The middle way of pluralism

[Vimalakirti]

I take relativism and absolutism as dangerous extremes. But there is a middle ground, one particularly indigenous to the United States: it's called pluralism.



Pluralism doesn't deny that there may be such things as absolutes or near absolutes – in fact, one might say that since fundamentally we all share the same reality, we very likely share some common truths. But pluralism does hold that human life is various and complex and that human languages and cultures reflect that complexity. Unlike relativism, it doesn't say that all truth statements are of equal value - that's obviously self-refuting and meaningless. Pluralism allows for fair judgements and comparisons among and within traditions. But unlike absolutism, it also holds that human beings will express the same fundamental truths differently, or express a different part of the truth, or a different emphasis, or use language that best serves the needs of particular peoples or individuals, or add legitimate or valuable alternatives, or simply express a truth in a style of language that a particular society doesn't understand. Yes, that results in multiple points of view, which will require careful assessment and fair judgements, and may sometimes result in a least verbal conflict, but far more serious conflicts arise from the attempt to impose uniformity of thought than from allowing freedom of thought to flourish.

Let me give an example. Jesus states an absolute of Christian faith when he says, love the Lord thy God with all your heart, etc, and love your neighbour as yourself. Morally & spiritually speaking these may be as absolute as you can get. The subtext is the basic existential choice for human beings: choose love, which leads to God; or choose power (egoism), which leads to war. But notice a couple of things. First, that choosing love (or compassion, or ahimsa) can be and has been expressed in many other terms at other times and other cultures. Second, that to choose love using these biblical terms does not necessarily entail that one must adhere to an entire dogmatic and doctrinal system deductively built up from such passages, while conforming one's life thereto in every detail.

The pluralist point here is that it's not up to frail humans, or human institutions, even ones self-defined as divinely chosen, to ultimately sort out what the fullest expressions of truth will turn out to be - that's for history & God to sort out - and that the most compassionate, most successful and greatest institutions will be the ones that allow for the widest variety of opinion and expression consistent with their fundamental framework, and which assume at least as a working hypothesis the equal validity of other great traditions.

 

[dayaa]

well said

i like that....thankyou

 

[path_of_one]

I like this too- and agree with it. Thanks.

 

[Bellator]

couldn't have been said better. People associate pluralism with relativism too much (right?), so it is good to find middle ground. I always hear about relativism, and I think the idea that there is no absolute truth is so obviously flawed. I'm glad to see there are others who have found the "middle way" of pluralism.

 

[lunamoth]

I am also attracted to the middle way of pluralism as it is presented here in the OP. Vim, I've seen you talking about religions as languages, and I guess one could extend this comparison to say that you can have highly unique languages only understood by one or a few persons, or gibberish languages that are not even consistent within themselves. Here you are advocating pluralism, yet it seems to me that you push the comparison to languages to the point where you are much closer to relativism than to pluralism. Maybe that is just because there is a point where the metaphor breaks down. It seems to me that all languages are of equal value as long as they allow you to communicate and there is little reason to prefer one over another. However, that brings the whole matter down to a question of mere utility. If I move to France (or Quebec) it would be better to learn and switch to French. However, with religion there is a value that goes beyond mere utility, in my experience. If I move to an Islamic country I am unlikely to become a Muslim unless somehow years of immersion transform me and convince me that Muslim path contains a truth missing from Christianity. It is not mere convenience or utility, but experience and being and heart.

Perhaps you do not intend to push the comparison that far. I have noticed that you have also commented on the importance of individual experience and perspective, that the personal component is critical. As I agree that is true, I am curious about your own belief system or philosophy. Do you believe in Something More, a Ground of Being, even if it is not what one might usually think of as God? Do you think it is all just psychology? I gather you have grave concerns about religions and doctrines. What is spirituality to you? Forgive me if this is too personally direct, but some people would like to share but will only do so if asked. Just in case you are in that category.

going out on a limb,
lunamoth

 

[Bandit]

Pluralism is a doctrine &/or another theory. I see it working quite well in science, politics, economics & to a point even religion, as it has in the States.

I see it as nothing more than reasoning. REASONING

When it comes down to the nitty gritty of beliefs, I also see a certain amount of/ & the possiblity of compromise in pluralism & that will be a problem.
I see the possiblity of the lesser & minorities kind of getting washed out in it even though it appears to be a good thing on the surface.

 

[Vimalakirti]

I am also attracted to the middle way of pluralism as it is presented here in the OP. Vim, I've seen you talking about religions as languages, and I guess one could extend this comparison to say that you can have highly unique languages only understood by one or a few persons, or gibberish languages that are not even consistent within themselves. Here you are advocating pluralism, yet it seems to me that you push the comparison to languages to the point where you are much closer to relativism than to pluralism. Maybe that is just because there is a point where the metaphor breaks down. It seems to me that all languages are of equal value as long as they allow you to communicate and there is little reason to prefer one over another. However, that brings the whole matter down to a question of mere utility. If I move to France (or Quebec) it would be better to learn and switch to French. However, with religion there is a value that goes beyond mere utility, in my experience. If I move to an Islamic country I am unlikely to become a Muslim unless somehow years of immersion transform me and convince me that Muslim path contains a truth missing from Christianity. It is not mere convenience or utility, but experience and being and heart.

Perhaps you do not intend to push the comparison that far. I have noticed that you have also commented on the importance of individual experience and perspective, that the personal component is critical. As I agree that is true, I am curious about your own belief system or philosophy. Do you believe in Something More, a Ground of Being, even if it is not what one might usually think of as God? Do you think it is all just psychology? I gather you have grave concerns about religions and doctrines. What is spirituality to you? Forgive me if this is too personally direct, but some people would like to share but will only do so if asked. Just in case you are in that category.

going out on a limb,
lunamoth

Hi Luna. Yes, I agree that it can be a fine distinction, and the language analogy has to be carefully framed - and of course every analogy has its limitations. I think if you read through all my posts - but I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, and you seem like such a nice person! - you'll see that I do try at least to be careful. But it may be I've indulged in some loose talk in places. Anyway, let me try to cover my a** on this question!

I agree that in the case of religious discourses, you can't say they're strictly linguistic in the sense of being parallel collections of arbitrary signs that can be automatically substituted, one for the other.

First of all, the pluralist position, as I understand it allows as I've said fair judgement. This isn't a foolproof process of course, but does work to minimize the merely idiosyncratic - gibberish, as you've just mentioned. In the post on the "Atheist" thread I said that one of the functions of elaborating doctrine is a reality check. Ideally, it's where we compare notes and help one another come to the best judgements about what our experience is showing us. So when we talk about comparing parallel religious languages, or what I am now calling discourses, they need to be fairly sorted; that is, great traditions need to be set beside other great traditions, not beside the Right Reverend Codswallop and the message he just discovered in the stains on his undershirt.

Second, we do have to keep in mind that while the greatest religious discourses in the greatest traditions may be pointing ultimately to the same referent, the reality we all share - though this is my contention and many would not agree - they approach this reality with different emotional colorings, different emphasis, different social orientations, and so on.

So again, it isn't a question of merely substituting sets of arbitrary signs. In a way, however, even ordinary language works this way. If you've ever studied a foreign language, you already know that it's impossible to speak anywhere close to like "a native", without going a little native yourself. To speak French, you need to become (au moins un peu) French. Your whole face has to change, like more tension around the lips & jaw! In fact, one of the psychological barriers to learning a foreign language is the resistance to having one's mind in effect colonized in this way. So with a particular kind of discourse within a language, whether it’s dealing with fashion, cooking or God, these colorations are still more important.

Pick up copies of the Qu'ran, the New Testament and the Digha Nikaya (first collection of Buddhist sermons) side by side and while you'll find parallels you'll also immediately feel three contrasting culture worlds of sensibility and scales of priority.

The absolutist position is that one must be right, or the best, or the definitive revelation; the others must be wrong or defective.

The relativist position is that we cannot distinguish between them in any way or make any judgements - particular or general - about the strengths, weaknesses or applicability to given human problems or human mentalities. Use at your own risk; there's no basis for judgement.

The pluralist position is that these three texts are embedded in three great traditions, which are demonstrably equal in the scale of profundity with which they point to ultimate questions of reality, but that in their particulars they are open to judgements, about their benefits, dangers, usefulness and applicability for different people, social settings, human needs and occasions, and so on.

From the beginning when I questioned (some say scandalously!) key notions like the chosen people, the kingdom of God and yoga, I was obviously not saying that these things are all relative; and I was not absolutely declaring for one system over another. I believe I was acting - in all good conscience! - in the role of a pluralist and pragmatist pointing to themes and difficulties in all traditions, and hoping to make a positive impact.

As for my spirituality, there's no mystery. I'm common as dirt. I must be one of legions who have an intuitive sense of the extraordinary fact of existence: one legged, crippled, not living past five, down to the momentary life & death of a paramecium, even an instant of this miracle is trivialized by the greatest discourse. And for those of us who go on for decades in this earthly paradise, who can look at it this way and that way, who can whine about it, lose track of it, find it again, who can innumerate at our leisure, or while chopping cotton, or cleaning toilets the innumerable names of God, well, I'm with Job, it's all good, what the Buddhists call this great luminosity.


Along side of this intuitive sense, which, it's true comes & goes, is dependent on conditions, is easily obscured, turned upside down, made Hell, I've naturally been interested in the great religious figures who appear particularly able to embody and articulate these truths, and in religious writings that set out to describe and organize these common experiences, make them available to everyone, and facilitate the good works that should result.

But again like numerous others while I've found much of value in particular figures, stories & ideas, I've also felt much frustration in the doctrinal systems and institutions in which they're embedded.

So I often question and still question whether I'm "religious" at all since so many "religious" people seem to have quite other ends than I do. When I first read the Old Testament, I felt like I was trapped inside a steel drum, with someone banging on the outside. The atmosphere felt that suffocating with ideas of persecution and the will to power. Conversely, when I first read the fundamental suttas of Buddhism I felt that its reciters, editors or compilers were so dominated by the desire to escape a problematic existence above all else that it hardly mattered where they escaped to!

Now, this may seem to contradict what I said above about these being great traditions; in fact, I maintain that they are. With application I have benefited from readings in both traditions. There are profoundly great spiritual writings and insights in the Old Testament, and I value the gospels as a primary source. And the Buddhist tradition offers much sheer penetration and subtlety.

The one doesn't need to be read as power, or the other as escape. I feel that both can be read to help us renounce what we need to renounce to dissolve the illusory, fallen world that obscures our vision, while uncovering & situating the Earthly paradise, Nirvana, the Kingdom of God precisely here, the only place where I think it can be found, and where it just happens to be.

Of course, what I've just said should manage to insult people on both sides. (What! you've equated my-really-absolute with that guy's not-really-absolute? Haven't you read the scriptures? Are you a fool? Don't you realize that these things are totally unrelated? Etc.)

But the point is that these scriptural traditions are vast, difficult, ungainly things shaped by many more motives than a dirt-simple type like me is interested in.

The classic answer of course is that each of these traditions is a vast koan; it all makes perfect sense in the end; it has to, because it's divinely inspired, or follows from the Buddha's omniscience, so the fault must lie with you, sinful or ignorant one! The fact that I don't buy this line is the source of most of the heat I've raised on these forums.

Like every other element in religious traditions, scriptures for me are human creations. These are powerful, fascinating attempts at approaching ultimate questions, well worth paying attention to, not easily replaced; but again I need to approach them in the pluralist, pragmatist spirit, not tied to irrational and for me unhelpful notions of inerrancy.

There's the parable from Jesus about the pearl of great price. I think that exactly describes for me all important religious scriptures. They all contain that pearl of great price; sometimes obscured, lost or buried in heaps of the human-all-too-human.

We can find it because we knew where it was from the beginning, with our first breath, our first complaint, our first joy, which was also our first impulse toward enlightenment, or toward God.

Cheers & Metta.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Pluralism is a doctrine &/or another theory. I see it working quite well in science, politics, economics & to a point even religion, as it has in the States.

I see it as nothing more than reasoning. REASONING

When it comes down to the nitty gritty of beliefs, I also see a certain amount of/ & the possiblity of compromise in pluralism & that will be a problem.
I see the possiblity of the lesser & minorities kind of getting washed out in it even though it appears to be a good thing on the surface.

Hey, Bandit. How's it hangin'?

Reasoning? Of course. I'm a reasonable type.

But the second part loses me. What are you saying?

Cheers & Metta.

 

[Bandit]

Hey, Bandit. How's it hangin'?

Reasoning? Of course. I'm a reasonable type.

But the second part loses me. What are you saying?

Cheers & Metta.

Hello Vimalakirti,

out of them all pluralism is the best way to go.

one person can say light & love. another says God is light & love. there is a big difference there.

it is when you get into doctrine & traditions that will compromise another related belief, is where there is going to be a problem, such as customs &/or personal experience(s) with God.
Someone with no experience with God, is never going to be able to relate to others experiences. Quite often when someone shares these things, they are not appreciated except only by another that has had the same or similiar experience.

pluralism also seems to be based on a non literal view & that is not going to work all the way through, however a dialogue can still be established.

the toe bone is connected to the foot bone, the foot bone is connected to the ankle bone, the ankle bone connected to the...

I come from a church that has a doctrinal statement no longer than 4 sentences. It allows us to hear & fellowship with all without too many problems while expounding & leaving the elevated conclusions to close in like effects. It also opens the door to dialogue & we have been invited by many organizations to discuss the deeper mysteries written in the Bible without passing out literature & stomping on peoples heads telling them, this is what you have to believe.

This has also given us the opportunity to listen & learn to UNDERSTAND what others believe & WHY they believe it, without condemning them.

One the other side, our church is a minority, in that for 50 years there is only one other church in the world that sees things in the Bible the same way all the way through, with the exception of another church in New York that has come into the same beliefs in the last year.
Being the minority, ( & i do mean literally the minority of all Christian beliefs) we are called heretics by most of the local churches, but have found a wide fellowship with people of different faiths throughout the world.

I cannot attribute this all to pluralism, but more like understanding & reasoning. That is all I can really say about it.


Have a good look at these defintions from Wikepedia

religious pluralism

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Religious+pluralism&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1

However, pluralism also arguably denies the existence of a single universal truth, and therefore by its very nature it can be considered an attempt to unintentionally invalidate many of the very creeds it proports to be attempting to have co-exist (such as the secular notion of women's rights coupled with acceptance of strict Islamic conventions against parity between men and women).

http://www.answers.com/pluralism#top

 

[Vimalakirti]

Hello Vimalakirti,

out of them all pluralism is the best way to go.

one person can say light & love. another says God is light & love. there is a big difference there.

I understand you to be saying that pluralism should be deeper than merely a kind of secularism, that we need to respect a certain "otherness" in the depth of another person's faith that we don't understand or share. I agree with you.

That in the broadest sense we share the same ground of being doesn't mean we can make superficial assumptions or judgements about our different understandings of it. What we can judge are the results. For me, the real test should be the pragmatic one Jesus proposed: by their fruits ye shall know them.

However, pluralism also arguably denies the existence of a single universal truth, and therefore by its very nature it can be considered an attempt to unintentionally invalidate many of the very creeds it proports to be attempting to have co-exist (such as the secular notion of women's rights coupled with acceptance of strict Islamic conventions against parity between men and women).

I disagree with this form of pluralism; it slips over the line. I think it would be inconsistent with the pluralism I describe to ever rule out the possibility of an absolute truth on principle. First of all, there's the old joke: there are absolutely no absolutes!

And then for me, pluralism is rooted in pragmatism, and the pragmatism of William James which says that what makes no difference is no difference. It's meaningless in a practical sense to deny absolutes on principle. It's only of use to deny absolutes when they are causing harm, for example in the inquisition, or are producing intolerance or unwholesome states of mind. So one is not attacking the whole principle of an absolute in theory, but only particular applications of absolutist ideas and the damage they cause.

On the other hand, my frequent rantings on "absolutism" - it's almost a verbal tic, isn't it! - may have left that wrong impression, that I was denying the whole possibility of an absolute. I may have been clumsy sometimes, but really I was going after "absolutism" as a kind of ideology that puts absolute ideas first, before people and their concrete needs, and so brings harm in its wake.

As for the difficulties of different cultures and their values, for example, the status of women: I think that yes to a certain degree we accept different views; if one culture has more strictly-defined gender roles than another that should propose no particular dilemma. On the other hand, if another culture tolerates practices that appear manifestly pathological or inhumane in our eyes - say female infanticide, genital mutilation, the stoning of women caught in adultery - we're under no obligation to grin and bear it. We have every right to say it is wrong, and even support people within that culture who are trying to change it.

You see, here is where so many people misunderstand pluralism and pragmatism and just how essentially American they are, because really we're talking about the marketplace of ideas. It's about the ongoing exploration of life and finding and encouraging the best and deepest ideas; it's not about treating all ideas equally.

I hesitate to bring up the marketplace - for one thing we live in an era where the market has indeed become a golden calf, an object of worship and the final arbiter of everything. For another, pragmatism has always been slammed as cheap opportunism and frankly too often used that way. But at its origins, particularly with William James, is a deeply humane & sincere engagement with concrete reality. It's about the ongoing creation of that reality. It's about finding the language and different registers of language that best serve human needs and which best put us in the deepest, most direct contact with reality. Fundamentally, it's more spiritual than material in its aims. Take a peek at Varieties of Religious Experience for a glimpse of how seriously James took the facts of religious faith.

Cheerio!

 

[lunamoth]

Take a peek at Varieties of Religious Experience for a glimpse of how seriously James took the facts of religious faith.

Cheerio!

Had to pop back in to say that reading "Varieties" at a somewhat crucial time was part of my own spiritual re-awakening, heart-thawing, some seven or so years ago.

lunamoth