the bahai faith and the varieties of[1]

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 [email protected] 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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 [email protected] 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 Àbdu'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 Àbdu'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 Àbdu'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


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).


8/55

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


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.


10/55

BEWUSTZIJN OF MATERIE ?

From: "David Garcia"

To: [email protected]

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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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."

-- Àbdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 8

Very compellingly, and very straightforwardly, Àbdu'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 [email protected] 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, Àbdu'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.


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 Àbdu'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


Importance: Normal

Dear Gary:

I wrote:

> >>Very compellingly, and very straightforwardly,> Àbdu'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 "Àbdu'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


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:


Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:57:17 -0500


Importance: Normal

Dear Gary and Stephen,

[

19


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.


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 [email protected] 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.


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.


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 }{ [email protected]

}{ http://www.vianet.ca/~gnox/index.htm }{


From: "gnusystems"

To:


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.


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]{




From: "gnusystems"

To:

Subject: Re: emanation, perfection and other abstrusities and the nature of consciousness

Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 10:01:30 -0500


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".


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," sometimes 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 responsibility 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


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


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 > }{ [email protected] }{ http://www.vianet.ca/~gnox/index.htm }{ > > > > >

>From [email protected] Sun Feb 18 00:24:09 2001

From: "Safa Sadeghpour" To:


Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 18:14:07 -0500


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.


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:[email protected]] [ Sent: Saturday,

February 17, 2001 9:30 AM [ To: [email protected] [ 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.


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 [ }{ [email protected] }{

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


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.


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?


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," sometimes thought to be the formal aspect of the learning

process?


30/55

[ -----Original Message-----

[ From: gnusystems [mailto:[email protected]]

[ Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 9:35 AM

[ To: Safa Sadeghpour; [email protected]

[ 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.


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

[ }{ [email protected] }{ http://www.vianet.ca/~gnox/index.htm }{

[

[

[

>From [email protected] Sun Feb 18 14:31:27 2001From: "gnusystems"

To:


Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 07:42:07 -0500


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.


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.


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]{



>From [email protected] Sun Feb 18 21:39:33 2001


To: "gnusystems" ,

"Scirel Science and Religion List" Subject: RE: Education

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:03:48 -0800


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


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


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 [email protected] Mon Feb 19 06:26:05 2001


To: "Safa Sadeghpour" ,

Subject: RE: emanation, perfection and other abstrusities

Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 20:51:26 -0800


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

the bahai faith and the varieties of[1]

Documents