The Role of Mystics, Artists and Scientists in Human Evolution

Re: # 67
dear khurrum...what i am trying to say is that there are as many truths as human beings

and as many realities as pairs of eyes. but to share human truth and reality with others we

have discoverd three ways

personal truth by mystics

creative truth as artists

rational truth by scientists

each can challenge the other two.

mystic truth is hardest to communicate and easily dismissed by others especially scientists.

creative truth can have multiple interpretations. it is its beauty but also causes

misunderstandings. scientific truth can be reproduced in the laboratory and seen by

microscope and telescope by others and does not require blind faith to accept. any human

being can pass electricity and make water out of two hydrogen ond one oxygen molecules.

or see the results of gravity.

i feel all are valid in their own way.

it is a choice each human being makes...to live as a mystic, an artist or a scientist or a

mixture or just an ordinary human being without analyzing to sharing experiences.

if you have an essay to share alternate point of view then i can read and give you my point

of view..send me at...welcome@drsohail.com.....sincerely sohail

Re # 66,
Well, best of luck on your ongoing journey.

What I had meant to ask in #65 was if you have ever been interested in the small group of people who have questioned the secular/scientific/rational philosophy of modern times. (D.H. Lawrence comes to mind as an example).

Re: # 65
dear khurrum...your letters are wonderful. i like the way you challenge. my journey from

islam to secular humanism is my personal journey. i follow humanistic philosophy in my

persona life and humansitic psychotherapy in my professional life. i have created a model of

greenzoneliving that i shared in my series of green zone books that you can see on my

website www.greenzoneliving.ca

it is a model that encourages every person to discover their green zone lifestyle....a

healthy, happy and peaceful lifestyle.

i am lucky to have religious friends/spiritual friends/ atheist friends/humansit friends.

words and terms never do justic to our communication. what i feel is that i was brought up

in one religious tradition...as i grew older i tried to embrace other traditions and now i feel i

can benefit from all religious/spiritual/secular philosophies. i think humanism is the essence

of all those philosophies.

i am still learning and growing and creating.

for me having a philosophy is as imporatnt as putting it in practice in our personal lives.

that is why i call my book

the art of living in your green zone

(rather than the science of living in the green zone)

i feel words can be used in a legal way...one word one meaning...or metaphorical way

where the same word can have different meanings. being a poet i like metaphorical and

symbolic communication which can be very frustrating for legalistic minded

people..scientific as well as religious. the art of winning hearts is different than winning

arguments.

sincerely sohail

drsohail,
I have received your mail with the 4 articles. Thank you very much, I will read them soon.

On another note, I have noticed that you have great interest in what you call the `creative minority` that you think questions religious tradition. However, your personal views are solidly in the mainstream of the secular, humanistic tradition of the Western society in which you live. Have you ever wondered about the `creative minority` that questions THIS tradition?

Re: # 63
dear khurrum....i sent you the articles on your email address. i hope you receive them. it is

not the religion/ideology that creates problems it is the self righteous religosity whether in a

religious person or a secular/atheist person....it is actaully the extremism/rigidity that is the

issue. if you prefer those terms i have no problem. i agree with you that the goal is to

break dowm the wall of authoritarianism....some do it from inside some from

outside...sincerely sohail

drsohail,

Thank you for an excellent summarization. Feel free to email your article to khurramrashid@yahoo.com

The only thing I would disagree with is that you seem to be using `religious` as a synonym for `authoritarian` and `humanistic` as a synonym for `tolerant` . I think this terminology is unwarranted and divisive and impedes constructive dialog between religious and secular people (both of the tolerant variety).

I hope you will agree that people in groups 2 and 4 can ally themselves in the struggle against authoritarianism. The key divider between them and people in groups 1&3 is the authoritarian/tolerance divide. Amongst themselves, they can continue to disagree on their religious and secular philosphies without attempting to impose their views on others.

Re: # 56

dear urstruly....your letters make me smile. all i can do is to thank you for correcting my

mistakes and guiding me to historical facts.....maybe i have a lot to learn from critics and

teachers like you. sincerely sohail

Re: # 60
dear ....
according to my classification....you are in 4th group....you have a

secular/atheistic/humanistic philosophy because of your atheist views and a humanistic

personality because you do not want to impose your values on others...you respect them

and hope they accept you and have a respectful academic discussion...sincerely sohail

Re: # 59
Khalid, if I may interject here in your conversation with Khurram and I am sure Khurrma will answer /reply himself, I find the reply interesting.

In the name of ``relativity`` and perhaps also the notion of ``multi-culturalism``, ``multi-ethnicity`` you are creating a structure which appears to be sound. However, your own definitions of ``relativism`` and all other precepts, are condemning you from making the right and correct conclusions. As I said in an earlier interact, fundementally you ae ereting afoundation and a super-strcture for negating mono-beliefs, which is very sound and indeed the way forward (in m view). However, you draw short of doing it, bu prefer to put up four categories and suggest which you prefer - and leave to all to the ``mysteries of evolution``. In the great asiatic traditions, this is not new. You have ultra-orthodoxto ultra liberal all co-existing within a great umberall (e.g China), Indonesia, India to name a few. Your structure is fine and perhaps vaid upto a point in traditions not native to Asia, traditions which have a strong mono-belief in them. but as URSTruly pointed out in I think#51, the syncreatism, and monoculture and ethos in the subcontinent, even after the advent of Islam, is anexcellent ase in point.

please note, I donot fall in anyof your four categories, Iam wholy atheistist and do not carry a card in establishing these views on everyone. each for himself and according to his ways. every particle, including humans, attain an equilbrium point, given time. My interest here is purely academic, and find the lack of conclusions (given the articleand it content, and its purpose) irksome. That grand statement the article is crying out for is lacking.

Re: # 57
dear khurrum....you are very perceptive...

let me try to explain my philosophy in anothger way

for discussion sake we can have four groups of people

1....people with religious ideology and religious personality ( who impose their views on others)

2...people with religious ideology but humanistic personality (respect other faiths and lifestyles and do not impose on others)...i call them religious humanists

3..people with secular humanistic philosophy and religious personality (impose their secular/atheistic/humanistic views on other)

4...people with secular humanistic philosophy and humanistic personality ( do not impose their values on others)

i have written a detailed article on this subject that was published in HUMANIST magazine in

canada. if you are interested send me your email address and i can send as an attachment.

i respect religious humanists and secular humanists with humanistic personbality...and keep

my respectable distance from

people with religious ideology and religious personality

and also from

secular humanistic philosophy but religious personality.

i do not agree imposing one`s ideology or philosophy on others by force...whether

religious...secular,,,,spiritual or atheistic.....having a respectful dialogue is preferable

i hope i have clarified my position

thanks for a thought provoking answer...sincerely sohail

Re: # 55
Khalid, there you go again, with a cop-out phrase ``evolution is mysterious`` is a nebulous phrase, and can mean anything under the sun and can be used in any context under the sun. This is what I meant by a lack of closure in the article. Scriptures could be folklore, so be it. This so called ``evolution`` has not been explained by you, but then there is an even more comvoluted phrase at the end of #55 ``each human being and each community and each era has to discover it and live it``. Its like a sop. Such a discovery is only needed if the basic concepts are lost to humanity. Till they are redicovered they are perhaps folklre (if you have see the mad max movies - there are a bunch of kids who are lost and want to go to the city and they have developed their own folklore based on some concepts which for them is ``religion`` and scriptural truth).

You also need to explain or define precisely what you man by scriptures - since I fear you are using this in an inter-changeable manner with other texts and lumping everything ince before western enlightenment under the generic title ``folklore`` which IMPHO is nott correct.

NO you need to go further - the conclusion is missing. the article cries out or it.

drsohail,

Thanks for the detailed reply. Let me summarize my understanding of your views.

1. Religious views are subjective and should be confined to the personal domain.
2. When religious views are brought into the public domain the result is coercive imposition on others.
3. Secular views are objective and can be agreed upon by people of different religions.
4. All interpersonal affairs should be organized on the basis of secular views.

If my above understanding is correct, then you have selected option B from my multiple choice question in the previous post i.e. ``My truth is objective and yours is subjective. Therefore, you keep yours in the personal domain but mine belongs in the public domain``.
In other words, you are claiming a universality for your truth that you are denying for other truths.
You need to clarify how your claim is any different from all other similar claims.

Also, you are confusing the issue of authoritarianism with secularism. Imposing one`s view on another is authoritarianism. But this is true for secular views as well as religious ones. 20th century history will provide you with plenty of examples of secular authoritarians.
The opposite of authoritarianism is tolerance. And it is possible in a religious as well as secular framework.

Re: # 48

Bhai, what are you talking about. Your article is incorrect on historical facts. You used made up facts to come up with your ``humble views about life and philosophy and human psychology``. I am pointing out those errors for your own good, because if you did form your views on life etc. unknownig the accuracy of historical facts not only you are misleading others but yourself as well.

Re: # 50
dear .....
thank you for your thoughtful comments. you are right i think organized religions played

their role in the past but we have alternate ways of thinking and living now. human beings

can solve their personal and collective problems by themselves without God, scriptures and

prophets. we can now study scriptures as folklore rather than faith books. i call them

wisdom literature. in my opinion mystics, artists, philosophers and scientists belong to all

humanity...where they were born is less imporatnt....buddha and ghalib in india....saadi in

persia...marx and freud in europe....whitman in america....evolution is mysterious,,,each

human being and each community and each era has to discover it and live it....sincerely

sohail

Re: # 49 BTW I agree with the systematisation of knowledge and the presense of systematic references. These are whoeveer, being done currently in places like SOAS and in India. BUt this systematisation has been the strenght of the west and the bane of the east. Something we need to learn.

#51 Urstruly, you are correct, but what about the rest....

Re: # 52, re#49 - that quotes on the last but one para - should not have been there. Something went wrong with my key board.......