KARL JASPERS FORUM

Short Note 51 (on N50)

MORE REPLIES
by Adrian van der Meijden, Glenn C Wood, Philip Benjamin
22 January 2003, posted 28 January 2003

(A)
ON RAMAN'S DEFENSE

by Adrian van der Meijden

<1>
I am sorry but I totally disapprove of such social engineering or mind bending of the naive kind as you suggest. One cannot come to terms with oneself, one's feelings, angers, sense of "getting even" with the bastard, revenge, ETCCC., and otherwise unless, until and only IFFFFFF one gets to the juncture of admitting it's all in one's own fantasies. It reeks of the kind of Mullah superiority I despise. IT ends up with the kind of bureaucratic self defense and keeping "state secrets" all which boils down to a fear of being honest.

<2>
I hold strongly with: "the truth can set you free". Its just that "the people" have been kept away from this for too long. The social gambit of withholding people from being responsible while legally making them responsible for punishment is despicable below contempt.

<3>
As for Bill Adams, I cannot see how a psychiatrist insists we have to be rational, meaning totally suppressing our feelings. I can see how he finds me "entertaining", well, WE are not amused, nor find ourselves amusing.

------------------------------

Adrian van der Meijden

------------------------------

(B)

IMPATIENT OUTPATIENTS

by Glenn C. Wood

<4>

Bill Adams harshness toward Phillip Benjamin's KJF article seems more out of place than his reasons for objecting. To me it seems meaningful that -- what BA categorizes as fundamentalism -- PB would find something interesting and worthwhile in the KJF. Perhaps we are all in need of the greater physician, or some therapeutic group. Why would someone as deserving of BA's scorn be reading the KJF ? To be burned at the stake ? We should know more about PB's biography ... and now BA's for that matter.

<5>

PB may be a newcomer to psychopathology, true; and it might take some time and familiarity with concepts and language peculiar to the forum, but I'd not underestimate the contribution. After all it gave BA the opportunity to tell what he found in and interpreted as objective in Karen Anderson's book.

<6>

It also presents the occasion for pointing out that the editor leans away from the spirit of censuring, and that the KJF's statement of purpose that BA quotes is not subject to a private understanding. If BA is correct in his grasp of the purpose, then it would seem reasonable to no longer exploit the name of Karl Jaspers and call the Forum something like the Mcgill University Hospital Internet Forum. The Karl Jaspers name lends more credence and personality to the forum though. If the BA interpretation of the purpose is accepted then there would be no talk about objectivity and no contribution would be acceptable unless by readers that support the book-publishing industry.

<7>

My interpretation of the stated purpose is that there should be something more substantial to the material presented other than declaring something is neither realistic nor objective -- (or subjective enough to be criteria); it should, in some fashion obvious or subtle, be supportable and advantageous to interdisciplinary processes. So BA's personal preference that PB contributes nothing does indeed declare more a "loss to understand Benjamin's Bible thumping..."

<8>

Personally I didn't hear any less thumping than BA's stomping on fundamentalists supported -- using -- by thumping on Anderson's work, a work which was probably more objectivistic than subjectivistic. BA takes too literal the mythical interpretation of the book that communication between fundamentalists and secular liberals "is virtually impossible" <9>. Reasonable communication is quite possible...and I'm not a radical possibility thinker.

<9>

My response to PB within the confines of the forum is that perhaps some historical research would be profitable. His references to the Mass suggest to me an association at length or more recently with a religious institution which has a traditional vision of history, more than a Biblical view. (He seems to have appropriated or made the best of where the emphasis should be with reference to the logos of the Bible, resurrecting an unlimited significance.) I've found research of Avicenna, the physician, and Averroes, physician, helpful in grasping a worldview like historical perspective of the conflict between Catholicity/ Orthodoxy and the Islamic movement. I would not omit the warning from history, i.e., the possible return of the Inquisition and the recall of what it took to restrain it. I would remember that health care moved along with the reaction to to the torture of the Inquisition.

--------------------------------

Glenn C. Wood

e-mail <gwood@zianet.com>

--------------------------------

(C)

( ON FUNDAMENRALISM )

by Philip Benjamin

<10>

Normally, my response to labeling and genuine jitters is an active silence. However this seems to be an abnormal situation of Dr. Bill Adams being *naively shocked to be reminded that literal-minded fundamentalists are so close at hand; not just vaguely off in Iran, Palestine, or Texas, but right here among the EDUCATED* (emphasis mine). A remedial, if not therapeutic, response is in order. If it is some institutional pedigree that he is feverishly referring to, I may grant that he might on desultory scrutiny come close to mine.

<11>

The word fundamentalism was not coined by some extreme leftwing humanist liberals to refer to *bible thumbing* terrorists. Curtis Lee Laws, editor of a (fundamentalist) conservative publication, Watchman-Examiner, is credited with coining the term *fundamentalism* . This term was conceived in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915 entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth". These booklets were authored by prominent churchmen as an intellectual and theological response to the loss of influence which traditional revivalism experienced in America during early twentieth century.

<12>

In 1920, a journalist and conservative Baptist layman named Curtis Lee Laws appropriated the term `fundamentalist' as a dignified designation for those who were ready to uphold the Fundamentals, which were inerrancy of the Scriptures (all pointing to the Messiah), total depravity of man, unmerited grace, a testimony of gracious works that follow, freedom of beliefs and worship etc".

<13>

All fundamentalists will gladly grant that Bill Adams has every RIGHT and FREEDOM to be scared of all these and shun them !! Conservatively estimated, there are at least 30 million highly EDUCATED Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. alone, to shun. Only less than 1/3 (30%) of their eligible adults vote, mostly during presidential elections. What political fanatics !!! The rest of the time they mind their business, to pay taxes. Not true, sorry, they do bible thumping also, instead of Jumbo-striking Ivory Towers. Are you still scared?

<14>

Before reading Karen Anderson‘s "The Battle for God : A History of Fundamentalism" (Ballantine, 2000), I recommend that this Forum read The Fundamentalism Project, directed and edited by Martin E. Marty and Scott Appleby. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences funded a multiyear project that brought scholars from around the world together to study Fundamentalism. Ultimately they produced 5 volumes containing almost 8,000 pages of material.

<15>

They found it difficult to fit the Bible fundamentalists to any of their categories. It will require a great deal of ignorance and intolerance to blend all fundamentalisms into one mosaic and misspeak that *dialog between fundamentalists and secular liberals is virtually impossible*. Read also "Secularization and Fundamentalism Reconsidered, by Jeffrey K. Hadden and Anson Shupe. Unlike Rushdy, Karen Anderson can publish whatever she wants because of these very bible-thumping, freedom-loving rogues of fundamentalism in the West!

<16>

Bill Adams **was shocked by Phillip Benjamin's doctrinaire and vitriolic comments on religion**. Incorrect ! My letter was realistic and factual, except for the slapdash banter on salaam and slam*. I could not trace its etymology to Scandinavia as Dr. V.V. Raman did. World Book Dictionary refers to *slam* as of unknown origin. I should have better suggested * may be* or *could be* of Arab origin. Both force and tricks are associated with *slam*. Koran also authorizes Islam to use both force and tricks. Check the Byzantine, Indian, Persian, Afghan, Spanish, Greek and East European Histories between the 7th and 12th centuries.

<17>

The SWORD (submission) not AHIMSA (nonviolence) is the cardinal doctrine of Islam. V.V. Raman admits that. It is not a vitriolic invention of mine. I could not have come up with such a doctrinaire tenet, even if I had all the POWER to do so. Why? Because I am what Bill Adams fear most !! What is liberalism afraid of ? Joyful folks singing *fundamentals* of deliverance, coming out after a revival or prayer meeting in a storefront chapel? How does it matter if they are highly EDUCATED devotees like those 9-11 TERRORISTS, or not ? They are not wielding a sword or a Jumbo Jet for an assault on the twin Ivory Towers of academic craziness and irresponsibility. Is Bible Belt the same as Koran Belt? One is of paper, leather and freedom, the other metal, sword and submission. What is vitriolic?

<18>

V.V. Raman did **provide an interdisciplinary international e- mail testing ground for propositions in the areas of psychology, psychopathology, and related fields, including clinical and basic sciences and questions concerning the mind-brain relation and 'consciousness'.... described in practical terms ...** He did refer to *prophecy* which is related to psychology, parapsychology etc. I gave a *practical* and historical example and coupled that to a scientific method of chronology and suggested conscious and unconscious processes involved in that unbelievable accuracy of prediction. These are all very much within the scope and goals of this Forum.

<19>

Fundamentalism is NOT a threat even to arrogant assumptions, lies, hoaxes, un-falsifiable theories, spooky un-testable hypotheses, pseudo-science, the pollyannaish world of fantasy that fits into the perceptual cone of a frog in the well. Philosopher Jonathan Edwards, Poet Milton, Wilberforce, M.P (who abolished slavery in about 50% of the World, 70 years before Lincoln, in the British Empire), Patrik Henry, almost all the known scientists of the 18th, 19th and most of the 20th Centuries, etc. etc. etc. are a few of these dangerous fundamentalists. As for liberalism, it is not its nerves that is dangerous, but nervousness. It gets nervous, then panic, then it runs to its Messiah the Government/ Judiciary to liquidate anything it imagines as intolerable.

<20>

I commend, share and defend the tolerance which Bill Adams shows (though restively) towards Islamism or any ism. I also tenderly but respectfully, recognize and appreciate his tension and reticence over purely seasonal, cultural, Christmassy, story-telling discourse, initiated in good taste by V.V.Raman, from a Hindu perspective.

--------------------------------

Philip Benjamin

e-mail <medinuclear@hotmail.com>