Can a Woah-man! Serve on the UHJ?

Posted on by

I was talking to a friend recently about her volunteer work within the GLBT community and something she said caught my attention: “gender is so over!”.

Now that statement may seem ridiculous, especially when you consider that everything in our Western society demonstrates and magnifies the divide between the two sexes.

Boys are given toy trucks, girls? Barbies. Even if the politically correct parents of today have moved beyond such cliches, I’m willing to bet that they may have read books like, Men are from Mars, Women from Venus.

There are two sexes: men and women. But is it that clear cut?

Turns out… no.

Science is slowly beginning to come to grips with the question of gender and the discoveries are nothing short of astonishing. Whereas we once thought of the world divided between two halves, the new paradigm is one where there is a continuum.

intersex

Recently I stumbled on this article: We’re all intersex where Gerald N. Callahan, the author of Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of Two Sexes is interviewed about his research:

In between what we call the ideal biological male or ideal biological female, there’s a whole range of other possibilities that don’t differ from our basic preconceptions to the extent that we have names for them or call them a disorder. Just like with every other human trait, there are an infinite number of possibilities.

Of course this is nothing really new. There are other books, like Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach, from 1978 which expound more or less the same ideas.

We’ve all heard of ‘hermaphrodites’ – persons which have both sexes. By the way, recently, intersexuality has replaced the more familiar, hermaphrodite, as the word of choice within the medical field. In any case, all of this made me think of an uncomfortable question:

Of what significant is the limitation of women’s capacity to serve on the House of Justice when the very definition of ‘woman’ is not black and white?

Can an intersex person be eligible? what if a person has both sets of genitalia? and biologically is both man and woman?

Would that mean that they are eligible? or ineligible? or both?

Huh?

If the Baha’i Faith didn’t have the principle of the unity of religion and science, we could easily brush this off; just like a fundamentalist Christian decrying the fossil records as ‘Satan’s trickery’. But, as Baha’is we have an incredibly high standard which requires us to abide by scientific truths, just as much as religious truths. They are, after all, twin paths to the same truth (or is it Truth?).

I’m not sure if this question has already been asked of the Universal House of Justice. If anyone knows, drop me a note so I don’t have to bother them by asking again. I’ve looked around the internet and haven’t been able to find anything substantial but that doesn’t mean something of significance isn’t out there somewhere floating about.

The only things I’ve found are others over the years wondering the same question and one Baha’i blogger who wrote such a bigoted tripe of an ‘essay’ that it deserves to not even be dignified with detailed mention.

For those that are new to this topic, currently, membership to the Universal House of Justice is restricted to male adults. But there is some disagreement with others believing that there is a sound theological basis for both women and men being eligible for membership to this institution.

But if science shows that gender isn’t that clearly defined into two subsections, doesn’t that make all this a moot point? that is, rendered irrelevant?

Let me know what you think about all this. I’m sure someone out there knows much more about this than I do.

No related posts.

← Older Comments
  • farhan

    Alonso wrote: the future will prove it. Hopefully !
    Yes, alonso, the future will tell. Meanwhile, my hunch is that the quest for power is a sign of immaturity, and in the future, individual and social maturity will bring us to no longer seek the heavy responsibilities of leadership, and no one will consider gender reassignment so as to win membership to the UHJ. As we read in Aqdas notes 194:

    “One of the signs of the maturity of the world is that no one will accept to bear the weight of kingship. Kingship will remain with none willing to bear alone its weight. That day will be the day whereon wisdom will be manifested among mankind.”

  • Grover

    “especially because you have unknowingly and mistakenly incorporated one of its principles–constructionism–into naturalism, despite their incompatibility.”

    Like I said, I don't understand postmodernism well :) (Thanks for the reference, I'll check it out), and maybe because of the limited understanding I don't see an incompatibility between naturalism and constructivism.

    For example, say if you've done a whole bunch of experiments investigating a chemical reaction, you have a lot of data, and done many replicates so you know exactly what happens under different conditions. This is naturalism and positivism in action when you do the experiments and report the results (using the language and jargon, and tools to present those results commonly used by fellow scientists – socially constructed over time I might add). Where I see constructivism come in is where you try to understand that reaction further by creating some mathematical models to represent the reaction. Often times there are more than one model that work well for the reaction. This is usually because we don't have the tools to analyse the reaction in great detail (limitations in current technology), so we don't understand precisely what goes on, so we make educated guesses, assumptions or approximations. If we did have the tools to understand the reaction precisely then it would be 100% positivism because there could be no other explanation for it. But because we don't there are a range of explanations or approximations that do the job in the meantime – which one you choose depends on the circumstances and preference.

    Another example in chemistry is the two models used to understand covalent bonding between atoms: the octet rule and orbital theory (which actually describes regions where electrons are likely to be around an atom). Both work well, orbital theory is better, but most students use the octet rule because its easy to remember. We're using a human construction to understand and predict what happens in reality. The model may not represent what actually happens at all but because it has predictive value and its easy to remember we use it.

    Regarding the mind “Clearly, mind is part of body in the natural world. If the body of the mind–the central nervous system–is affected, the mind is affected. ” Perhaps, or could the brain and central nervous system be a tool for projecting from and reporting to our “mind” which actually lies elsewhere? Do we just assume our mind is in our brain because thats where we feel our thinking takes place, like we assume our spirit or soul is in our heart or chest because that is where we feel emotion? From a strict scientific point of view, we have to assume it is in our body because thats all we can physically observe and measure at this point in time. But maybe in the future in a Lovecraftian way, someone might be able to create something that can be used to analyse the soul or spirit if it does exist? Just some thoughts…

  • Grover

    Farhan – again you're trotting out the “immaturity” line…

    Some people want “power” because they believe they can actually do something to fix whatever they think might be wrong with society e.g. Barak Obama – have you ever thought about that? Not all people want “power” just for prestige and fame. “Power” is a doubled edged sword, with it comes greater consequences and infamy if you foul things up. Have you ever thought about that? No probably not. Take Hitler for example – he got power, temporarily, and then the world crapped all over him after he slaughtered a whole lot of people and he shot himself. I would have loved to have been there when he was asking St Peter to let him in through heaven's gates. “Nah sorry mate – down to hell with you!” Take Peter Khan – our beloved stone faced fundamentalist Auzzie mate from hisbollah on the UHJ – do you think he is using his position appropriately? Well I know what you would say – but hands up everyone else who thinks he's off his rocker. Have you ever thought about that? No definitely not.

  • farhan

    Pey wrote : I just want everyone to know that YES humble devout Farhan DOES indeed insult in the most subtle of ways. :o )

    Pey, if your aim to discredit Farhan, readers of this blog will make up their minds for themselves. If you wish to exchange views, by reading my message carefully you will notice that I was pointing out to your own complaint about “aberou” which boils down to comparing ourselves to others and not to our ideal. Yes, I do believe that all religions are means for spiritual education for us all, me included amongst God’s children. I do believe that what imports, is the spiritual benefit we derive from this education and not the marks we get on our reports and which school children might compare to that of others. These marks are necessary for the educational structure to function, and we might even get excluded from a school if we are misjudged, but what I am saying is that how others might judge us is less important than the educational benefit we are getting from God’s revelation. What I am saying is that as painful as it might be, how others consider us is less important than how we relate to our own true self, which is the same as our relation with our creator. An essential aspect of our spiritual journey is becoming detached from what others might think or say of us, as Baha’u’llah points out:

    “..man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” (Iqan p 2) Or again:

    “Be of them whom the tumult of the world, however much it may agitate them in the path of their Creator, can never sadden, whose purpose the blame of the blamer will never defeat.” (Gleanings CXXIX)

    Again, this has nothing to do with the rules and regulations necessary for the organizing of community life;

  • davids1

    You raise a number of good points I would like to discuss in greater detail, but this discussion is not relevant to the topic here. Could we continue this off-list by email? This way I could also send you relevant readings.

  • farhan

    Pey wrote: Get out of your safe zone of ruhi classes and the norm and do something a little different.

    Pey, as I have said before, having often lived as an isolated Baha'i, I have spent much more time outside Baha'i activities than inside, and far more time the last two years on Baha'i Rants, trying to understand the problems you might be facing and providing my views than in Ruhi classes or whatever activity you might describe as “safe zone”.

    You continually draw the distinction between “fundies”, “mainstream” etc, which is understandable given the problems you have faced, but I have no idea who is a Baha'i, non-Baha'i or ex-Baha'i here, nor am I trying to guess.

    Contrary to you, I try to understand views different from mine and share my views with them, trying to evaluate ideas and not persons holding them and do not interpret ideas different from mine as personal attacks or “subtle insults” on a “us” vs “them” basis.

    I will immediately cease posting here if this blog is reserved for people unlike me or if Baquia invites me to stop so as to give more time to what you call “safe zone” activities.

    I don’t see how the link you provide is relevant to the subject of gender and service on the UHJ. Perhaps you might like to explain.

  • Grover

    Sure – but I'm not willing to put up my email on an open blog like this.

    Baquia – whats the best way to exchange emails?

  • pey

    “Craig wrote: Long time Baha'is no matter how long the served on Local Spiritual Assemblies trying to advance the Faith in society can now be thrown out of the Baha'i Faith at ANY TIME for ANY REASON for “thought crimes” with no rights or due process or formal court”

    Farhan said: “Craig, I have never seen this from any community in all my life as a Baha'i, “

    I suggest again Farhan that you look at my link, start discussing topics like in that link in your community and get out of your Ruhi safe zone. Then come back and tell me if you and your community (like the Los Angeles community) will not get that dreaded call from the powers that be in the Bahai AO. It's not relevant to the topic at hand, but most of your responses never really either. :o ) Just more flowery talk to show a facade of the Bahai community that is not true. Oh well… you are right the readers can decide for themselves. Cheers!

  • farhan

    Pey wrote: I suggest again Farhan that you look at my link, start discussing topics like in that link in your community and get out of your Ruhi safe zone.

    Pey, I looked at your link and the subjects are certainly interesting for Baha’i studies sessions in which I participate regularly, but not the kind of activity that our community needs urgently at this time.
    There is an appropriate time for everything. Doing the right thing at the wrong time or not dispatching our time appropriately to each priority can have disastrous effects. It would be like a fire-man drawing attention to deficient paintwork on a fire engine during a catastrophe instead of participating in saving the victims. At this time in the history of humanity we are in dire need for reconciliation, harmony and collaboration. If we introduce a red herring for the purpose of establishing our own intellectual transcendence instead of focalising our efforts to urgent issues, we are disabling our common efforts. At this time Ruhi activities are by no means a “safe zone” and take a minor part of my time because of my present activities and isolation which will hopefully change in the near future. However, I firmly believe that Institute activities are a vital and urgent part of our efforts towards community building, but in no way the only activities needed.

    As to how fire men who draw attention to paintwork on fire engines during a catastrophe are treated in the US community, all I can say that I have never seen such a thing in my community and I cannot judge what happens in another community.

  • farhan

    Pey wrote : I suggest again Farhan that you look at my link

    Pey I did look at your link; the documents are difficult to read on my screen and date back to 1976. I certainly would not like to bring up a stale subject with people who are not interested, but I would be happy to discuss these issues in Baha’i Studies or on a relevant thread.

    My contribution to the present thread has been very clear and to the point: Yes gender is not always clearly established between “male” and “female”, the vast majority of societies do attribute one gender or another and have never yet made a special status for ambiguous genders, the UHJ complies with whatever gender science and society attributes to a person.

    I also believe that for the present time we are power oriented because we have learnt that this is the way to survive in a hostile society. In time when society will be more mature, we will become service oriented, more concerned with “taarof” than with “aberou” and no one would envy those serving on the UHJ to the point of requesting gender reassignment in order to enact their dreams for leadership.

    As usual, when my responses contradict other opinions, I get comments on my personal life or someone comes up with an entirely different subject like how the AO reacted in LA to someone 33 years ago.

  • fubar

    O.M.G. – davids1: you are unwilling to relate a basic definition (available on wikipedia) of postmodernism to the subject of this blog post?!?!? Un-freaking-believable! more arrogant “bs” and deception/secrecy.

    The postmodern influence in bahai culture will clearly not tolerate the kind of absurd “sexism” that the whole issue of the exclusion of women (defined in conventional or postmodern terms) from member on the UHJ represents.

    the “fickle finger of fate” clearly had bahai in the cross-hairs of oblivion when the UHJ was first formed, and shortly after that a large expansion of bahai membership took place in the USA that was significantly composed of people with postmodern tendencies.

    side note: again, I protest your arrogant, pathological posts that are full of lies and distortions, and appear to be perfect examples of Jungian “projection/transference” (shadow). get a therapist.

    Integralism requires scepticism. It is “so sceptical” that it is “sceptical of scepticism”. (joke)

    Wilber is an industry.

    Anti-Wilber is the corresponding industry. The Anti-Wilbereans are usually (but not always) boring, narrow, and unwilling to attempt to come down from their ivory towers long enough to
    apply philosophy/transcendence to social problems or relate it to “popular culture”. Many of them are sad that they never got to go to one of Wilber's naked pool parties, or other similar post-counterculture gatherings, and are simply being pissy little nit-pickers. This can be largely explained by basic primate (monkey) behavior, and the need that some snob-academics have to be “dominant” and “smarter” (“pricks”).

    Wilber will be far more successful/influential, and more widely read, than most “narrow” philosophers that are too cowardly to apply their philosophy to problems of injustice, “popular culture”, “paradigm regression”, etc. (or for that matter – the bahai dads)

    Is that good? bad? irrelevant?

    Answer: it depends on your PERSPECTIVE.

    Some “pricks” in academia make a living terrorizing students and anyone else that they can because they are jealous of people that are actually brave enough to try to change the world on a significant scale.

    —

    anyways ….. postmodernism is all about pluralism/relativism (which can only exist in post-industrial cultures: “information cultures”.)

    After WWII, the USA (similar for europe) moved from a society where most people worked on farms or in factories to one in which most people worked in offices.

    This economic shift had a profound impact on culture, which made a corresponding shift – away from premodernism (farm) and modernism (factory) toward postmodernism (office).

    As the absolutes of pre/modern life were cast aside (1st by beatniks, hippies), pluralism/relativism become increasingly possible, then was integrated into the mainstream – via the counterculture, arts, academia, mass media, etc.

    Grover – google “sokal affair” for a good description of the “real world” problem of postmodernism (lit. crit./deconstructionism) and science – as it relates to the “culture wars” – attacks by the academic far left/feminism/socialism on the “culturally constructed nature” of science. Deconstructionist postmodernists basically think that “science” is an instrument of “european racist/imperialist/capitalist phallocentric culture”. blah blah blah. lots of pure manoora.

    Note: the “good” part of postmodernism is that it rejects the “absolutes” of modernism (the idea that male/european industrial/capitalist civilization is “superior”, and is the ultimate form of culture, etc.).

    the “bad” part of postmodernism, in its “paradigm regressive” form (Gebser) is that it attempts to state that “there are no absolutes” – as an absolute!

    YES, IT REALLY IS THAT SILLY.

    the postmodern (pluralist/relativist) basis of stating that “there are no absolutes” is that since all “reality” is “culturally constructed”, everything is “local” and can not be considered “universal”. absolutes/universals are vestiges of “imperialist projects”.

    zzzzzzzz.

    Again, read Albanese on the “dominant” (non-metaphysical) forms of religious culture in the usa, and how they have been ***ignored by the mainstream***.

    If you have access to the material, the following article contains a (simpatico) “academic” analysis of Wilber and some similiar theorists:

    Isenberg, S., and Thursby, G. (1984-6). Esoteric Anthropology: “Devolutionary” and “Evolutionary” Orientations in Perennial Philosophy. Religious Traditions, 7(9), 177-226.

    (note: no online “www” version exists anymore)

    Or:

    http://integral-review.org/current_issue/docume…

    Alternate URL:

    http://66.102.1.104/scholar?q=cache:0PvLSkyiH6s…

    Described at:
    http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=260488

    Title: The Evolution of Consciousness as a Planetary Imperative:An Integration of Integral Views
    Author: Jennifer Gidley

    Abstract: In this article I aim to broaden and deepen the evolution of consciousness discourse by integrating the integral theoretic narratives of Rudolf Steiner, Jean Gebser,and Ken Wilber, who each point to the emergence of new ways of thinking that could address the complex, critical challenges of our planetary moment. I undertake a widescan of the evolution discourse, noting it is dominantly limited to biology-based notions of human origins that are grounded in scientific materialism. I then broaden the discourseby introducing integral evolutionary theories using a transdisciplinary epistemology to work between, across and beyond diverse disciplines. I note the conceptual breadth ofWilber's integral evolutionary narrative in transcending both scientism and epistemological isolationism. I also draw attention to some limitations of Wilber’sintegral project, notably his undervaluing of Gebser's actual text, and the substantial omission of the pioneering contribution of Steiner, who, as early as 1904 wrote extensively about the evolution of consciousness, including the imminent emergence of a new stage. I enact a deepening of integral evolutionary theory by honoring the significant yet undervalued theoretic components of participation/enactment and aesthetics/artistry via Steiner and Gebser, as a complement to Wilber. To this end, I undertake an in-depth hermeneutic dialogue between their writings utilizing theoretic bricolage, a multi-mode methodology that weaves between and within diverse and overlapping perspectives. The hermeneutic methodology emphasizes interpretive textual analysis with the aim of deepening understanding of the individual works and the relationships among them. This analysis is embedded in an epic but pluralistic narrative that spans the entire human story through various previous movements of consciousness, arriving at a new emergence at the present time. I also discuss the relationship between these narratives and contemporary academic literature, culminating in a substantial consideration of research that identifies and/or enacts new stage(s) or movements of consciousness. In particular, I highlight the extensive adult developmental psychology research that identifies several stages of postformal thinking, and recent critical, ecological and philosophical literature that identifies an emerging planetary consciousness. In summary, my research reveals an interpretation of scientific and other evidence that points beyond the formal, modernist worldview to an emerging postformal-integral-planetary consciousness. I posit that a broader academic consideration of such an integration of integral theoretic narratives could potentially broaden the general evolution discourse beyond its current biological bias. The article concludes with a rewinding of narrative threads, reflecting on the narrators, the journey, and the language of the discourse. Appendixes A and B explore the theoretical implications of the emergence of postformal-integral-planetary consciousness for a reframing of modernist conceptions of time and space. Appendix C holds an aesthetic lens to the evolution of consciousness through examples from the genealogy of writing.
    Journal: Integral Review
    Issn: 15533069
    EIssn:
    Year: 2007
    Volume:
    Issue: 5
    pages/rec.No: 4-226

    ——–

    I'm off to oregon tomorrow on vacation, will be back at the end of the week.

  • fubar

    more silly bs.

    there is no “context” required to understand a statement about “human history” and how the “establishment” form of academic culture is hostile to innovation (or outside scrutiny).

    anyone familiar with basic organizational theory (people in academia are “smart lemmings”and vicious conformists), or primate behavior, or how tribal culture works, understands the real “context”:

    you are simply unwilling to get off your high horse, and are full of appalling snob attitude and lies/deception/attacks.

    you have failed, so far, to state some very basic information that people want clarified:

    1) are you a bahai, and if so, how long, etc.

    1a) if bahai – do you actually believe something as stoopid as that “progressive relevation” (as taken at face value) explains human social development
    /progress/evolution?

    2) do you have a position (of any kind) in the AO? did you help the AO attack Cole/Lee/Dialog/Kalimat/talisman? if not, did you protest the AO's attacks on nonconformists, critics, dissidents? if not, why?

    3) in simple, HONEST terms, why do you hate Wilber?

    4) did the owner of this blog solicit your participation? if so, for what purpose?

    5) did someone else request your participation? if so, who/why?

    please – no more lies/attacks, just the truth.

    —

    note: a “good” answer to #3 could include admitting that Wilber is loved by far more people than you are. (which may simply make him a “ho”.)

  • fubar

    invitations are presumably issued by the senators on the committee, or at least the leaders.

    fwiw ~ Ronald Reagan introduced greed into the medical system in the USA. at the time, the intentions were at least partly honorable: free market
    “competition” was thought to be a driver of “more efficiency”.

    of course that was a stupid idea, and now “those bastards on wall street” (Richard Nixon) are running the system into the ground in order to maintain profits and inflated stock valuations.

    Obama's “socialist” solution will also create corruption (unions, etc.), just not corruption by wall street b*stards.

  • fubar

    re: “Fourth” …

    LOL! thanksfor the chuckle.

    so, bahai leadership doesn't know what it is talking about, and one has to go outside bahai to understand developments in culture (or, as you say “historical and philosophical” issues).

    I could not agree more.

    thanks for confirming that bahai is run by incompetent bureaucrats, and has few competent scholars, at least ones willing to stand up against the thought police in the AO and local communities.

    so, what next?

    Is MEANINGFUL, REAL “reform” possible in bahai? if so, how?

    (can any such reform be sustained given the dominant cultural imperialism, outmoded metaphysics and pervasive paradigm regression in bahai culture?)

  • fubar

    if I understand it correctly, this sounds kinda like cr*p:

    davids1 said:
    “Scientists perform experiments to determine structure and understand processes, not to make or
    construct knowledge that subjectively varies from researcher to researcher. “

    please explain how a completely-perfectly unitary perception of scientific structure/process would be possible – as a general proposition.

    example 1: an experiment seeks to measure/confirm the speed of light.

    example 2: an experiment seeks to measure/confirm how butterflies and milkweed co-evolved.

    example 3: an experiment seeks to measure/confirm that human (or other) brain scans can measure the “experience” of heightened spirituality (e.g., during prayer/meditation)

    (feel free to use better examples)

    —

    who would decide what the “one truth above all” consisted of?

    how would they come to power?

    what would happen if they used their power for evil purposes (to suppress dissident)?

    in general, why is having variations in perspective bad?

    is postmodernism, pluralism, relativism all bad, or is it just that it has come to be characterized by regressive forms that are so extreme that all other types of variation in perception of “science” have to be banned to avoid the evil excesses of postmodernism?

    !!!TIA!!!

  • Grover

    Hi Fubar,

    Sorry to be an apologist but if you took a look at my reply to David you would see some sort of an answer to your question:

    “in general, why is having variations in perspective bad? is postmodernism, pluralism, relativism all bad, or is it just that it has come to be characterized by regressive forms that are so extreme that all other types of variation in perception of “science” have to be banned to avoid the evil excesses of postmodernism?”

    My argument was that variation in scientific explanation about a specific system arises due to limited knowledge about that system. This is due to limitations in technology and current understanding available to analyse that system. Variations in perspective isn't bad – its good (unless you're a crackpot who proposes theories without any kind of logic or rationale) – it gives students and researchers theories to test. As more information becomes available, the range of explanations get narrowed down and refined. i.e you go from a “constructivist” type of understanding to a “positivist” type. Another way of looking at it is as the system becomes more defined, the degrees of freedom in explanation decrease. Its pretty much how science progresses. A new field in science is opened, a plethora of explanations are proposed, a bunch of students get stuck in and do the donkey work testing the theories while the professors have tea and biscuits, and eventually, 100 or so years later, you have a pretty good theory. Sometimes you have a quantum leap in understanding because someone has a unique insight that allows a whole arena of science to be opened – e.g. Einstein, Schrodinger and so on.

    “who would decide what the “one truth above all” consisted of?”

    Its the “truth” that works best in describing a system and predicting what happens under different conditions. If it doesn't work, then you have some bright spark writing a paper bitching about it and proposing a new theory or “truth”. Most times certain explanations only work under certain circumstances and the grand unified theory has always remained elusive.

    The fact that all theories in science are not sacrosanct (well except to the one who proposed the theory in the first place and wrote 100 publications on it) in my mind raises science above religion. In my mind, science is more infallible than any religion precisely because it doesn't pretend to be infallible (By the way I'm a science teacher so naturally I'm blinkered lol).

  • davids1

    Historical context refers to when and where–the original time and place–from which the James excerpt was taken. The sentence you quoted was not complete, while ignoring James' other positive remarks about academia:

    “Facts are there only for those who have a mental affinity with them. When once they are indisputably ascertained and admitted, the academic and critical minds are by far the best fitted ones to interpret and discuss them,–for surely to pass from mystical to scientific speculations is like passing from lunacy to sanity; but on the other hand if there is anything which human history demonstrates, it is the extreme slowness with which the ordinary academic and critical mind acknowledges facts to exist which present themselves as wild facts, with no stall or pigeon-hole, or as facts which threaten to break up the accepted system. In psychology, physiology, and medicine, wherever a debate between the mystics and the scientifics has been once for all decided, it is the mystics who have usually proved to be right about the _facts_, while the scientifics had the better of it in respect to the theories. The most recent and flagrant example of this is 'animal magnetism,' whose facts were stoutly dismissed as a pack of lies by academic medical science the world over, until the non-mystical theory of 'hypnotic suggestion' was found for them,–when they were admitted to be so excessively and dangerously common that special penal laws, forsooth, must be passed to keep all persons unequipped with medical diplomas from taking part in their production. Just so stigmatizations, invulnerabilities, instantaneous cures, inspired discourses, and demoniacal possessions, the records of which were shelved in our libraries but yesterday in the alcove headed 'superstitions,' now, under the brand-new title of 'cases of hystero-epilepsy,' are republished, reobserved, and reported with an even too credulous avidity.

    Repugnant as the mystical style of philosophizing maybe (especially when self-complacent), there is no sort of doubt that it goes with a gift for meeting with certain kinds of phenomenal experience. The writer of these pages has been forced in the past few years to this admission; and he now believes that he who will pay attention to facts of the sort dear to mystics, while reflecting upon them in academic-scientific ways, will be in the best possible position to help philosophy. It is a circumstance of good augury that certain scientifically trained minds in all countries seem drifting to the same conclusion.”

    I criticized Wilber's conceptions about history and science, which have been discredited for decades and his shallow, New Age popular philosophy, neither of which is equivalent to hating him. Nobody solicited my participation. Baha'i is an interesting case study.

  • davids1

    You can simply create an anonymous email account. Feel free to contact me after you have created one. notabeneloq[at]live[dot]com

  • davids1

    Reform from a religion similar to Shi'a?

  • Grover

    I've sent you an email.

  • johnbrowne

    I didn’t mean to insult you all, but seriously guys, you so need to get away from each other. Your replies are dripping with anger from immature egos.
    I am not a great bahai. Haven’t attended a bahai thing in my local area in years. Virtually all my friends are non bahais.
    But I do hope and pray that people that are more involved with the bahai faith, never let people like you lot take over the cause of God, because you would so seriously wreck it.
    My visit with native americans awaken in me the need to totally distance myself from the ego driven, which blogs and chat on the net has a good share of. Good luck guys. We all have our problem, and ways of dealing with them.I will leave you to your method, and keep to my own ways, and the good friends I have. We aren’t kindred spirits, and are on totally different paths.

  • pey

    Yes you did mean to insult us, so don't apologize. Just like saying that people “like us” would so seriously wreck the cause of God. More pompous insults on your part. You should become active again because you understand the modus operandi inside the Bahai community really well, that is subtly insult someone but keep a facade of humility and detachment. You are a bogus person and definitely not my kindred spirit. I like honest people, not flat out liers. Cheers!

  • Craig Parke

    Good luck on your path!

  • farhan

    Baquia, after the controversy about the gender of the SA athlete, Caster Semenya, I wondered if you feel that we should do away with gender in sports as well.

  • Baquia

    Interesting article about a recent brouhaha in the sporting arena. >Is a Female Track Star a Man?

  • Baquia

    Interesting article about a recent brouhaha in the sporting arena. Is a Female Track Star a Man?

  • rhapsodist

    Hey John, I'd like to talk to you. I'm pioneering in Russia right now, and expect to be here for about 4-5 years. For a long time I disassociated myself with Baha'i life and it was only following the conferences a year ago that I strove to live a life increasingly more in line with the qualities edified in the Writings, and it was at that time I arose to serve the Cause.

    That you visit with the native americans fascinates me. I've always been attracted to the culture, the spiritual philosophy, and the history. And it would be lovely to discuss and share experiences with eachother.

    My email is rhapsodistnine@gmail.com

  • Pingback: Universal House of Justice: Results of By-Election | Baha'i Rants

  • Baquia

    Stephen, Welcome to the internets: please don’t cut/paste long text when you can just submit a link that contains that text.

  • http://www.justabahai.wordpress.com sonjavank

    thanks B,
    I agree, I found Stephen’s essay on their website easier to read.

    I assume he wrote it, although the website gives the impression that this essay is some sort of offical document.
    Perhaps is it for this group calling themselves the “offical U.H.J.”, and because of this indirectness or lack of clarity, it has made me suspicious.

    Many of the arguments about ‘rigal’ and the service of women are stated in this 1988 paper,
    http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/docs/vol3/wmnuhj.htm
    which sticks to reliable sources (some of Stephen’s references are not, of course I’m not suggesting that makes the argument wrong, just that I would like it if I was directed to a paper that did stick to only using sources that were certainly what Baha’u'llah or ‘Abdul-Baha expressed).

    However the essay is also filled with the author’s interpretations about Shoghi Effendi’s motives and then 3/4 of the way through this essay is a reference to a true or appointed U.J.H. made in 1991 and then I realised that the point of the essay was not to discuss the issue of the membership of women on the U.H.J., but is promotion for a splinter group which have their own committee calling themselves the ‘official U.H.J.’.
    Now I thought, why write such a very long essay, full of various arguments, some good, some I would research before I would dismiss, except as an exercise in deception.

    Not a very good way to promote the idea of equality in my view.

  • Anonymous

    Interesting developments from Australia:

    “The changes mean Australians can identify their sex of choice and select
    Male, Female or X. The ‘X’ choice is available to intersex Australians.”

    So legally there is no longer a binary distinction when it comes to gender in Australia. This is exactly the point made above which in turn renders the whole issue of male/female permitted/restricted membership moot.

  • Baquia

    Canada to follow Australia’s lead on gender ID on passports: genderless passports under review in Canada

  • Pingback: Pathology of Homosexuality | Baha'i Rants

  • Justice

     This is great news – that humanity is moving into Wholeness – still one wonders how the BF will deal with people and uhj elections in regards to genderless people?

← Older Comments