The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
Post on 30-May-2018
218 Views
Preview:
Transcript
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
1/55
The Bah Faith and the varieties of materialism
Gary Fuhrman et al, exchange 2001
>From gnox@vianet.ca Wed Feb 14 15:27:13 2001 From: "gnusystems" To:
Subject: materialism (long) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:35:57 -0500 X-
Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
Here's my complete draft, folks. If you have time to read it through, please do not be merciful inyour criticisms. I would like to end up with an essay that would at least make sense to all Baha'is
concerned with these issues. (Though of course some will disagree with my conclusions.) --
gary
The Bah Faith and the varieties of materialism
============== The sixth Taraz: Knowledge is one of the wondrous gifts of God. It is
incumbent upon everyone to acquire it. Such arts and material means as are now manifest have
been achieved by virtue of His knowledge and wisdom which have been revealed in Epistles and
Tablets through His Most Exalted Pen -- a Pen out of whose treasury pearls of wisdom and
utterance and the arts and crafts of the world are brought to light. ==============
Words mean what we mean by them. In this essay i am trying to describe what "we" Baha'is and
our contemporaries mean by "materialism", with special attention to the philosophical, scientific
and religious uses. At the end i will address what the Universal House of Justice might mean by
it in recent letters concerning scholarship.
Etymologically, the word "materialism" harks back to an earlier time when "matter" was thought
of as the "stuff" or substance of which all concrete objects were made. The atomic theory was the
particular (in the strict sense) version of this, viewing the "elements" as basic building blocks of
which everything was composed. In those days, a philosophical "materialist" was someone who
believed that matter was more real than the forms it took, and definitely more real than ideas
about it, and infinitely more real than notions like "spirit" which were claimed by others to be
wholly separate from and independent of matter. This crude form of materialism is, i think, rare
among professional scientists today, though it survives in folk science.
In the abstract to his 1990 JBS article, Keven Brown indicated that "modern science" has moved
beyond this crude materialism to a view that could be considered more "spiritual":
>> The origin of matter, according to the Baha'i teachings, can be explained as a spiritual reality.
Although this view is not modern, modern science is also finding that at the most fundamental
level "permanent aspects of reality are not particular materials or structures but rather thepossible forms of structures, and the rules for their transformation" (Wilczek).
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
2/55
"Materialism" may also be used as a synonym for "naturalism", the belief that the entire holarchy
constitutes the one reality of nature, and that nothing we can meaningfully talk about transcends
nature itself. "Spirituality" is then a relative quality meaning something like "higher in the
holarchy", and is transcendent in that relative sense only. John Hick in "The Fifth Dimension"
defines the religious "dimension" by contrast with this "naturalism".
There is also a more emotive significance of "reductionist" which contributes to the currentnotion of "materialism". Reductionists in this looser sense are those who "reduce" the perceived
value of a phenomenon by dismissing it as "only" or "merely" a trivial spinoff of something
more real. For instance, Scrooge is a reductionist not only when he dismissed Christmas as
sentimental humbug, but also when he tries to explain away the ghost who haunts him as a bit of
undigested food. However, the connection between this kind of reductionism and other forms of
"materialism is rather loose. Personally i think the most outrageous reductionists around today
are the creationists, who would reduce the myriad wonders of natural processes to the whimsical
potterings of some old Nobodaddy in the sky. But it would be odd to call them "materialists".
Emotive as it may be, the label "materialist" still denotes a preference for the concrete and
physical over the abstract and verbal. Those is not a germane description of those who deny the
metaphorical nature of Scripture.
By far the most popular usage of the word refers to a vague combination of selfish hedonism and
compulsive consumption -- the "crass materialism" referred to by Shoghi Effendi. The
irrelevance of "matter" to this usage is clear if we consider those who contribute most
enthusiastically to pollution and global warming. Obviously poisoning the water supply does not
reflect a commitment to "material well-being" in the literal sense, and yet polluters are exactly
the kind of people most likely to be denounced as "materialistic" for their selfish pursuit of
financial gain. When we call a money-obsessed person "materialistic", we certainly do not mean
that he loves the physical coins or bills, or even the concrete objects that might be bought with
them; these are merely symbols for the abstract wealth which is the real object of his lust.
"Making money" does not mean producing anything physical. This kind of "materialist" is moredriven to *possess* things than to engage with concrete realities through sense experience.
Returning to more philosophical usages, Steve Friberg has pointed out a positive side to
materialism: "Indeed, the Faith is very clear about material and physical progress going hand in
hand with -- indeed being necessary for -- spiritual progress. For example, the sciences that we
engage in are all material endeavors, according to `Abdu'l-Baha, and he highly commends
them.... It is simply not true, then, that the Faith condemns materialism. It doesn't."
Baha'u'llah in the 12th Glad-Tidings tells us: >>>Hold ye fast unto the cord of material means,
placing your whole trust in God, the Provider of all means. When anyone occupieth himself in a
craft or trade, such occupation itself is regarded in the estimation of God as an act of worship;
and this is naught but a token of His infinite and all-pervasive bounty.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
3/55
>>>The opinion that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications; also, in
a more limited sense, the opinion that the phenomena of consciousness and will are wholly due
to the operation of material agencies. Often applied by opponents to views that are considered
logically to lead to these conclusions, or to involve the attribution of material causes of effects
that should be referred to spiritual causes.> the Faith lacks the dualism between mind and matter typical of modern European culture, a
dualism that tries often to compartmentalize and isolate the thinking consciousness from the
things it thinks about.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
4/55
A "bad" materialist, on the other hand, would insist that only the brain is real, and the mind is
fictional or illusory. Damasio clearly says that this is not the case, and will not be the case even if
and when the "gap" is "filled" with "physical phenomena", because even if we could assemble a
*complete* physical description of the "mechanisms" underlying an experience, this description
would be utterly different from *having* the experience.
There is a parallel here to the science/religion relationship. Leaving aside the social dimension
implicit in both, we can say broadly that religious experience is exactly that, first-person*experience*, while scientific inquiry is fundamentally third-person, grounded in objective
reality rather than experiential reality. Thus we have two levels of description, neither of which
is reducible to the other -- two eyes which, used together, allow us to see the one reality in depth.
In any case, it is not so much bad beliefs as bad "methodology" which the Universal House of
Justice has lately branded with the name of "materialism". The 8 Feb. 1998 letter from the House
to Susan Maneck referred to "methods followed in researching, understanding and writing about
historical events, and the elements of these methods which the House of Justice regards as being
influenced by materialism." The 7 April 1999 letter provides more clues to the nature of this
methodology:
>>> Although the reality of God's continuous relationship with His creation and His intervention
in human life and history are the very essence of the teachings of the Founders of the revealed
religions, dogmatic materialism today insists that even the nature of religion itself can be
adequately understood only through the use of an academic methodology designed to ignore the
truths that make religion what it is.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
5/55
methodology for Baha'i academics"; instead, "Baha'i institutions and Baha'i scholars are called
on to exert a very great effort, of heart, mind, and will, in order to forge the new models of
scholarly activity and guidance that Baha'u'llah's work requires."
Since the present essay has been motivated in part as a contribution to this effort, i will close
with my own suggestion of how to resolve the methodological problem. We need to avoid "bad
materialism" while maintaining the scientifically necessary "good materialism". I believe the
pluralistic approach modeled above by Damasio, which maintains separate and equally valid"levels of description" of the phenomena under investigation, is the most compatible with the
guidance offered by the Universal House of Justice:
>>>The House of Justice feels confident that, with patience, self-discipline, and unity of faith,
Baha'i academics will be able to contribute to a gradual forging of the more integrative
paradigms of scholarship for which thoughtful minds in the international community are
increasingly calling.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
6/55
expression in the form of proteins and second-messager systems, to the dynamics of a complete
cell. One step further, neurobiologists have become painfully aware of the relative impossibility
of obtain not even mind, but even the computational dynamics of a single module of the brain,
on the basis of their understanding of single neurons. The failure to predict is perhaps the most
convincing reason for why not to fall for epistemological reductionism, even if we were to
believe, as many of our modern-age peers do, in an ontological materialism that holds that
nothing but matter and physical causality is at the core of the processes of the world, including
those that we consider subjective, such as free will and choice. This is also why I believeDamasio is taking such a two-tiered approach to mind and brain; it has been a while in
neuroscientific circles that different groups of people have been approaching these questions
from both ends. Until recently, it was only the few of the few who were willing to look at
subjectivity while doing objective measurements.
On another front, I think there is much to be gained by looking at the relationship between
philosophical materialism, whether empirical or ontological, and psychological materialism. The
latter being the case of someone who admits there is more ways of knowing the world or more to
the world than matter, but at the same time readily admits that all he or she may be willing to
*do* in the world must be justifiable in terms of personal material benefit, either in the form of
objects or emotional experience. Is for instance a dependence on sensory perception alonematerialism (as in Abdul-Baha's reference to the cow)? Is materialism in its psychological form
just a subset of philosophical materialism?
Those are just a few questions for exploration. This is a great topic, and you are doing a great job
exploring it.
Lovingly yours, Safa
>From srfriberg@worldnet.att.net Wed Feb 14 19:11:32 2001
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: "gnusystems" ,"Scirel Science and Religion List"
Subject: RE: materialism (long)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:51:00 -0800
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
Dear Gary:
A couple of quick comments:
A good Baha'i framework for all this is found in some of `Abdu'l-Baha's comments on education
and related issues. He talks about the three levels of man. I don't remember the first level - it
may be animal - but I do remember the second level - what `Abdu'l Baha calls the physical or the
human level - the level of government, work, education, jobs, arts, etc. This corresponds very
closely to what you are calling good materialism, except that `Abdu'l Baha writes it in a broader
sense. The highest level is the spiritual level, and mankind needs to be educated at that level if
he is to realize is full potential. I'll try to get the quote for you. It is a part of a big series of
quotes on education.
> In the abstract to his 1990 JBS article, Keven Brown indicated that "modern
> science" has moved beyond this crude materialism to a view that could be> considered more "spiritual":
>
6
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
7/55
> >> The origin of matter, according to the Baha'i teachings, can be
> explained as a spiritual reality. Although this view is not modern, modern
> science is also finding that at the most fundamental level "permanent
> aspects of reality are not particular materials or structures but rather
> the possible forms of structures, and the rules for their transformation"
> (Wilczek).
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
8/55
Any chance you could expand this out a bit? Also, the lack of belief in God comes in here, I
think.
> Although i doubt whether we would normally refer to gainful employment and
> a productive livelihood as "materialism", let us grant Steve this point,
> and concede that the Baha'i point of view acknowledges both good and bad
> "materialism". In science, the good "materialism" would simply be
> empiricism -- the methodological grounding of verification on reproducible
> (not private) observations of objective reality. To reject empiricism would> be to throw out science as we know it, and this is certainly not what our
> faith requires of us.
Gainful employment and all is very much materialism, perhaps the heart of it. I think that in
understanding this lies the crux of the matter, both in understanding the modern dialogue about
materialism and in understanding the Baha'i approach.
> By keeping separate levels of description
> I am not suggesting that there are separate substances, one mental and the
> other biological. I am simply recognizing the mind as a high level of
> biological process, which requires and deserves its own description because> of the private nature of its appearance and because that appearance is the
> fundamental reality we wish to explain. On the other hand, describing
> neural events with their proper vocabulary is part of the effort to
> understand how those events contribute to the creation of the mind. it thinks *with*; i think the difference is insignificant. Damasio
> explicitly rejects this dualism, but affirms the practical need to maintain
> "separate levels of description" of the one reality. Thus the mind is "a
> high level of biological process", and yet it is "the fundamental reality",
> and there is no contradiction here. If this is materialism, surely it is a
> benign variety. A better name for it would be pluralism (i.e. recognizing
> the validity of varying "levels of description").
Extremely important point, I think, and widely useful.
> There is a parallel here to the science/religion relationship. Leaving
> aside the social dimension implicit in both, we can say broadly that
> religious experience is exactly that, first-person *experience*, while
> scientific inquiry is fundamentally third-person, grounded in objective
> reality rather than experiential reality. Thus we have two levels of
> description, neither of which is reducible to the other -- two eyes which,
> used together, allow us to see the one reality in depth.
Yes! This is one of the lessons of quantum mechanics: certain different ways of seeing or
measuring can be supported by even the simplest of systems, and they are, in some ways,mutually incompatible (i.e., they interfere with each other in measurements).
8
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
9/55
> Clearly this "materialism" has nothing to do with "matter", since we are
> referring to the discipline of history, not to the hard sciences. But the
> issues of causation or agency which arise in the OED definition of
> "materialism" are crucial. "Dogmatic materialism", in the terms used by the
> House of Justice, "insists that all spiritual and moral phenomena must be
> understood through the application of a scholarly apparatus devised to
> explore existence in a way that ignores the issues of God's continuous
> relationship with His creation and His intervention in human life and> history". Standard academic methodology explains historical events by
> attributing their causes to previous events, or to human decisions arrived
> at by natural processes in the context of those events. I believe the House
> is telling us that Revelation cannot be explained by these methods to the
> exclusion of transcendent (divine, supernatural) causes.
Excellent description. Extremely important, I think, is the relationship between all the kinds of
materialism that we have been talking about. How does reductionism in the physical sciences
effect societies ideologies and beliefs, this kind of thing.
> >>>The House of Justice feels confident that, with patience,
> self-discipline, and unity of faith, Baha'i academics will be able to> contribute to a gradual forging of the more integrative paradigms of
> scholarship for which thoughtful minds in the international community are
> increasingly calling.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
10/55
BEWUSTZIJN OF MATERIE ?
From: "David Garcia"
To: scirel@MIT.EDU
Subject: RE: Leonard Mandel
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:58:08 +1000
Hi! I wanted to quote some things from Sir Arthur Eddington (from the book ), since these have to do with the issue of consciousness discussed in my previous
message. It also points out the real convergence of religion and science happening in the minds
of these pioneers at the forefront of science. This essay is one of the most profound statements
uniting science and religion that i've read. The introduction is by Ken Wilbur, editor of the book.
Here are a few selected sentences from the text to give you a feeling for and preview of what
Eddington is saying here.
"It is almost as though the modern conception of the physical world had deliberately left room
for the reality of spirit and consciousness."
"From this perspective we recognise a spiritual world alongside the physical world."
"If I were to try to put into words the essential truth revealed in the mystic experience, it would
be that our minds are not apart from the world..."
"Proof is an idol before whom the pure mathematician tortures himself. In physics, we are
generally content to sacrifice before the lesser shrine of Plausibility."
"For if those who hold that there must be a physical basis for everything hold that these mystical
views are nonsense, we may ask: What, then, is the physical basis of nonsense?"
"It will perhaps be said that the conclusion to be drawn from these arguments from modern
science is that religion first became possible for a reasonable scientific man about the year 1927
[which was the year of the advent of quantum physics when Werner Heisenberg developed
matrix quantum mechanics]."
"The idea of a universal Mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the
present state of scientific theory; at least it is in harmony with it."
"The materialist who is convinced that all phenomena arise from electrons and quanta and the
like controlled by mathematical formulae, must presumably hold the belief that his wife is a
rather elaborate differential equation, but he is probably tactful enough not to obtrude this
opinion in domestic life."
SIR ARTHUR [STANLEY] EDDINGTON (1882 - 1944)
Sir Arthur Eddington made important contributions to the theoretical physics of motion,
evolution, and internal constitution of stellar systems. He was one of the first theorists to grasp
fully relativity theory, of which he became a leading exponent. No mere armchair theorist,
Eddington led the famous expedition that photographed the solar eclipse which offered the first
proof of Einstein's relativity theory. For his outstanding contributions, he was knighted in 1930.
The following sections are taken from Science and the Unseen World (New York: Macmillan,
1929), New Pathways in Science (New York: Macmillan, 1935), and The Nature of the Physical
10
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
11/55
World (New York: Macmillan, 1929). Of all the physicists in this volume, Eddington was
probably the most eloquent writer; with Heisenberg, the accomplished philosopher; and with
Schroedinger, the most penetrating mystic. Moreover, he possessed an exquisite intellectual wit,
evidenced on almost every page of his writings ... I have divided his topics into three rough
sections, the first dealing with the shadowy limitations of physical science, the second with the
necessity to equate the reality behind the shadows with consciousness itself, and the third, his
famous defense of mysticism. (p 166)
In short, the new conception of the physical universe puts me in a position to defend religion
against a particular charge, viz., the charge of being incompatible with physical science. It is not
a general panacea against atheism. (p 169)
[Eddington gives an explanation of how physics uses a cyclical method of definition that shuts
out things that are hard for it to explain, such as human consciousness. He describes how, in
general relativity, gravitational potential is defined in terms of "intervals" that are measurable by
"scales" such as measuring sticks and clocks. Scales are graduated strips of "matter". What is
matter? Well, it's something observed by human consciousness, Mr. X., but physics cannot deal
with that. So it defines matter in terms of "mass", "momentum" and "stress". Einstein found
intimidating differential equations that tell us what this mass, momentum and stress are in termsof "potential". What is potential? That's what we were defining here in the first place. So the
definitions go round and round, like a cat chasing its tail. This neatly locks out troublesome
elements such as the human viewer. But in doing this physics now becomes incapable of making
any statements at all about human consciousness, or anything else outside these small circles of
definition such as God.]
... That matter, in some indirect way, comes within the purview of Mr. X's mind is not a fact
of any utility for a theoretical scheme of physics.
We cannot embody it in a differential equation. It is ignored, and the physical properties of
matter and other entities are expressed by their linkages in the cycle. And you can see how by
the ingenious device of the cycle physics secures for itself a self-contained domain for study withno loose ends projecting into the unknown. All other physical definitions have the same kind of
interlocking. Electric force is defined as something which causes motion of an electric charge;
an electric charge is something which exerts electric force. So that an electric charge is
something that exerts something that produces motion of something that exerts something that
produces ... ad infinitum.
To know what there is bout Mr. X which makes him behave in this strange way, we must look
not to a physical system of inference, but to that insight beneath the symbols which, in our own
minds, we possess. It is by this insight that we can finally reach an answer to our question:
What is Mr. X?
So long as physics, in tinkering with the familiar world, was able to retain those aspects which
appeal to the aesthetic side of our nature, it might with some show of reason make claim to cover
the whole of experience; those who claimed that there was another, religious aspect of our
existence had to fight for their claim. But now that its picture omits so much that is obviously
significant, there is no suggestion that it is the whole truth about experience. To make such a
claim would bring protest not only from the religiously minded, but from all who recognise that
Man is not merely a scientific measuring machine. (pp 173-74)
We recognise that the type of knowledge after which physics is striving is much too narrow
and specialised to constitute a complete understanding of the environment of the human spirit. Agreat many aspects of our ordinary life and activity take us outside the outlook of physics.
[aethestics, art, religion,...] (p 175)
11
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
12/55
Whatever justification at the source we accept to vindicate the reality of the external world, it
can scarcely fail to admit on the same footing much that is outside physical science. Although
no long chains of regularised inference depend from them, we recognise that other fibres of our
being extend in directions away from sense-impressions. I am not greatly concerned to borrow
words like "existence" and "reality" to crown these other departments of the soul's interest. I
would rather put it that any raising of the question of reality in its transcendental sense (whether
the question emanates from the world of physics or not) leads us to a perspective from which wesee man not as a bundle of sensory impressions, but conscious of purpose and responsibilities to
which the external world is subordinate.
From this perspective we recognise a spiritual world alongside the physical world. Experience
-- that is to say, the self cum [with] environment -- comprises more than can be embraced in the
physical world, restricted as it is to a complex of metrical symbols. The physical world is, we
have seen, the answer to one definite and urgent problem arising in a survey of experience; no
other problem has been followed up with anything like the same precision and elaboration.
Progress toward an understanding of the non-sensory constituents of our nature is not likely to
follow similar lines and, indeed, is not animated by the same aims. If it is felt that this difference
is so wide that the phrase spiritual world is a misleading analogy, I will not insist on the term.All I would claim is that those who in the search for truth start from consciousness as a seat of
self knowledge with interests and responsibilities not confined to the material plane are just as
much facing the hard facts of experience as those who start from consciousness as a device for
reading the indications of spectroscopes and micrometers.
What is the ultimate truth about ourselves? Various answers suggest themselves. We are a bit
of stellar matter gone wrong. We are physical machinery -- puppets that strut and talk and laugh
and die as the hand of time pulls the strings beneath. But there is one elementary inescapable
answer. We are that which asks the question. Whatever else there may be in our nature,
responsibility towards truth is one of its attributes. This side of our nature is aloof from the
scrutiny of the physicist. I do not think it is sufficiently covered by admitting a mental aspect ofour being. It has to do with conscience rather than with consciousness. Concern with truth is
one of those things which make up the spiritual nature of Man. (pp 177-78)
... Even if we could accept this inadequate substitute for consciousness as we know it [i.e., by
the scientist pointing to a nervous system with epiphenomenal consciousness], we must still
protest: "You have shown us a creature which thinks and believes; you have not shown us a
creature to whom it matters that what it thinks and believes should be true." (p 179)
Our present conception of the physical world is hollow enough to hold almost anything. I
think the reader will agree. There may indeed be a hint of ribaldry in his hearty assent. What we
are dragging to light as the basis of all phenomena is a scheme of symbols connected by
mathematical equations. That is what physical reality boils down to when probed by the
methods which a physicist can apply. A skeleton scheme of symbols proclaims its own
hollowness. IT can be -- nay it cries out to be -- filled with something that shall transform it
from skeleton into substance, from plan into execution, from symbols into and interpretation of
the symbols. And if ever the physicist solves the problem of the living body, he should no
longer be tempted to point to his result and say "That's you." He should say rather "That is the
aggregation of symbols which stands for you in my description and explanation of those of your
properties which I can observe and measure. If you claim a deeper insight into your own nature
by which you can interpret these symbols -- a more intimate knowledge of the reality which I can
only deal with by symbolism -- you can rest assured that I have no rival interpretation topropose." The skeleton is the contribution of physics to the solution of the Problem of
Experience; from the clothing of the skeleton it stands aloof. (p 179-80)
12
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
13/55
Let us now consider our answer to the question whether the nature of reality is material or
spiritual or a combination of both. ...
I will first ask another question. Is the ocean composed of water or of waves or of both? ...
Similarly, I assert that the nature of all reality is spiritual, not material nor a dualism of matter
and spirit. The hypothesis that its nature can be, to any degree, material does not enter into my
reckoning, because as we now understand matter, the putting together of the adjective "material"and the noun "nature" does not make any sense.
Interpreting the term material (or more strictly, physical) in the broadest sense as that with
which we can become acquainted through sensory experience of the external world, we
recognise now that it corresponds to the waves, not to the water of the ocean of reality. My
answer does not deny the existence of the physical, any more than the answer that the ocean is
made of water denies the existence of ocean waves; only we do not get down to the intrinsic
nature of things that way. Like the symbolic world of physics, a wave is a conception which is
hollow enough to hold almost anything; we can have waves of water, of air, of aether, and (in
quantum theory) waves of probability. So, after physics has shown us the waves, we have still to
determine the content of the waves by some other avenue of knowledge. If you will understandthat the spiritual aspect of experience is to the physical aspect in the same kind of relation as the
water to the wave form, I can leave you to draw up your own answer to the question propounded
at the beginning of this section and so avoid any verbal misunderstanding. What is more
important, you will see how easily the two aspects of experience now dovetail together, not
contesting each other's place. It is almost as though the modern conception of the physical world
had deliberately left room for the reality of spirit and consciousness. (p 181)
The mind as a central receiving station reads the dots and dashes of the incoming nerve-
signals. By frequent repetition of their call-signals the various transmitting stations of the
outside world become familiar. We begin to feel quite a homely acquaintance with 2LO and
5XX. But a broadcasting station is not like its call-signal; there is no commensurality in theirnature. So too the chairs and tables around us which broadcast to us incessantly those signals
which affect our sight and touch cannot in their nature be like unto the signals or to the
sensations which the signals awake at the end of their journey. (p 182)
In comparing the certainty of things spiritual and things temporal, let us not forget this: mind
is the first and most direct thing in our experience; all else is remote inference. (p 183)
... If I were to try to put into words the essential truth revealed in the mystic experience, it
would be that our minds are not apart from the world, and the feelings that we have of gladness
and melancholy and our yet deeper feelings are not of ourselves alone, but are glimpses of a
reality transcending the narrow limits of our particular consciousness -- that the harmony and
beauty of the face of Nature is, at root, one with the gladness that transfigures the face of man.
We try to express much the same truth when we say that the physical entities are only an extract
of pointer readings and beneath them is a nature continuous with our own. But I do not willingly
put it into words or subject it to introspection. We have seen how in the physical world the
meaning is greatly changed when we contemplate it as surveyed from without instead of, as it
essentially must be, from within. By introspection we drag out the truth for external survey, but
in the mystical feeling the truth is apprehended from within and is, as it should be, a part of
ourselves. (p 192)
May I elaborate this objection to introspection? We have two kinds of knowledge which I callsymbolic knowledge and intimate knowledge I do not know whether it would be correct to say
that reasoning is only applicable to symbolic knowledge, but the more customary forms of
13
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
14/55
reasoning have been developed for symbolic knowledge only. The intimate knowledge will not
submit to codification and analysis, or, rather, when we attempt to analyse it the intimacy is lost
and it is replaced by symbolism.
For an illustration let us consider Humour. I suppose that humour can be analysed to some
extent and the essential ingredients of the different kinds of with classified. "suppose that we are
offered an alleged joke. We subject it to scientific analysis as we would a chemical salt of
doubtful nature, and perhaps after careful consideration of all its aspects we are able to confirmthat it really and truly is a joke. Logically, I suppose, our next procedure would be to laugh. But
it may certainly be predicted that as the result of this scrutiny we shall have lost all inclination
we may ever have had to laugh at it. It simply does not do to expose the inner workings of a
joke. The classification concerns a symbolic knowledge of humour which preserves all the
characteristics of a joke except its laughableness. The real appreciation must come
spontaneously, not introspectively. I think this is a not unfair analogy for our mystical feeling
for Nature, and I would venture even to apply it to our mystical experience of God. There are
some to whom the sense of a divine presence irradiating the soul is one of the most obvious
things of experience. In their view, a man without this sense is to be regarded as we regard a
man without a sense of humour. The absence is a kind of mental deficiency. We may try to
analyse the experience as we analyse humour, and construct a theology, or it may be an atheisticphilosophy, which shall put into scientific form what is to be inferred about it. But let us not
forget that the theology is symbolic knowledge, whereas the experience is intimate knowledge.
And as laughter cannot be compelled by the scientific exposition of the structure of a joke, so a
philosophic discussion of the attributes of God (or an impersonal substitute) is likely to miss the
intimate response of the spirit which is the central point of the religious experience.. (pp 192 -
93) [Like dead-hearted Californians always talking about love without actually experiencing it,
or art and music critics analysing art and music and completely missing what it's really all about]
We are the music-makers
And we are the dreamers of dreams
Wandering by lone sea-breakersAnd sitting by desolate streams;
World-losers and world-forsakers,
On whom the pale moon gleams;
Yet we are the movers and shakers
Of the world for ever, it seems.
I have sometimes been asked whether science cannot now furnish an argument which ought to
convince any reasonable atheist. I could no more ram religious conviction into an atheist than I
could ram a joke into the Scotchman [who has no sense of humor, who might be able to analyze
jokes in a "scientific" way, but who is quite unable to see the point of a joke].
The only hope of "converting" the latter is that through contact with merry-minded companions
he may being to realise that he is missing something in life which is worth attaining. Probably in
the recesses of his solemn mind there exists inhibited the seed of humour, awaiting an awakening
by such an impulse. The same advice would seem to apply to the propagation of religion; it has,
I believe, the merit of being entirely orthodox advice.
We cannot pretend to offer proofs. Proof is an idol before whom the pure mathematician
tortures himself. In physics, we are generally content to sacrifice before the lesser shrine of
Plausibility. ... Religious conviction is often described in somewhat analogous terms as a
surrender; it is not to be enforced by argument on those who do not feel its claim in their own
nature. (pp 199-200)
14
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
15/55
Is it merely a well-meaning kind of nonsense for a physicist to affirm this necessity for an
outlook beyond physics? It is worse nonsense to deny it. Or, as that ardent relativist the Red
Queen puts it, "You call that nonsense, but I've heard nonsense compared with which that would
be as sensible as a dictionary."
For if those who hold that there must be a physical basis for everything hold that these
mystical views are nonsense, we may ask: What, then, is the physical basis of nonsense? The
"problem of nonsense" touches the scientist more nearly than any other moral problem. He mayregard the distinction of good and evil as too remote to bother about. But the distinction of sense
and nonsense, of valid and invalid reasoning, must be accepted at the beginning of every
scientific inquiry. Therefore, it may well be chosen for examination as a test case.
If the brain contains a physical basis for the nonsense which it thinks, this must be some kind
of configuration of the entities of physics -- not precisely a chemical secretion, but not
essentially different from that kind of product. It is as though when my brain says 7 times 8 are
56 its machinery is manufacturing sugar, but when it says 7 times 8 are 65 the machinery has
gone wrong and produced chalk. But who says the machinery has gone wrong? As a physical
machine, the brain has acted according to the unbreakable laws of physics; so why stigmatise its
action? This discrimination of chemical products as good or evil has no parallel in chemistry.We cannot assimilate laws of thought to natural laws; they are laws which ought to be obeyed,
not laws which must be obeyed; the physicist must accept laws of thought before he accepts
natural law. "Ought" takes us outside chemistry and physics. It concerns something which
wants or esteems sugar, not chalk, sense, not nonsense. A physical machine cannot esteem or
want anything; whatever is fed into it it will chew up according to the laws of its physical
machinery. That which in the physical world shadows the nonsense in the mind affords no
ground for its condemnation. In a world of aether and electrons, we might perhaps encounter
nonsense; we could not encounter damned nonsense.
And so my own concern lest I should have been talking nonsense ends in persuading me that I
have to reckon with something that could not possibly be found in the physical world. (pp 201-2)
It will perhaps be said that the conclusion to be drawn from these arguments from modern
science is that religion first became possible for a reasonable scientific man about the year 1927.
If we must consider that tiresome person, the consistently reasonable man, we may point out that
not merely religion but most of the ordinary aspects of life first became possible for him in that
year. Certain common activities (e.g. falling in love) are, I fancy, still forbidden him. If our
expectation should prove well founded that 1927 has seen the final overthrow of strict causality
by Heisenberg, Bohr, Born, and others, the year will certainly rank as one of the greatest epochs
in the development of scientific philosophy. ...
The conflict [between science and religion] will not be averted unless both sides confine
themselves to their proper domain, and a discussion which enables us to reach a better
understanding as to the boundary should be a contribution towards a state of peace. There is still
plenty of opportunity for frontier difficulties ... (p 204)
... Scientific discovery is like the fitting together of the pieces of a great jigsaw puzzle; a
revolution of science does not mean that the pieces already arrange and interlocked have to be
dispersed; it means that in fitting on fresh pieces we have had to revise our impression of what
the puzzle-picture is going to be like. One day you ask the scientist how he is getting on; he
replies, "Finely. I have very nearly finished this piece of blue sky." Another day you ask how
the sky is progressing and are told, "I have added a lot more, but it was sea, not sky; there's aboat floating on top of it." Perhaps next time it will have turned out to be a parasol upside down,
but our friend is still enthusiastically delighted with the progress he is making. The scientist has
15
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
16/55
his guesses as to how the finished picture will work out; he depends largely on these in his
search for other pieces to fit, but his guesses are modified from time to time by unexpected
developments as the fitting proceeds. These revolutions of thought as to the final picture do not
cause the scientist to lose faith in his handiwork, for he is aware that the completed portion is
growing steadily. Those who look over his shoulder and use the present partially developed
picture for purposes outside science, do so at their own risk. (p 205)
... The idea of a universal Mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference fromthe present state of scientific theory; at least it is in harmony with it. But if so, all that our
inquiry justifies us in asserting is a purely colourless pantheism. Science cannot tell whether the
world-spirit is good or evil, and its halting argument for the existence of a God might equally
well be turned into an argument for the existence of a Devil.
I think that this is an example of the limitation of physical schemes that has troubled us before
... If physics cannot determine which way up its own world ought to be regarded, there is not
much hope of guidance from it as to ethical orientation. We trust to some inward sense of fitness
when we orient the physical world with the future on top, and, likewise, we must trust to some
inner monitor when we orient the spiritual world with the good on top. (p 206)
... The materialist who is convinced that all phenomena arise from electrons and quanta and
the like controlled by mathematical formulae, must presumably hold the belief that his wife is a
rather elaborate differential equation, but he is probably tactful enough not to obtrude this
opinion in domestic life. If this kind of scientific dissection is felt to be inadequate and
irrelevant in ordinary personal relationships, it is surely out of place in the most personal
relationship of all -- that of the human soul to a divine spirit.
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001
Dear Gary:
I had mentioned that there were quotes from `Abdu'l-Baha relating to education in the context of
materialism. Here is one of them (Some Answered Question, p. 235-236):
Man is in the highest degree of materiality, and at the beginning of spirituality--that is to say, he
is the end of imperfection and the beginning of perfection. ... Then if the divine power in man,
which is his essential perfection, overcomes the satanic power, which is absolute imperfection,
he becomes the most excellent among the creatures; but if the satanic power overcomes the
divine power, he becomes the lowest of the creatures.
The same passage has an absolutely fascinating take on idolatry - the worship of the "lowest
existences." Does it apply to what might be called ideological materialism, the reductionist creed
that `Abdu'l Baha ridicules in his "lets learn from the cow" comments?
At the same time we see man worshiping a stone, a clod of earth or a tree. How vile he is, in that
his object of worship should be the lowest existence-- that is, a stone or clay, without spirit; a
mountain, a forest or a tree. What shame is greater for man than to worship the lowest
existences?
The other passage I wanted to mention is about the three kinds of education (I had gotten it
slightly wrong). The three kinds, all neccessary, are material, human, and spiritual:
16
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
17/55
But education is of three kinds: material, human and spiritual. Material education is concerned
with the progress and development of the body, through gaining its sustenance, its material
comfort and ease. This education is common to animals and man.
Human education signifies civilization and progress-- that is to say, government, administration,
charitable works, trades, arts and handicrafts, sciences, great inventions and discoveries and
elaborate institutions, which are the activities essential to man as distinguished from the animal.
Divine education is that of the Kingdom of God: it consists in acquiring divine perfections, and
this is true education; for in this state man becomes the focus of divine blessings, the
manifestation of the words, "Let Us make man in Our image, and after Our likeness." This is the
goal of the world of humanity.
We need all three kinds of education:
Now we need an educator who will be at the same time a material, human and spiritual educator,
and whose authority will be effective in all conditions. So if anyone should say, "I possess
perfect comprehension and intelligence, and I have no need of such an educator," he would be
denying that which is clear and evident, as though a child should say, "I have no need ofeducation; I will act according to my reason and intelligence, and so I shall attain the perfections
of existence"; or as though the blind should say, "I am in no need of sight, because many other
blind people exist without difficulty."
-- `Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 8
Very compellingly, and very straightforwardly, `Abdu'l Baha makes the case for the unity of the
material, human, and spiritual dimensions of life through the need for education about all three
realms.
Warmly yours, Stephen R. Friberg
>From gnox@vianet.ca Fri Feb 16 02:07:13 2001 From: "gnusystems" To:
Subject: Re: materialism Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:56:05 -0500 X-Mailer:
Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
Dear Steve,
Thanks very much for the SAQ selections. I'll see if there's a way i can work them in to the
discussion on materialism.
Your final comment struck me as a little strange though:
>>Very compellingly, and very straightforwardly, `Abdu'l Baha makes the case for the unity of
the material, human, and spiritual dimensions of life through the need for education about all
three realms.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
18/55
emotion and intention. (And, some would add, the spirit, though others would resist that
complication -- they consider it a "non-starter", as you mentioned in the context of physics.) For
this line of investigation, even to draw distinctions among these dimensions can be misleading,
because it disguises their integration -- their unity.
Come to think of it, the need for "an educator" is also an idea that's not well supported by what
we know of human learning. (Nobody who studies children's acquisition of language, for
instance, believes that teaching plays any significant role in the process.) -- Unless this"educator" is at least partially innate ... i wonder if the Baha'i writings support this idea?
Anyway, it's pretty universally understood now that the one person *essentially* involved in the
learning process is *the learner*. Applications of this principle are visible everywhere, not least
in the "training institute" courses being developed around the Baha'i world these days, such as
the Ruhi. So if we want to read `Abdu'l Baha as saying currently relevant things about education,
we have to take some of those things metaphorically.
gary
From: "Stephen R. Friberg" To: "Scirel Science and Religion List"
Subject: RE: materialism
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 06:49:49 -0800
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
Dear Gary:
I wrote:
> >>Very compellingly, and very straightforwardly,> `Abdu'l Baha makes the case for the unity of
> the material, human, and spiritual dimensions
> of life through the need for education about
> all three realms. What seems strange is to say that "`Abdu'l Baha makes the case for the
> unity" when his whole method is to *distinguish* between those dimensions.
> He presents a classification, into mutually exclusive categories, and then
> says that all three of them need attention. I'd call that "moderation" or
> perhaps "comprehensiveness".
I see nothing strange about classifying things into categories. All the sciences, nay, even the
mind itself, uses classification. I make distinctions in my life between eating (the material),
reading (the human), and prayer and service (the spiritual) and find that it does me no great
damage. Indeed, I find the emphasis on the spiritual and the distinction between it and the
material and the human to be very useful.
It is a mistake, however, to see them as mutually exclusive categories.
Let me give an example: the image that Baha'is often use is the body. I can certainly distinguish
between the head, my stomach, and my legs. The fact that I distinguish between them doesn't
18
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
19/55
severe them from each other or in any way destroy their unity. But, it does come in very handy
when I need to put a band-aid on. If the scratch is on Danny-kun's legs, (Danny-kun is my
youngest), it doesn't help to put it on his tummy. But just the same, I know if he has a sore
tummy, he is not going to be able to read very easily or run around.
> Come to think of it, the need for "an educator" is also an idea that's not
> well supported by what we know of human learning. (Nobody who studies
> children's acquisition of language, for instance, believes that teaching> plays any significant role in the process.) -- Unless this "educator" is at
> least partially innate ... i wonder if the Baha'i writings support this
> idea?
All the evidence I've seen suggests quite the opposite, and both public, private and academic
sentiment here in California supports the opposing point of view.
You might read Steven Pinker's book about language acquisition (a topic that some good friends
of mine - Baha'is in Japan - are expert on). He will explain Chomsky's point of view that
language acquisition depends on innate ability, but couple that with all the evidence that noone
learns language in isolation. It is a strongly social phenomena, i.e., there must be educators. Mytwo young children are learning English - it is a process very strongly dependent on educators.
Since I come from a multi-lingual family and have spent eleven years in Japan, I can tell you
story after story supporting the need for an educator.
> Anyway, it's pretty universally understood now that the one person
> *essentially* involved in the learning process is *the learner*.
> Applications of this principle are visible everywhere, not least in the
> "training institute" courses being developed around the Baha'i world these
> days, such as the Ruhi. So if we want to read `Abdu'l Baha as saying
> currently relevant things about education, we have to take some of those
> things metaphorically.
There is no doubt that in cooking, the eater is also "essentially involved". But, this doesn't
reduce or eliminate the role of the cook. If anything, it explains and enhances it.
Yes, since Dewey one hundred years ago, there has been an emphasis on the learner as an
integral part of the process. Without a doubt, that is true. But there is widespread agreement that
children need teachers and classes and instruction (the opposite - no classes, no teachers, no
instruction - is too horrible to contemplate).
Perhaps I don't catch your drift ....
Warmly,
Steve Friberg
From: "Safa Sadeghpour"
To:
Subject: RE: materialism
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:57:17 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
Dear Gary and Stephen,
[
19
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
20/55
[ >>Very compellingly, and very straightforwardly,
[ `Abdu'l Baha makes the case for the unity of
[ the material, human, and spiritual dimensions
[ of life through the need for education about
[ all three realms.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
21/55
[ well supported by what we know of human learning. (Nobody who studies
[ children's acquisition of language, for instance, believes that teaching
[ plays any significant role in the process.) -- Unless this
[ "educator" is at
[ least partially innate ... i wonder if the Baha'i writings support this
[ idea?
[
Just because a certain level of *spoken* language proficiency can be attained independent of a
teacher that does not mean that an outside educator is not necessary to learn its script (otherwise,
why are there so many cultures that never spontaneousl y developed a script?), to perfect even its
spoken forms (how many world-class speakers never had a literary education?), or develop any
of the full and seemingly endless range of one's material, cultural, and spiritual potentialities.
Ask anyone who has had a coach if she has gained any benefit. Compare a group of children
educated by the finest violin-player and another group left to their own devices. How many
teams have won championships without a coach? Compare two civilizations, one blessed by
Divine Revelation, the other not. Vast differences appear before our eyes when we compare
those who have had the benefit of an educator and those who haven't.
Lovingly yours,
Safa
[ Anyway, it's pretty universally understood now that the one person
[ *essentially* involved in the learning process is *the learner*.
[ Applications of this principle are visible everywhere, not least in the
[ "training institute" courses being developed around the Baha'i world these
[ days, such as the Ruhi. So if we want to read `Abdu'l Baha as saying
[ currently relevant things about education, we have to take some of those
[ things metaphorically.
[
>From gnox@vianet.ca Sat Feb 17 14:10:55 2001
From: "gnusystems"
To: "Scirel Science and Religion List"
Subject: Re: materialism
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 08:08:10 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
Dear Steve,
>>I see nothing strange about classifying things into categories.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
22/55
one of them would do, because of its unity with the "others".
>>You might read Steven Pinker's book about language acquisition > It is a strongly social phenomena, i.e., there must be educators. > My two young children are learning English - it is a process very strongly dependent on
educators. Since I come from a multi-lingual family and have spent eleven years in Japan, I can
tell you story after story supporting the need for an educator.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
23/55
that the "transmission" model, where the teacher "has" the knowledge and "imparts" it to the
student, is of very little use in explaining how people learn, or indeed in helping them learn.
Come to think of it, the problem with that model is that it's materialistic! It envisions knowledge
as stuff that can be moved from place to place or person to person. It isn't. Knowledge, like
meaning, is something people *do*. We learn by doing.
gary
}in the byways of high improvidence that's what makes lifework leaving and the world's a cell
for citters to cit in. [Finnegans Wake 12]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin Island, Canada }{ gnox@vianet.ca
}{ http://www.vianet.ca/~gnox/index.htm }{
>From gnox@vianet.ca Sat Feb 17 17:32:38 2001
From: "gnusystems"
To:
Subject: Re: materialism
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 09:29:59 -0500X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
Dear Safa,
I responded to Steve's message before seeing that you had already made several of the points i
was trying to make. Oh well.
One thing i'd like to follow up in your message:
>>Compare two civilizations, one blessed by Divine Revelation, the other not. Vast differences
appear before our eyes when we compare those who have had the benefit of an educator andthose who haven't.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
24/55
gary
}in the byways of high improvidence that's what makes lifework leaving and the world's a cell
for citters to cit in. [Finnegans Wake 12]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin Island, Canada }{ gnox@vianet.ca
}{ http://www.vianet.ca/~gnox/index.htm }{
>From gnox@vianet.ca Sat Feb 17 17:16:03 2001
From: "gnusystems"
To:
Subject: Re: emanation, perfection and other abstrusities and the nature of consciousness
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:01:30 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
Welcome, Kathy, and thanks for the comments on "Contact". Both you and Roxanne have
confirmed my own impression that the film and the Sagan novel, far from attacking religion,
affirm the common basis of both science and religion in something that we can only call "faith".
>>I highly recommend a book by neurobiologist Antonio Damasio "The Feeling of What
Happens".
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
25/55
One makes a case for unity by showing that apparently separate things are *integrated* in their
nature, or emphasizing what a group of different things have *in common*. This isn't what
Abdu'l-Baha is doing in the passage you quoted.
This brings up an interesting question, perhaps one with some important implications. What are
the various relationships between unity and diversity?
In particular, are there more means to show unity than the two you describe above (integration,having something in common)?
Surely there are more. For example, the Baha'i image of unity is the body: my legs, arms, head,
mouth, stomach, etc., all have different functions and are distinct (albeit it with different
relationships with each other - the mouth has a connection to the brain and the stomach). But all
are unified because they belong to the same entity, my body. This is unity through being a part
of a greater whole. And certainly, one way the three modes of education - material, human, and
spiritual - that `Abdu'l-Baha talks about are unified because all are concerned with the same
entity - the person.
About education: you seem be to saying several things.
You seem to be saying that an integral part of education is the desire and will of the student to
learn, but also that the student has an innate ability to learn. I think that these are widely
accepted, so perhaps we can consider these points uncontroversial.
In particular, you are saying that children have an innate ability to learn language and will learn
it automatically - they don't need to be taught.
Here is where some "garden tending" is needed: from WHAT does the child learn? The answer
is that the child learns from his surroundings and those whom he has access too. She can even
invent a new language, but only if she has others to invent it with.
In otherwords, the child learns from her parents, her peers, TV, radio, pets, the weather, etc. She
learns the language her parents and peers speak, etc. If the parents are educated and use big
words, the child will learn those too, etc.
The point is, I think, that learning "happens," whether the parents or people surrounding the child
make a conscious effort or not. What do we want to call this kind of learning? Is it distinct and
different than "education," some- times thought to be the formal aspect of the learning process?
My own perspective is while it is useful to distinguish between the formal and informal
processes of learning, they are all equally important parts of person's education. And this is the
perspective I understand the Baha'i writings to be taking towards education.
More specifically, I see the Baha'i writings as stipulating that all three kinds education - material,
human, and spiritual - must needs take place and that it is the responsibility of the community,
yes, to help in the process, but that it is the primarily the respons- ibility of the parents to make
sure it happens.
It is further a responsibility of Bahais to engage in service and teaching, the education that we
extend to our family and children, informally and formally, needs be extended to all of the
people in the world - thus, the "educator" as an attribute of God.
25
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
26/55
If we differ in our views, it might be nice to home in the differences, 'cause I suspect it might be
quite enlightening.
By the way, an important (and excellent) compilation on Baha'i education, maybe a little hard to
get, has been made available by the National Baha'i Education Task Force of the National
Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States. It is called: "Foundations for a Spiritual
Education"" and is the basis of the Core Curriculum Program in the United States.
Warmly, Stephen R. Friberg
In fact he > is saying that we need to pay attention to three different levels of > education
*because* they are different. That's all i meant. > > >>It is a mistake, however, to see them as
mutually exclusive categories. > Does not Abdu'l-Baha *define* those categories by
contrast with one > another? I don't see what's mistaken about that. If they were *not* >
mutually exclusive, we wouldn't need all three of them -- one of them would > do, because of its
unity with the "others". > > >>You might read Steven Pinker's book about language acquisition
> Here's what Pinker says in "The Language Instinct" (1994, p.39-40): > > >>> First, let us
do away with the folklore that parents teach their > children language. No one supposes that
parents provide explicit grammar > lessons, of course, but many parents (and some childpsychologists who > should know better) think that mothers provide children with implicit >
lessons. These lessons take the form of a special speech variety called > Motherese ... intensive
sessions of conversational give-and-take, with > repetitive drills and simplified grammar.... The
belief that motherese is > essential to language development is part of the same mentality that
sends > yuppies to "learning centers" to buy little mittens with bull's-eyes to > help their babies
find their hands sooner.... Children deserve most of the > credit for the language they acquire. In
fact, we can show that they know > things that they could not have been taught. Of
Pinker you said that > > >>He will explain Chomsky's point of view that language acquisition
depends > on innate ability, but couple that with all the evidence that noone learns > language in
isolation. > Of course. The language faculty must be triggered, and adults do *model* >
language use for children, even though they rarely do so consciously, and > it's not helpful whenthey do. But Chomsky's (and Pinker's) whole point is > that children normally learn things that
their models do not *teach* them, > and often learn things that their models do not even know.
The most > compelling examples are children who invent complete creole languages with > only
crude pidgin languages as models, and children who learn to use sign > language skillfully even
though nobody around them models the skills that > they develop. > > >> It is a strongly social
phenomena, i.e., there must be educators. > True only if "educator" means nothing more
than "other people". Which i > don't think is what Abdu'l-Baha had in mind. :-) > > >> My two
young children are learning English - it is a process very > strongly dependent on educators.
Since I come from a multi-lingual family > and have spent eleven years in Japan, I can tell you
story after story > supporting the need for an educator. > No one questions that educators
are needed for a *second* language. So > presumably the auxiliary language that Baha'u'llah
calls for will need a > conscious education process in order to be implemented. But that doesn't >
seem to be what Abdu'l-Baha was referring to in the passage we're > discussing. > > >>Yes,
since Dewey one hundred years ago, there has been an emphasis on the > learner as an integral
part of the process. Without a doubt, that is true. > But there is > widespread agreement that
children need teachers and classes and > instruction ... > To learn what? That's the question.
Certainly not to learn a first > language. To learn the finer points of cultural conventions,
including > usage and writing conventions, yes (after all, i was an English teacher for > 25 years!
:-) -- but when it comes to the human basics, including the > basics of morality, the role of
teachers and formal education is much more > ambiguous. And it seems to me that the
"transmission" model, where the > teacher "has" the knowledge and "imparts" it to the student, isof very > little use in explaining how people learn, or indeed in helping them learn. > Come to
think of it, the problem with that model is that it's > materialistic! It envisions knowledge as stuff
26
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
27/55
that can be moved from place > to place or person to person. It isn't. Knowledge, like meaning, is
> something people *do*. We learn by doing. > > gary > > }in the byways of high
improvidence that's what makes lifework leaving and > the world's a cell for citters to cit in.
[Finnegans Wake 12]{ > > gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin Island,
Canada > }{ gnox@vianet.ca }{ http://www.vianet.ca/~gnox/index.htm }{ > > > > >
>From safa@coolarchive.com Sun Feb 18 00:24:09 2001
From: "Safa Sadeghpour" To:
Subject: RE: materialism
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:14:07 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
Dear Gary,
The point regarding the two civilizations was to stress the need of an external educator. It was
just one example of many --- the violin players needing a teacher, the astonishing speaker who
needs a literary education, or the basketball team needing a coach were the others. Of course, itis difficult to argue empirically for the social need of religion *because* it is hard to do
experiments were you two groups relatively similar to each other, and one is giving religion and
other is not. But to observe a child fiddling horribly with a violin and who becomes
extraordinary after years of formal training, a child who becomes part of a team through the
sacrifices of a coach, or the great speakers who shine forth with the eloquence of their learning,
are common experience. If you like, feel free to disregard the point about civilizations, as you
accept the point of the need of an educator.
But, of course, Abdul-Baha himself uses historical arguments to present arguments for the social
benefits of religion.
Lovingly yours, Safa
PS: There are differences between the beliefs of Shaman's and those of world religions but that is
a completely different topic.
[ -----Original Message----- [ From: gnusystems [mailto:gnox@vianet.ca] [ Sent: Saturday,
February 17, 2001 9:30 AM [ To: scirel@MIT.EDU [ Subject: Re: materialism [ [ [ Dear Safa, [
[ I responded to Steve's message before seeing that you had already made [ several of the points i
was trying to make. Oh well. [ [ One thing i'd like to follow up in your message: [ [ >>Compare
two civilizations, one blessed by Divine Revelation, the other [ not. Vast differences appear
before our eyes when we compare [ those who have [ had the benefit of an educator and those
who haven't.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
28/55
me skeptical about claims to superior civilization [ coming from those who think they have God
or revelation on their side. [ [ By the way, this is another instance where Abdu'l-Baha, if he were
with us [ today, would use very different language from that preserved in [ the English [
translations of his writings. (For starters, he wouldn't refer to Native [ people as "savages"!) [ [
gary [ [ }in the byways of high improvidence that's what makes lifework leaving and [ the
world's a cell for citters to cit in. [Finnegans Wake 12]{ [ [ gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary
Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin Island, Canada [ }{ gnox@vianet.ca }{
http://www.vianet.ca/~gnox/index.htm }{ [ [ [
From: "Safa Sadeghpour"
To:
Subject: RE: emanation, perfection and other abstrusities and the nature of consciousness
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:16:06 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
Dear Gary,
I like Damasio as well, but you must bear in mind he is just a neuroscientist. There is statementsthat he makes which are derived from his science, such as his studies in language using fMRIs,
and others derived from his personally philosophy, such as his disagreements with Descartes.
While as a Baha'i I read avidly from the first, the second I take with a massive grain of sand.
Lovingly yours, Safa
From: "gnusystems"
To: "Stephen R. Friberg" ,
"Scirel Science and Religion List"
Subject: Re: Education
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 21:36:20 -0500X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
Dear Steve,
>>This brings up an interesting question, perhaps one with some important implications. What
are the various relationships between unity and diversity?
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
29/55
Bateson says at one point "Resemblance is older than difference." One thing that evolution and
development do have in common is that both involve *differentiation*. So someone, i think
Thomas Berry, says that diversity seems to be the goal of the universe, if it has one.
Not sure if that's the kind of thing you were asking for, but let's see how that flies before i go any
further.
>>The point is, I think, that learning "happens," whether the parents or people surrounding thechild make a conscious effort or not. What do we want to call this kind of learning? Is it distinct
and different than "education," some- times thought to be the formal aspect of the learning
process?
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
30/55
[ -----Original Message-----
[ From: gnusystems [mailto:gnox@vianet.ca]
[ Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 9:35 AM
[ To: Safa Sadeghpour; scirel@MIT.EDU
[ Subject: Re: emanation, perfection and other abstrusities
[
[
[ Dear Safa,[
[ There seems to be an infinite bounty of interesting questions before us --
[ maybe more than we can handle! :-) One of them is the nature of
[ "detachment".
[
[ >>Detachment strike me as a word that connotes emotional aloofness for the
[ sake of achieving goals that would be impossible to achieve for one in the
[ shackles of emotional attachments and drives.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
31/55
[
[ I think this would be a good question for Baha'i neurologists to
[ investigate (if there are any) -- What exactly are the brain
[ functions that
[ we experience as "heart"? (Or the Arabic term thus translated ... is it
[ fu'ad?)
The comparison that has traditionally made with "heart" has been to relate it to the subconsciousor the unconscious mind to it. There are certainly Baha'i neurologists, psychiatrists, and I believe
even neurosurgeons. These are questions that have tremendous potentials in terms of
illuminating answers (not just for Baha'is but for the world! --- look at the interest in Damasio's
book), and I agree with you in saying that they need to be explored.
Lovingly yours,
Safa
[[ gary
[
[ }Precious things lead one astray. [Laotse]{
[
[ gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin Island, Canada
[ }{ gnox@vianet.ca }{ http://www.vianet.ca/~gnox/index.htm }{
[
[
[
>From gnox@vianet.ca Sun Feb 18 14:31:27 2001From: "gnusystems"
To:
Subject: Re: materialism
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:42:07 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
Dear Safa,
>> If you like, feel free to disregard the point about civilizations, as you accept the point of the
need of an educator. >>Such arts and material means as are now manifest have been achieved by virtue of His
knowledge and wisdom which have been revealed in Epistles and Tablets through His Most
Exalted Pen--a Pen out of whose treasury pearls of wisdom and utterance and the arts and crafts
of the world are brought to light.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
32/55
with what we know through scientific inquiry about learning and the development of cultures.
And an alternative reading of the "Educator" metaphor is needed for the same reason.
>>PS: There are differences between the beliefs of Shaman's and those of world religions but
that is a completely different topic.> There is statements that he makes which are derived from his science, such as his studies in
language using fMRIs, and others derived from his personally philosophy, such as his
disagreements with Descartes. While as a Baha'i I read avidly from the first, the second I take
with a massive grain of sand.
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
33/55
I also take his reports of lab work with a grain of salt (i think that's the idiom you meant?). If i
can't understand where the information comes from, how it was generated, then i don't feel free
to incorporate it into my own "philosophy" or Theory of Everything. I think scientists have a
responsibility to explain their discoveries in language which is accessible to the intelligent non-
specialist. And when i have taken the time to struggle through some jargon-laden research report,
i have rarely found that it was worth the trouble, as the content was no more significant than the
content of books in plain English like Damasio's.
gary
}The other side of the globe is but the home of our correspondent. [Thoreau]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin Island, Canada }{ gnox@vianet.ca
}{ http://www.vianet.ca/~gnox/index.htm }{
>From srfriberg@worldnet.att.net Sun Feb 18 21:39:33 2001
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: "gnusystems" ,
"Scirel Science and Religion List" Subject: RE: Education
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:03:48 -0800
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
Dear Gary:
About unity, you wrote: "unity is a characteristic of organisms, of systems, things that act and
move as *units*"
For completeness, I am adding several other definitions from the dictionary:
1.The state or quality of being one; singleness. 2.The state or quality of being in accord;
harmony. 3.a. The combination or arrangement of parts into a whole; unification. b. A
combination or union thus formed. 4.Singleness or constancy of purpose or action; continuity:
In an army you need unity of purpose (Emmeline Pankhurst). 5.a. An ordering of all elements in
a work of art or literature so that each contributes to a unified aesthetic effect. b. The effect thus
produced. 6.Mathematics. a. The number 1. b. See identity element. Unity implies agreement and
collaboration among interdependent, usually varied components: Reli- gion . . . calls for the
integration of lands and peoples in harmonious unity (Vine Deloria, Jr.).
About `Abdu'l-Baha's quote to the effect that education has material, human, and spiritual
components, you say
[he] is explaining the *diversity* of "education". He is of course doing that in the service of
unity, or rather unification, but that's not what he's focusing on. And rightly so, because
diversity is important!"
My reading of it is that he is saying that education can be thought of as being of three kinds (i.e.,
a diversity), but that all are necessary for the development of human potential. Focusing on just
one or two at the expense of a third is dangerous and "disunifying", if you will.
33
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
34/55
Thus, for whatever the reasons might be, there is very little spiritual education these days. The
result is an imbalance both in the individual human psyche and our collective ability to solve
pressing human and social problems.
In terms of "hits" on the various definitions of unity from above, this reading hits squarely on
your definition and dictionary defn. 1 (the individual or society as a unit); defn. 2 (accord,
harmony), 3a (unification), 3b (union), 4 (singleness of purpose) and the comment afterwards
(agreement and collaboration among interdependent, usually varied components). Defns. 5 and6 aren't appropriate.
This is a perfect score (a score of unity?). It is interesting to note that diversity is built into
almost all the definitions of unity as an intrinsic part. There is nothing to unify without diversity
(didn't Lao-tzu have some interesting things to say about this?). So, definitely, diversity is there.
About the definition of education: I hope you forgive me for again going to the dictionary.
There it says:
1. The act or process of educating or being educated. 2. The knowledge or skill obtained or
developed by a learning process. 3. A program of instruction of a specified kind or level: drivereducation; a college education. 4. The field of study that is concerned with the pedagogy of
teaching and learning. 5. An instructive or enlightening experience: Her work in the inner city
was a real education.
For you:
Learning is the basic process. The 'formal aspect' i would call schooling. What's left then for
'education? To me it's not a synonym for learning, because learning is what the organism itself
does, while education involves some external *control* of the learning environment. My point
has been that you can have learning without education -- and as i can testify from my years in the
public school system, you can have education without learning!"
Referring again to the dictionary definition, we can see that education enjoys a very wide
definition, encompassing the processes of teaching and learning (defn. 1), the end result of
learning (defn. 2), schooling (defn. 3), the study of teaching and learning (defn. 4), and important
learning experiences (defn. 5).
So education, and by extension what is meant by the Educator, already has a much broader
definition than what you call the traditional model below. (I come from a family of educators
going back more than seventy years, and we, as well as a broad educated segment of the public,
never thought of the model that you talk about as being the current one, although it could be the
traditional one of several centuries ago.)
> This whole discussion arose out of the prevalence in the Writings of the > metaphor of
Manifestation as Educator or Teacher. According to the > traditional model, the teacher's role is
to control the learning process > and guide it toward the outcome that the teacher wants. But
learning does > not require external control, and we now know that some of the most vital >
things we learn -- such as our native language -- happen without such > control. What learning
requires is an environment in which the learner can > actively *do* things (talk, play, observe
examplars and imitate them, > interact, investigate, etc.). Control of this environment can be (and
has > been) used to *prevent* learning. The ulama of Baha'u'llah's time (of every > time, i
suppose) are examples, as He frequently points out. > > Hence my suggestion that if we wish toapply this metaphor wisely, we > should at least try conceiving of the Educator in a non-
traditional way, > e.g. as the investigative faculty itself, which is innate in the learner, > or
34
8/14/2019 The Bahai Faith and the Varieties of[1]
35/55
perhaps as the provider of a safe and encouraging environment for > investigation -- not as the
one in control of what the learner learns, or > (worse) the one who *imparts* learning to the
student, like somebody > pumping fuel into a tank.
Much of this, as I point out above, is already implied by what the word education means. And
much of this is already a long accepted part of pedagogical theory (even to the point where it
sometimes accepted blindly and without thinking). The modern debates on education, I submit,
start with a triple heritage: various aspects of traditional liberal education (exposure to greatliterature, teaching to think for one self, providing a learning environment, access to books, arts,
a stimulating environment, opportunity) and our experience with pedagogy (teaching language,
math, business, and livlihood skills), and religious education (teaching of prayers, morals, ethics,
purpose of life).
Perhaps this discussion can pick up when Sandy Fotos, a Baha'i from Japan with a strong
practical and academic background in pedagogy (where she has an international reputation)
comes on line in several weeks.
Warmly, Steve
>From srfriberg@worldnet.att.net Mon Feb 19 06:26:05 2001
From: "Stephen R. Friberg"
To: "Safa Sadeghpour" ,
Subject: RE: emanation, perfection and other abstrusities
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:51:26 -0800
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
Dear Safa:
I'm very intrigued by your commments on detachment as an ability to control one's emotionsrather than being controlled by them.
I see us, paralleling `Abdu'l-Baha (and others), as having an animal component and the
possibility of a spiritual component. My guess is that many aspects of our social life are indeed
based on behavior developed through evolutionary development, much as the sociobiologists
would have it. But, my understanding of such things as spiritual
top related