From Tribalism to Humanism

Thank God there is someone like you in this world!

I have praised your post at http://www.progressiveislam.org

and at

http://www.myspace.com/literarydiscussions

I hadn`t heard the word before either. Sorry, being practically uneducated, one has to rely on making up words to capture ideas. :)

Saintism: Any philosophy or way of life that assumes, or whose nontrivial worldly success rests on the validity of the assumption, that all humans beings are or, with a bit of education, can be turned into, veritable saints - unselfish, loving, truthful, forgiving, nonviolent, and respectful toward and caring for all others.

``Saint``-ism is ``human``-ism with the animal taken out of the human.

Re: # 161

No apologies necessary.

My compliments on the proposed increase in prominence of the orotund English language!!

Great definition!

#157 by drsohail

Well ...

....human sufferings at a personal and social level

It does not exist. It is too relative a term to be taken seriously. It can even be a pleasure.

.....how those sufferings can be healed

You can`t heal what is merely a perception. So the answer is you can`t.

Rajneesh was mentioned somewhere on this board. I remember watching a videotape of one of his lectures:

There was a great king, with a great kingdom, a beautiful and virtuous queen, and a handsome and able young prince. The king taught the Prince all that he knew from horsemanship to hurling lances to swordsmanship, and the prince excelled in all of them. He had everything.

Then suddenly one day the prince fell ill. The king tried everything, to no avail. He got the best physicians of his kingdom as well as other kingdoms far and wide. None could cure the prince. The king and the queen were both distraught and beyond themselves in grief, and in his grief, the king fell asleep while crying.

Then he saw he had a great kingdom, bigger than he had now, he had an even more beautiful queen than now, and he had nine princes ... all of them as skillful in archery and swordsmanship as the dying prince. Then he woke up and began to laugh.

When the queen asked him as to why he was laughing when his prince was dying? He replied ``Should I cry for this `one` prince, or the `nine` whom I just lost?``

Hope above answers some questions ...

Cheers!

Dr Sohail

No Sir, humanism is not socialism. Neither is it atheism, secularism, or saintism. It`s just making the human being (or humanity, collectively) the beginning, the middle, and the end of all sociopolitical endeavor...

How can one promote it? LOL...that`s going to be very very hard given that, if Saroya is right, great humanist men and women are still stuck in the barren marshes of saintism. Saintism, by definition, cannot be humanism, since human beings are not saints.

They can be, but they can also be animals. Human beings ARE animals (by rationalists` own admission). So if humanism is to make any sense to most human beings, it MUST present models of BOTH individual transcendence AND ethical society keeping in view man`s reality.

Until then, nonhumanists have it, lock, stock, and barrel.

That`s the hard reality. And it should be the hardest for genuine believers in saintism :)

Re: # 158
Please explain what you mean when you refer to `saintism`.

I don`t believe I`ve heard the word before.

Are you referring to the Christian belief of honouring one of their dead?

#152 by kaalchakra

... uncompromisingly, a sociopolitical system of the humans, created entirely by the humans, for the sole benefits and pleasure of the humans....Nor does it have to do with one individual here or twenty individuals there behaving as humanists.

That pretty much sums it up. Well said.

Re: # 155

dear zeemax...thank you for being honest with your thoughts ragarding my `shallow`

articles and `naive` personality. i have broad shoulders i can take it. can you share with me

what is your philosophy or ideology about

....human sufferings at a personal and social level

and

.....how those sufferings can be healed

i believe in life long learning

sincerely sohail

Re: # 155
dear kaalchakra....am i understanding you correctly that you believe in socialist revolution....and how you would like to bring it? sincerely sohail

#153 by Saroya

I can`t get your line of reasoning here ... care to explain?

Hey Zeemax

Hippies helped bring an end to the Vietnam war and Humanists are dreamers.

How profound. I wonder what the members of the 66th North Vietnamese Regiment would think about that comment?

The publicity brought about by the hippie culture was certainly most useful in political circles; they therefore did make an enormous impact, I agree; we appear to continue to pay the price for their activities to this day.

Were it not for dreamers Zeemax, we`d still be riding horses from one county to another!

Drohail, I`ve already been to your website and I thank you for the offer. I`ll be in touch.

Thanks, Saroya, for adding to Dr. Sohail`s truly inspirational vision. Particularly since you are also familiar with what great men and women of the past have said of humanism. My personal conceptualization of humanism is only partly related to the categories of ideas described in your #148 - in the congruence of objectives. In most other ways, it differs significantly. So apologies for the confusion.

The humanism of my interest (dreams, really) is, uncompromisingly, a sociopolitical system of the humans, created entirely by the humans, for the sole benefits and pleasure of the humans.

Nothing more, nothing less. So it cannot be just a mindset, a life-style, an ideology, a philosophy, or a movement, although a humanistic sociopolitical system would actively encompass, encourage, and privilege them. Nor does it have to do with one individual here or twenty individuals there behaving as humanists. To be of any real use, or be counted as signficant player of the competitive game, humanism must - at the very least - imagine (the possibility of) viable, functioning, durable societies.

Saroya, do any existing bodies of ideas resonate with such concerns? A thumbnail sketch of anything that you might know would be most appreciated. Thanks.

#149 by Saroya

I dunno if the hippies were rational or not, but they sure did change public opinion and help bring an end to the vietnam war merely through that Peace symbol of theirs ...

As for being humanists? Not according to your defintions. They transcended all this sickly sweet Reader`s Digest kind of stuff you guys dream about.

Hello dear friends

I have been away for a couple of days, hence the delay in responding, however I did read your post Kaalchakra before I left and I did think about your questions while I was away.

The delight I felt at coming back to my computer and finding so much activity and interaction since I left! It`s yet another example of the world turning irrespective of where we are and what we do!!!

So, how do I answer your first question, Kaalchakra? IS there an official view of `humanism`? I too wonder.

Here is another possibility though:- http://www.humanism.org/project.html

Quote: The humanist movement is an international organization formed by people of different ages, origins, culture and religion, united by the project to build a truly human society. A society in which the human being, with his needs and aspirations, is the central value. A society in which human rights are completely realized: the right to health, instruction, freedom, spirituality, search for the meaning of life, and an existence with dignity. Unquote

Could this be considered an `official view` of Humanism?

`People UNITED by a (project?) to BUILD a truly `human society` in which the human being is the central value with the `RIGHT` to be healthy, be free, be spiritual etc etc. etc.

And yet another possibility:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Quote: Humanism, as a philosophical term, is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism. Humanism is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems, and is also incorporated into some religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial. Unquote

Could this be considered an `official view`?

It`s worthwhile having a look at the sections of `humanism` incorporated at the aforementioned set of principles of that view of humanism - very interesting indeed, it speaks about `Secular Humanism`, `Religious Humanism` and just for good measure, there`s an `Educational Humanism` as well!

There are probably as many views on humanism as there are stars in the sky or people on earth prepared to think on the subject.

From the early 14th century man has pondered and theorized on the word `humanism` and will, hopefully, continue to do so for many centuries to come.

I, for one, would not consider the definition in my earlier post `an official view`, nor would I want to as, in doing so, it would immediately narrow my perspective to any future explanation which could possibly be better. Having said that, the earlier definition is perhaps closest to my philosophy as it can be, AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

Now to your second question, which had me thinking quite a lot!!

Firstly; to man, anything and everything is possible.

Assuming humanism to be, ESSENTIALLY, a rationalist movement that believes that man CAN be ethical and find self-fulfillment, WITHOUT recourse to supernaturalism; it is possible for a society to put it into practice.

Drsohail, see if you can find a copy of `Humanism - What`s in a Word` by Nicolas Walter - I think you`d enjoy it very much.

Re: # 148
Dear Saroya...I thoroughly enjoy your letters. I will try to get the book you suggested. I would like to send you two of my books
From Islam to Secular Humanism...published in 2001
and
Freedom of Religion...Freedom from Religion (hoping to be out next week...hot from the press)
if you wish to read please send me your postal address and I will send you as gifts.
where do you live?
you can see my other writings on
www.drsohail.com
sincerely sohail

The questions and comments are merely to strengthen your case, Sir, so we can all follow your lead - and that`s meant with all sincerity.

The next step on which we need the guidance of thinkers like you and Saroya is to figure out how we are going to convince people who we might call, for lack of another term - Goddies - believers holding that all worthwhile virtue comes from and is justified in the ultimate happiness of their God alone.

And in understanding whether political power, in any way, matters. Can humanism still blossom healthy in hearts of the masses when political and coercive power (and hence the ability to set limits on everything from school syllabii to editorials in daily newspapers) lies in the hands of confirmed Goddies?

Re: # 144
dear kaalchakra....i have no idea how saroya will answer your question. i am a poet, a

humanist and a psychotherapist. i believe in education and evolution. i do not see myself as

revolutionary who has to convert others and change the world. i feel that if i try to live my

life according to my philosophy and help all those human beings that i come in touch with

everyday whether through education or in therapy, then my conscience is clear that i am

playing my role in human evolution. i like to have a dialogue the way i am having with you

and learn from you. that is all i am after. for me humanism is an attitude the way sincerity,

honesty and integrity and rational thinking is. if humanists tried to convert all religious

people by force and coercion, then i will dissociate from that process. for me respecting

others even when i disagree with them is the fundamental aspect of humanism. if

humanists have a responsible position in life then i hope they try to serve rather than rule

humanity. i think life is simple. some of us make it very complicated. my dear friend

zeemax called me `naive` on another discussion. i smiled when i read that. i rather

be `naive` and have trust and faith in humanity rather than believe all human beings are

animals and cruel and evil. i rather connect with the kind and gentle and bright side of

people rather that their cruel and dark sides. i am aware we as human beings have both

sides to our personality at a personal and collective level. at the time of war some join the

red cross and save people while others steal and loot. i hope i join the red cross and serve

others.

dear kaalchakra....of all the books that i read to understand the human evolution and

evolution of the qualities that transformed animals into humans two books i liked the most

and i suggest them to my friends. they are

DESCENT OF MAN BY CHARLES DARWIN

COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS BY RICHARD BUCKE

these books capture the journey of becoming fully human and it has taken a long long

time to get half way...and we have a to go a long way to create those communities that you

are wishing for. i am a patient man. now that i have honestly shared my position please

feel free to share your philosophy and ideology and how that can be put into practice....all

the best....sohail

Dear Dr. Sohail,
Absolutely beautiful, as usual. Why can`t we have some more people to pen such thoughts.

Choicest of my wishes

Najeeb Kazmi

Re: # 141
dear dana-e-raaz...thank you for your kind words. it is hard for all of us to undo and

unlearn the conditioning of hundreds of years but not impossible. one of my sheyrs

sadion ki zangjeerain khainchain peechay ki jaanib

phir bhi aagay barthay rehna kitna mushkil hay

all the best...sohail

Re: # 142

drsohail

Excuse me dear. Mera aapko mukhlisana mashwarah he kih aap shaairi ko to muaaf hi rakhen to behtar he.

Yih aapka shehr:

``sadion ki zangjeerain khainchain peechay ki jaanib

phir bhi aagay barthay rehna kitna mushkil hay``

to mujhe kuchh, narm lafzon mein, illogical sa laga. Mera khayaal he kih doosri line mein jo `Kitna mushkil hay` ki jagah `chahie ham ko` rakh den to `shehr` kam az kam logical to ho jaega.

regards

Re: # 145

ustaad-e-mukarram....islaah ka shukrya....kabhi waqt ho to meri website www.drsohail.com

par meri shairi dekhiay aur apna qeemati mashwara deejiay...sohail

saroya

Is that the ``official`` view of humanism? How is it supposed to be put in practice by any society?

Re: # 140

dear kaalchakra....i thought saroya would share his wisdom in responding to your question.

in my humble opinion philosophy of humanisn is put in practice when

...a parent does not tell his children that they are sinning and would burn in hell

...a teacher teaches the students all religious and secular traditions as part of history and

not as faith

...a leader of the community does not hate another leader because he is of a different sect

or religion

...human beings welcome and embrace other human beings because of their character and

service to community

...people try to solve personal and social problems with rationality and wisdom learning

from modern science and psychology and sociology rather than relying on hundreds of

years old scriptures.

....communities look toward the future rather than being preoccupied with the past

thank you for your thought provoking comments and questions. sincerely sohail

Soroya

(1) What do we gain by reducing humanism to rationalism and individualism?

(2) The assumption that mankind has transcended animal nature may not be entirely true. So by removing animal nature from the discussion of humanism, are we not turning humanism into a saintly, silly myth?

Re: # 137

(1) My goodness. I`m not quite sure what you mean. How could one reduce Humanism? If it could be reduced at all, would that not constitute a change from the philosophy that man can, on his own, without resorting to the supernatural, be ethical AND RATIONAL in his thoughts and actions. As I said previously, you either share in the philosophy of Humanism or you don`t. You can`t remove pieces or you`d be left with something totally different.

Rationalism, like Humanism, suggests that `reason` should be valued above religious beliefs or emotion.

It is not impossible to aspire to Humanism and Rationalism AND Individualism, all at the same time.

(2) Modern Man evolved from Prehistoric Man. Prehistoric Man, set side by side with any of our contemporary `non human` animals would not seem as out of place as Modern Man (21st Century) in the same scenario.

You seem intent on removing aspects which in some cases can be a good thing. However, when discussing Humanism, the animal nature has already been removed. The words `Saintly` and `Mythical` have no bearing when discussing Humanism.

Humanism is essentially a rationalist (accepting reason as the ONLY basis for forming one`s opinions or course of action) movement that believes that man (gender neutral) can be ethical and find self-fulfillment without recourse to supernaturalism. It is based on the premise that any living creature, other than a plant, is an animal and that the human animal has transcended using ‘reason’ as its catalyst.

There is no broader or narrower sense to Humanism – this philosophy can be either accepted or rejected. If accepted and aspired to, then the persons visions, actions and reactions to people and situations will be first and foremost `considered` - in other words, they would `think` before acting, and think rationally, using the one thing that separates the human animal from others in the animal kingdom – and that one thing being `REASON`. Opinions would be their own and not governed in any way by virtue of `supernatural powers`, whether they be religious or political!

Humanism, therefore, being pertinent solely `to the human race of animals` that have transcended from their prehistoric ancestors.

Tribalism on the other hand, can be loosely described as any group of animals classified together. The concept of tribalism has not changed since its inception; the concept of `loyalty towards a tribe by its members, often involving hostility towards other tribes`.

Tribalism still exists in the non-human animal kingdom. The Wildebeest or Gnu’s enemy is the Crocodile, or the Lion or the Hyena or the Jackal, each belonging to their own ‘tribe’ they will protect their own and hunt the other, for their survival. These animals do not maim their enemies for pleasure; they slaughter their enemies for their survival and have done so, and will continue to do so until they too can transcend beyond the realms of the primary animal kingdom.

There are no ‘modern tribal wars’ between members of the human animal kingdom. It is an injustice to the non-animal kingdom to suggest such.

Assuming that all mankind (gender neutral) has transcended beyond the realms of the animal kingdom, we could say that there are human beings who don’t aspire to the virtues and philosophies of Humanism who choose to confront human beings that do aspire to the virtues and philosophies of Humanism.

It’s as simple as that.

Your article and your poem are inspiring.

We are the world, we are the universe
We bleat, we croak
We howl, we roar
We cry, we laugh
United in this quest for life
Together we are one

Humanism, in the broadest sense, IMO, means that human life should be lived by human ideas for the benefit and happiness of the human race.

Pure humanism sees absolutely no difference between any humans and any ideas (held by any group of humans), holding that every idea is good for humankind. (All paths lead to human welfare). IMO, this is an inherently unstable approach (that is, it has auto immune deficiency).

Agree with zeemax. What individuals do or don`t do isn`t and shouldn`t be the focus. It`s the ideas, basic assumptions, value and belief systems that we need to look at. And these can be identified without controversy.

#131 When you put on the mask of the frankenstein monster, or mother teresa or whatever, that does not make you the frankenstein monster, or mother teresa, or whatever.

is that too difficult to figure out? if so, do you hide under your bed on holloween because you think that those are real midget monsters running around outside?

hamidm,

If you`re equating Maharishi Mahesh with Hippyism, that`s totally incorrect. Both were seperate movements with nothing in common except perhaps free-love. Hippyism was an alternate value system. Mahesh`s was a religious cult.

#128 ``pure humanism``? as opposed to ``impure humanism``?? that makes as much sense as hamidm`s self-contradictory post.

but carry on...dont let me interfere with these profound thoughts. :-)

#126 hamidm: so, per your post, mahesh yogi was a humanist and a crook, at the same time. You get to pick one only.

Re: # 129 Tahmed

forget what hamidm says. Mahesh yogi is a crook.

BTW, why do you say ``was``? Is he dead?

Re: # 129

tahmed,

....... who said humanists cannot be crooks ?.......... but they are small fry and relatively benign compared to the popes, presidents and prophets (real ones who actually talk to god) ..............

hamidm2

That is so right. That`s why pure humanism can never defend itself (it suffers from a natural auto-immune deficiency).

Zee ustaad, what a coincidence/good fortune to read that. Woke up this morning thinking something very similar:

Faith, when it goes horribly wrong, will become religious BDSM (Bondage-Domination-Sado-machism) chamber, incapable of any real change or genuine relief. Humanism when it goes horribly wrong, will quickly die on drugs or of auto-immune deficiency.

Aaah, need to brew me some morning coffee...

Re: # 126

kaal mian,

.......... humanism cannot succeed simply because there is no money or power in it for most people ........... crooks like maharishi mahesh yoga and shri rajneesh managed to convince a few thousand fools to part with their money, but they could never hope to muster the support of millions of people like the mullahs and presidents who beat the drums of religion and patriotism .............

..........humainsm is small business compared to corporate tribalism ........... and besides, it just doesn`t appeal to human nature - it is silly to expect ohio state and university of michigan to have a friendly football game in which everyone wins ............ from early childhood we learn that for you to win, someone has to lose .............

........... and most people, living rather insignificant lives in the shadows, get a perverse pleasure out of belonging to a group and identifying with a `cause` that gives their pathetic lives some meaning ............ religion is the biggest beneficiary of this human weakness .........

... contd ...

So let`s ponder upon where the humanism of the Hippies went wrong. Why did it disappear? Was it the drugs or the music or the problems with parenting and responsibility? Can humanism succeed now if these elements are removed but the spirit retained? And how? Another sub-culture perhaps, but can humanism be achieved without sacrificing the family system and value systems? Or is there a universal value system (other than the usual platitudes) which can be adopted as a value system while dispensing with religions` influence?

Another prophet will be needed to answer the above. But haven`t there been hundreds of thousands of those already? Would another one be able to convince mankind of the benefits to be derived from the `asli tey wadda` humanism? Dr. Timothy Leary certainly failed on that count.

Cheers.

In any event, humanism was tried as a sub-culture and did gain tremendous momentum during the 60s with the Hippie movement and their communal marriages and communal offspring, free love, flower power and the rest. I guess that spirit is what the good doctor has discovered somehow without being aware it is nothing new, and that there`re still `gatherings of the tribes` (yes ... that`s what they call it) of the remnants of the Hippie movement all over USA and Europe.

My complaint with the doctor`s articles is that they are routinely shallow and devoid of historical references or present day parallels. Just his opinions on his personal emotional journey in pursuit of `love` (whatever the heck that emotion means if not tribal ...).

Re: # 124

Have often wondered what people`s thoughts were on the hippies.

Could the hippies of the 60`s be considered rational in their behaviour?

They preached `human rights` and in so doing, could they be considered humanists?

#120 by hamidm2

...are you suggesting that `spiritual` people like ayman zawhiri and obl who wear the dark mark of their spirituality on their foreheads ...

This remark is examplary of the misguided perception that islamophobes have about the persona of the aforesaid gentlemen.

There`s a BBC documentary running these days titled ``Time to talk to Al-Qaida?``. In it a Harvard professor, expert on the subject, is asked re ``what does Al-Qaida want?`` He names three things specifically as below:

1) End of US complicity with Israel against Palestinians.

2) End to US support of authoritarian/dictatorial regimes in the Islamic world.

3) Withdrawal of all US troops from all Islamic countries.

That`s it. Nothing more or less. Where do you see any `dark mark of their spirituality on their foreheads` in these demands?

Some Islamophobists like Blair add an additional angle i.e. establishment of a Caliphate, which is not OBL`s objective. It is though of a small group based in the UK named Hazb Al Tahreer, which is non-violent. It is certainly not OBL/Zawahiri`s objective.

BTW, the documentary advocates talking to them because it is not OBL or the likes who can be crushed by military means, it is a political movement with political solutions.

And yes, OBL/Zawahiri are tribal, just as entire Islam is tribal, but no different from any other small or large groupings of loyalties, and there`s no escaping that. (Pls note Khurram`s posts).

Therefore, I agree with you completely on the central thesis being discussed here. I fully endorse your view that a child is born into a tribe, and nothing will change that. I also agree that there`s not a single humanist or universalist gene in man ... evolution (or God ... take your pick) took care of that while establishing the food-chain.

Re Paris Hilton ... she`ld have her own tribe ... everyone does!

A video of Paris Hilton having sex with God will make a lot of people very religious very fast.

---

Hope this won`t put ideas into the heads of some religious friends. Otherwise such videos would soon start being shipped out by the millions, as another ``proof`` of a ``Loving God.`` :)

#120 hamidm: do you have any doubts that paris hilton (even with her internet video) is anywhere as primitive as zawahiri or ben laden? i dont see paris hilton gloating over the death of people, e.g.

hamidm; while united manchester fans may get into drunken brawls, manchester stars go to the highest bidder (as in beckham and his $1 million a week salary for next 5 years with LA galaxy. that is what the good doctor is talking about.

the primitives brawl over their clubs/religions/ethnicities; the enlightened ones bend it like beckham and have a good life, ``with malice towards none``.

.............. how do you explain this hostility against a purlple dinosaur ?

Read #64 & #75.

Re: # 118

zeemax,

...... are you suggesting that `spiritual` people like ayman zawhiri and obl who wear the dark mark of their spirituality on their foreheads are less `tribal` than paris hilton who wouldn`t recognize god even if she had sex with him ?

dr sohail,

............ inspite of the fact that i raised my children to love dinosaurs and hindoos, i was really shocked when my daughter, who was six years old at that time, came home from school singing :

I hate you!

You hate me!

Let`s hang Barney from a tree!

With a knife through his back and a gun to his head,

Pull the trigger, Barney`s dead!



.............. how do you explain this hostility against a purlple dinosaur ?

drink beer, get drunk and beat the crap out of the other guy


dr sohail,

.......... i hate to tell you, but this this article is a piece of mealy-mouthed crap that might appeal to wusses and nerds and lily-livered pusillanimous `scholars` who are out of touch with the bloody reality of life ..........

............ tribalism is the natural state of man and hyena ......... think about it: man is born into a family, even if he is the illegitimate son of god - and what do you think a family is? .... it is simply a small tribe which protects the baby from being eaten by the tribe (family) next door ........... and the baby grows up belonging to one group or another that is often at war with some other group ......... as a school boy he teams up with his `friends` to beat up other kids from the other tribe during recess or after school ....... and if that doesn`t happen, the school organizes a soccer match against a `rival` school so that the kids can beat up on each other under adult supervision ............. as an adult he might join a political party so that he can rough up folks belonging to the other party and, if he is really ambitious, he joins the army so that he can kill people from the other tribe ........... if nothing else, he becomes a united manchester fan so that he can get into drunken brawls with other football tribals .........

....... the humanism gene simply does not exist ........

Thank you, Sir, for that lovely gift. Your mastery of poetic expression is admirable, and your deep sensitivity to That Which Can Only Be Sensed is rare. Getting that opportunity to meet shall be my hope too. Regards.

greetings sohail sahib. great subject you have chosen for your article. and very true indeed!!

kaalchakra: trouble i have with the terms ``left winger`` and ``right winger`` is that they represent ideologies, i.e. solutions. however, a given solution is effective only in the context of a given issue in a given context. people who identify with ideologies seek to apply their solutions to all problems in all context - and thus, invariably end up making as mess. as the communists did in soviet russia, china and most of the third world for three decades after WWII. or, on the other hand, as the neo-cons have done in iraq (where they stuck to a military strategy that made short work of saddams conventional military but failed miserably in achieving the broader goal of turning iraq into progressive, democratic nation as the US had done in japan e.g. aftr wwii.

so - please dont label yourself as a leftist or a rightist. because either way, you become an ideologue. far better, i think, to simply keep some broad principles and goals (i.e. a better world for the next generation) in mind instead.

Dr. Sahib, less important things will only clutter this special place dedicated to exploring your humanistic (and hence Godly) ideas... Chowk is lucky to have a few large-hearted individuals - true universalists and humanists like you - who can glimpse the real Kingdom of God. The rest of us remain mired in the mud, stuck in our petty beliefs, forever insulting God, fighting petty battles in His or Her name...

---

Zee Ustaad, Farzana is remarkable, isn`t she? :) Hope she is doing great.

Re: # 110
Dear Kaalchakra....If you were close to me physically I would have

given you an affectionate hug. Keep the candle buring in your heart. That is far better than

complaining about the dark night...

Being a humanist poet who is fascianted with mysteries of life and love, all I can offer you

is one of my ghazal couplet as a gift

main apni zaat ki gehraion main jab utarta hoon
andharon kay safar main roshni mehsoos karta hoon

I hope I meet you one day

all the best....sohail

Re: # 110
Dear Kaalchakra....If you were close to me physically I would have

given you an affectionate hug. Keep the candle buring in your heart. That is far better than

complaining about the dark night...

Being a humanist poet who is fascianted with mysteries of life and love, all I can offer you

is one of my ghazal couplet as a gift

main apni zaat ki gehraion main jab utarta hoon
andharon kay safar main roshni mehsoos karta hoon

I hope I meet you one day

all the best....sohail

I see Dr. Sohail has discovered Kaalchakra ....

Brings to mind a couplet by Ustad Imam Din Gauhavia of Gujranwalla ...

``Itni gehrayon mein na jaa Ghalib,
Bh***i dya ... dub jayen gaa!``

Happy exploring, Doc.

Just a word of caution as another great Chowkie philosopher, Farzana Versey had said to me in a similar situation:

......better bring along your own anchor ...

tahmed32

That`s very nice of you, tahmedji. At some point in time, as a staunch leftist, there came a feeling that leftist approach to accomplishing what they wanted to do wasn`t sufficient. One could actually face issues, describe things as they are (in all their ugliness and beauty), not as we would like them to be, not by running away from mankind`s differences and conflicts, but by actually resolving problems, by understanding and respecting differences. There wasn`t much market for that way of thinking among the left. So I became a rightwinger. The best consequence is that one can think of the rightwingers as the vermin that they are, and not feel guilty of ``offending`` the left. Actually, I thoroughly enjoy doing the latter :)

Sorry, enough about me :)

---

Khurram

Precisely. Philosophy essentially `takes God out` as the final doer or even the subject of all human efforts...making man responsible and accountable, and man`s fate itself the final goal.

That`s why humanistic religions (made by humans for humans) actually are quite different in form, nature, behavior, and effect. In some good ways and some bad ways.

drsohail, kaalchakra

I guess it eventually comes down to the Reality of God and Man`s relationship to that Reality. That`s a whole another discussion and I hope we get to it someday.

For now I will just say that a simplistic distinction between man-made and God-made is questionable since that reduces God to an actor on par with humans.

For me, a philosophy is an attempt by the human mind to crearte an autonomous and self sufficient reality while religion is an attempt by the human mind to ground itself in the Ultimate Reality that transcends it.

#104 ``That just sounds cooler. Besides, that saves me from feeling eternally obligated to everyone else on the planet. ``

You are being sincerely humble here. So let me balance that out by noting that your posts indicate that in fact you do feel obligated and responsible. Which is more than can be said for the ``leftist intellectuals`` and ``nationalists`` and suchlikes on chowk.

Dr sahib, thanks a million for the interest.

Although our own persons are really not important here, I like to consider myself a right-winger of all sorts. That just sounds cooler. Besides, that saves me from feeling eternally obligated to everyone else on the planet. Works like a charm. Kind regards. :)

Re: # 104
dear kaalchakra....you sound very modest.

samandar say milay piasay ko shabnum

bakheeli hay ye razaqqi nahin hay

can you share with me your views who you consider....leftists....and rightwingers?

i am also curious about your philosophical shift. how did that take place?

sincerely sohail

khurram

All philosophy is man-made, for man`s benefit. From a philosophical point of view, God will be happy when man is happy. Some religion is God-revealed, for God`s benefit. For all such religion, Man will be happy when God is happy. Subtle difference in priority, but that difference completely changes character and effect of philosophy and religion.

---

malikjahanzeb

Been around off and on :)

Re: # 102
dear kaalchakra....well said.

i read on your website that you were away since may. were you not feeling well?

tell me more about yourself what are your professional and philosophical interests?

sincerely

sohail

k-chakra,

how has everything been on chowk. have you been regular.

dr sohail,

yes, the idea of such a seminar sounds interesting. are you also toronto these days? do you live in toronto?

Re: # 98
dear malik...yes i live half an hour east of toronto in whitby and have my clinic there.

please come to the seminar and we will meet or give me your number and i will call or call

me at 905-666-2140 residence...or 905-666-7253 clinic...looking forward to meeting you

sohail

drsohail,

Rest assured, I am not upset or frustrated with you . I am enjoying our discussion.

Perhaps you can help clear my confusion by explaining what you think is the difference between philosphy and religion.

Re: # 95
dear khurrum....when i think of philosophy i think of confucious and socrates....they were

enlightened people who were secular. they quesioned things and traditions and used logical

and rational methods to understand mysteries of life. they were social scientists

...when i think of religion i think of moses and jesus and mohammad who tried to guide

humanity and refoem them but put God and revelation and scriptures at the centre of their

message. Because of making their message sacred they gained more power but became

vulnerable to become institutionalized. Followers could not challenge and criticze their

message without being afraid of serious consequences of being persecuated.

It becomes more complicated when followers of relgion not only follow their own ideology

but want to make a constituition based on scriptures...so religion becomes political. for a

message to become institutionalized and then political is unfortunate because then it

becomes a powerful WEAPON that can be abused by people in power.

Secularism and democracy and humanism try their best for that not to happen or try to at

least minimize the negative effects.

I hope I answered your question....

I am aware that different people might have different interpretations of these terms but I

gave you my humble opinion with clear conscience. I want to share my ideas with no

intention to change your mind or win the argument. Feel free to share your understanding

of PHILOSOPHY and RELIGION...sincerely sohail

from wikipedia:

Roy Nurmi, an interpretation adviser for Schlumberger described the process as follows: ``Something in the order of 500 million years ago there was only simple life in the seas, and these shallow seas would be rich with organic, living organisms. Plankton and algae, proteins and the life that`s floating in the sea, as it dies, falls to the bottom, and these organisms are going to be the source of our oil and gas. When they`re buried with the accumulating sediment and reach an adequate temperature, something above 50 to 70°C they start to cook. This transformation, this change, changes them into the liquid hydrocarbons that move and migrate, will become our oil and gas reservoir.``[1]

In addition to the water environment mentioned, which is usually a sea but might also be a river, lake, coral reef or algal mat, the formation of an oil or gas reservoir also requires a sedimentary basin that passes through four steps: burial under miles of sand and mud, pressure cooking, hydrocarbon migration from the source to porous rock, and trapping by impermeable rock. Timing is also an important consideration; it is suggested that the Ohio River valley could have had as much oil as the Middle East at one time, but that it escaped due to a lack of traps.[2] The North Sea, on the other hand, endured millions of years of sea level changes that successfully resulted in the formation of more than 150 oilfields.[3]

oil is found in sedimentary rocks (like sandstone, dolomite) and nature of oil reservoirs depends strongly on depositional environment.

Another large class of oil reservoirs are carbonates, which are fossilied remains of various aquatic creatures (like corals). The giant middle east reservoirs, bombay high are carbonate reservoirs.

(all this is conventional theory, there is also a Russian theory on the in-organic origins of oil)

So:

You need flowing water and not just carbon but carbon based life form.

Is there oil in space?

(head-scratching)

Re: # 90 where ever carbon is found, there is a likelihood of oil being present.....is my guess

e.g. the mineral value alone of just the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter has been calculated to be worth trillions and trillions of dollars. add to that the materials in the rest of the solar system - giant planets and scores of moons some almost the size of earth, the millions of objects in the kuiper belt, and the massive energy generatd by the sun itself - all this is within reach.

if this ``tribal mindset`` was not diverting resources into wars, those resources would be going towards these true frontiers - mankind`s control of the solar system, curing disease and prolonging life...

Golden.

#84 the minerals in the solar system are remarkably similar to earth. you should know all this!! why dont you google nasa.gov or some such site and see what i am talking about. this is not science fiction by any means. but a hard reality that is much more practical than the kinds of issues raised by the ``tribal mentality`` (which exists in spades on chowk, e.g.)

Re: # 87 I agree...with you here...here is the deal....whilst the great unwashed of this world are fighting it out, some of the washed are looking outwards. Keeping the interest ofthe unwashed on and its resources, allows for greater and better exploitation of the universe. Forget the universe - see antartica recently!

#80 further to that see #73

``2) ... What matters is that when there is conflict...between our families and tribes and humanity at large...do we act only protecting our tribe...such mental set I call TRIBALISM.

But, why do you dump all religions of the world in this category? And why do you think your humanism requires `freedom from religion`?
Are you aware of the Christian roots of modern western humanism?

Re: # 82
dear khurrum....are you getting upset or frustrated with me?

i have no reservation to accept that all religions had a core of `humanism` in

them....unfortunately followers of those religions and prophets corrupted them and

insitituionalized their messages. so now we have to move forwards. if all religions were

oranges...and juice was orange juice....now we can appreciate and cherish orange juice

without the orange and its bitter peel. this is my view of humanistic philosophy. it is similar

to socialism that came out of communism. socialism in norweginan countries even canada

is better than what we saw in russia. so human evolution keeps the juice and throws away

the peel. but some love the peel and feel nostagic [like cultural immigrants who want to live

in the past] and want to go back to hundred years, thousand years back rather than going

forward. humanism today is a philosophy...if in the future it becomes a religion....then

human beings will come up with a new philosophy and if i am alive i will reject

humanism and go on to new philosophy based on secular and scientific thinking of that

era....to me that is a scientific attitude that is different than religious attitude. in scientific

attitude we accept that all realities are relative and each human being and community has

their unique truth...rather than an ABSOLUTE truth dictated by a tribe based on their

religious or traditional past and then imposed on others......sorry to confuse you

further...confusion is sometimes the first step of wisdom...we are all learning from each

other. i ask my friends in passionate dialogues...are we having fun yet? i am glad that the

dialogue on chowk has been respectful and i want to thank all interactors...smiles sohail

#79 not true. even right now the nations of the world (US, EU, China and to a lesser extent Japan and Russia) have serious money earmarked for exactly this purpose. and we know a lot about these resources:

e.g. the mineral value alone of just the asteroid belt between mars and jupiter has been calculated to be worth trillions and trillions of dollars. add to that the materials in the rest of the solar system - giant planets and scores of moons some almost the size of earth, the millions of objects in the kuiper belt, and the massive energy generatd by the sun itself - all this is within reach.

if this ``tribal mindset`` was not diverting resources into wars, those resources would be going towards these true frontiers - mankind`s control of the solar system, curing disease and prolonging life...

iron_mask,

You`re going down a really slippery slope. Have you decided what describes a human and what describes a resource first? Is it possible that humans may themselves be a resource? Or a resource which you consider non-human may actually be human? Have you ever seen tears in the eyes of an animal? I have. Are there wilting willows and Raat-Ki-Raani?

Real slippery slope ...

Re: # 81 but what are the minerals? If they contain something new, can we extract what we know from them, or do they contain something new which we donot know how to exploit (its like the radiation chemistry of the 1800`s). We speculate, but there is nothing concrete.

Re: # 80 yes, that is why I left #79 incomplete....and is implicit in one of the questions

#78 that is in the realms of speculation - since
(a) we do not know what type the resources are?
(b) we do not know how of what is there can be exploited right now?
(c) we do not know how to exploit what we have not encountered in terms of resources ?

#77 on resources: if human beings stopped squabbling over the land and wealth, they would be able to focus on the vast resources of the solar system, compared to which the planet earth is a drop in the ocean.

In other words, even the most greedy of matkas would realize that resources are virtually limitless. And humans can aim for things that are far, far more rewarding than merely ``getting wealthy``.

dr sohail, I have read your article many times these past few hours (okay I do have some time on hand). You have an interesting way of putting things (and this includes your interacts).

What intrigues me, are a number of things, (see #69 to Kaalchakra for example). You have also left out a very important componenet of the equation, namely resources. All fo the fights are for resources and who these resources can be equitably distributed (not equally). Unless and until you take this into account, all the bright ideas can be chucked out of the window. No.

Re: # 77
dear iron mask...alongside my humanistic philosophy, i also like socialistic philosophy

where human progress is more important than economic progress. i think as human beings

we have enough to share and look after our needs....but not greeds.

that is one reason i live in canada where health care and education is free and we have

social services rather than america where 33 million (poplulation of canada) has no health

care and we are spending billions on war in afghanistan, iraq and now in somalia. it is a

matter of preferences and choices....wise humanistic choices.....we make individually and

collectively....sincerely sohail

Ramchandar,

Do come back when you`re sober ... LoL !

#71 by drsohail

1) ... there are a number of psychologists who call `spiritual experiences` as `peak experiences` and show that those peak experiences can be experienced by any human being even those who have no faith in God or follow any religions.

Of-course, even though I didn`t bring up spiritual experiences - just spirituality. You`re probably referring to experiences like NDEs and you`re right that such experiences happen to anyone. But that was not the point.

2) ... What matters is that when there is conflict...between our families and tribes and humanity at large...do we act only protecting our tribe...such mental set I call TRIBALISM.

So in the tribe of the small fish in the evolved food-chain, for sake of the `fish` tribe at large, the small fish should be happily eaten by the tribe of the big fish, because that`s `humanism` in the overall fish community, irrespective of size, creed, colour and all the rest. Is that it Sir? Or is there a problem with my mindset.

Now I`m even more confused than I was before .. you`re not helping me at all Doc.

addendum to #73
in the second case it is ridiculous to talk of humanism.......

``There is one kind of people who will be closest to God on the Day of Final Judgement - they will be even closer to Him than the prophets and the martyrs. It will be those people who found each other as complete strangers but then established relationships and friendship with each other; their friendship deepened and they became so close to each other that they helped each other emotionally and financially if need be and they started feeling pain of the other and they stood by each other through thick and thin. Blessed are they``


...........Holy Prophet Mohammad (pbuh)


Dr. Sohail

There is a reason that some people scoff at some of the ideals of humanism, when they are presented as the next best thing after the sliced bread. Pahleez.

It`s OK, ramchander. Idolatry is a very interesting thing - in how it completely enslaves the human mind and destroys the mind`s ability to function independently. If you have been thinking about it, please do write more.

Trivialism to Even More Trivialism

On every return visit to this article, one finds it more trivial than one originally assumed. Now it is beginning to read a lot like another spin of an ersatz and despicable religious doctrine that everyone should detest.

I am trying hard to be a sympathetic reader, Dr. Sahib. Is the problem here that you didn`t clearly define what you mean by tribalism? Is your tribalism a mindset, a personality, an individual-level emotion/behavior, group/tribal behavior, a philosophy, an ideology, religion in general, some group of religions, one particular religion?

These different defintions should make your analysis and its conclusions very different.

Re: # 69

kaalchakra you are asking for an answer to a question which in itself is many layered.

``Is your tribalism a mindset, a personality, an individual-level emotion/behavior, group/tribal behavior, a philosophy, an ideology, religion in general, some group of religions, one particular religion? ``

And somewhere in there is the word ``philosophy``. Surely this is the highest layer. It is this which dictates to all other definitions. Let me explain:

starting with the individual, he or shehas a mindset which dictates his/her emotions. Taken as group thisgets modified to accomodate others mindsets. Religion imposes a rationale (if youcouldcall it that) of the dominant mindset on the whole group (or groups) thus making the ``concept of accomodation`` moot upto a point. When many groups with many religions come together, you get an interesting dynamic. I
f they are already accomodating, you get a debate and a philosophical outcome - which is essentially a rationalisation of everything from the individual mindset, to a groups mindset to the mindsets of groups. At this point the outcome has to be perforce humanistic.
If on the other hand they are not accomodating, you end up in a never ending crusade to figure out which isthe dominant religion. Philosophy and argument and rationale go out of the window. What remains is the law of the brute?

Ref#67

Dear Kaal

You may be right. It may be the effect of bit of red wine.

ramchander

That`s idle talk. At least make it logically coherent.

Ref#65

Please read `idle` as idol.

ref#64[Thus, evolution amongst species has been guided by competing physical interests between themselves as well as against forces of nature, and nothing has changed in this regard since the time, in your words, after human beings came into existence. Evolution is continuing in exactly the manner it always has. ]

Dear Zee and Dr Sohail

Evoultion is guided by somthing called by Shopenhaur `Will to Life`.

Life has this urge to spread itself and in thta process it transforms it self to continue.

Not only man but every living being possesses free will. Free will is somthing shown by Adam and god and his prophets don`t like it.

Biggest set back to free will comes from prophets who expoit the inane fear in the humans to their advatage.

Mohammad combined sex with this fear and made it the main drive for muslims to kill and plunder non muslims. He called it `Jihad` and he prostituted and Allah and made Allah subserviant to his ambition. In a sense he made Islam a relegion of the idolators.

Because Mohammad is the biggest idle in Islam. An idle represent god. Mohammad represent Allah. He goes lot further. In other relegions it is only man who pray and worship god. But in Islam it is god and his angels who pray for peace on Mohammad.

Sorry I just diverted little bit away from the topic.

Ram Chandar

#51 Dear drsohail,

Thanks for getting this creationist/evolutionist thing out of the way. So man evolved ... so far, so good... and that the evolution has not ended, as you say:

``Evolution in fish and birds and animals was guided by instincts but after human beings
came into existence, we, because of our well developed brains and minds and
personalities, have choices to follow instincts or follow our conscience, our ethical sense.``

Here you make a number of `fatal` errors, if I may say so.

Firstly, evolution was not guided by instinct but by purely physical/biological necessity for survival against the elements and predators. E.g. the furry coat was gone by the time of Neanderthals not because of instinct but because by that time the hunter-gatherer culture had taken root and man had learnt to hunt down and use `other` or `less-evolved` creatures` coat to cover himself against elements rather than requiring his own. However, the Cro-magnon (the modern man) came along next who was even smarter and caused the former`s extinction.

Thus, evolution amongst species has been guided by competing physical interests between themselves as well as against forces of nature, and nothing has changed in this regard since the time, in your words, after human beings came into existence. Evolution is continuing in exactly the manner it always has.

Secondly, your proposing ``...have choices to follow instincts or follow our conscience..`` it would follow from the foregoing argument that, primarily, natural selection was nothing but establishing a food chain due to necessity of own survival, which is a selfish motive to begin with and thus inconscienable. That should be sufficient proof that any form of conscience (or consciousness ... even assuming that either is a reliable guide) cannot win in competing interests for survival over another, and it isn`t really a matter of choice between the two, never has been, nor can be ever. It may be added here that `Survival` does not mean to the modern man what it did to the Neanderthal. It is now a relative term and may more accurately be substituted with Marginal Existence.

It would appear that you cannot at the same time believe in evolution as well as conscience and ethics.

The only thing that transcends this Marginal Existence and breaks out of its essential linkages is Spirituality, but that stems from religion and in turn leads to a Creator ... but that has been ruled out in the beginning.

Oh well ... back to the drawing board.

Re: # 64
dear zeemax....words can be misleading and since we are having a verbal dialogue here

we may not be able to fully communicate our ideas because of the limitation of words and

their traditional meanings. let me give it one more try.

for example i am of the opinion that `spirituality` has been traditionally associated with god

and religion but in 20th century there are a number of psychologists who call `spiritual

experiences` as `peak experiences` and show that those peak experiences can be

experienced by any human being even those who have no faith in God or follow any

religions. Neurologists are also showing that those experiences can be experienced by

stimulating Right Temporal Lobes. I have discussed that issue in my earlier

article...Science, Psychology, Spirituality

and shared my position that as a Humanist I believe that spirituality is part of Humanity

and not part of Divinity. My opinion is that human beings are gradually evolving with their

experiences and becoming wiser. Such wise people are developing COMPASSION and that

COMPASSION is not only for their own family and tribe but all families and tribes and see

all humanity as part of human family and human tribe. Whether you call it thinking

global....universal love.....`spirituality....humanism....to me does not matter. What matters

is that when ther