The Role of Mystics, Artists and Scientists in Human Evolution

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).

good point, tahmed32 ji!

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!

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: # 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: # 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: # 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: # 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

``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: # 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

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: # 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

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.

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

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!

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