Article: The ADPAS Categories

7 There are two problems with the use of the term polytheism to describe this quadrant on the religious level: 1. It's a monotheistic construct (polytheists didn't initially call themselves polytheists--monotheists started calling them polytheists), and 2. You could theoretically be a monotheist in name and still embrace pluralism--though it would be a somewhat less comfortable fit. By religious pluralism I mean a multitude of different religious perspectives coupled with an inherent rejection of any attempt at unifying dialogue or critical analysis. A plethora of different cultural sources and intellectual perspectives is of course essential from a pragmatic idealist point of view as well. Imagine all the different worldviews that people hold as well as the personal interests that they have as being like the shards of a mirror. Buddhism would represent an attempt at getting rid of all the shards--emptiness, no-self, the world as illusion. Monotheism would represent taking one shard, asserting that it alone represents the one objective truth, and attempting to annihilate all others. Religious pluralism in the sense that I mean would represent each separate shard competing in a more or less zero-sum fashion but still respecting the right of other shards to exist. Pragmatic idealism would represent trying to actively piece these mirror shards together into a cooperative, win-win, cohesive whole as much as possible.

If you identify with the message of this article, please email it to people, tell your friends, even print out copies to pass around. Together we can raise awareness. Thank you.

Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Views	Comments
Mailed	Ratings