[Dialogue] A proposal for corporate research and writing

Tue Aug 17 11:25:41 EDT 2004

This is great work.  Karen Armstrong's book on the battle for God also deal with the history of fundamentalism.  I think this has to be held over against Ken Wilber's work on levels of consciousness particularly as he has aligned himself with the Values project in Texas that brings this into the social realm.  The "lower" levels of consciousness do not go away as you move to higher levels of consciousness.  Wilber describes as the spirit malaise of our time "boomeritis" -- the belief that if only everyone could move to the higher levels of consciousness we have developed, all would be fine and not seeing that what is going on is the integration of multi levels of consciousness including the deep emotional and mythological where, if there is uncertainty and confusion it produces drift and an inability for depth and at the same time, more existential consciousness where the acknowledgement of uncertainty is central.  His point is they are different levels of consciousness needing different requirements to be fulfilled   

Jim Wiegel

-----Original Message-----
From: David Rebstock <grapevin at earthlink.net>
Sent: Aug 16, 2004 10:47 PM
To: Colleague Dialogue <Dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
Subject: Re: [Dialogue] A proposal for corporate research and writing

HarryW and the Davids
This is in response to your comments about how to approach conservative
fundamentalists relative to the present state of affairs in the Global
Social Process and particularly the content of Lakoff's book.
Since I moved to CA three and a half years ago and since the move to Santa
Rosa in March 04 I have been involved with the Jesus Seminar at the Westar
Institute.  I've attended most of their fall and spring seminars. At the
fall 2003 seminar a Fellow of rhe Institute by the name of Bernard Brandon
Scott, Professor of New Testament at Phillips Theological in Tulsa, (David
R have you heard of him) spoke on the topic "Father Knows
Best-Fundamentalism and Our Apocalyptic Future."  In this talk he explored
the unconscious metaphor that shapes and controls fundamentalist thought.
	  He talked about the Biblical literalism of fundamentalists and referred
to the Martin Marty and Scott Appleby's Fundamentalism Project which
brought together scholars from around the world from 1991-1995 and produced
five volumes and over 8000 pages covering all forms of fundamentalism.  He
says that they identified: nine family resemblances, five ideological
characteristics, and four organizational characteristics in the Project. 
In Scott's presentation he only dealt with two.  1. They (fundamentalist
movements) are led by males and  2. They envy modernist cultural hegemony
and try to overturn the "distribution" of power. (my emphasis).
	In his opinion, conservatives and fundamentalists are cut out of the same
cloth and that some have even characterized some non-religious movements as
fundamentalist. The financier George Soros (who is strongly behind Kerry)
refers to those who see only free market and private enterprise solutions
to all economic issues as "market fundamentalists"  As he sees it, market
fundamentalism is the chief driving force in American economics, which the
US then evangelizes throughout the world, creating a clear parallel to the
attitudes of religious fundamentalists.
	Referring to Lakoff's book Scott describes the metaphor a great deal but
his main point is that the label for the conservative metaphor is Strict
Father. "Father makes or enforces the rules"- explains how conservatives
develop ethical values.  The metaphor plays out in a number of entailments
that explain their moral positions, and are elaborated to produce a
coherent system.  The most important entailment is there are "rules."
	Essential to a conservative moral system is the existence of rules--there
must be rules.  Furthermore, the rules must be absolute, otherwise they
will be difficult to enforce.  Thus conservatives see relativism as
immoral, since if rules are not absolute but relative (i.e contextual
ethics) they cease to exist. Chaos results.  Any challenge to the rules
leads inevitably to chaos and immorality.  It is always a slippery slope. 
Rules represent the natural order, the way things are!  This emphasis leads
to either or thinking.  You're either with us or against us.  Those who
break the rules must be punished.  Finally, in such a black and white
model, the world is a dangerous place.  It is chaotic and we need rules and
discipline to avoid degenerating into chaos.
	Liberals often wonder how conservatives can be pro life and yet favor the
death penalty.  What to a liberal is inconsistent, to a conservative is
common sense.  The rule says thou should not kill.  Those who break it must
be punished or the rule is ineffective.  So those who perform abortionsa
are murderers, and those who murder someone should be subject to the death
penalty.  Liberal common sense, of course sees the matter quite
differently.  It does no good to argue because we are arguing about common
sense, something that is so obviously ritght that it needs no argument. To
argue concedes that it is not common sense and therefore not obvious, and
so we throw slogans at each other.
	He says that other entailments of the Strict Father model is that it is
patriarchal and hierarchical, since the moral order legitimates a natural
order of leadership.  Human beings are subject to God, women to men,
children to parents, nature to human beings. (thus conservatives position
on women's rights and the environment.)  The system presupposes an order of
subjection, the so-called great chain of being.  Also, the father must be
strong, and encourage self-discipline in his children.  Self discipline is
the way to make one's way in the world because the world is a dangerous
place.  Above all else, the father has a moral duty to defend the system,
since it reflects the natural order.  Those who attack the system disrupt
the moral order, must be fought and condemned as evil.  Feminists naturally
are thought of in this way.
Scott says he simplified Lakoff's analysis to the point of caricature, but
the sketch indicates how a largely unconscious metaphorical scheme
underlies and makes sense of conservative moral stances.  Lakoff does
develop a similar model for liberal morality under the heading Nurturing
Parent.

	Scott also makes the case for the analogy of conservatism and
fundamentalist Christianity with their insistence that God is the Father.
Similarly paul's notion of the community as a family using the Roman family
to remodel the church into a hierarchical household with the bishop as the
pater familias.
	Liberals too easily tend to dismiss Fundamentalism as naive or backwards. 
The power of this metaphorical system derives from three factors: It
appeals to the prevailing social experience of male dominance, it has
common sense appeal, and it is largely an unconscious metaphorical system. 
This makes it very difficult to subvert, since for the most part it is not
amenable to rational argument.  Pointing out inconsistencies in the system
is readily dismissed as simply reflecting another point of view or even as
nonsense.  
	In his presentation and in a subsequent article covering the same
presentation in The Fourth R, the publication of the Westar Institute
Volume 16 No. 6 November-December 2003 he goes into more of the
relationship of the Strict Father model in Christianity, its effect on the
Church and especially women.  He poses a new stratety for both theology and
liturgy for Christianity.  He has a lot of challenging stuff in this
presentation and article. He quotes American pragmatist philosopher Richard
Rorty who said, "The duty of liberals is to imagine the future".  It is a
noble task.  If we do not imagine it, it will never happen.  And if we do
not re-imagine it, we will forfeit it.

David Rebstock

> [Original Message]
> From: <DReese8542 at aol.com>
> To: <Dialogue at wedgeblade.net>
> Date: 8/13/2004 8:09:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] A proposal for corporate research and writing
>
> David, the issue of environment gives me much pain because Bush has
issued so 
> many 'executive orders' canceling out much of what has been passed by 
> congress over the past 30 years.  A Kennedy has a new book out on this
issue.  
>
> Appointment of new Judges to the Supreme Court, as many as 4, will be the 
> prerogative of the next President. VIP!
>
> Our growing debt.  HUGE!  
>
> Wounded and dead military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
> Fundamentalists basically fear the future.  Democrats need to be upbeat
and 
> concentrate on our common strenthts and optimism in the face of threats.
>
> Karen Armstrong has a fine book, THE BATTLE FOR GOD, on Fundamentalism.
>
> Moderate to Liberal religious persons need very much to become acquainted 
> with the religious views of Rapture Christians.  It is a farily recent
(19th 
> century) phenomenon.  Dispensationalism.  Book of Revelations.  So they
can 
> respond intelligently.   "Always raise a question when someone says, "THE
BIBLE 
> SAYS..."  Ask, which part of the Bible, which book, who wrote it? When? 
To Whom? 
> What did it mean in that 3-story culture back then?  How do you translate
that 
> spirit wisdom into our 21st Century Hubble Telescope understanding of the 
> cosmos?  And etc.  DReese
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net