Neysan Zoelzer-Mehrabkhani, a Baha’i from Germany has created a Baha’i search engine (through Google Co-Op) named Majnún.
Regular Google search already does a great job of providing information, Baha’i related or otherwise.
So why do we need this service? Well, as Neysan’s site explains, Majnún:
Searches approved Baha’i-related websites only…
Searches approved Baha’i-related blogs only.
Searches approved Baha’i Book Stores only.
You may ask, “approved”? Approved by whom, exactly?
Well it seems by “Majnún editors”. Whoever they may be.
The site then goes on to quote from Baha’u'llah’s mystical work, The Seven Valleys to explain the inspiration behind the name of the site (please read carefully):
It is related that one day they came upon Majnún sifting the dust, and his tears flowing down. They said, ‘What doest thou?’ He said, ‘I seek for Layla.’ They cried, ‘Alas for thee! Layla is of pure spirit, and thou seekest her in the dust!’ He said, ‘I seek her everywhere that some editors have pre-approved for me; haply somewhere within those limits I shall find her.’ Yea, although to the wise it be shameful to seek the Lord of Lords in the dust, yet this betokeneth intense ardor in searching. ‘Whoso seeketh out a thing among pre-approved websites with zeal shall find it.’
ok, that was tongue-in-cheek (for those that are bereft of a sense of humor). But I hope you get my drift.
Among the most powerful animating principles of the Baha’i Faith is the unfettered individual investigation of truth.
It is truly sad that some Baha’is do not understand this fundamental feature of their Faith and through ignorance of it, do things like this.
If history teaches us anything, it is that anyone who has ever attempted to “fetter” information in any way, has failed most spectacularly.
Absolutely amazing!
Is there anybody left in the free falling Baha’i Faith that is a student of history?
Anyone in history who has ever tried to limit free inquiry and free access to ideas has gone to TOTAL COMPLETE COSMIC DESTRUCTION IN HISTORY!
And “INDEPENDENT investigation of truth” is an ACTUAL TEACHING of the Faith according to Abdu’l-Baha!
Go figure?
In the name of all that is Sacred and Holy, what in the world has happened to the current version of the Baha’i Faith?
In the history of American film there have been many profound and very well crafted “deep structure” messages about the passage of World Ages and the coming of a Divine Teacher.
Some were about as literally in your face as a film could get. See the last two minutes of “The Best Years of Our Lives” (Academy Award 1946). Duh! There were a lot of Baha’is in the Hollywood film community in the 1940’s.
Study the famous “Bingo Scene” in “The Deer Hunter” (MCA-Universal 1978). This tour de force film uses every device possible from Christian Scripture to tell an allegory of the Second Coming of Christ based upon Danial 12:1-4. It was the fruit of the anguish of the 12 year ordeal of the Vietnam War. Completely of the heads of the American Baha’i community. A beautiful allegory of the Two Advents. And wow did they have the “Linko Hall” down!
Study the meaning of the railroad tracks in the wonderful film “O Brother Where Art Thou?” Study the ending (Isaiah 4:1) Since it is the tale of Ulysses set to Depression Era America, it is about the classic spiritual states of the ascent of the human soul in the passage between World Ages.
The Cyclops is the Chief Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees at the turn of EVERY World Age whose spirituality brutality robs the people of their right to Divine insight knowledge. John Goodman was just great as the “Bible salesman” beneath the “old tree”. Duh! Taking that roll of dollars have the “Man of Constant Sorrow” of the Soggy Bottom Boys hit record.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OF5OtSO3j6I
I just loved the symbol of the sheriff (the Devil in the Zoroastrian sense) speaking to the Soggy Bottom Boys when they try to protest being executed by telling him “we was on the radio” and the Devil says “we ain’t got no radio”. Brilliant Cosmic dialog! Absolutely first rate use of feature film to have some darn good fun completely over the heads of everyone!
But despite the beautiful representations in film in the past of these once very advanced and refined ideas, on some Cosmic level here is where the new hijacked Administrative Order of the Baha’i Faith might be symbolized in American film right now.
I went to see the film “Cloverfield” yesterday. (It will be a huge success.) The monster just about says it all on where the Administrative Order of my once beloved Faith is coming from now.
An apparatus of total mind bending massive destruction.
http://www.cloverfieldmovie.com/?gclid=CM6Mu56WhpECFQFxHgodoht0-Q
Why is this even an issue?! The Bahá’í Faith itself explicitly promotes dogmatism. Don’t you get it? “Investigation of the truth” is just a ruse. In reality, it is only something “seekers” are expected to do. Do you want to be counted among the merely seeking, or have you found the truth?
Check it out, dogmatism is more celebrated than investigation of truth in the Bahá’í Faith:
So, really. What is the problem? Once you become a Bahá’í, your goal is to preserve your faith at all costs. After all, if Bahá’u'lláh is right, then the cost of letting your faith slip is immeasurable! Neysan Zoelzer-Mehrabkhani seems to be more in line with the real teachings of the Bahá’í Faith than any of us.
I always thought that one of the “dogmas” of the Baha’i Faith was that we were not supposed to have any, well, “dogmas” in the Baha’i Faith…
Go figure!
Is anyone getting this?
To me it is actually a kind of mathematical thing like solving a simultaneous equation only in a Sufi general transcendent consciousness in daily life sort of way.
If you get to that level of consciousness you don’t need any “dogmas”. Dogma is for very weak people who exist in a sort of very cowardly, very weak, short term sissy consciousness.
I always thought Baha’u'llah’s tougher statements were really against the arrogant entrenched broomstickified clergy of both Shia and Sunni Islam. there seems to be alot of that still going on these days. And not just in Shia and Sunni Islam either…
Well, if only the people in the top down Administrative Order of the Baha’i Faith are permitted to think for themselves for the next 1,000 years on Earth, can anyone from the UHJ or the ITC Faith Apparatus Community (ITCFAC) reading this post please explain to me these TWO BELOW SCIENTIFIC PAPERS in terms of the Writings of Baha’u'llah or for that matter… the Writings of anyone?
We need some independent thought here.
We need some independent investigation of truth.
Please post your “dogma” derived insights from the Baha’i Writings here on BR regarding the ideas set forth in these two (gasp) “scientific” papers.
I need some help especially on the math. I need some help with this math for a film script I am writing.
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf
http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf
I am sure all of the top people in the Baha’i Faith are up to speed on these ideas and their encyclopedic knowledge of the Writings can help me.
Please. Operators are standing by. Please post your insights. Especially now that none of us little people can engage in the independent investigation of truth ourselves.
Please explain the math.
I think, Baquia, you largely miss the point of Neysan’s search engine. The idea is not to avoid challenging material, but to make searches easier so the user does not have to weed through so much information that clearly is unrelated to their search. I’ll assume it was unintended, but in your post you pasted part of Neysan’s description of the search engine, but left out his rationale for creating it which is:
“I was always unsatisfied, having to search various Bahai websites to find the content I needed. Google always mixed in unnecessary and irrelevant results.”
The unfettered investigation of truth doesn’t require me to be unsystematic or inefficient in my quest for knowledge. It certainly doesn’t require me to try to navigate through 100s of millions of web pages, like Google does, to find information I know can only possibly be on a small fraction of them. I don’t pretend that the issue of figuring out what to include and exclude in a specialized search engine isn’t problematic, but the point of Neysan’s engine is really about avoiding false hits. Searching on Google is like trying to find something in a sea. Majnun (and the others like it) help cut down on the irrelevant so its more like searching in a lake. Almost all of the irrelevant being cut out has absolutely nothing to do with the Faith, good or bad. Thousands of people have created Google custom search engines to help make specific kinds of searches easier and more efficient.
Here is one that lets you search through environmentally conscious websites
http://www.greenmaven.com
Or information for small businesses
http://jumpup.intuit.com/
Or Macintosh related websites
http://www.macworld.com
Like Majnun, these are about helping to make finding relevant information easier. Neysan isn’t stifling independent investigation of truth anymore than these other sites.
Hi David
The problem with your comment is pretty obvious–the search is only of what is pre-approved sites. The whole idea behind Majnun does not seem to be simply improving the process of search for Bahai related material (which, as you indicate, might be a good idea), but a restriction of the search for Bahai related material to a pre-approved list of sites.
The goal is to eliminate material that someone, somewhere, doesn’t like. You simply can’t fit that into Bahai ideals if those ideals are based on the writings of Baha’u'llah.
Cheers, Randy
With all due respect Baquia, Mavaddat is 100% right.
I’m tired of people whining about the AO and the dogmatic ways of many Bahais. These people have not perverted or distorted the religion in any way; in fact, they’re being completely FAITHFUL to it!
Behind the Bahai Faith’s veneer of progressive, intellectual open-mindedness is a rigid, dogmatic belief-system as flawed as any other religious system - and it’s rooted in the its scripture!
This whole “independent investigation of truth” nonsense is a great marketing tool for public presentation, and looks great on a brochure, but each central figure, as well as the UHJ, contradict and undermine it, as illustrated by Mavaddat’s small sample of quotes. Sure, we can start getting into apolgetics here, and say, well Baha’u'llah spoke in different voices and to different audiences and..blah blah blah…I tried that historicist angle myself, but it’s just another strained mental contortion. And besides, we don’t even have enough reliable historical material on the Faith to take that route, unless you consider Taherzadeh and et al’s unapologetically biased haggiographies as historical documentation.
The Bahai Faith can cause a great deal of cognitive dissonance, and I’m glad to be done with it.
It’s not the AO people, it’s the RELIGION itself!
Craig, do you really want someone to explain the mathematics behind quantum mechanics and Einstein’s general relativity to you on this blog? I would guess not, but if you’re interested, I can give you an idea of the university classes you would need to take in order to understand the background to the papers you posted.
Amen!
They are. Bahá’u'lláh intended to free society from the binding dogmas of Islamic fundamentalism… so that he could introduce his own equally binding dogmas. Until we all start demanding reasons for their beliefs (rather than mere believing as a kind of homage or thanks to their favourite prophet), we implicitly demand to be constrained and controlled by whatever arbitrary power comes along next. In short, the cycle of dogma renewal ensures that we will need “progressive revelation” for thousands of years to come.
Oh Baquia, we don’t want to be those people that want to see God with their own eyes or hear his melody with their own ears. Because we have been given the gift of being able to see through the eyes of Majnun and listen through the ears of Majnun.
No I am not. I am being sarcastic. I am trying to make the point that if you (rhetorical “you”) are a rabid dogmatist in the Baha’i Writings and/or you have turned your soul over to nine men in Haifa or the local BAO TO TOTALLY RUN YOUR LIFE AND DO ALL OF YOUR THINKING FOR YOU IN LIFE, you are not going to be much help on the cutting edge of thinking about ANYTHING in your lifetime!
I myself REFUSE to turn my mind or my soul over to anyone else. I will study the teachings of everyone who has ever lived on Earth, including Lord Baha’u'llah. But I am Lord of my God Given mind and my soul.
I am saying that if people think they are smarter because they have dominant dogmatic insight on everything on Earth from their hand-me-down thought system, then explain to me the math in D. Hotson’s two very insightful papers on his new theory of the Dirac Sea off the top of their dogmatic head. I say they can’t do it because they can’t think nor study anything with that foundation.
I actually am doing pretty good on the math by reading these two excellent books that give you a lot of the hard core math:
“It Must Be Beautiful: Great Equations of Modern Science”
by Graham Farmelo (Editor)
http://www.ams.org/notices/200303/rev-faris.pdf
“The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe”
by Roger Penrose
http://tinyurl.com/yquc84
Both are quite good. Penrose’s book is used by many college and University level courses now.
My point is that if a person stops thinking for a seccond just because they have accepted Baha’u'llah (like many of the high mucky mucks in the BAO and the Ruhi automatons) they are just plain lazy in life and are using this doctrine as an excuse for their amazingly indolent life styles.
I say as a human being you MUST re-think EVERYTHING every 15 minutes of your life from birth to death including your understanding of quantum mechanics. To me this is the Law and the Prophets in the energies of the New World Age.
All bets are now off.
THINK!
Thinking is hard. People it seems always want to get out of thinking and taking action based upon thought and deep meditation.
This is what I meant in my sarcasm!
I understand what you were getting at now. I agree with your analysis of dogmatism. I think the points you raise constitute a devastating response to those who would say that humanity can (potentially) make progress faster by simply obeying the so-called manifestations of God without going through the work of understanding the imperatives they give us. That is, even if we make quick progress in the short term by obeying the manifestations, we will have handicapped ourselves for the future. We will not know how to deal with any new problems that arise if we are dogmatists.
Of course, all this is assuming that those who we think are manifestations of God really are so. I think that where you and I would disagree is about whether Bahá’u'lláh really was a manifestation of God. I think we would also disagree that Bahá’u'lláh did not mean for his teachings to be accepted dogmatically. I think it’s pretty clear that he was as much of a dogmatist as any of his contemporaries. It’s just that his dogmas were in better alignment with our modern morals.
“To follow Bahá’u’lláh does not mean accepting some of His teachings and rejecting the rest. Allegiance to His Cause must be uncompromising and whole-hearted.”
“So, really. What is the problem? Once you become a Bahá’í, your goal is to preserve your faith at all costs. After all, if Bahá’u’lláh is right, then the cost of letting your faith slip is immeasurable! Neysan Zoelzer-Mehrabkhani seems to be more in line with the real teachings of the Bahá’í Faith than any of us.”
Underneath that logic, then, everyone is Faithful to “His Cause.” The “totality” of “His Teachings” includes all of the fun-loving, tolerant, free-thinking passages as well as the “fundamentalist” passages. It seems to me that this “strong” statement coming from the Guardian I suppose, is to let everyone know (not just so-called liberals, whom seem to think the Baha’i Administration is only trying to bash them and not their conservative counter-parts) that they can’t pick and choose either side, and that includes the “fundamentalist, conservative” side. What I see is a lot of mind-games being played by both “sides.”
Each “group” thinks they can pick and choose the Writings of the Faith they like, and throw them at the “others” and say “This is what the Faith REALLY teaches. You’re a bunch of stupid morons!” Mud-slinging. Politics. All against the Teachings of the Faith.
Now, if someone is honestly critical of the Faith in its Totality and wants to speak against it honestly, then that is one thing. But I think the majority of all of this bickering going on in the Baha’i communities (especially on cyberspace) has more to do with internal politics than it does “independent investigation of Truth.” The real ruse is the claim that “We just want to independently investigate the truth” when all they really want to do is bash the Administrative Order. And then they get mad when the Administrative Order bashes them back. If I condemn others, I myself will be condemned. It’s natural law. And before anyone accuses me of being a “cronie” for the AO, let it be known that I am not even a Baha’i. Not an “enrolled”, “unenrolled”, “Orthodox”, “Post-Orthodox”, or any other kind of stupid label.
I just see through the political game and notice that all of this is a bunch of politics, none of which has anything to do with the “integrity of the Faith”, but each and everyone’s own individual egos. And that INCLUDES the “fundamentalists” AND the “liberals.”
(Awaiting a lot of punches for this, but I had to say it.)
Matt,
You are arbitrarily labelling the sometimes heated dicussions that go on between us and Bahá’ís with the pejoritive title of “politics” so that you can claim to “see through” it all and realize its essentially subversive nature. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Bahá’ís use to end free inquiry by arrogantly judging others as “insincere” or “dishonest”.
But in reality, this is just a genetic fallacy in play. The “honesty” or “sincerity” of the interlocutors is completely irrelevant to the truth of their claims (even if we assume that we could judge such a thing). It’s like dismissing Isaac Newton’s physics on the grounds that he was overly-ambitious and egotistical. Though these accusations are historically true of Netwon (he was known to be a narcissistic ego-maniac), they are wholly and completely irrelevant when it comes to the content of Newton’s work. As the Arab says, “Examine what is said, not him who speaks.” That is your imperative, if you sincerely seek the truth.
Sorry Randy, but I see nothing obvious about this at all. The editors of the site approve the sites as being relevant, as would the editors of *every single other Google custom search* (or a newspaper or any other information media). As you say, improving the search of Baha’i material is a good idea. If you can think of a way to do it that doesn’t involve filtering out most websites by the editors I and, I’m sure, Google would love to hear it. What I find troubling is the lack of thought about all the complexities involved in building something like this. So let’s be concrete here - someone who is bothered by this tell me how the engine could be set up so that it satisfies your concern about investigation of truth while still allowing the editors to filter out irrelevant material, which is after all the whole point of the thing.
David, as Baquia said, majnun is unnecessary. Can you show me one concrete example of its usefulness? whoever complains that they get “irrelevant” results simply doesn’t know how to use google.
Let’s get specific. Give us a search term which is ambiguous and would not be made relevant by adding the obvious “bahai” string. Then perhaps your argument wouldn’t ring so hollow.
The problem is “irrelevant material” is unauthorized material. Be honest.
“all the complexities involved in building something like this”
LoL
yeah, it is rocket surgery to plug into Google Co-op a list of sites you want it to draw the search results from!
“You are arbitrarily labelling the sometimes heated dicussions that go on between us and Bahá’ís with the pejoritive title of “politics” so that you can claim to “see through” it all and realize its essentially subversive nature. This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that Bahá’ís use to end free inquiry by arrogantly judging others as “insincere” or “dishonest”.”
Yes, you’re right. All I’m saying is that I’m seeing this game being played by Baha’is. Some like the more “liberal” writings in the faith, and others like the more “law and doctrine” writings in the faith…And some from each “camp” go around throwing quotes at each other and saying “This is the TRUE message of the Faith” when in reality, the Baha’i Faith encompasses both of these aspects and more. So yeah, I do think it is “politics” to engage in such a game. That’s my opinion on the matter. The part of calling others insincere and dishonest is also part of the political game.
Peace be with You,
David,
If the point of Majnun is to filter out irrelevant material, why doesn’t Baha’i Rants come up? Why has it been cut out? You obviously don’t feel it’s irrelevant, otherwise you wouldn’t be posting on it. The truth is that BR, and Steve Marshall’s Bahaisonline.net don’t show up because they don’t pass the ideological litmus test. So Majnun isn’t sorting for relevance, which would be good, it’s sorting out the things it’s editors don’t feel comfortable with. This is especially odious in the case of bookstores. What gives them the right to ignore Kalimat and yet to promote other Baha’i booksellers? Are they trying to prove that what the USA and Canadian NSAs are doing is really a boycott?
Brendan
Matt,
It’s clear that the word “political” means nothing more than “bad” to you. Your comments are merely emotional reactions without any substance. They aren’t even real arguments.
And anyway, for you to call others insincere is itself “political” according to you, which makes you just as engaged in “politics” as any of us.
So please peddle your conversation-stifling emotional doctrines elsewhere. We are interested in discussion here, not how to avoid it.
Mavaddat and Matt, I’m glad that you brought up this point of “picking and choosing” because there is something related that I wanted to bring up. Hopefully it will help resolve this matter. Or at least shed some light on it. It is a very important and too often ignored idea.
Baquia, yes some ideas about picking and choosing or ‘cherry picking’ as it is sometimes called would be welcomed. Soooo, what’s the idea?
The most obvious usefulness is for searching Baha’i blogs. With Majnun you search several hundred directly. Google would intersperse those few hundred blogs with literally tens of thousands of other pages that contained whatever key words you use, say ‘Baha’i’ and ‘blog’ along with some other things. Choose a random blog you find on Majnun and then, without cheating and using what you read on it, try to re-find it using Google. Moreover, though, the point isn’t just to find them but to search within them.
Setting aside the issue of ‘challenging’ sites, I’m not clear on why its not understandable that by eliminating irrelevant websites, which is most of them, searching automatically becomes easier. It’s the difference between searching for a needle in a haystack and in a small pile of hay.
Perhaps what I meant wasn’t clear, though a ‘LOL’ is certainly unnecessary. I wasn’t referring to the technical aspects (which is still more complicated than what you describe), but rather that being an editor is more complicated. You may, no doubt, find that equally laughable, but the point remains I don’t think there is an obvious way to create something like this that serves its purpose and doesn’t entail making editorial decisions about what is excluded.
I think Brendan you confuse the *point* with the consequences. Again, the point is to allow searches that filter out irrelevant material. A consequence is a disagreement about what is relevant, as is happening here. I’m saying that the intention and rationale for the search engine is filtering out irrelevant material, regardless of disagreement about what qualifies as such.
As for thinking this site is relevant, for me it is right now in so far as someone is being accused of stifling independent investigation of truth by creating a search engine and I find that hard to understand. For me, at least, this doesn’t make it relevant in any other sense.
David, ever heard of this little company started by 2 Russian guys? they have this specialized search engine:
http://blogsearch.google.com/
Might want to use it next time you want to search for something in a blog. Oh and if you want to find Baha’i related stuff, just add “Bahai” to your search string.
Anything else? This is search engine usage 101
class dismissed for recess
David, this blog is about the Baha’i faith, it discusses relevant material. That there should be a question to the relevancy of such a blog is laughable. It is listed as the top 60 some search results in google when you search for the general term “Bahai”. ok? Have we got that established?
There is no subjective argument or personal opinion to bring into this question. Unless ignorance is now an opinion.
So the fact that it is “not approved” by the self-appointed Majnun editors, who ever they may be, is quite clearly due to the editors not sharing the opinions of the author of this blog.
In the end, as Baquia stated, it doesn’t matter. Everyone and anyone in the history of humanity has fallen flat on their face when they’ve tried to limit knowledge.
It is a bit ironic that a Baha’i - or someone claiming to be a Baha’i - and trying to do “good” within that definition would do something so bone headed.
That, I think is what Baquia was trying to point out.
TJ,
You make several excellent points here. But, unfortunately, always remember that on the present planet we are living on ignorance IS often an opinion. In fact, ignorance IS often an entire life long sustained point of view for some people. Cognitive dissonance is, in fact, a major growth industry in the present world as is witnessed every day by every one who is awake and thinking.
I am astonished every day of my life at the full spectacle of this phenomenon. My continuous inner mantra from sunrise to sunset on my life journey is “Say what?” and “WTF are you talking about?” I found the Ruhi Books just amazing and at a whole new level of Cosmic dysfunction.
So the concept of top down “pre-approved” “independent investigation of truth” is to be expected on this planet although the concept is a bit startling I must admit when you encounter it as came up on Baquia’s post.
“Stupid is as stupid does”.
-Forest Gump
This is where “pre-approved” “independent investigation of truth” always ends up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bJSwKZ8PmM
David,
Name one “irrelevant” website that comes up when Googling Bahai through the normal Google.
“Your comments are merely emotional reactions without any substance. They aren’t even real arguments.”
(Cleaning the wounds from that verbal bite. I suppose those are the rules of “combat.”)
Actually, I wasn’t feeling hyper emotional while writing anything thus far. I WAS using “political” to mean something negative, but I don’t just use words with a dictionary definition to write. I also use words that have a “popular” definition. It might not be a scholar’s style of writing. But I am not a scholar, so there’s that.
Also, It is unclear to me how I am using “conversation-stifling emotional doctrines” and that I should take it elsewhere, as if I don’t want to be a part of this discussion? Just because I don’t speak in the conventional tones that you or anyone else does, does not mean that I am trying to stifle any conservation. If introducing a disliked or unpopular idea into a discussion is considered “stifling”, then that is a no different action than what the “institutions” take upon the religious liberals.
I see everyone else is going on with the conversation. Nothing has been disrupted. And I never called anyone “insincere.” By saying “Yes, you’re right” I was referring to one part of your writing. That did not go through perfectly because it wasn’t a verbal conversation. I was not calling anyone insincere.
But in any case, I am going to bed. I saw your latest video YouTube video, btw. I thought it was very stimulating.
Matt,
Why “hyper emotional”? I didn’t say you were hyper- anything. I only said your words lacked any real substance; that they were merely sophistical, aimed at evoking disdain and apathy of the current dialogue.
And in case you are wondering how you are stifling conversation and accusing others of being insincere, allow me to quote you:
You explicitly say that we are playing “mind games,” which means we are bent on manipulating one another into submission to our particular perspective instead of actually seeking the truth. Couple this with the fact that we all would deny such a claim (that is, if anyone else cared about your ideas besides me), and what you have is an accusation of insincerity.
Lastly, I want you to notice that I write these words as someone who stands outside the target of your criticism, since I (in fact) accept that Bahá’ís really ought to accept all of the teachings, or else stop calling themselves Bahá’ís. So in a sense, I agree with you. But I don’t agree with you assesment that anyone is being insincere or playing mind games. This is because, as I said, to make such a judgement of intent is both beyond me, and is itself as political and subversive as the supposed tactics of those you are accusing.
the Majnun site is obviously fascist bahai cr*p
(as previously observed by somebody selse, if they have a stunning new way of using search technology, google has lots of money to pay them for their ideas. I know someone that can directly connect them to google employee #14 to collect their $.)
and !Yes!, bahais and exbahais take sides and have food fights. ALL THE TIME.
foodfights look silly to people that don’t like (or care about) food fights. if they then say they think food fights are silly, then the foodfighters get “offended”. then the anti-foodfighters get offended that the foodfighters don’t understand how being an anti-foodfighter is better than foodfighting.
someone else will get offended that they are offending each other.
urgh.
in terms of “universal archetypes”:
liberal=nurturing mommy (peace/love)
conservative=strict daddy (order/structure)
guess what?
brain scans show that different areas of the human brain light up for each archetype.
both are needed.
the real problem that neither side in the liberal-conservative foodfights addresses is postmodern narcicissism/nihilism (boomeritis, “mean green meme”).
I agree TOTALLY with Mavaddat about getting out. most of the warm/fuzzy cool progressive stuff in bahai theology will be overtaken by the thought policing mentality that is found elsewhere in bahai theology.
gawd bless people that still believe in warm/fuzzy stuff, but they will lose the fight with the fascists. when being bahai is no longer fun or “meaningful”, they might realize how cr*ppy bahai theology really is. or they might go on ignoring the silliness, and drift into nothingness and go shopping.
Integral philosophy pioneer Jean Gebser talked about “paradigm regression”. (google “wiki gebser”)
postmodernists will be the worst fascists because they regress to tribal conformism and brutality in the name of compassion, tolerance and “diversity”. (talisman was a precursor)
as society regresses through postmodernism (boomeritis), it will increasingly “infect” the bahai community, and the paradigm regression will always lead back to fascism, not forward to warm/fuzzy/peace/love.
one integral philosopher, Don Beck, recently estimated that 1/2 of the human population of planet earth will be exterminated from lack of order that will result from postmodernists (liberals that revert to tribal fascism) increasingly coming to “power”.
e.g., the anti-global-warming “green fascists” are already telling poor people to stay poor, hungry and sick (no factories/cars/medicine/democracy/education) so the green fascists can enjoy their wealthy consumer economy without a bad climate.
Bye!
Eric P.
Sacramento