Berekiah the imposter
The142857
Only a bahai could be so low.
Pat Kohli
The142857 wrote:
> He goes to diff. ngs and pretends to be non bahai.
What do you pretend to be?
> Only a bahai could be so low.
Your logic seems to have been left behind at AOL. Many Christians Jews,
Muslims, etc. pretend not to be Baha'i, that does not make them Baha'i.
Having read many of Berekiah's messages I had thought that Berekiah may
be a Baha'i. I am not the secretary for the Baha'i community in which
Berekiah lives, so as far as I am concerned, it is not _my_ business
whether Berekiah is or is not a Baha'i.
If Berekiah has made conflicting claims, perhaps you would care to
substantiate your allegations. If not, please go back to AOL; we have
already filled our quota on folks coming here from AOL and going off
half-cocked about things that are not.
Khoda Hafez
- Pat (#142867)
Pat Kohli
bere...@my-deja.com wrote:
> (snipped irrelvancies)
>
> fyi I'm actually a Babi who is an ex-Baha'i
>
> WARNING
>
> TRB posters should know that the1...@aol.com is a vocal supporter of
> the clerical IRI fascist regime of the blood-thirsty mullahs in Iran and
> I suspect is posting from outside of the Western hemisphere.
How do you know that the number is a vocal IRI fascist and not just a
misguided ex-Sufi? As far as geography goes, you are west of the
International Dateline and might be considered by some to be outside the
Western Hemisphere. Meanwhile, the number looks to be an AOL customer.
> Interesting
> how when his brother Mahdi is under attack for his adamant stupidity
> this vile efrati and shameless serpent of a vatan furoosh rears its ugly
> head!
Similar tactless tactics: show up on a newsgroup and start threads talking
about people and stuff that they know nothing about, but I don't think that
the misguided one knows he serves the mullahs' purposes.
Blessings!
- Pat
bere...@my-deja.com
fyi I'm actually a Babi who is an ex-Baha'i
WARNING
TRB posters should know that the1...@aol.com is a vocal supporter of
the clerical IRI fascist regime of the blood-thirsty mullahs in Iran and
I suspect is posting from outside of the Western hemisphere. Interesting
how when his brother Mahdi is under attack for his adamant stupidity
this vile efrati and shameless serpent of a vatan furoosh rears its ugly
head!
Berekiah
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
bere...@my-deja.com
>...How do you know that the number is a vocal IRI fascist and not just
> a misguided ex-Sufi?
Because she/he/it has posted before on different forums such as
social.culture.iranian and he/she/it's expressed views are in sympathy
with the clerical establishment currently in power in Iran.
<snip>
>Meanwhile, the number looks to be an AOL
>customer.
Since the number of Iranian ISPs are limited and the ones that exist not
all that good, those who can afford to and have access to computers and
modems (a good number of whom are either employees within
government ministries or state-controlled educational facilities such as
universities or clerical based organizations in Qom, Tehran and
elsewhere) use foreign ones, especially European based ISPs. Go on SCI
sometime and see for yourself. FYI AOL is widely available in both
Europe and the Mid East. I've even seen people all the way from the
Emirates posting. Apparently aol allows users to log on to their
accounts from international toll free numbers based in Europe, etc, or
so I've been told. Therefore it is not all that inconceivable that you
have the occasional AOL poster from Iran.
> Similar tactless tactics: show up on a newsgroup and start threads
> talking about people and stuff that they know nothing about, but I
>don't think that the misguided one knows he serves the mullahs'
>purposes.
Pat: "Misguided!?" A little strong, don't you think? I understand your
righteous indignation, and am willing to say you're even entitled to it,
but I know very well about the people and "stuff" that I've been talking
about on this NG (and don't listen to Susan Maneck's gossip). These
people and "stuff," as you say, are precisely what pushed me and others
like me over the edge to finally leave the Baha'i Faith in the first
place. This was based on our rather "misguided" perception that when
Baha'u'llah said "this is the day that won't be followed by night" and
you have an organizational cadre of individuals acting undemocratically,
contrary to the spirit of the Baha'i writings, bent on suppressing
thinking people who question some of their unenlightened ways of doing
things (things which have pushed the Faith into a proverbial night and
ghetto); then there is no choice for those misguided like myself (who
felt betrayed and believed had little choices left to them), but to
leave. But that does not mean we still don't cherish all that was once
good and wholesome about the Baha'i Faith, depite our indignation at how
things have ended up turning out. Believe me this is the truth! It also
doesn't mean that we won't come to the defense of our fellow former
co-religionists when they and their *core* beliefs are being unfairly
maligned by Islamist bigots such as Mahdi. After all, a lot of what you
believe, I still believe, with radical adjustments obviously.
Also this misguided one would argue that the misbehavior of certain
Baha'is currently in power and their fundamentalism has harmed the Faith
more, and will continue to do so in the forseable future, unless
something positive is done to reverse the process. It is this more than
anything else that will ultimately play into the hands of mullahs and
other fundamentalist Islamist bigots like Mahdi than anything anyone as
misguided as me or worse says or does.
Let me give you an example. The Baha'i powers-that-be hate Juan
Cole's book _Modernity and the Millenium_ (because they hate Juan Cole)
and are currently going out of their way to blacklist it. What narrow
minded literalist Baha'is in power don't seem to realise (and I hope
they're reading this) is that for over a hundred years now the clerical
establishment in Iran has been painting the Baha'i Faith as a
foreign-controlled, obscurtanist, backward looking, reactionary
cult-like sect, basing their claims on unsubstantiated allegations
furnished largely by hostile sources such as Sepehr or Avarih or Kasravi
or Chahardehi and the like, topped off by their own stupid backward
biases (of the sort exhibited by Mahdi). Juan has done a great service
to the Baha'is and the religion as a whole by implicitly refuting
point-by-minute-point all of the bogus contentions made by the mullahs,
and textually demonstrating the kind of political and spiritual
visionary Baha'u'llah really was, laying to rest some fears and
incontrovertibly (sp?) displaying how completely off the mark the
mullahs' allegations really were all along. There is a double-edge to
this because for years many among secular, liberal Iranians otherwise
ill disposed to ecclesiastical authority had swallowed this bogus line
of the mullahs hook line and sinker. MM has changed alot of minds,
believe it or not, and raised the status of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i
faith among many thinking non-Baha'i Iranians.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it this calibre of thinking and
service that would help promote the Cause and not encyclicalesque April
7th letters that do nothing but harm its reputation by playing right
into the hands of reactionary opportunists sitting in Tehran or San
Antonio, saying to each other, "see we told you do so!"?
Anyway, fire away big guy...Whatever you say, just remember, here's a
dude that's more a friend than you think :)
Misguidedly yours,
Pat Kohli
bere...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Agha Pat joon,
>
> >...How do you know that the number is a vocal IRI fascist and not just
> > a misguided ex-Sufi?
>
> Because she/he/it has posted before on different forums such as
> social.culture.iranian and he/she/it's expressed views are in sympathy
> with the clerical establishment currently in power in Iran.
You have warned me.
> >Meanwhile, the number looks to be an AOL
> >customer.
>
> Since the number of Iranian ISPs are limited and the ones that exist not
> all that good, those who can afford to and have access to computers and
> modems (a good number of whom are either employees within
> government ministries or state-controlled educational facilities such as
> universities or clerical based organizations in Qom, Tehran and
> elsewhere) use foreign ones, especially European based ISPs. Go on SCI
> sometime and see for yourself. FYI AOL is widely available in both
> Europe and the Mid East. I've even seen people all the way from the
> Emirates posting. Apparently aol allows users to log on to their
> accounts from international toll free numbers based in Europe, etc, or
> so I've been told. Therefore it is not all that inconceivable that you
> have the occasional AOL poster from Iran.
You have informed me.
> > Similar tactless tactics: show up on a newsgroup and start threads
> > talking about people and stuff that they know nothing about, but I
> >don't think that the misguided one knows he serves the mullahs'
> >purposes.
>
> Pat: "Misguided!?" A little strong, don't you think? I understand your
> righteous indignation, and am willing to say you're even entitled to it,
> but I know very well about the people and "stuff" that I've been talking
> about on this NG (and don't listen to Susan Maneck's gossip).
The misguided one goes by the handle MrMahdi. I did not intend to suggest
that you were in anyway misguided.
> These
> people and "stuff," as you say, are precisely what pushed me and others
> like me over the edge to finally leave the Baha'i Faith in the first
> place. This was based on our rather "misguided" perception that when
> Baha'u'llah said "this is the day that won't be followed by night" and
> you have an organizational cadre of individuals acting undemocratically,
> contrary to the spirit of the Baha'i writings, bent on suppressing
> thinking people who question some of their unenlightened ways of doing
> things (things which have pushed the Faith into a proverbial night and
> ghetto); then there is no choice for those misguided like myself (who
> felt betrayed and believed had little choices left to them), but to
> leave.
Inshallah, should you ever find your way back in the comunity, please do not
absorb the unscriptural paradigms of those you disagree with. Do not be
decieved into imagining that we must all think alike, by someone who will
disgree with you (not thinking like you).
> But that does not mean we still don't cherish all that was once
> good and wholesome about the Baha'i Faith, depite our indignation at how
> things have ended up turning out.
It is all there. Nothing is ended or turned out. Vultures gather over the
dead and that is a statement of the human condition. Not all copper is
touched by the Stone. It is not a social club where you should like
everyone - instead, Inshallah, Allah will have you love everyone: accept
that they have a right to be there and hold contrary views, but don't be
intimidated by those w/ different ideas.
> Believe me this is the truth! It also
> doesn't mean that we won't come to the defense of our fellow former
> co-religionists when they and their *core* beliefs are being unfairly
> maligned by Islamist bigots such as Mahdi.
I seriously dobut that the misguided one is a Muslim in any but maybe the
most nominal sense; more likely an atheist trying to put a black eye on
Islam.
> After all, a lot of what you
> believe, I still believe, with radical adjustments obviously.
Drop me a line sometime. For me, it is not necessary that you share every
silly fancy w/ me: this is the undoing of Christendom. For me, a Baha'i is
someone who believes and obeys the Manifestation of Allah.
> Also this misguided one would argue that the misbehavior of certain
> Baha'is currently in power and their fundamentalism has harmed the Faith
> more, and will continue to do so in the forseable future, unless
> something positive is done to reverse the process. It is this more than
> anything else that will ultimately play into the hands of mullahs and
> other fundamentalist Islamist bigots like Mahdi than anything anyone as
> misguided as me or worse says or does.
> Let me give you an example. The Baha'i powers-that-be hate Juan
> Cole's book _Modernity and the Millenium_ (because they hate Juan Cole)
> and are currently going out of their way to blacklist it.
I don't know that the ptb hate Juan. I find it unfortunate that there has
been a falling out.
> What narrow
> minded literalist Baha'is in power don't seem to realise (and I hope
> they're reading this) is that for over a hundred years now the clerical
> establishment in Iran has been painting the Baha'i Faith as a
> foreign-controlled, obscurtanist, backward looking, reactionary
> cult-like sect, basing their claims on unsubstantiated allegations
> furnished largely by hostile sources such as Sepehr or Avarih or Kasravi
> or Chahardehi and the like, topped off by their own stupid backward
> biases (of the sort exhibited by Mahdi). Juan has done a great service
> to the Baha'is and the religion as a whole by implicitly refuting
> point-by-minute-point all of the bogus contentions made by the mullahs,
> and textually demonstrating the kind of political and spiritual
> visionary Baha'u'llah really was, laying to rest some fears and
> incontrovertibly (sp?) displaying how completely off the mark the
> mullahs' allegations really were all along. There is a double-edge to
> this because for years many among secular, liberal Iranians otherwise
> ill disposed to ecclesiastical authority had swallowed this bogus line
> of the mullahs hook line and sinker. MM has changed alot of minds,
> believe it or not, and raised the status of Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i
> faith among many thinking non-Baha'i Iranians.
I can believe that Juan has been a flame of fire to the 'aduw Allah and a
river to the friends.
> Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it this calibre of thinking and
> service that would help promote the Cause and not encyclicalesque April
> 7th letters that do nothing but harm its reputation by playing right
> into the hands of reactionary opportunists sitting in Tehran or San
> Antonio, saying to each other, "see we told you do so!"?
I questioned the authenticity of the 7 April, and even though most say it is
authentic, I have given up trying to figure out what it is about, exactly.
The letter mentions internal enemies on the internet, as I have seen and it
mentions people with formal education in middle-eastern studies. Since the
folks I knew on the internet at that time who seem educated in middle
eastern studies were Rachel and Juan and I knew that Juan was external to
the community and I believed that Rachel was as well, I still don't know who
that letter was about.
> Anyway, fire away big guy...Whatever you say, just remember, here's a
> dude that's more a friend than you think :)
Once again, please accept my apologies for my lack of clarity, Blessed of
Allah.
- Pat
bere...@my-deja.com
Pat jan,
> Once again, please accept my apologies for my lack of clarity,
>Blessed of Allah.
As they say in these parts: no worries, mate! :)
Mesbah Javid
news:7pien2$t7c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
| fyi I'm actually a Babi who is an ex-Baha'i
|
Nice meeting you. Who do you believe to be "Him Whom
God shall make manifest"?
bere...@my-deja.com
The spiritual triumvirate of Quddus, Tahirih and Baha'u'llah - after the
Bab each a Manifestation in Their own right :)
Mark A. Foster
each a Manifestation in Their own right :)<<
Berekiah (which I will defer to call you out of my respect for you),
Just a couple of thoughts with regard to your above comment:
First, didn't Quddus and Tahirih follow Baha'u'llah?
Second, isn't there a difference between manifestation, in a general sense, and
universal Manifestation, as a Prophet endowed with constancy?
I hope things are going well with you, my friend.
Mark A. Foster
ow...@sociologist.com
RBCF Mark (on AOL only)
Pat Kohli
I was surprised that Berekiah wrote this, though I had considered such a thing
possible. As I recall, these names were given at Badesht. I believe that Isa said
that the Holy and the Pure would see Allah. I don't recall that any others are
described as seeing Allah. If Quddus and Tahirih were Manifestations of Allah,
known as such only to Allah, or if Quddus and Tahirih were not, Quddus and
Tahirih may in some way foreshadow the Manifestation to come, much as the travels
of Saint Paul (not a Manifestation of Allah) foreshadow the travels and
imprisonment of Jamali Mubarek.
Prior to the conference at Badesht Tahirih was known as Qurratul Ayn, a name used
in the writings of the Bab in what appears to be a reference to the Manifestation
of Allah.
"Mark A. Foster" wrote:
> First, didn't Quddus and Tahirih follow Baha'u'llah?
My recollection is that both Quddus and Tahirih were killed as Babis. If Allah
allows free will, possibly the early deaths of Quddus and Tahirih was a
contingency.
> Second, isn't there a difference between manifestation, in a general sense, and
> universal Manifestation, as a Prophet endowed with constancy?
The Manifestation of Allah is the focal point of existence, from the human
perspective.
Blessings!
- Pat
bere...@my-deja.com
address your points. This should be interesting.
Berekiah
In article <37BE311E...@ameritel.net>,
Mark A. Foster
>>My recollection is that both Quddus and Tahirih were killed as Babis.<<
Yes, I know. Although I am clearly not a historian, I was thinking of Badasht,
where, reportedly (according to my recollection), Mirza Husayn Ali first used
the title of Baha'u'llah.
>>The Manifestation of Allah is the focal point of existence, from the human
perspective.<<
I had in mind a study done by Ahang Rabbani in which he showed that the term
"manifestation of God" was used for various people who would not normatively be
regarded as Prophets endowed with constancy. I believe that Quddus and Tahirih
were among them. In fact, in some cases, the Bab said that these various
individuals, as manifestations, were greater than himself.
The142857
Berekiah is a fucked up babi!
He has a different religion everyday
depending on which ng he finds himself in.
He is very "close" to Cyrus. May everyone
wish them well.
Mark A. Foster
repeat, is inappropriate in a forum devoted to the exploration of a religion.
It is not true that Berekiah has a different religion everyday. He was born
into a Baha'i family, and he still accepts the Bab and Baha'u'llah.
Bekeriah can correct me here, but I think that his reference to being a Babi
needs to be understood using a sort of perennial esotericism (traditionalism),
which seeks to find a balance between tradition and universal truth. You seem
to have taken him literally.
Pat Kohli
"Mark A. Foster" wrote:
> It is not true that Berekiah has a different religion everyday. He was born
> into a Baha'i family, and he still accepts the Bab and Baha'u'llah.
>
> Bekeriah can correct me here, but I think that his reference to being a Babi
> needs to be understood using a sort of perennial esotericism (traditionalism),
> which seeks to find a balance between tradition and universal truth. You seem
> to have taken him literally.
I understood Berekiah's statement of being a Babi to mean thatt he is not a member
of the Baha'i community. For many who may be familiar w/ Baha'u'llah's teachings,
accept them and have not joined the Baha'i community, there is no problem
whatsoever. I suspect Berekiah knows enough about the Baha'is community such that
in Berekiah's case, to claim to be a Baha'i while not being in the community would
be understood quite differently and would jeopardize the amity he enjoys w/ many
Baha'is.
My $.02. I suspect that 142857 has only come here to insult. I posted the
charter on another thread.
Blessings!
- Pat
bere...@my-deja.com
You're both right. And thanks for the spot-on accurate characterization,
Mark. Pat: What'd I tell you about this 1486&*whatever fellow. You also
said:
> I suspect Berekiah knows enough about the Baha'is
>community such that in Berekiah's case, to claim to be a Baha'i while
>not being in the community would be understood quite differently and
>***would jeopardize the amity he enjoys w/ many Baha'is.***
Between the two of us: To be quite frankly honest I'm way beyond that.
See my previous comments.
Berekiah
Mark A. Foster
Thanks for your post.
I feel funny discussing Berekiah without his participation. ;-) However, my
impression is that he is capable of simultaneously seeing things from several
critical standpoints.
I would suspect that, from one angle, Berekiah would regard himself as a Babi
and as a Baha'i (with the latter seen as holon within, or a ray emanating from,
the former). From another perspective, I suspect that, like Juan, he might
regard himself as a Baha'i outside of the community.
As I think Berekiah implied, he is speaking on the docetic, or archetypal and
transphysical, level. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to interpret his
esotericism from an exoteric standpoint.
bere...@my-deja.com
Once again you have nailed it spot-on and soundly understood my overall
philosophical intent. This is precisely where I'm coming from. And I
love the little Wilberian twist you put on my standpoint epistemology
with your referrence to holons :) Couldn't have put it better myself.
Thanks! Where we by any chance related by blood in a former life? ;-)
In reference to something else you said: I've intellectually matured
a little in the past several years (NOT!) and like to see myself more of
a religious universalist "post"-traditionalist perennialist Habermasian
Neoplatonist Sufi/Ibn `Arabi Babi-Baha'i Gramscian Iranian democrat
(whatever the heck that's supposed to mean!/put that in a pipe and
Deconstruct it!) - kind of like Wilber except with a more
phenomenological Heideggerian/Corbinian edge. I'm turning Guenon on his
poor head these days (i.e. in typical postmodern eclectic fashion,
keeping the good; chucking out the not so good). I've also become more
and more interested in critical social theory and the philosophy of
language. Our numerous conversations and internet exchanges over the
years (among others) were instrumental :)
Berekiah
Mark A. Foster
>> Where we by any chance related by blood in a former life? ;-)<<
lol. I think I have always understood almost exactly where you were coming from
- from the first post I read of yours on Talisman 1..
>>... kind of like Wilber except with a more phenomenological
Heideggerian/Corbinian edge. I'm turning Guenon on his poor head these days <<
Cool, like Marx did with Hegel. ;-) I like your reference to being
post-traditionalist. It seemed to me that the approach used by Schuon, Guenon,
(Huston) Smith, (Lex) Hixon (perhaps), among others bordered a bit on spiritual
materialism - an attachment to names.
I have felt for a while that their ideas could have benefited from the insights
of the the post-foundationalists, Wilberians, critical realists, and even
constructive post-modernists (despite my problems with some aspects of process
thought)
>>I've also become more and more interested in critical social theory and the
philosophy of language.<<
Have you looked at all at the dialectical critical realism of Roy Bhaskar,
Margaret Archer, Andrew Collier, and others? They have developed a
Marxian-based version of critical realism which avoids some of the fallacies of
the Frankfurt school.
>>Our numerous conversations and internet exchanges over the years (among
others) were instrumental :)<<
As you know, our phone conversations, email correspondance, and our one
face-to-face meeting in Texas have strongly influenced my own perspectives, as
well.
bere...@my-deja.com
> lol. I think I have always understood almost exactly where you were
>coming from - from the first post I read of yours on Talisman 1..
And that's precisely what I've loved and admired all these years about
you, bro. Would that there were more Baha'is out there as gracious,
tolerant and understanding as yourself <sigh>.
> Cool, like Marx did with Hegel. ;-)
Yep...
>I like your reference to being
> post-traditionalist. It seemed to me that the approach used by Schuon,
Guenon,
> (Huston) Smith, (Lex) Hixon (perhaps), among others bordered a bit on
>spiritual
> materialism - an attachment to names.
Spiritual materialism indeed! Rigid and unbendingly dogmatic (bordering
on the reactionary) to boot. The Guenon of _Symbolism of the Cross_,
_Multiple States of Being_ and even _The Reign of Quantity and the Sign
of the Times_ has some profound metaphysical insights to impart. But his
critique of modernity and his retrogressive philosophy of history are
downright wrong, especially in the applied details.
Btw I wouldn't quite put old Shaykh Nur al-Jerrahi Lex Hixon (God
rest his soul) in the same category as Schuon and Smith or any of the
other Traditionalists. He has more in common with Ken Wilber - albeit
he's wasn't the sort of analytical philosophical Intellect Wilber is.
His successor, Shaykha Fariha al-Jerrahi (the owner of Sufi Books
in NYC which administers the Masjid al-Farah less than a block away), is
quite the spiritual radical almost reminding one very strongly of
Tahirah Qurratu'l-`Ayn. Apparently they've had several Baha'is attending
their weekly Thursday night Dhikrs all the way going back to when Shaykh
Nur was still alive. I heard that a few of them had even taken bayat
(i.e. hand/initiation) in the Helveti-Jerrahi Sufi Order by Lex Hixon
and now Fariha. If you should go to NYC anytime soon, check'em out, and
definitely go to the Thursday night Dhikr - it's wild!
> Have you looked at all at the dialectical critical realism of Roy
>Bhaskar,
> Margaret Archer, Andrew Collier, and others?
Archer I've looked at. But the others I've only seen quoted.
The Gramscians among critial social theorists I like very much - not
to mention Alexander Gramsci himself. Have you ever read his *Prison
Notebooks*? And of course Jurgen Habermas...Just a quick question, Mark:
who are considered the leading Habermasian sociologists or critical
social theorists in the US these days? And if you could cite a few
publications, I'd really appreciate it. The reason I ask is because I'm
attempting to use Habermas and do a critiqal analysis of the current
social/economic/beaurocratic/religious/public
sector-private-sector/lifeworld dynamic in the current Iranian theocracy
and at the same time to formulate a hypothetical model for a secular
Iranian democratic society of the future with a bow to "communicative
action".
>They have developed a
> Marxian-based version of critical realism which avoids some of the
>fallacies of
> the Frankfurt school.
I definitely *do not* like Herbert Marcuse or his Frankfurt school.
Fallacies indeed!
> As you know, our phone conversations, email correspondance, and our
>one
> face-to-face meeting in Texas have strongly influenced my own
perspectives, as
> well.
As the Prophetic saying goes: muminin mirat al-muminin/Believers are the
mirros of each other...
Berekiah
Mark A. Foster
>>And that's precisely what I've
loved and admired all these years
about you, bro. Would that there
were more Baha'is out there as
gracious, tolerant and
understanding as yourself <sigh>.<<
Thank you, my friend. And I wish
that more people had your insight
and intelligence.
>>Btw I wouldn't quite put old
Shaykh Nur al- Jerrahi Lex Hixon
(God rest his soul) in the same
category as Schuon and Smith or
any of the other Traditionalists. He
has more in common with Ken
Wilber - albeit he's wasn't the sort
of analytical philosophicalIntellect
Wilber is.<<
That is true, of course. However,
he did focus a great deal on being
grounded in traditions,
particularly the esoteric aspects
(Eastern Orthodoxy, Sufism,
Buddhism, etc.). On the other hand,
he was willing to participate with
groups which the pure
traditionalists would probably
condemn as New Age.
I was fortunate enough to have met
him at a zikr'ullah session in New
York City. We had a short
discussion. (Basically, I just told
him how much I used to enjoy his
weekly radio broadcasts on NYC
radio station, WBAI.) My friend,
Ira (a former Baha'i, a Meher Baba
lover, and an initiate of the Sufi
Order), brought me there a number
of years ago.
>>If you should go to NYC anytime
soon, check'em out, and definitely
go to the Thursday night Dhikr -
it's wild!<<
I walked past their center a couple
of weeks ago, when I was in NYC.
However, I just visited the
bookstore (and probably paid their
rent for the month <grin>). The
center was closed at that time.
However, the time I met Lex was
at their center. There is also
a branch of their tariqat here in
the Kansas City area. I have met
some of them.
>>The Gramscians among critial
social theorists I like very much
not to mention Alexander Gramsci
himself.<<
You mean Antonio Gramsci? He
popularized the word "hegemony,"
which is a term I constantly use in
my Social Problems class.
>>Have you ever read his *Prison
Notebooks*?<<
No, maybe I should. Those were
among his most intellectually
productive years.
>>Just a quick question, Mark:
who are considered the leading
Habermasian sociologists or
critical social theorists in the US
these days? And if you could cite a
few publications, I'd really
appreciate it.<<
Cool, you like Habermas, too? I
have often thought that his
rational approach to pluralism
could be correlated with Jonathan
Z. Smith's controversial view of
religion. (Smith is the guy who
popularized the term
"christianities." He was also, as I
later discovered, Chris Buck's
major professor.) Mostly, however,
I have just read Habermas's own
stuff, and I have seen, now and
then, references to his works in
other books and articles. I could
probably come up with a list of
Habermasian scholars, but it would
take a while.