a paid full time
postition to eventually take over the liaison role. This hasn't happened
yet.
We had our first neighborhood outreach last Saturday, 4 teams representing 6
of the 7 LSA's in our IACT went out in the immediate neighborhood and
introduced themselves to the businesses, extending an invitation to an open
house and informational meeting about the Faith.They also collected business
cards from each for a Grand Opening mailing that will take place in December.
Their reception was cordial, with a few warm and only one cool. Several said
they might attend. We had 24 people there that evening, 2 seekers but none
from the immediate neighborhood.
The wonderful energy that is shared at our Sunday meetings is very special to
all of us. There are usually 25-30 people attending and each attendee has a
vote in how we will proceed.
There will be a notice in the American Baha'i encouraging any youth attending
the Conference here in December who can come early or stay late to let us
know and we will plan for their use in the teaching.
The fact that there are now 5 centers in what we call the Metroplex, areas
including and between Dallas and Ft. Worth we feel is miraculous. The
commitment and willingness to share is incredible. It was interesting to us
that each Assembly that chose to not participate already has a center, and
the largest Baha'i population in it's area. The message we got is that they
each had their teaching plan in place and felt they wanted to proceed with
that plan. There has been little discussion and no whining that I have
observed about this. Those in those IACTs are proceeding with great energy.
So you can see we are all busy.. and commited and praying like crazy.. put us
on the 19th list.
If there are any specific questions let me know. I don't have time to post
at length often but will try to keep you apprised if you are interested.
Love and light from Fran in Flower Mound, TX
From Member1700@aol.comWed Nov 8 15:30:12 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:27:00 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Discussing the Covenant
I am certainly grateful to Stephen Friberg for his reply to my posting
concerning the discourse on Talisman. I would say that his response is a
wonderful example of the kind of reasonable and respectful exchange of ideas
that we should be trying to achieve in this forum. And since exchange of
ideas is what Talisman is all about (despite periodic calls that we should
all get together and DO something, calls which I believe are quite futile),
anyway, since an intelligent exchange of ideas is all that we can (or should)
hope to accomplish, posts like the one that Stephen has give us are to be
celebrated.
That is not to say that I agree with him. In fact, I could not disagree
more. And I find his point of view on this matter quite incomprehesible and
potentially destructive. I do not, however, feel the need to call for his
silence.
But to the point, I must say that I find the opinion being expressed here
that any call for freedom of expression must logically and of necessity also
include the right to personally attack those you disagree with to be . . .
well, bizarre. It certainly does not include such a right, and I do not know
any responsible person who would argue that--either within or outside the
Baha'i community. It is universally understood in discussions of
ideas--including controversial ideas--that speakers should make a distinction
between the ideas that they may agree or disagree with and the people
expressing them. And attack on ideas is, of course, acceptable and to be
expected. And attack on the persons expressing those ideas is not. This is
really basic stuff, guys. I think I learned it in junior high school or
something. It is quite surprising to me that such a distinction would be
lost is Baha'i discourse.
In fact, in the process of consultation--any consultation--Baha'is are
called upon to do precisely this. To make a distinction between the ideas
being presented and the person presenting them. To detach the one from the
other is a basic prerequisite of consultation. And, indeed, no civilized
discussion can take place without it. While it is true that some of us on
Talisman have proven ourselves to be incapable of civilized discussion, but
Stephen is hardly in that category. So it is a puzzle to me why he should be
insisting that any call for an uncensored expression of ideas must also
include the right to make ad hominem arguments, accuse others of thought
crimes, and attack speakers whom you disagree with.
To Stephen's other point that the presentation of a shocking idea is
tantamount to a personal attack on those who disagree with it, I also find
such a position bizarre and unacceptable. It would (if you think about it
for even a minute) make the presentation of any new idea impossible, because
someone could always claim that s/he was shocked and had been (therefore)
personally attacked. I guess my position is that there are really no such
things as shocking ideas, there are only shocked people. If someone finds
himself shocked or offended by and idea, then I believe it is that person's
duty to deal with it as best can be, and to reply with a better idea. I
certainly do not support the right of the "shockee" to turn around and attack
the faith and the motives of the "shocker." Ugh!
Anyway, these are rules that are universally acknowledged in
intellectual discussions of all kinds, and I don't quite understand why we
are having such a hard time with them. Is it so difficult to simply assume
that everyone here who claims to be a Baha'i actually is one--and that
despite differences of opinion, each of us has the best interests of the
Faith as our highest purpose?
Certainly, I do not think that anyone here should deliberately present
ideas in a way that is "calculated to provoke [unless you mean provoke
discussion], stir up outrage, and generate distrust." But this most
certainly is NOT the same thing as presenting a controversial idea, because
it is focussed on the motives of the speaker, and not on the content of the
speech. And while the individual should do whatever possible to purify the
motives of his discourse, this is fundamentally a private matter which is not
available for the scrutiny and evaluation of others. It is our duty, rather,
simply to assume that the speaker has done the best job possible at the
moment to purify whatever motives lie behind the ideas, and to respond gently
and lovingly accordingly. It's not that difficult, folks! Not that we will
succeed every time, of course. But surely we should be able to agree that is
the goal. Not limits on the exchange of ideas.
Warmest,
Tony
From belove@sover.netWed Nov 8 15:31:27 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 08:38:32 PST
From: belove@sover.net
To: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>,
talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE: almost/probable-failure-unto-death-of-the-list
On Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:55:10 +1300 (NZDT) Robert Johnston wrote:
>
>
> John's letter, in my
>view, belongs with a bunch of other letters which reflect a painfully
>skewed relationship with the House, and reflect also -- I a believe -- an
>almost/probable-failure-unto-death-of-the-list to address this relationship
>appropriately. It is not as though John can be unaware of the offence that
>is caused by such statements, so I am left wondering... Read the
letter
>for yourself. (It is reprinted below).
>
>
>I don't understand the phenomenon I am witnessing. I just don't.
>
>Robert.
>
>>My concern with tone is the following: I honestly believe that I
see a
>>trend in Baha'i institutions, most alarmingly the House of Justice,
of
>>criticizing the tone of interlocutors at the expense of responding
to issues.
>>When I came in on the Faith, Baha'i institutions, particularly the
House
>>of Justice, could be counted on to respond lovingly to any sort of
>>comment or criticism. I have in the last few years seen a number
of
>>cases where someone has offered criticism or comment in good faith,
and
>>has had his or her good faith attacked by the institution in reply.
>>
>>I find this deeply troubling because it seems to me such behavior
>>undermines the legitimacy of the institutions and the loyalty of
those
>>at the receiving end of such letters.
>>
>>john walbridge
Dear Robert and others,
I'm on the other side of the table from you on this one. But I'm new
to this Faith so maybe I really don't understand.
I felt John's comments to be a clear expression of my own sentiments.
I have some strong feelings about this issue.
I'm in this Faith despite some genuinely unpleasant, maybe even nasty
encounters with some people who, I think, are fairly deepened.
But I'm at the frontier of my certainty here. I think I have been
dealt with by people in the name of the Faith in ways that have sure
felt to me like abuse, hypocrisy, disrespect, selfishness. But like
so many abused people I'm not sure.
On the one shoulder I'm saying to myself: Maybe I deserved it? Maybe
I'm over reacting? Maybe I haven't been a Bahai long enough to
understand?" On the other shoulder I'm saying to myself "If it looks
like a duckling and walks like duckling and talks like a duckling and
sounds like a duckling, then maybe that's close to what it is."
The second shoulder gets supported by the Hidden Words: "Justice is
my gift to you. By its aid you shall know with your own knowing and
not through that of another." or something like that.
So down inside, I'm saying to myself, "Hey, doesn't this feel like
I'm being mistreated." And on the outside I hear words like, "When
you've been a Bahai as long as I have, you'll understand it
differently."
Back and forth. Yes, I would like to be so deepened that I understand
this differently. But another part says, "If this is what being a
Bahai means, I'm not sure it's good for me."
So I support John's side of this debate.
The tone of John's comment sounds respectful and contained.
I wonder about the tone of my message. I have to acknowledge that I
am speaking to you from a part of me that is in deep searing pain. I
don't think I'm acting out that pain.
But I have thrown my prayer book across the room more than once.
I've tried to be good humored about this. I tell my friends, "Don't
tell God, but I'm so angry I've stopped praying, as if to pray would
be to support and injustice and to acknowledge that it was really
okay.
I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to be angry with God.
And, It does seem to me that if some one really does already
understand these matters, then, like God, they ought to be able to
handle some of the pain and anger. that inevitably will come through
in the tone
And if we don't have tolerance for those deep passions -- the
outrages that comes from deeply felt intuitions of injustice -- then
what are we representing here?
>
>
>Maybe Juan is right. Maybe Talisman IS a subculture. Maybe -- as
he told
>me right at the beginning -- it is not for me.
-------------------------------------
Name: Philip Belove
E-mail: belove@sover.net
Date: 11/08/95
Time: 08:38:32
This message was sent by Chameleon
-------------------------------------
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler -- A.
Einstein
From Member1700@aol.comWed Nov 8 15:31:55 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:56:31 -0500
From: Member1700@aol.com
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review and Encyclopedia project
Ahang, what a brilliant idea! Let's do it.
Tony
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 8 15:32:33 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 11:07:35 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: the vocally impaired
---- Begin Forwarded Message
7/1.10IUPO) id MAA11814 for talisman-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:40:34
-0500 (EST)
Received: from belize.ucs.indiana.edu (belize.ucs.indiana.edu
[129.79.1.64]) by roatan.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7/8.7/1.10IUPO) with ESMTP
id MAA10778 for <talisman@majordomo.ucs.indiana.edu>; Wed, 8 Nov 1995
12:40:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from bmi.bmi.net (root@ns.bmi.net [204.57.191.1]) by
belize.ucs.indiana.edu (8.7/8.7/1.10IUPO) with SMTP id MAA18332 for
<talisman@indiana.edu>; Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:38:19 -0500 (EST)
Received: from nb-209.bmi.net by bmi.bmi.net with smtp
(Smail3.1.29.1 #1) id m0tDEL2-0002obC; Wed, 8 Nov 95 09:31 PST
Message-Id: <m0tDEL2-0002obC@bmi.bmi.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 09:31 PST
X-Sender: burlb@bmi.net
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: LWALBRID@cluster.ucs.indiana.edu
From: burlb@bmi.net (Burl Barer)
Subject: Re: the vocally impaired
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Sender: owner-talisman@indiana.edu
Precedence: bulk
Dear Talismanians
I would point out that Cats <pussies > sleep on the Couch . Linda being
a Doggy person has her dog under the couch on the floor and does not
know these fine points . Burl "powerful and important Baha'i "sources
tell me if Linda does not get the information on the TV program our
esteemed List Owner forgot to record for her . He will be sleeping with
the dog on the floor , under the Couch . I believe we should start a '
SAVE JOHN WALBRIDGE FROM THE FLOOR WITH THE DOG CAMPAIGN 'If we all
flood Linda's inbox with pleas to forgive John do you think it would
work ?
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshut
Lions roaring in the forests of knowledge is preferable to pussies
meowing
under the couch.
Burl (I'm sure that's a quote from someone, somewhere) Barer
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From burlb@bmi.netWed Nov 8 15:33:10 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 11:01 PST
From: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>
To: Ahang Rabbani <rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review and Encyclopedia project
Dear Ahang:
I appreciate your recent suggestions, however I have an "old concern" which
I believe is brought up by the UHJ in their Individual Right and Freedoms
letter. Long standing and inveterate enemies of the Baha'i Faith are
ever-ready to sieze upon any mis-statement, tentative position, or erronious
conclusion to discredit and hold the Faith and its adherents up to ridicule.
I am, frankly, surprised that anti-Baha'i activists have not yet taken full
advantage of the WWW. I quick search of the word "Talmud" on your net
browser will instantly connect you to not only some fine Judaic research and
commentary, but also to STORMFRONT -- the neo-nazi anti-semitic homepage
with links to all manner of disgusting material -- holocaust denial,
assertions of an international zionist conspiracy, etc. These swastica
brandishing whackos are not browsed under "Whacko" but under "Talmud,"
"Jewish Studies" and other such reputable titles. Placing the entire
encylopedia in progress on the WWW is the same as sending a copy of this
unfinished and important project to the home address of each and every
avowed enemy of the Baha'i Faith.
Call me paranoid, if you like, but I think we must be prudent and not naive.
Whatcha think?
Burl
*******************************************************
Order MAN OVERBOARD, the new book by Burl Barer today!
*******************************************************
From richs@microsoft.comWed Nov 8 16:07:41 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 10:58:05 -0800
From: assistant to the Auxiliary Board
To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: RE: RE: Re: NSA & Appeals
Juan,
From: Juan R Cole[SMTP:jrcole@umich.edu]
>Pete denies having actually talked to anyone in the canteen. The city
>council alleges that he did. I can't know which is correct.
I would contend that you cannot know whether an injustice has
occurred without knowing who is correct. In that sense, the only
appropriate way to deal with the problem is through appeal. I'll
endeavor to elaborate on this below.
>But what is outrageous, regardless of whether Pete did or did not, is
>that he should be put in jail for "backbiting" and that the person(s) who
>put him there are the backbitten.
>This last point seems not to be one I am able to get you to think about.
I believe I understand precisely what you're trying to get me to think
about: that a refusal to recuse oneself from a case in which one has
a personal interest is, a priori, an injustice. I thought I had adequately
answered this in my response to one of your hypothetical situations.
Apparently not.
The question is whether or not this idea conforms to the principles of
Baha'i Administration, and I contend that it does not. Among other
things, we have the specific statement that members of institutions
are _not_ required to recuse themselves from deliberations involving
even their own administrative rights. (The source is quoted in
_Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities_. I don't have it on hand,
but I can find it once I get home.)
>What "law" did Pete break,
>even assuming his protestations of innocence are false?
I can't believe you aren't aware of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, paragraph
19 which explicitly forbids backbiting. If you aren't willing to stipulate
the existence of this law, then you've consigned your hypothetical
example to the realm of irrelevance in terms of Baha'i Administration.
It is the very existence of this law which has given rise to the
situations we've discussed. Without the existence of this law, it
would be possible to raise whatsoever public objections one would
want to raise about the personal conduct of any individual be they
members of institutions or not.
>If he did break a law, is it really right that he be sentenced
>by someone with a grudge against him?
The answer to this question is dependent upon more information
than we presently have available. First, we don't know whether or
not the Mayor and the City Council really do bear a grudge. We
do know that Pete has done something which might lead them to
bear a grudge, but there is insufficient evidence to establish this
as a fact.
Secondly, there are a number of situations under which an
Assembly can make horrendous decisions, and I'm not
convinced that the likelihood of unjust decisions merely due
to a personal interest of one of the Assembly's members is
significantly greater than any of these other circumstances.
Regardless of the issues being considered, Assembly's have a
very clearly defined decision-making procedure (Baha'i
Consultation). A failure to adhere to that process on any issue
is likely to produce faulty results.
The bottom line, I suppose, is that it just isn't so clear to me
that these hypothetical circumstances are as unjust as you
believe. I'm not saying that injustices can't occur. I'm only
saying that such cases don't appear to be so a priori
outrageous as to warrant a significant change in the structure
of the Administrative Order at this time.
If the change is warranted, any attempt to raise the issue
with the Universal House of Justice will have to have a
greater grounding in the writings than it has at present. In
particular, the issue of recusal will need to be addressed
via specific references to the Writings and not just a vague
sense of Justice.
Does that make sense? And, more importantly, do I
understand your position as well as you think I should?
Warmest Regards,
From briann@cruzio.comWed Nov 8 16:08:10 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 95 11:32:52 PST
From: Brian and Ann Miller <briann@cruzio.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Cc: rstockman@usbnc.org
Subject: Rob's tribe
Dear Rob,
Can I join your tribe Rob? I hope it doesn't involve rites of passage
including unusual acts with flying squirrels. I would like to echo Juan's
appreciation for Rob Stockman. I too have found him kind, fair, judicious and
very helpful in his capacity as a member or our beloved institutions. His
work not only in the Research Office, but also for the Association for Baha'i
Studies has encouraged many young scholars and those of us who no long fit
that description.
I also want to thank you all, Juan,Bev, Linda,John,Quanta, Tony, Robert J., Derek, Brent, for
helping us get back on track with our discussions. The near flame war was
very painful to read and reminds me of Abdu'l-Baha'is warning that when we are
in contention, we are all wrong. the light gets obscured by smoke and the
insights are clouded by pain.
Warm regards,
Brian briann@cruzio.com
.
--
From shastri@best.comWed Nov 8 16:08:35 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 19:42:56 GMT
From: Shastri Purushotma <shastri@best.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: the vocally impaired
>Lions roaring in the forests of knowledge is preferable to pussies meowing
>under the couch.
Dear friends,
For the sake of unity of thought I'd like to make
something VERY VERY CLEAR.
I do not believe in naming names because everyone on this list is a
good person and has contributed incredible things and we are
all human and make lots of mistakes,
but one simple concept must be clear...
A LION ROARING IS EXCELLENT. A LION THAT GETS FOOD FOR THE GROUP
AND / OR DEFENDS THE GROUP AGAINST ATTACKS OF KILLER ELEPHANTS
IS EVEN BETTER.
HOWEVER WHENEVER A LION STARTS TO GO FUNNY AND TRIES TO BITE
OFF THE LEG OF THE LION KING THAT IS A VERY VERY DIFFERENT
SITUATION .. FOR GODS SAKE DONT TWIST THINGS AND CONFUSE
THE TWO SITUATIONS.
IT IS ONLY NATURAL THAT OTHER LIONS, CUBS AND WHO KNOWS
PROBABLY EVEN THE KITTENS WILL DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO
SAY: "BUDDY, CHILL OUT, GO FOR THE ZEBRA, YOU ARE MAKING
A FOOL OF YOURSELF DOING THIS!!!"
I think we are all intelligent enough to understand
the difference, and after reading the Will and Testament
know what actions are meritorious and
useful, and what are just plain dumb uses of the gift of having
"Lions teeth".
Love
Shastri
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduWed Nov 8 16:08:54 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 14:59:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msu.edu>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: Righteousness
Bev, Allah'u'abha! Thanks for your (American Heritage) dictionary search on
righteousness and other terms...
> ..................................................... An interesting note
> is that the word "Righteousness" refers to a "holier-than-thou" attitude. I
> couldn't call up the actual work of righteousness. All I got was
>
> holier-than-thou
>
> holier-than-thou (ho=B4l=EA-er-then-thou=B9) adjective
> Exhibiting an attitude of superior virtue; self-righteously pious.
[deleted]
> It seems inconceivable that Baha'u'llah would exhort us to be
> "holier-than-thou". Therefore, it might be worth considering what he really
> did mean by these words. I suspect some of us are using the same words with
> quite different intent...and perhaps not the intent which Baha'u'llah had in
> mind.
I'd be interested in knowing more about the Arabic or Persian terms used
in the original. As far as the English goes, I suspect that the translation
intended "righteous" (as your computer dictionary defines below) ...
> righteous (r=EC=B9ches) adjective
> 1. Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous woman.
> 2. In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
> 3. Morally justifiable: righteous anger. See Synonyms at moral.
... plus the suffix "-ness": "state; quality; condition; degree" (from
the 2nd [print] ed. of American Heritage Dictionary).
In my experience,* dictionaries tend not to repeat the meanings obviously
derived from the root term. So the 2nd Am. Her. dictionary lists
"righteously, adv." and "righteousness, n." after the gloss for "righteous."
However, your computer based 3rd ed. has evidently picked up a meaning that
has become attached in common usage to the derived term, "righteousness."
(which is iteslf an interesting comment on the state of religion in
contemporary American society). I was not aware of this, but since you've
pointed it out I guess we should be careful when speaking of "righteousness"
etc., lest those who hear us think of that "holier-than-thou" sense in which
the word is sometimes (increasingly??) used in American English.
Nevertheless, the original meaning of "righteousness" (i.e. state or quality
of being morally upright...) would seem to still be current and valid.
(Actually, a trip to the Oxford English Dictionary might also be
instructive.)
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
* I had a bout of lexicography a few years ago, which happily ended in
publication of a Fulfulde-English-French lexicon in 1993. I in no way,
however, claim to be an expert on dictionaries or lexicography.
--
From dpeden@imul.comWed Nov 8 16:09:01 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 05:26:14+100
From: Don Peden <dpeden@imul.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Pussycats
Didn't the Bible say something about lions and lambs laying together? How
about lions and pussycats?
Love,
Bev.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 8 16:11:36 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:49:12 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re:Joining Rob's Tribe! also Award for Talismanian Rob.
I consulted with my friend Burl . We are Rob's Agents as he is a
sercret "powerful and important Baha'i". You have to purchase 6 copies
of both of Rob's Books from the Bosch Bookstore and 10 copies of Burl's
Book 'Man Overboard'. For this outlay you receive an autographed copy
of Rob holding his latest book on his head at the ABS Conference and a
photograph of Sherman . Rob also has been awarded this week the station
of C. G. S. P. and can now place those after his name . Talismanians
will remember that my dear friend Juan Richardo Cole was given this
illustrious title last week . In case Richard Hollinger is worried we
do have copies of all titles available for those who wish to join good
old "Rob's Tribe"in the Bookshop . < Richard you never mention how
grateful you are for me always availing your fears on the book matters>
KIndest Regards
Derek Cockshut
From PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.eduWed Nov 8 16:19:37 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 13:06:49 PST8PDT
From: "Eric D. Pierce" <PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu>
To: jrcole@umich.edu
Subject: Juan's Thread - infallibility
Greetings Dr. Cole,
Thought you might appreciate this note of encouragement.
Talisman is getting better this week, as usual I find
your messages utterly brilliant!
Bye,
Eric D. Pierce
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Tue, 07 Nov 1995 10:59:58 -0800
From: Ron Somerby <RSomerby@smtp1.cdfa.ca.gov>
To: Pierceed@csus.edu
Subject: Juan's Thread - infallibility
Dear Eric: I've been making a paper record of your forwarded threads,
very time consuming! An electronic archieve would be easier, but the
volume would still make it difficult. I am coming to a better
understanding of the diversity of views "out there", wow! Yes I am
interested in Juan's thread on infallibility. I thought you might
send my comments the other day into the arena. As confirmation, I
received a comment on my view about "facts". Clearly, the subject is
quite complex because, in part, it deals with knowledge, truth,
language, certainly one's worldview.
I warmly sympathize with Juan's views. I feel his dialogue is
desparately needed to stimultate thought about our most basic
assumptions. I appreciate diversity tempering the overemphasis of
homogenity of belief.
Cheers, Ron
From rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.comWed Nov 8 16:20:34 1995
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 95 13:25:01 -0500
From: Ahang Rabbani <rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>
To: burlb@bmi.net, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review and Encyclopedia project
[This message is converted from WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Dear Burl,
I agree that we must be prudent and not naive and we certainly
don't want to put a "kick me" sign on our collective back.
But, I think it would be equally unwise to minimize the excellent
overall quality of the Encyclopedia. Now, I know that the
quality of a few articles (less than 2% ?? John, please confirm)
has been questioned, but I believe judging the quality of Board's
membership, Administration's extensive involvement and the
credential of the contributors, that as a whole, the project is
of exceptionally good quality. Now, I could be wrong. After all
I have not seen any articles other than was was posted on
Talisman, but knowing the caliber of some of the authors, I would
say that the vast majority of articles are in a very good shape
as far as accuracy is concerned. Hence, I don't fear that we'll
come under attack based on the content of these articles.
Invariably, once the Faith becomes more broadly established on
the WWW world, I'm sure some nasty things will be posted against
it. These things tantamount to nothing but electronic graffities
which we need not fear. This sort of thing will happen
eventually regardless of what we put on WWW. We can have the
Gleanings there and then have some half-wit posting ugly
comments. So what? Who cares? Attacks will come, that's
guaranteed -- with or without Encyclopedia articles on WWW.
I believe if the editorial Boards feels strongly that what they
have produced is worthy of publication, (and obviously they think
so as they sent the whole thing to Haifa for final approval), and
the contributors are indeed the best and ablest that the Faith
has to offer today, then they should have no fear and proceed
with putting it on WWW. As Dan Orey just wrote in a private
note, turn it into a living document on a living, growing Faith!
much love, ahang.
From derekmc@ix.netcom.comWed Nov 8 16:25:45 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 12:33:29 -0800
From: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: RE. Review and the Encylopedia.
My dear Ahang and Tony
How do you propose obtaining all the papers for the 'Talismanian '
review when they are not the property of this informal list?. As Rob
and myself posted the matter is back with the House of Justice lets
wait and see what happens . The project has been so long in development
a few more months is not going to harm anyone . I also agree with Burl
this is not an exclusive List a little caution is advisable . I do
think exploring more what John posted on what is Scholarship and the
follow-up post by Stephen is the right way to go lets not be hidebound
in our approach that there must be only this way or this way to
Academic Work on the Faith.
Kindest Regards
Derek Cockshit
From dhouse@cinsight.comWed Nov 8 17:43:08 1995
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 1995 13:04:30 -0800
From: "David W. House" <dhouse@cinsight.com>
To: Talisman <talisman@indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: "New scholarly paradigms"
Farzin,
>I do not think we would have anybody at the Fort Tabarsi or
>Badasht if they were trying to do too much balancing.
Was not Quddus, although besieged within the fort of Shaykh Tabarsi by the
battalions and fire of a relentless enemy, engaged, both in the daytime and
in the night-season, in the completion of his eulogy of Baha'u'llah--that
immortal commentary on the Sad of Samad which had already assumed
the dimensions of five hundred thousand verses?
Dawnbreakers, p 70-71
Whilst their enemies were preparing for yet another and still fiercer
attack upon their stronghold, the companions of Quddus, utterly indifferent
to the gnawing distress that it afflicted them, acclaimed with joy and
gratitude the approach of Naw-Ruz. In the course of that festival, they
gave free vent to their feelings of thanksgiving and praise in return for
the manifold blessings which the Almighty had bestowed upon them. Though
oppressed with hunger, they indulged in songs and merriment, utterly
disdaining the danger with which they were beset. The fort resounded with
the ascriptions of glory and praise which, both in the daytime and in the
night-season, ascended from the hearts of that joyous band. The verse,
"Holy, holy, the Lord our God, the Lord of the angels and the spirit,"
issued unceasingly from their lips, heightened their enthusiasm, and
reanimated their courage.
Dawnbreakers, p 389
I guess I'm not sure what you mean...
d.
David William House (dhouse@cinsight.com)
Computer Insight
23022 Yeary Lane N.E.
Aurora, OR 97002-0167 USA
(503) 678-1085 voice
(503) 678-1030 fax
"Well is it with the doers of great deeds." Abdu'l-Baha
From DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.eduWed Nov 8 17:44:24 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:26:59 EST
From: QUANTA DAWNLIGHT <DAWNLIQU@fllab.chass.ncsu.edu>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Darkness of past/Brightness of future
Dear Friends,
"When I live in the darkness of the past, I can't build a bright
future"- Quanta
"Expression and appreciation are twin processes in the psychological development
of the individual and the community"-Quanta
I joined Talisman at the encouragement of a Talismanian who
saw my postings at another discussion group regarding materialism.
My first exposure on talisman was the article by Jim Harrison
on "Axiology" as related to materialism in the West (to the
best of my recollection). I was ecstatic that this subject which is
also dear to my heart was given consideration by our scholars.
Then, I got distracted from the issue due to emotional involvement
in the discourse among talismanians and my own
countless failures to keep focused, which are known to God.
I read Jim's last posting and quiet honestly I think
he does have some very truthful statements about the state of affairs
in our community. But, one thing I also believe is that Talisman
have provided the opportunity for "diverse (victims of injustice, those
whose issues are not considered seriously by their respective
community's, those who feel unheard, those who claim ownership of the
Cause, etc. etc.) shades of thought, temperament and character" come
together and hash things out in temperatures varying from iceberg to volcanic
conditions. Quite frankly, I think it is better to be engaged in some
conversation than not having one at all as it's been the case in many
communitites in U.S. This is the first step, dialogue!
But, at some point things have to come together under a
collective umbrella by a unified vision, goal and objectives
without feeling a loss of personal freedom of thought and
special interests in serving humanity.
How can people whose interest are as diverse as the Covenant,
Unity, Review, Materialism, Community Development, Environment,
Institutional Development, Human Relations, Gender equality,
Deepening in Holy Writings, etc. etc. etc. come together whose
thoughts, temperaments and characters are as diverse as the issues themselves?
Well, I have no bright ideas, but hope to hear some thoughts and
suggestions for us coming together. Of course, you are free to ignore
all together what most of us seem to be looking for in the long run.
Please! three things to keep in mind especially for our Western friends
and those who acquired their ways; beware of these in your heart.
1) I want instant gratification of my desires
2) I want instant disposal of what is used for #1
3) I will instantly delete you out of my life with the tip of my
fingers.
Happy contemplations!!
lovingly,
Quanta Dawn-Light...(*_*)
========================================================
"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"
-Advent of Divine Justice, p.55 1988 pocket Ed.
===========================================================
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 8 17:46:56 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 10:36:14 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: Burl Barer <burlb@bmi.net>, talisman@indiana.edu, Member1700@aol.com
Subject: roaring/masculinist mask/Juarez
(1) Dear Burl,
Re:
>Lions roaring in the forests of knowledge is preferable to pussies meowing
>under the couch.
>
>Burl (I'm sure that's a quote from someone, somewhere) Barer
As well as Baha'i allusions, I think there may be couple (at least) of
William Blake "Proverbs from Hell" tied into this senor. Let's see...
There's one that goes something like "The lion's roar...the strarry floor
is given thee till break of day", and another that goes something like "The
lions/tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction." (David
Taylor knows these things.) Another link between Blake and the Faith.
Chris Buck's recent letter on this slipped by me, hardly read. Before I
heard of the Faith, Blake "Proverbs from Hell" provided me with a
philosophy.
(2) Let's make this really simple Tony. Hearts are united through the love
of God, as mediated through the Covenant. The Covenant clearly establishes
the the House and our relationship to it. That which undermines our
relationship with the House, and challenges its integrity, runs contrary to
the Covenant, and, as the love of God dies in hearts, the reign of disunity
prevails. Ad hominem as used here is simply a masculinist mask -- the mask
of materialistic (in contrast with metaphysical) rationality. Let's get
real... ;-}
(3) The water at the US Consulate in Juarez must have been very, very good.
Robert ("proven incapable of civilized discussion") Johnston
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 8 17:50:01 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 11:24:52 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: DEREK COCKSHUT <derekmc@ix.netcom.com>, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: RE. Review and the Encylopedia.
Dear Derek,
I noice you signed yourself
> Derek Cockshit
I must apologise for getting wrong before.
Robert ("who cares") Johnston
From shastri@best.comWed Nov 8 17:50:28 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 22:29:51 GMT
From: Shastri Purushotma <shastri@best.com>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Mr. Furutan Watch Analogy
Dear all,
Sorry to beat a dead horse but this has been a very
nagging horse so...
Another hillarious analogy I heard a very esteemed person
say Mr Furutan uses for helping understanding this
phenomenon:
(Just imagine this analogy being told Mr Furutan style!):
" When you have no watch, then you have the right to walk
around and ask people what time it is ....
when you do have a watch, you look like a real fool if you
walk around and ask people what time it is!"
(I guess unless in doing that you are admitting you don't think
your watch is capable which is a different matter -- why pretend to
wear the watch then??).
Likewise ... when you are searching for the Truth and don't
know about the Faith, you have the right to question with intense
skepticism the authority of the Writings and the Covenant ...
but once you have decided
to buy the watch and wear it ... you have accepted the Faith...
why do you now go and deny what you have found????
It's like the guy with a perfectly good watch walking the streets
asking people what the time is????? Go figure????
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduWed Nov 8 17:51:03 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 17:33:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msu.edu>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Animal analogies (was re: vocally impaired)
Allah'u'abha!
Can we move beyond the lion vs. pussy-cat stuff? No creature among the
animals, after all, is better than any other, and it is not very helpful to
use the different creatures as proxies for whomever or whatever we do or do
not value in this list.
Nor is it very helpful to hold up growling and roaring--which are merely
territorial and aggressive vocalizations--as exemplifying something positive.
Nor for that matter does contrasting roaring with meowing (a false dichotomy
anyway) enlighten our discussion.
A lion is a powerful symbol, indeed, and in its milieu it is a fearsome
beast. But out of its milieu it is both dangerous and pathetic. And
increasingly within the wilds it "rules" it is being endangered by an even
more powerful creature.
None among the animals can manifest (as I understand it) more than one of
the divine virtues. Only humans have that potential. And only by education
can we achieve that potential. And part of that training deals with the
use of language & words. And yes, Baha'u'llah says that the wise should
speak primarily with "words as mild as milk." This does not mean meowing,
and it does not mean (as I interpret it) that strong (but well chosen!!)
words are not sometimes necessary.
We indeed hold within us many of the characteristics of what Abdu'l-Baha
calls the "animal kingdom." Yet it is not in these (chest-beating, roaring,
meowing, barking, or whatever) that we can achieve our highest.
Why should this have to be pointed out?
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
--
From mfoster@tyrell.netWed Nov 8 18:07:11 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:34:29 -0600 (CST)
From: "Mark A. Foster" <mfoster@tyrell.net>
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Theology and Science
To: talisman@indiana.edu
Dear Steven (Phelps), Steve (Friberg), and other Talismanians -
First, Steven, thank you for posting those excepts from the recent
compilation by the House of Justice on Baha'i scholarship. When I said
in a recent posting (right before my mail system temporarily shut down;
so I do not know what, if any, discussion ensued) that if we want to
know what *is* Baha'i scholarship, we need to read the words of the
Guardian, the House, etc., the passages you quoted were most of the ones
I had in mind.
IMHO, there is no *essential* fault with historical critical
scholarship. The problems are, as John Walbridge referenced, in its
"secular humanist" applications. The critical approach is one that I
personally, as a "neo-neo-Marxist" <g>, structuralist, and critical
sociologist, respect a great deal.
From my POV, it is unlikely that the statement made by the House,
which, according to John, referred to historical criticism as
"methodological agnosticism," was ever intended to dismiss this approach
wholesale. Rather, I suspect that the Supreme Body has been repeatedly
calling upon all of us to seek out creative and innovative styles of
applying Baha'i principles (many of which they included in the
compilation) to scientific and other scholarly researches. IOW, I think
that the House is more concerned about issues of tone and content than
of method.
One of the things to which I have objected previously are the
sweeping generalizations made about what Baha'i scholars think, feel,
and do - as if there is a general mold out of which all those who deeply
study a particular application of the faith (my *basic* definition of
Baha'i scholarship) are shaped. It seems obvious to me, especially from
reading the postings on this list over the past eight or nine months,
that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this position.
I have periodically seen some Talismanians complain that a criticism
of their own positions is an indictment of Baha'i intellectuals or of
intellectual thought in general. Recently, one of the beloved made a
posting which directly stated that people who oppose the views which
this individual expresses are anti-intellectual. Moreover, mentions of
anti-intellectual intellectuals strike me as exclusionary and
territorial and not as scholarly and receptive. To me, these views also
suffer from a degree of provincialism and, possibly, solipsism and
reflect a perspective on Baha'i scholarship which, IMHO, is contrary to
the standards called for by the House.
Steve, you wrote:
F >Mark and Sen are telling us that just because the old guys
F >(scientists and historical-critical analyticians of the
F >past) adhere to certain methodologies, that it "ain't
F >necessarily so" that it is the only way to go. Maybe we
F >ought to ask them to elaborate a bit more!
Hey, Steve! I don't know about Sen, but I *never* use the word
"ain't." It just ain't proper. ;-) (Actually, it is proper in some
usages, but who cares <g>.)
Well, I have already elaborated a bit. Actually, I see nothing wrong
with historical criticism. Historical method and historiography were the
basis of my Ph.D. minor in history. Also, since my minor professor used
this method in his own books, the two of us had long conversations about
it, and I ended up incorporating many of his methodological suggestions
into my dissertation (1984) which used both historical critical and
survey techniques to study the American pentecostal-charismatic movement.
Again, I do not regard the problem as one requiring a change in one's
methodological moorings but, perhaps, as one calling for a modification
in some of the metatheoretical (assumptive) foundations of most, if not
all, contemporary methods in the human sciences. I became a community
college professor (and here we are all professors since we have an
unranked system) so that I did not have to deal with the pressures of
publishing what is seen as value-neutral sociology, and I recognize the
challenges involved in getting papers published which do not conform to
present materialistic (IMV) academic paradigms.
From my perspective, true Baha'i scholarship will be a part of
Baha'i culture. Since we have not yet developed to that point, what we
now have is, at best, Baha'i scholarship in seed form. That is why I
think it is so important that we study the compilation from the World
Centre. To me, what we have in that document is the resurrected body
(Cause) of the Twin Manifestations guiding us to a true standard of
Baha'i scholarship - one which is based on the foundation of revealed
reality. All the material sciences then become what the Master called
"bridges to reality."
With loving greetings,
Mark
From osborndo@pilot.msu.eduWed Nov 8 19:00:31 1995
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 1995 13:39:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald Zhang Osborn <osborndo@pilot.msu.edu>
To: Talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Tolerant vs. Righteous on Talisman?
Allah'u'abha!
When Baha'u'llah mentions tolerance, He also mentions
righteousness. This is one instance in the Writings where concepts
we are not used to seeing together are linked. In the past I have
thought it worthwhile to point out this particular instance to the
Friends who are discussing some divisive contemporary social issues,
as it often seems that one side calls for tolerance and the other
for righteousness, but in the ensuing debates, neither side is
either tolerant or righteous. I am dismayed now to see elements of
this old world order pattern in some of the recent discussions here
on Talisman: some people call for academic freedom (search for
truth) and others stress obedience to institutions (the Covenant),
yet it somehow degenerates into (what seems to this servant to be)
willfulness, judgementalism, and the most unhappy choices of words.
This on a nominally Baha'i list!
In addition to reflecting on how we choose to express ideas &
opinions, I would suggest that it might be helpful for all to
observe both principles of tolerance and righteousness in our
discussions. A "both-and" rather than an "either-or" approach to
these two principles seems to me to be one of the things that
should distinguish Baha'i methods of treating potentially divisive
issues from those methods prevalent in the old world order.
"... The heaven of true understanding shineth resplendent with
the light of two luminaries: tolerance and righteousness.
"O my friend! Vast oceans lie enshrined within this
brief saying. Blessed are they who appreciate its value,
drink deep therefrom and grasp its meaning, and woe betide the
heedless." Lawh-i-Maqsud (Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 170)
"This Wronged One exhorteth the peoples of the world to
observe tolerance and righteousness, which are two lights
amidst the darkness of the world and two educators for the
edification of mankind. Happy are they who have attained
thereto and woe betide the heedless." Tarazat (Tablets of
Baha'u'llah, p. 36)
Don Osborn osborndo@pilot.msu.edu
Dept. of Resource Development (Ph.D. student)
Michigan State University
From robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nzWed Nov 8 19:05:27 1995
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 1995 11:59:36 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Robert Johnston <robert.johnston@stonebow.otago.ac.nz>
To: belove@sover.net, talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: confinement, Kafka, chameleon [was: almost/probable]
My dear Philip,
I don't know that we get over soon enough this incredible sense of
confinement that we experience when we join the Faith. Just as modern
women have been learning/giving themselves permission to express their
anger, Baha'is too need to learn to let it (or "something" anyway) out in
order to move forwards to individuation. Community can only develop when we
move beyond excessively communitarian "cheek-by-jowl" models, which more
resemble sickly enmeshed families than anything else. I firmly believe
that individuation -- including finding one's "work", and what Khanum
calls giving yourself permission to be "yourself" -- is vital for community
health. I guess the path is lonely, but what is the alternative? Those
who stayed at home never found anything much (I can heard David Taylor cite
Kafka and Blake to the contrary...but I digress).
I think is fatally wrong to deny our own considerations/views of matters,
no matter how shoddily we believe they (the considerations/views) have been
sourced. And it is OK to act on our own behalf. So, it is also OK if we
move away a bit sometimes. This is not being unloving, necessarily. It
may simply be recognizing that we are not God, and the seeking of that
company that is right for us... Some time later we may find that those
things/people/events we don't like have -- perhaps like Lincoln's father --
improved in the meantime!
I think all this can be done without saying that 'Abdu'l-Baha was confused
or that the House made a silly decision. If we find ourselves saying
things like that then we really must give ourselves a good talking to,
don't you think?.
Robert ("talking across the table") Johnston
PS: see how influential Burl is?
PPS: At the bottom of your letters is written "This message was sent by
Chameleon." This morning, earlier, I was thinking of connections between
certain conceptions of language games and polyvocality, and the activities
of the chameleon. Coincidence perhaps.
From nima@unm.eduWed Nov 8 19:05:38 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 16:22:36 -0700 (MST)
From: Sadra <nima@unm.edu>
To: Ahang Rabbani <rabbana@a1.bmoa.umc.dupont.com>
Cc: talisman@indiana.edu
Subject: Re: review and Encyclopedia project
Ahang jan--
You have a brilliant idea here. I say let's go for it! The motion is
third"ed" - is there such a word?!
Nima
---
O God, cause us to see things as they really are - Hadith
From sindiogi@NMSU.EduWed Nov 8 19:11:30 1995
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 17:01:30 -0700 (MST)
From: "S. Indiogine" <sindiogi@NMSU.Edu>
To: Juan R Cole <jrcole@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: reforms and apologies
Thank you for your answer. I should have answered you sooner but being
an Engineering student it is not that easy.
On Fri, 3 Nov 1995, Juan R Cole wrote:
> The passage in the Aqdas merely says that Baha'u'llah is embarrassed to
> speak about the custom of a slave-owner taking a slave-boy (ghulam) as
> his concubine.
Yes.
> The passage does not address the contemporary institution of same-sex
> marriage, since that did not exist in the Middle East.
Yes.
> There is another passage condemning "lavatih," by Baha'u'llah, which is
> probably a reference to married men carrying on with boys.
> I know of no passage in Baha'u'llah's writings addressing lesbianism.
Indeed, as far as the Writings of Bahaullah goes there is no ambiguity on
the issue. As far as I know, al-Bab and Abdul-Baha do not address this issue.
> The general Baha'i views of these things derive from Shoghi Effendi, who,
> however, did not have authority to legislate.
Here it gets complicated. What I have heard is that indeed SE does not
legislate but interpret. By his statement that KIA 107 refers to all
sorts of homosexual relations the prohibition would not only refer
to pederastry but to homosexuality in general.
What avenues are now open?
1. the interpretation is conditioned by SE's info, i.e. the medical opinion
of that time?
2. the interpretation is conditional since it is pertaining to
legislation and thus the eventual competence of the UHJ?
If we base our analysis on Bahaullah's statements I can manage to reach a
conclusion. The fact that SE dealt with the issue makes it much more
complex for me.
Any comments?