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.
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.
