The Role of Mystics, Artists and Scientists in Human Evolution

Re: # 95, Khalid:
You may have returned from your trip by now. Hope you had a satisfying experience. I missed your article initially and therefore, currently, I am also not aware about the discussion that proceeded.

Nevertheless, I commend your effort to review the various disciplines - religion, mysticism, philosophy, science and psychology - and indicate their potential interrelationships. I agree with your statement: ``I am of the opinion that blind faith and religion were our past and science, psychology and philosophy are our future as human beings.`` I would add further that religion indeed was an attempt to understand the science as the primitive humanity - tentatively growing out of animalistic life into an understanding existence via maintenance of the records of the thoughts of the individuals - could. It is unfortunate that the vested interests captured and exploited the religious movements all over the world for their dominance on the common people. Yet, the rational efforts of the Marxists also failed miserably because unless we grant essential freedom and incentives to the Individual. even the rationalist doctrines merely become the tools of the exploiting coteries.

Greater and more specific understanding of the interrelationships of the disciplines mentioned above can lead to a more comprehensive and substantive understanding of human development. Viewing the totality of human intellectual and spiritual development will lead an individual to a more rational and equilibrated self. Yet, do many people want this independence? Many among us conveniently hold on to the crutches which give them even though pseudo, comfort and sometimes provide them their intellectual/spiritual/financial existence.

Notwithstanding this all, I look forward to reading more of what exist in the posts and interact in future.

Freethinker quoted:

``David Hume wrote about divinity and metaphysics as follows:

``If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.``

Blind faith is risky, to say the least.``

Chowk interacts don`t have the facility of smilies. Anyways, I always use to smile whenever I happen to see this famous quotation by David Hume. This quotation itself doesn`t contain any such rational reasoning which can have anything to do with quantity or number. It also doesn`t contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence.

Anyhow, there is nothing solid on which to agree with David Hume on this issue.

Shall discuss in details at some other time as these days I am busy with some other matters.

Regards!

#97 by JIC

Very well thought out and clearly laid out post.

Actually Chaudary Saheb, some people will propound any mish-mash as long as it takes a swipe at religion.

Regards.

You contradict yourself when you oppose the religious ideologies on the basis of science and yet supporting phenomenon like mysticism and then lumping it with equally allusive entity, the human spirituality. It is any one’s guess how science, mysticism and art is going to serve humanity or humanism while claiming that religion has become redundant. The religions provide ethical values and guidance to achieve and implement basic human rights and freedoms. Science helps to explain various physical phenomenon that we observe; the two are not interchangeable or mutually exclusive, in fact very much complimentary to each other.

Ever since the industrial revolution took place in the west, science and technology has been at the forefront in the lives of the western societies and the religion has taken a back seat. The science has indeed played an important role in raising the standards of life in many societies. But how has this helped the humanity or humanism for the world at large? In fact, on the basis of science and technology, it has become easier, for the technologically advanced societies to dominate those who could not keep pace with scientific developments. The modern technology has made it easier now for some societies to colonize others and keep them as economic slaves for as long as they wish. The spiritual thinking has been replaced by materialistic values. The religious values that support universal humanism for all, have now been replaced by the law of jungle – ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘might is right’ Some one should ask the Iraqis how (American) science and technology has helped humanism and humanity in that country.

Science and religion can be partners in so many ways to work together rather than against each other. For a better human survival the two need to exists side by side such that they provide spiritual uplift and enhance life in physical sense at the same time. The modern science has already raised many questions which it has not been able to explain by itself. It is certainly absurd to dismiss theism and yet go on to embrace mysticism and further claiming that our spirituality is part of our humanity rather than part of divinity.

‘Mysticism’ is often said to be a path to look for ultimate truth. There are Muslim mystics, Christian mystics, Jewish mystics, in fact, every society appears to have their own mystics in one form or the other. The term mysticism, does not seem to have rigid and well defined meanings but a variety of understandings have been attached to it. For some, it may be a religious thought whereby, one can feel an intimate union with the divine force. On the other hand, from philosophical point of view it may be considered a link of the human soul to nature through love. No matter how one looks at the concept of mysticism, it involves soul and spirituality in somewhat undefined and in an abstract way.

In some cases, mysticism may be of interest to those who have decided not to subscribe to a religious model centered around God and at the same time do not uphold the scientific and rational model of the universe either. The mystics therefore could emerge as the misfits of both the worlds. I wonder how the misfits of the world can be considered to contribute toward the improvement of humanity and sustain humanism. About mystics, some one has said:

“A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics”.

This may have been said jokingly, but I think it hits the message home.

Javed I. Chaudry

#94 by subuhiansari,

Haha ...

My point is, you have been asked certain questions by some readers (eg. Khurram) but you skirt those questions. It almost seems that you don`t quite know how to address them.

You have answered your own question. Dr. Sohail can only fool the Readers Digest types, but not any other, let alone the sharp intellects like Khurram who simply demolished his argument quite effortlessly ....

P.S. Don`t wait around for him ... wait till the next article (wink).

Re: # 92
dear friends....i am going out of town, rather out of country on holidays where i would not

have access to internet so i would not be able to pursue the dialogue. thanks for your

intellectually stimulating feedback...sincerely sohail

I have a friend who describes people who use lot of complex words and concepts without explaining them as suffering from ``verbal incontinence``. My point is, you have been asked certain questions by some readers (eg. Khurram) but you skirt those questions. It almost seems that you don`t quite know how to address them. Their personal philosophy or belief system is not pertinent to the question asked and the anticipated answer.
My main criticism of your paper is that it is extremely simplistic to divide the human community into two opposing camps: traditionalists who are blind followers of a religion and secular humanists ( artists, mystics, philosophers, scientists etc. who seem to fall in this category) who are blazing new and higher paths. Many creative people were and are adherents of their respective faiths and religions including Socrates, William Blake, Darwin. Socrates was tried and condemned because he challenged the Establishment and encouraged the youth of that time to do the same. Same is true of Jesus. He also challenged the Estabilshment and not his Faith. Furthermore, religion is not always a dark force that demands blind adherence. Religion has also inspired sublime Thought( Tillich, Buber, Bonhoeffer et al); music and Art. You must also realise that although many mystics challenged the orthodoxy, they remained within the fold of their respective faiths and some became part of the orthodoxy. In Christianity some of them were even granted sainthood.
Also, it was this intense love of God that inspired beautiful mystical poetry and other writings. So, you cannot equate religion with all that is negative. Equally, many crimes have been committed in the name of Secularism. Any system of thought that becomes an ideology treats humans as an abstraction and thus becomes potentially dangerous. Nazi Germany stands out as a stark example.
You are from Science background. You shouldn`t be using the word ``proof`` so loosely. Psychologists and social scientists can conjecture and present highly probable hypothesis and theories but cannot really give ``proofs``.
I would really appreciate if you define spirituality for me. For me spirituality is a metaphysical term and not a scientific one. I just do not understand how spirituality figures in an atheisit`s scheme. Spirituality is supra-rational and supra-material. I had asked this question once before in another context but you never gave a satisfactory answer.
One more question: In the title of your paper, you use the term `human evolution`, Shouldn`t it be `The Role of...............in the Development of Human Consciousness` ?

I am curious if any culture or society taught mysticism as a formal subject to its masses. Yes, now we do have books that serve as a collection of mystics from Islam, Judaism, and various other -isms. But I am not sure if there was a dedicated focus on this subject area. Can mysticism be considered an offshoot of philosophy?

drsohail,

Thanks for the kind words. Nice to know we share an appreciation for Tillich. `Courage to be` was the first book of his I read and it got me hooked on him. For me, he settles the issue of Psychology and Religion. Have you read his `Dynamics of Faith`? What do you think of his concept of faith? What about his views regarding God?
I am also a great admirer of Buber. Among muslim scholars, I am an admirer of Dr Fazlur Rahman (not the politicain!), Ismail Faruqi, Mohd. Asad and H. Nasr . These are the kind of people I believe will take us beyond secular humanism. I have had only brief exposure to Ghulam Ahmed Parvez`s writings. Did not feel excited by his theology. I only know of Azad`s political writings. For me the ultimate source of knowledge is through the experience of the divine mystery mediated by theologians, institutions and tradition.

Don`t worry about America and Christian fundamentalism! I don`t know how things look from up there but we are quite far from that.

I live in North Carolina. Toronto is definitely a place I would like to visit someday.I have heard it has a vibrant desi community and great food!

I can imagine you getting along well with Mr. Gill. You 2 hardly seem to disagree on anything. I, on the other hand, seem to disagree with almost everything you say.

Re: # 90
dear khurram....your letter is very refreshing and revealing. did you read jimmy carter`s (

a liberal christian`s) recent book...Our Endangered values... in which he is critical of bush`s

ideology and policy of bringing religion and politics together

. Karen Armstrong in her recent books also shared that America has been

moving towards christian fundamnetalism.

Paul Tillich is a wonderful scholar. i have a lot of respect for that Christian scholar. have

you read his book THE COURAGE TO BE. it is one of my all time favourire books. it is the

only book that discusses when a person should see a psychiatrist and when he needs

a `spiritual` counselling.

among muslim scholars who is your favourite...what are your views about ghulam ahmed

pervaiz and abul kalam azad. i adore them as much as paul tillich.

in jewish tradition i adore martin buber ...father of the philosophy of....i and thou.

i am curious now that if you believe that human beings are not the source of truth...then

who is? please share with me what has been your source of truth? and how do you think

others can access it.

thank you for sharing your thoughts openly...looking forward to your response...

sincerely sohail

ps...after reading your last letter i feel we can be friends..if you lived in toronto i would

have come to visit you or invite you to my place. i have bben fortunate to make new

friends through chowk...met mohammad gill who visited toronto and malik jahanzeb who

lives in toronto. where do you live?

Re #89,
Wow!
America=Christian fundamentalist & Canada=Secular Humanist !!!
Do all Canadians think like that?

Let me share my views on Secular Humanism. For me, secular humanism is the philosophy that says that Truth (including ethics, morality etc.) is completely knowable through autonomous exercise of human reason. No revelation from beyond is required.
This philosophy (Religion?) is completely dominant in the modern world and has been so for 2-3 centuries. It completely vanquished Christianity. There are no Christian countries anymore. Christianity is just a `personal` religion now and is not the dominant cultural force anywhere. Secular Humanism has spread to all corners of the world and is virtually unchallenged everywhere. The muslim world is sort of holding out. Even there it is a major force in an ongoing internal struggle.
Within Secular humanism, there have been liberal & autocratic trends.The liberal trends seem to be winning out lately.
But all along there has been a current of protest against secular humanism within Western culture itself. It has questioned the basic premise of secular humanism (that truth is knowable by autonomous reason) . It has questioned the concept of `objective` knowledge. It has questioned the materialistic description of reality.
It is my view (hope?) is that this current will eventually prevail and result in a renewal of religious culture (not in an autocratic form). On this subject, my favourite author is American theologian, Paul Tillich, with whom I largely agree.

Re: # 88
dear khurram....no i was not offended i was just amused. if i knew you personally and we

were discussing in our living rooms we would have a more fruitful dialogue. dialogue is

more productive when both parties know enough about each other`s point of views. Being a

secular humanist i am challenged from both sides....extremist atheists as well as extremist

religious. i think secular humanistic tradition is also challenged from both sides. it is still

in minority. my impression of twentieth century is that there were two extremes

religious extremism (anti-atheistic)..............................atheistic extremism (anti-religious)
exp....saudi arabia/afghanistan....................................exp.mao`s china

capitalism (america)..................................................communism (exp lenin/stalin`srussia)

secular humanists of twentieth century...whether individuals or countries like canda,

norway are still in minority...they do not have power and authroity on the world

stage...major fight even today is betwen

america...christian fundamentalists....

and

iran/afghanistan.....muslim fundamentalists

secular humanist europe is still in minority.

if the secular humanist philosophy became a major force in the next century and had

cnetres of power like vatican or whilte house then there would be a creative minority rising

from inside who would challenge secular humanistic scientifc philosophy and we would see

the dawn of a new philosophy....and the next cycle of evolution would start. these are my

humble thoughts.

what i wanted to know from you was your views so that i can have a better dialogue...do

you have a religious...spiritual...secular philosophy? what do you believe in? if you want to

be private that is your choice. i just feel that i openly show you my cards but you keep

them closer to your heart... smiles... sohail

Re #87,
Such a long list of open-ended questions! Is this a diversionary tactic :-) ?
Hopefully, some day I will find the time to write a long article on some of these topics and you can critique it to your heart`s content.

Meanwhile, this dialogue is about your views, as expressed in the article above. Your views should be able to stand on their own, irrespective of availability of alternatives.

Btw, I didn`t have a problem with your simple writing style. Only the simplistic ideas expressed therein. I hope you didn`t take offense to that.

Also, I find it a little strange that you keep avoiding one specific question.I don`t know if it`s intentional or accidental. So let me ask it again.

With respect to contemporary western secular humanistic society, do you think there exists a traditional orthodoxy? Do you think there is an intellectual elite that imposes this orthodoxy? Do you think there is a creative minority that is challenging it?

Re: # 86
dear khurram...i am impressed how you summarize my views but i think you are unfair to

the dialogue. you have taken the role of the leader of the opposition. you have a sharp

mind so you keep on coming with new questions with has subtle objections and criticisms to

my philosophy without offering a better alternative. no one theory or one system is perfect.

similarly no words and terms communicate all of what we try to communicate. i try to write

in a style so that most people can understand. i can write in a professional and academic

jargon that a few would comprehend. one can write about profound thoughts in a simple

language. bertrand russell said...it took me 50 years to write simple.

i think it would be reasonable request for me to ask you a few questions so that i can learn

from your philosophy since you consider mine simplistic. can you share with me your views

about

....monotheistic religious traditions..judaism...christianity...islam

....secular humanistic tradition

....role of religious institutions...mosques, madrassas, churches, temples today

...role of secular schools today

....role of religious leaders...maulanas, priests, pundats, rabbis today

.....role of selular teachers...university professors today

....theocratic states like saudi arabia and afghanistan under mulla umar and osama

....secular humanistic states like canada, norway

...do you believe in human evolution? what are your criterion to judge?

sincerely sohail

drsohail,

It seems you have built a `model` of historical process. It seems to work like this. There is a power elite that imposes a traditional worldview through coercion. Majority of people find security in accepting and following this worldview blindly. A small minority (`mystics, artists, philosphers, scientists`) challenges this worldview, suffers persecution, but eventually overthrows the traditionial worldview.The new society soon establishes its own traditions and the whole cycle is repeated. However, things keep getting better with each cycle.

I think this model is very simplistic and one-dimensional. It will not hold up to careful scrutiny. Traditions are not always as rigid and coercive as you think. Majority of people are not as always blind as you think. `mystics, artists, philosphers, scientists` may not always be challenging tradition but also re-affirming it. Those who challenge the status quo are as likely to be reactionaries as revolutionaries (or anarchists). Social processes are much more complex than you seem to think. I reaize that your expertise is dealing with individuals and you are not a social scientist. I am sure you are aware that individuals are complex and cannot be described by simplistic models. You should also try to gain a similar awareness of complexity of social processes.

By the way, in your previous articles and interacts you have equated traditional with religious. However, in your last post you have included `non-muslim` and `secular` societies.
Would you care to comment on the contemporary Western society. Does it have a traditional orthodoxy? Is there an intellectual power elite?

Re: # 84
DEAR ZAHRAJ AND KHURRAM....it seems both of you are inspired to take the dialogue

further. my impression is that in all societies in all times...east and west, north and

south...muslim and non muslim...religious, spiritual and secular....there is a majority that

likes traditions and follows them blindly and has religous and political powers as their power

is institutionalized...and there is a minority of creative people...mystics and artists and

philosophers and scientists...who challenge those traditions...and inspire the community to

the next stage of personal growth and social evolution. traditionalists try to suppress them

and call them heretics or traitors and make blashphemy laws or patriot laws....those

creative people are put in jail or persecuted or go in exile....philosopher socrates had to

drink poison for inspiring (misguiding by traditionalists) ...mansoor hallaj was hanged for

saying analhaq and oscar wilde was put in jail for supporting homosexuality....interestingly

the heretics and traitors on one generation can become leaders (religious or secular) for

next generation like galelio and ghalib....but in their lifetime are rarely fully

appreciated. i discussed that in one of my previous article on chowk how einstein, darwin

and krishnamurti and walt whitman were told by teachers that they were slow learners and

will not mount to anything. i hope parents and teachers appreciate those unconventional

and nontraditional creative children who will be the leaders of tomorrow..sincerely sohail

Just for the record, `art, mysticism & philosophy` were the core curriculum of all pre-secular societies.

Re: # 80

Dr. Sohail - Thanks for some details. I have some observations here:

a. An individual may be inclined toward the study and appreciation of all the subject areas under discussion in this article, but if his environment does not allow her/him to continue to grow or expand her or his horizons then there is a roadblock. And there is no guarantee that society will benefit from that individual or many like him or her.

b. An individual may grow up in an environment and have a very conducive set-up to expand his/her horizons in the subject of philosophy or art and may not use them at all. Yes, the society or that culture is open minded and provides the opportunity to have a utility for the subject areas, but the individuals also need to step up to the plate and carry the ball forward.

In the first case, chances are quite slim for anything remarkable to occur except for the individual to be a lone ranger. In the second scenario, there is hope.

I have read about Norway and a few other countries where the quality of life is phenomenal. But that quality of life has a lot of input from the people utilizing that infrastructure and thought process.

By the way, in my travels all across the US, as fate would have it, I missed visiting Kansas. So how chaltahai lands me in Kansas is just as accurate an observation as his BS about American ``morality``....

chaltahai writes <<< there are mor ehumans today than ever before. Learn the concept of percentages when drawing comparables. Lifespans in the world are ever increasing..even in poor countries. >>>

Fool, crude percentages cannot be used holding factors like technology and scientific advances constant, because they are not constant from days past, also since you have no idea of the percentages don`t use that bs argument. In areas within the developed world and in the least developed countries rates of death would be as high as in the old days. Finally using death as a percent for comparison masks the fact that each human life is valuable and more are dying today, like I said, given sheer numbers, than at any time in history. Finally, lifespan has NOT been increasing, that is the biological limit, life expectancy has been in average crude numbers but varies from place to place. Learn the definitions first before using nonsense in the form of arguments. Shit holes exist only in the mind and your mind is full of horse shit...

Re: # 79
dear zahraj....sorry for the misunderstanding. i am not sure either. my impression is that

those families and communities that promote creative freedom help people to develop what

i call their Natural Self...as compared to Conditioned Self...conditioned by age old traditions

that suffocates Natural Self. If art and myticism and philosophy are promoted by parents

and teachers who are good role models then i would hope that children grow up to better

human beings with not only self respect but also respect for others and in such

environments growing together would be considered better than growing alone. In my

world travels i found Scandinavian countries like Norway far more evolved than countries

like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan where people still had tribal mentality with less education

and least respect for human rights. I think I am on the same wavelength as you are. if you

and i were sociologists we could have done a longitudinal study and followed children of

different countries for twenty years and seen the results of different kinds of upbringing.

Thank you for your meaningful question. I am sorry if i could not give you a satisfactory

answer...sincerely sohail

Re: # 76

Dr. Sohail - You misunderstood my stance. I had a question not a comment. I asked if the societies where art, philosophy and mysticism were promoted were healthier than otherwise. I am not sure. Are you?

Masadi In quotes

``Facts for damn fool like yourself but not thinking individuals. Like I said, given sheer numbers of the population people are dying today in greater numbers than at any time in previous hisotry. Which ``humans`` are you talking about the ones in the rich nations of course, who live two lifetimes compared to the miserable ``one`` being lived by people in the Least Developed Countries. And even among the rich nations, ones that live in poverty, and there are tens of million in the US, die at three times the rate of the rich, numbers that are easily masked by the crude estimates of life expectancy you are throwing out as ``fact``. Regarding technology, it has not resulted in human betterment simply because invention does not entail proper use especially when the ruling higher immorality develops it for military use first, which is a driver of all innovation, with the end of destroying more with greater effectiveness. Think about these things UPK, before predicting the temporal relationship between my ideas and my getting ``fired`` from my job...``

Ullu kay paThay, there are mor ehumans today than ever before. Learn the concept of percentages when drawing comparables. Lifespans in the world are ever increasing..even in poor countries. this is due to innovatins that came under the American global leadership. Higher immorality? what are you talking about? Places like Bell Labs, JPL etc indeed work on a lot of military applications including fibre optics, camouflage and plastics for armor, televesion, the light bulb and the internet. The latter through which you spew your idiocies. CDC provides grants to innumerable biotechs, including one that I am investor in which is developing vaccines for various diseases from natural products.

Going back to the good doctor`s thesis, look at the rennaisance..if it wasn`t for the patrons, , the rich families in Italy, we wouldn;t have had the sistine chapel or seeing the wonders of Da Vinci or Michaelangelo. They catered to the status quo..the status quo which started in the 15th century which you deride has always been there and always will be. Unfortunately for you, there is no going back to the 7th century and anachronistic thinking.

Your ideas are what got you kicked out of a shit hole like Kansas only to be kicked out again to another shit hole.

Re: # 75
dear kamath...i like your sense of humour. i like working in canada where there is

socialized medicine and every one has a health card and do not have to pay for treatment

rather than america where more than 30 million people (nearly population of canada) has

no health insurance. if americans spent money they spend on war to help their poor and

sick citizens it might be a better use of money.

my clinic is called Creative Psychotherapy Clinic...so that I can do psychotherapy and

creative work together...smiles...sohail

Re: # 70
dear zahraj....thank you for your insightful comments....i agree with your idea that if

children were taught science, psychology, philosophy to develop their rational and logical

thinking they might be able to question blind faith of their religious tradition.

i read one study (cannot remember the details) in which it was shown that children in grade

one had 85% creative thinking but by the time they reached grade 10 it was only 10%. it is

in many schools...do you remember pink floyd song from their album THE WALL that was

banned in america for a while

we need no education

we need no thought control

teachers leave the kids alone

sincerely sohail

Re: # 69
Dear Tehsinabbasi:

Don`t take some Khalid`s dates too seriously!

He wrote this post perhaps when one of his patients simply did not turn up for the appointment. This happens all the time in Canada (-where Medical services are mostly free! ) and paperwork is so boring and lengthy, I am told. So he must have jotted down and said ``..whynot relax a little bit by writing a quickie post!!...``

Kamath

Masadi, if you have a SoH, you find this funny, and maybe even recognise a bit of yourself in here......

Masadi mian, why? Why? Why?

Everytime I rad you, I am reminded of




and the irate preacher who is angry with everyone but himself...maybe not he is angry at his own apparent impotency to change the world in his image

#9 Chaltahai writes <<< Humans being live longer and healthier now than ever before in the history of the world. Scientific advancement in the American century has been unparalleled in human history. these are facts >>>

Facts for damn fool like yourself but not thinking individuals. Like I said, given sheer numbers of the population people are dying today in greater numbers than at any time in previous hisotry. Which ``humans`` are you talking about the ones in the rich nations of course, who live two lifetimes compared to the miserable ``one`` being lived by people in the Least Developed Countries. And even among the rich nations, ones that live in poverty, and there are tens of million in the US, die at three times the rate of the rich, numbers that are easily masked by the crude estimates of life expectancy you are throwing out as ``fact``. Regarding technology, it has not resulted in human betterment simply because invention does not entail proper use especially when the ruling higher immorality develops it for military use first, which is a driver of all innovation, with the end of destroying more with greater effectiveness. Think about these things UPK, before predicting the temporal relationship between my ideas and my getting ``fired`` from my job...

Re: # 61

Khalid,

you are trying to be a politician here. You say ``I do not want to.....`` and yet you do!

e.g the four categories you created. And you desperately want to put people into a category despite saying vehemently that you do not want to impose your views on any body.

Its the classic case of the participant becoming an observer.....does not work.....

I must say one though - iin an earlier interact I said ``atheist`` in reality I am an atheist not in the sense of your mono-beliefs (where you are either this or that or an agnostic or whatever). And hence donot and cannot fall into any one of your four categories, maybe I am wrong? The definitions were not clear cut.

[“ To give a fair chance to potential creativity is a matter of life and death of any society. This is important because the outstanding creative ability of a small percentage of the population is mankind’s ultimate capital asset.” ]

Dr. Sohail - Thank you for sharing a nice and apt quote!

I like the overall concept of your article.

[It appears as though mystics and artists challenged religious traditions from inside while philosophers and scientists attacked them from outside. While mystics and artists helped human beings to develop their Right Brains, scientists and philosophers stimulated the growth and evolution of the Left Brain.]

Interesting phenomena!

[When we study human history, we realize that human beings have been evolving over the centuries. In every generation there was a majority that blindly followed traditional beliefs and practices. Such traditions gave birth to religions whose leaders gained power in their communities. They ruled the masses by directing their personal and social lives. Some of those leaders became intoxicated with power and began misguiding their communities socially, economically and politically. As those religions and traditions became more institutionalized, the abuse of power increased. ]

Can we resolve the abuse of power issue by making philosophy, art and mysticism as mandatory subjects in countries where this abuse is rampant? I will be interested to read your take. Has there been any study conducted on such phenomenon?

Z

“In the last few centuries, human beings have crossed another milestone in evolution through the disciplines of Science and Philosophy…………..Karl Marx……….twentieth century writings of….philosophers like Bertrand Russell, Jean Paul Sartre, Sigmund Freud”

My friend how can you say that? You just sold my gurus short. What about Socrates, Plato and Aristotle and how about Confucius? These guys are as old as any of the other religions. They are contemporaries of Buddha, Zoroaster, and Moses and a lot older then good old Jesus and Mohammad. They represent the humanist, secularist tradition which is as rich and almost as old as the famous myth mongers. It was Alfred C. Whitehead who said something to the effect that, all Western philosophy is nothing more then a series of footnotes to the writings of Plato. This whole western civilization whose marvels we admire every day, its humanism, its values, its virtues are all based upon that luminary and his disciple Aristotle. It is sad that you have not afforded them any role in your evolution story.

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.......

Re: # 49 thanks for the note. BUddhist works, developed during the time of Kanishka, and the earlier body of work done under samkhya school of Kapila (think there was a reference to this earlier here) do state these things with some clarity. If I could even the Bhagavat Gita (if you read the one with commentary by Shakara) says similar things to what you said in #46. The point is not to read them as religious texts for they are far from that. Indeed the low way, of Hinayana and the later Mahayana schools were precisely this.

I will dig up some references fo you on this and post them.

Re: # 47

I have written extensively on what you call ``fukked up menatlity``. This menatlity is real and it has its basis in the colonial occupation of our lands. There was a concerted effort on part of our colonial masters to create a mindset or a class of people who would think like ``them``. As a matter of fact ``thinking like them`` was only a stated objective. The real objective was to create a set of people who would not ``question them``.

People have been moving enmass from place to place since millenia and changed and influenced the local culture everywhere. For example, when Muslims came to India, they exerted an influence on local culture too. But that influence was that of amalgamation and fusion which transformed into a uniquely distinct culture in sub-continent. The British cultural influence in sub-cintinent is a different matter altogether. It was an inflence of exclusion, aparthied, and subjugation. The phrase ``Indians and dogs not allowed`` written on sign boards all over India says it all.

As a result we have generation after generation of class of people who are suffering from acute inferiority complex. That is what happens when inferiority complex is institutionalized through an education system.

Immitating their masters these people ``question`` the norms and taboos of their society. Thinking that they are legends in their own mind, they have no criteria to judge their own selves that there is a hell lot difference between ``questioning` and insulting. The former (i.e. questioning) is done when you have a desire in your heart to change something for better; but later (i.e. insulting) is done to express ones own inferiority complex.

The evidence of this phenomenon is abundant on this forum. The more ``pro-Western`` (they call themselves modernists to hide their vassalage) one is, the more insulting and abusive he is. This is wages of the sins of our fathers. It will take a hell lot of an effort to disinfect them from what ails them.

dear drsohail, when you say ``On the journey of human evolution we are gradually evolving from religious communities and theocratic states to secular communities and humanistic states where all citizens will enjoy equal rights and privileges.`` I wonder what it is you are implying? All your notion of secular humanisms, nd indeed the whole paragraph from which this is quoted indicates that you want to suggest something but are afraid to say it. The many truths, personal truths etc are concepts which are the antithesis of most mono-beliefs. Are you arguing your case against organised monotheism?

You seem to have left all dangling in mid-air gasping and clutching for whatever seems to be floating by. Was this the general idea here? If so you have suceeded beyond your wildest imagination, if not then perhaps you could go beyond these ideas, and carry out the closure of your ideas i.e take them to their logical end.

---

...

---

Thanks for your kind thoughts toward me. I quoted from David Hume because I have read some of his works. You did not give any reference to any relevant publication (that you quoted from) of any subcontinental author which I could acquire and read. The knowledge in the West is systematized and preserved. It`s so easy to obtain a book by any western author.

Moreover, knowledge is knowledge whether it`s from the East or the West.

I respect your sentiments. Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 45
dear urstruly... it is intersting that although you consider my articles sloppy you still read

them and have not given up. maybe one day i might not disappoint you. are you a patient

man?. i am glad other readers enjoy my articles more than you do. maybe they are more

forgiving my articles are just my humble views about life and philosophy and human

psychology. creative writings are like that....impressionistic....they are intended to generate

a dialogue. for me mystics challenge rather than become part of the `religious

establishment`. in my opinion there are three groups

religious...traditional

spiritual...mystic...that challenge religious traditions from inside

secular/atheistic...that challenge religions from outside

if my views were `religious` i would not be encouraging genuine dialogue..

sincerely sohail

Re: # 46
totally agree with you there, Gill. However, I have a question to you and to the author, and perhaps Urstruly can chipp in here as well (since he is knowlkedgable in some aspects of the answer) (and no it is not a criticism of you, but a general spoon to stir the pot a bit)

``why the heck do we have to resort to quoting from Hume, whitman and others? When a similar body of knowledge, and indeed the exact same thing was said in the lands now called India and Pakistan. The great universities of Taxila produced scholars who said the same thing. The Scholars in kanishka`s court argued about the same things (and he ruled from Purushapura, now peshawar) vast swathes of Northern India and Pakistan. Dont tell me, Islamic thinkers from the sub-continent, didnot say the same thing (or similar things)? The whole article relies on notions developed in the west, when such thinking was available in our very own home lands!``

Are we so fukked up mentally and intellectually that we cannot think beyond the recent stuff we have read? have we become that ignorant of our history and culture?

-dots

P.S Gilli Sahib, please donot take this personally - I like your extremely informative thinkng and articles, and enjoy them remendously. But when I read your #46 this came to me as a side bar, esp your last statement ``Blind faith is risky, to say the least`` was magic.
I could not resist the temptation!

David Hume wrote about divinity and metaphysics as follows:

``If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.``

Blind faith is risky, to say the least.

Mohammad Gill

Some of the basic facts that form the premise of this article are wrong. For example, Saadi Shirazi, Bulleh Shah and Rumi never challenged what you call the ``religious establishment`` and neither of them were ever persecuted or prosecuted for any reason. And I do not see any reason why Blake and Whitmann should be put in the category of mystics in the first place. In addition Blake was never persecuted for any reason; he died peacefully in his bed. Walt whitman on the other hand was actually honored by naming bridge after him during his lifetime.

Dr, Sahib this is sloppy work. I have no problem, with the zeal that you have to prolesytize your religion, but at least try to know what you are preaching first.

Re: # 43

interesting Pov - This ``i think humanity is evolving from the insitutions of religious blind faith to secularism and humanism based on science, psychology and philosophy...i hope we
educate our children with modern knowledge so that they play a leading role in human
evolution...as a humanist i cherish all traditions...religious,,,spiritual and secular,,,of all
cultures...they are goldmines of knowledge and wisdom.. ``

can you pleae expand on this. I do understand that you did try to explain this in the article and in your interracts. But up to a point. Somewhere there in the quote above, the word ``reasn`` is missing. Maybe I am wrong, but shouldn`t that be a factor as well. Also care to comment on the discussion Tahmed32, Wheel o Time (Kaalchakra), and dare I mention the idiot Iron_Mask had from #23 to #38. Interestingly Wheel O Time and others seem to be alluding to what you say in your quote above. That is my interpretation

Re: # 41
dear khurrum....as a secular humanist i respect personal truths of all human beings. as far

as it is a private matter i have no objection. i think religion is an institutionalized version of

truth that is passed on from one generation to another by blind faith. such insitiutionalized

blind faith has hindered human evolution

...mystics challenged it and asked people to rely on their own observations and

experiences rather than on sermons of priests, mullahs, rabbis and pandits

...artists challenged it based on their aesthetic values by creating poems and paintings and

plays which were declared sin by insitituionalized religions

...scientists and philosophers challenged it by rational and logical thinking

so for a personal truth to be accepted by others it has to pass the test of rational and

objective thinking otherwise it remains a personal truth.

in a secular humanistic community all citizens are respepected for their personal

truth...whether it is religious, spiritual or secular...it is freedom OF religion

but the laws of the land need to be made on secular and humanistic grounds which also

includes freedom FROM religion so that religious institutions do not gain so much political

power that they penalize and persecute the mystics, artists and sceintists.....for human

growth and evolution we need to cherish questioning and a healthy dialogue. in religious

insitutions there are sermons (monologues) rather than democratic dialogues. Galelio was

persecuted by catholic church and Mansoor killed my Muslim clerics for challenging

traditional blind faith

i respect all people with their personal truth even if it is religious and comes from God and

scriptures and prophets....as far as those religious people respect other people`s truth...i

call those religious people who respect people from other faiths and serve them ... religious

humanists...like martin luther king jr in america...edhi in pakistan...desmund tutu in south

africa...these religious people try to serve their community

but we need to be aware of those religious people who are extremists and want to control

other people by making blashphemy laws and create theocratic states.

as a secular humanist i believe chuch and state....mosque and parliment...synagogue and

constitution...temple and politics need to be kept separate....

in south africa religious humanist desmond tutu and secular humanist nelson mandela

worked together to serve their community against apartheid system and fought for human

rights of all africans.

i think humanity is evolving from the insitutions of religious blind faith to

secularism and humanism based on science, psychology and philosophy...i hope we

educate our children with modern knowledge so that they play a leading role in human

evolution...as a humanist i cherish all traditions...religious,,,spiritual and secular,,,of all

cultures...they are goldmines of knowledge and wisdom..

sincerely sohail

Re: # 23
dear hamidm 2...i am glad you wrote a paragraph commenting about the first line of my

article. i wish you had read the whole article and given your feedback. we all live and learn.

i appreciate honest feedback and try to learn from it even if it makes me uncomfortable.

personal growth or cultural evolution is usually a painful process but i think it is worth

it....mothers know it very well that to have a beautiful baby they have to experience labour

pains.creative people throughout history have been like mothers.giving us gifts of their

babies their creative products whether poems or paintings or plays or philosophies. do you

not agree?..sincerely sohail

ps...my poet uncle arif abdul mateen wrote a couplet in urdu about the creative process

mairaj par hay karb-e-gawara damagh ka

takhleeq ho raha hay sukhanwar kay haan sukhan

``I am of the opinion that blind faith and religion were our past and science, psychology and philosophy are our future as human beings``

drsohail,

I can see that you are critical of religion and faith and advocate science and philosophy. But I am not clear about the nature of your criticism. Can you clarify by answering the following question.

Are you saying that,
A. My subjective truth is better than your subjective truth, OR
B. My truth is objective while your truth is subjective, OR
C. None of the above.

Thanks

Re: # 21
malik sahib..you are very perceptive...i thought philosophers could be considered scientists

as they use rational and analytical approach and come up with objective findings...maybe

next time i will add philosophers in the title as well....sincerely sohail

Re: # 22
dear nasah....hazoor-e-wala....beauty is in the eyes of the beholder....i will cherish the

compliment....especially coming from you....readers like you make the writing

worthwhile....affectionately sohail

Re: # 37
, if I could, I would like to quote the following (this was an aphorism provided by Kapila - from whose school Buddha is supposed to have risen)

Aph. 1.* Well, the complete cessation of pain [which is] of three kinds is the complete end of man.

the three kinds of pain are 1) due to one`s self (ádhyátmika), (2) due to products of the elements (ádhibhautika), and (3) due to supernatural causes (ádhidaivika). The complete end being ``liberation``.

Each one of these is fine. We can do (1) with the greatest of ease. (3) also the same to hell with superstitions, and belief in god (okay pardon me the blasphemy here). It is (2) which is often the problem. This is problem today and the bane - the problem I first rised with Kaalchakra!

Re: # 32

agreed.

tahmed32, that is the struglle we all face in one form or the other everyday of our lives - in almost all spheres of our existence. It is what we eventually do with it, and resolve this struggle dictates our state/condition. And eventually the sum total of our condition in the last years of our lives. In some cases, thisleads to a massive improvement, and hence to human condition in others there is but a small regression. This regression is like a pertubation in the system, and human society recovers, learns and marches forward.

Re: # 31

``the difference between social power and personalized power. And that is an important/ consequential distinguishing feature . . .``

yes, but this deals with the here and now - if social power is weak, personalised power becomes strong (lack of social strictures makes one behave in a rather obnoxious manner). Weak personalised power, makes you a tool for the conformists. This is the struggle, christianity went through many years ago, Islam is going through now, and hinduism went through manytimes over.

Indeed this last point, is one to note, that within Indian History, this struggle had led to paramountcy of the meta-physical. And the many truths within this had many a struggles, debates etc, and hence the monistic approach to life. (I could be wrong in my interpretation, but that is an extremely lay opnion).

Re: # 33

I wonder, I wonder, kaalchakra.

Faith has no job in constructing the truth. Okay it has a job of constructing ITS truth! But that is where many of todays fault lines begin and end, indeed this is the cause of the problems. ``ITS`` truth is the issue. Is it not?

I couldnot agree with Tahmed in #32 more, indeed I did say that ``The struggle will always be between these two extreme poles. What we call moderation, is a calll to recognise these two extremes and and find a way of living amecably(sp?) with these two conditions (since many of us will not have the testicular fortitude to march towards either of the two ends). If the resources available to man kind was very much more than the total number of human beings, I can take a guess which way mankind will go!``.

Our understanding of thr truth is a struggle between
(a) the various constructions of ``ITS`` truth
(b) the issue of moderation between the extreme poles (as above) - indeed the truth ``IT`` constructs could also fall into this category.


Ultumately, the question remains - which construction of truth is true? We can always recognise the underlying commonness of all ``ITS`` and come up with a compromise paradigm, or accept that all the paths lead to to the same point.

Which brings me to the issue, of who constructs this truth and how is it done? IF we go back to #28 and the two pints there

If you have power over yourself (as in the Buddha quote of yours below), you tend to do more good for humanity as a whole. Where as if you have power over others you end up in a feudal situation, the population is like scavengers feeding of the carrion from your table.

If you have power over yourself - you command faith not in you but your thoughts.
If you have power over others you demand faith in yourself and not necessarily your thoughts.


Now from your #33 ``But each constructed and enforced truth is valid only within the raj its own peculiar faith-power pair.`` appears to be a nod towards the second aspect - this is just a temporal truth, not an eternal truth which reigns supreme over the space-time continum (if I could use that cheesy phrase). The first consruct would perhpas be one of the many facets of this eternal truth.

It is our unwillingness of accept that ``truth`` is many faceted that causes the fault lines to occur. (please note: truth here is different from what we see every day - when A murders B, there is only one truth, A murdered B in cold blood - no ifs and buts here).

Basically, we all seem to arguing or rather making a rather strong case (you me and Tahmed32 sirjee) for a more catholic or monistic belief of truth, rather than a singular monotheist notion of truth!

good point, tahmed32 ji!

iron_mask

yes, we use the word `truth` in both those senses, and that creates all the confusion.

Faith has a job of ``constructing`` its truth. Faith seeks power so it can enforce its constructed truth. Power obliges faith in order to legitimate and sustain itself. But each constructed and enforced truth is valid only within the raj its own peculiar faith-power pair.

This, of course, may have nothing to do, or may be completely contrary to truth as others observe it. So we may have everyone talking of truth, and everyone talking about different things.

(I recognize that the faith-constructed power-enforced truth is not exactly the same as here and now truth of the sankhya school).

kaalchakra/ironmask: interesting discussion.

on the quote ``Power, passion, and pelf and the need for control drive most of us most of the time, not the pursuit of absolute truth. ``

i think the above represents two paths, which individually are counterproductive to human progress, but taken together are the essence of human progress.

Agreed. The distinction you make reminds one of the difference between social power and personalized power. And that is an important/ consequential distinguishing feature . . .

Re: # 28 contd #28,

Perhaps you could expand your statement ``both have joint primacy over truth. `` further.

Power and faith come in two forms each, at the least as I said below. If it is of one kind thenn I agree with you. If it is of the other kind - there is a small disagreement. One truth is more of a meta-physical kind, where as the other truth is more of the here and now (bread and butter kind of) issue.

And if I am not mistaken (I am not at all well versed here nor that knowledagble) wasn`t this the issue the Samkhya School tackled - I am alluding to Patanjali`s yoga Sutras here. (I heard of these but never hadthe time to go through them or understand them in great detail).

Re: # 28
Kaalchakra, there is a dividing line somewhere.

Power is of two kinds: one over yourself and the other is over others.

If you have power over yourself (as in the Buddha quote of yours below), you tend to do more good for humanity as a whole. Where as if you have power over others you end up in a feudal situation, the population is like scavengers feeding of the carrion from your table.

If you have power over yourself - you command faith not in you but your thoughts.
If you have power over others you demand faith in yourself and not necessarily your thoughts.

Most of us tend to exist in a twilight zone between these two (the peg and hole syndrome) and hence live in a perpetual schizophrenic(sp?) state. Some of us can move to either end with (and its just a hand full), and these people are the enlightened ones (a buddha) or the powerfull dictators ala ceasars.

The struggle will always be between these two extreme poles. What we call moderation, is a calll to recognise these two extremes and and find a way of living amecably(sp?) with these two conditions (since many of us will not have the testicular fortitude to march towards either of the two ends). If the resources available to man kind was very much more than the total number of human beings, I can take a guess which way mankind will go!

iron_mask

Power and faith seem to be basically inseparable (two sides of the same coin etc.), and both have joint primacy over truth.

Now faith may be more or less open to letting truth in, and the more open faith is, the less truth will suffer in the its presence, the less inner violence faith will require to maintain homeostasis (sp?).

(The idea that we will all peacefully march toward liberalism and science and truth-seeking is a noble one, although it is somewhat contrary to both reason and reality)

Re: # 26 agreed.

Maybe we could also add that he who has the power designs his faith!

Or may be not?

iron_mask

Here`s a part that first came to mind but was then dropped

>>>> (As life gets tougher) man`s enchantment with blind faith and religion could actually grow rather than diminish. <<<<

For good reason. Blind faith and religion can confer large competitive and survival advantages. The more hostile the conditions, the greater the advantage.

Re: # 24 Kaalchakra, that is the duality of the human condition.

On one hand,

we are driven by a primeval instinct of self-preservation, and hence demand that luck (or GOD) be on our side

on the other hand

realise the futility of it all and also recognise the age old saying of Buddha, and ofcourse Aham brahmasmi (what you quoted is a very nice of saying this - less ap