The Role of Mystics, Artists and Scientists in Human Evolution

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