I think, then, that the better word is the one that you broached in your later post - and it's been used before in this context: "fundamentalism". In any case, I do understand what you mean.
"I think you are wrong that 'there isn't much of a precedent' in our culture if you accept my assertion that QRStianity is a form, and expression of, 'radical Christianity'." --Alex
I'm not sure I accept it, but I'm willing to explore how an argument might be made - a few similarities are that:
- QRS affirm Jesus' declaration that he has come not in peace but to stoke war, even within households,
- the QRS promotion of egolessness has some parallels with Jesus' admonitions to selfless thought and behaviour - to love one's neighbour as oneself, to turn the other cheek, etc,
- QRStians are anti-materialist (in the sense of worldly wealth), as was Christ - it being harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle,
- the QRS see Jesus as a highly spiritual figure - a "prophet of enlightenment", even though not a "saviour of the world",
- QRStians are proselytisers of their thought system, just as Christians are of their faith.
Then again, I put this list to a former GF poster whose comment was that most of those can be said for most religions - so I'm not sure how definitively Christian QRS can be painted as. Right now, then, I'm somewhat sceptical of the comparison, but perhaps you can shed further light on it.
"I also think their notions about women and femininity are conservative" --Alex
Certainly, I grant you that!
Diebert, you've been generous of late - to me but not to Alex! And, in Alex's defence, I see his position as being that the specifics of the QRS system are not so important to challenge as the fervour and determination with which they are promoted; that he wishes to challenge, more so than the contents of that philosophy, the dogmatism and rigidity with which it is defended. He might say (and indeed I think he has said something to this effect) that you can judge the worth of a system by the fruits in its believers; along similar lines: he is more interested in the limitations of the system than in its accuracy. I think he asks the question, "How is this system conducive to a worthwhile life?", and he leaves it to myself and others to challenge the system with the question, "How true is it?". In some (many?) respects, he admits anyway to a certain level of truth to "the Edifice", I think he just sees that what truth there is in it is being valued to the wrong degree; that there are other truths that ought to be more highly valued.
In other words, I think it really boils down to a difference in values. I also think that this is something that Alex would find easy to agree with, whereas it might perhaps be harder for QRS or even yourself to agree with. What do you think? I suspect that a house philosopher would prefer to frame it in terms of "ultimate truth" than "my [his/her] personal values". I see this, for example, in the "truth" of "emptiness", which, it seems, has significance only to those with a certain predisposition to value that concept and attach philosophical implications to it, whereas, for me, I recognise what is being said, yet it doesn't hold the same value to me (i.e. the same ability to affect my thoughts and behaviour) as it seems to hold for those on this board. Does that make sense?
Also, perhaps because of the way he goes about it - referring to "true believers" as "boyish" - and knowing your dislike of insults (hey, me too), I suspect that you shut your door to Alex's critiques before giving them full consideration, and tend to respond by attacking him (personally) as you see him attacking the house philosophers (personally). And I accept that it is personal, and that Alex has made it that way - there's no question about that: in looking at "fruits", one looks at the person. But it is not solely with Alex that the personal aspect is made manifest: David, too, is not shy to appraise people's potential for enlightenment, or at least what stage they're at. Perhaps this is even what gave Alex the incentive to look in that direction in the first place.
And in all of this, I find your own approach unique, because whilst you seem to generally adhere to the house philosophy, you don't go about defending it with the same dogmatism and rigidity that others do - you avoid, for example, the ad nauseam repetition of core doctrines and arguments - and so, at least in my eyes, you have a certain amount of character - or perhaps "individuation" is a better way of putting it.
I also feel though that in this you are at a disadvantage: that rather than being able to respond to challengers with the usual "solid" (in the sense of "plain and straightforward") doctrines and arguments, you are "forced" to (you tend to) respond in your own more abstruse and idiosyncratic manner. Whilst this differentiates you, it also makes exchanges with you more... challenging! Or it could simply be that, sometimes, what you say goes right over my head. ;-)
Anyhow, much more could be written on the dynamic between you and Alex, and between the QRStians and the Alexians in general, but this post is long enough. That's me for now. Peace out, peoples. :-)