The Gnostic Agnostic; A Darius Arash Kamali Blog

A note on definition.
I have never quite understood why opponents of the theological, political, social, and moral complex of ideas, attitudes and agendas known as Fundamentalism continue to allow the proponents of these largely literalist, selective views to rhetorically define themselves with inaccurate and inapropriate language. I propose a change in terminology. What keeps this from being merely an issue of semantics (one in which different words are used for essentially the same idea) is that
words have implicit meanings and connotations. Therefore to use one word over another carries certain baggage and has certain implications. Take the word fundamentalist. The implicit meaning of the word is suggestive of something which is essential, core, central. When dealing with theological or mythological narratives, what is fundamental is not so much the specifics story devices. Interestingly, these are precisely the aspects that the so called fundamentalists consider central. A true fundamentalist would be more concerned with the moral ‘point’ or symbolic truth that the narrative correctly or incorrectly attempts to convey. The costumes, names, masks, of the characters, as well as the geographic or chronological local, even the historicity of the described event are, at best, secondary, and even incidental to the ‘fundamental’ truth of the narrative.
It is for this reason that I suggest ‘fundamentalism’ be raplaced in the common as well as the well reasoned parlance with a more descriptive and hence more appropriate term…I recommend ‘Superficialism.’

Posted on Wednesday, May 31, 2006 at 04:03PM by TheGnosticAgnostic in Superficialist (Fundementalist) Watch | Post a Comment