Theos-Talk Archives (August 2006 Message tt00147)

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
>
>