Re: Theos-World Understanding Fundamentalism: a (post vacation) question to Bill
Aug 03, 2006 02:07 PM
by pedro oliveira
Dear Bill,
I wish you a very nice vacation. I am posting this to remind myself
of the question I would like to explore with you later on, provided
you are planning to come back!:) (I hope you have not just decided
to go over to the Other Shore and just leave us here. I understand
there are no Internet cafes over there.:))
Do you realise that all the descriptions of Fundamentalism quoted by
you are the product of Western eyes and their ideologies? Is there
another side to this? How did these agrarian, faith-centered
communities feel when the Western bulldozer of technology, reason
and arrogant superiority invaded their countries and cultures
centuries ago?
Please enjoy your time away from theos-talk.
Much peace,
Pedro
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bill Meredith <meredith_bill@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Pedro,
>
> I apologize for the hurried answer. I will be on vacation from
tomorrow
> until Monday of the following week, so I will not be able to
continue
> our discussion now. I have read the other's comments and am
hopeful
> that theos-talk can become a place of support and compassion
rather than
> remaining a battle-field.
>
> There is a sense in which fundamentalism can be viewed as a
reaction
> to transcendentalism. Ralph Waldo Emerson said that
transcendentalism
> is the casting of the very oldest of thoughts into the mould of
new
> times. Hence transcendentalism is idealism as it appears to us
today in
> 2006. Emerson said in 1837, "I am to new name all the beasts in
the
> fields and all the gods in the sky. I am to invite men drenched
in Time
> to recover themselves and come out of time, and taste their native
> immortal air." Each moment we breath we choose whether to focus
upon
> the timeless or the timeful. -- whether to create ourselves anew
or
> confirm ourselves with language of the times past.
Transcendentalism is
> a focus upon the timeless man within, whereas fundamentalism might
be
> viewed as a focus upon the timeful man without.
>
> In Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist revolt Against the
Modern
> Age, Bruce Lawrence defines fundamentalism as "the affirmation of
> religious authority as holistic and absolute, admitting of neither
> criticism nor reduction; it is expressed through the collective
demand
> that specific creedal and ethical dictates derived from scripture
be
> publicly recognized and legally enforced." Lawrence lists
five "family
> resemblances" common to fundamentalism. 1) Fundamentalists are
advocates
> of a minority viewpoint. They see themselves as a righteous
remnant.
> Even when they are numerically a majority, they perceive
themselves as a
> minority. 2) They are oppositional and confrontational towards
both
> secularists and "wayward" religious followers. 3) They are
secondary
> level male elites led invariably by charismatic males. 4)
> Fundamentalists generate their own technical vocabulary. 5)
> Fundamentalism has historical antecedents, but no ideolgical
precursor.
>
> The American Academy of Arts And Sciences funded a five year
study of
> Fundamentalism by scholars from around the world. They list these
> "family resemblances" of fundamentalists:
>
> 1. religious idealism as basis for personal and communal identity;
> 2. fundamentalists understand truth to be revealed and unified;
> 3. it is intentionally scandalous, (similar to Lawrence's point
about
> language -- outsiders cannot understand it);
> 4. fundamentalists envision themselves as part of a cosmic
struggle;
> 5. they seize on historical moments and reinterpret them in
light of
> this cosmic struggle;
> 6. they demonize their opposition and are reactionary;
> 7. fundamentalists are selective in what parts of their
tradition and
> heritage they stress;
> 8. they are led by males;
> 9. they envy modernist cultural hegemony and try to overturn
the
> distribution of power.
>
> The Five ideological characteristics are:
>
> 1. fundamentalists are concerned "first" with the erosion of
religion
> and its proper role in society;
> 2. fundamentalism is selective of their tradition and what part
of
> modernity they accept or choose to react against;
> 3. they embrace some form of Manicheanism (dualism);
> 4. fundamentalists stress absolutism and inerrancy in their
sources
> of revelation; and
> 5. they opt for some form of Millennialism or Messianism.
>
> The organizational characteristics include:
>
> 1. an elect or chosen membership;
> 2. sharp group boundaries;
> 3. charismatic authoritarian leaders; and
> 4. mandated behavioral requirements.
>
> (source) http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/fund.html
>
> The label "fundamentalist" is considered derogatory by some.
Others
> have seized upon its definition to make the word their own in the
same
> sense that African American's have seized the word "nigger" and
made it
> their own. In my opinion, the definition of the a label is only
as
> useful as our understanding of its applicability to ourselves is.
> Generally, it is not beneficial to call a fundamentalist a
> fundamentalist. It only further hardens their position and
reinforces
> their sense of being under attack for attempting to preserve
traditional
> values from a by-gone era. What is most useful to me is to search
my
> own life and ferret out those aspects of myself that are
fundamentalist
> in nature. What am I a "fundamentalist" about? What god or beast
do I
> refuse to name anew, preferring instead to cling to the words and
labels
> of others? There is my work for this lifetime! Somewhere it is
written
> that we each must write our own Secret Doctrine. HPB is our
example for
> how to transcend the old forms by filling them anew with our own
> spiritual energy. I believe that the process of transcending the
labels
> and definitions of the past is the process of creating ourselves
anew,
> i.e. writing our secret doctrine with fresh spiritual insight
every
> moment that we breath. I am so far away from this ideal -- to far
away
> in fact to see with any clarity the spiritual condition of anyone
other
> than myself. So I think that I should focus upon my own
fundamentalism
> and try and understand the meaning of my own life. Einstein said,
To
> answer this question at all [What is the meaning of life] implies
a
> religion. (..) The man who regards his own life as meaningless is
not
> merely unfortunate but almost disqualified for life."
>
> peace,
>
> bill
>
>
> pedro oliveira wrote:
> >
> > Bill, greetings from Dreamtime.
> >
> > As I see the world engulfed once more in the nightmare of war
and its
> > ensuing atrocities and unceasing suffering, I feel theos-talk can
> > contribute to a saner perspective about it all by, for example,
> > inquiring into the following questions:
> >
> > What is fundamentalism? Where is its source? What nourishes it?
How
> > does it maintain its grip on the human mind and heart? Can it
ever end?
> >
> > I am not referring here specifically to 'theosophical'
fundamentalism
> > only, but fundametalism in itself. In a very enlightening
interview
> > in 'Parabola' (Winter 2005), Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr, one
of the
> > most distinguished Islamic scholars in the world today, suggests
that
> > the phenomeon of fundamentalism is basically a reaction to
modernism
> > as an ideology. In other words, the modern mind with its
emphasis on
> > intellect and reason, has tended to treat religion as a 'has
been', as
> > a mere romantic-emotional exercise. Therefore, those belonging to
> > traditional religious environments reacted, sometimes violently,
to
> > this perceived 'attack' of modernism on their religious
traditions.
> > Professor Nasr also points out that the fundamentalistic
response to
> > modernism did not come from the mystical dimension of those
> > traditions, but from the more theologically regimented of its
members.
> >
> > May we have your views on the above?
> >
> > Warm regards,
> >
> > Pedro
> >
> >
>
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application