Shock Doctrine and World Vision
By John Taylor; 2008 March 25, 05 Baha, 165 BE
Sometimes you do not even need to read the text of an article, its summary says it all. For example, from a headline in last week's digital edition of the New York Times: "Pakistan to Talk With Militants, New Leaders Say," by Jane Perlez; "American officials fear a softening stance just as President Pervez Musharraf has given the U.S. a freer hand to strike at militants." Poor babies! Crushed by fear. What a scary thought, that -- what? Peace will break out? That things will get "softer" and there will be discussion? That lives will be saved? No, the fear is deeper than that. The real fright is that influential arms manufacturers might make a little less money, and therefore that their generous contributions to the coffers of political parties might be curtailed. What is frightening for me is the ambiguous term "American officials," which conflates corporate with government officials.
I just finished Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, which explains why I am so conscious of how frightening "softness" is to the present order. We are talking an investment of billions of dollars in the technology of removing fear. A possible reduction in the threat of violence has become the most frightening thing imaginable. What was it that an American president said back in the 1930's? "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." That was before our poor leaders had to deal with fear of the cessation of fear.
Israel, for example, in the early 1990's had a large influx of Jews from the new pogroms in Russia, which ended its economic dependence on Palestinian Arabs for cheap labor. Israel now uses the apparently negative publicity about violence in the occupied territories as free publicity for its arms, surveillance and protective services industries, that now constitute a substantial percentage of its GNP. Now that widening income disparity is turning the rest of the world into an armed camp, suddenly Israel is the most experienced party from whom to buy your walls, razor wire and surveillance cameras.
Clearly, Klein's book is one of the most important to come out in years; in fact, it often called to mind Marx's Capital, not in content or "leftiness," but in importance and influence. It is never going to be as easy to shock and awe the public out of its money and property again. Go onto her website, <http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine> and watch the interview she had with Charlie Rose on PBS. It is amusing to see how one of Uncle Milty's oldest buddies tries to trip her up with a ploy that was old a century ago, the false dichotomy that democratic socialism does not exist, the crock that you are either a libertarian or an anti-capitalist communist. My estimate of Charlie Rose's IQ just took a nosedive.
August Forel
The reason I am so fascinated with August Forel right now is his ideas about greed and the social re-organization of society, which were evidently inspired by his monumental study of ants. He says, "... the worst hates, individual and national, are caused by money -- by the universal money -- greed, which is corrupting today all humanity. There is only one remedy for this: the true co-operative state of the future..." I would not have accepted this emphasis on greed so vehemently before I read Klein’s discussion of Disaster Capitalism, but now I do. Unfortunately, Forel's study of ants is long out of print, and only available in French. I found a complete copy of the set on the website of an antiquarian bookstore in England, but the price was 800 dollars. Too rich for my blood. So I will have to content myself with some other, more modern study of social insects.
Here is an article by August Forel from the third volume of the Baha'i World, evidently written not long after he became a Baha'i. You can see that he is still struggling with aspects of Baha'i belief. As a co-discoverer of the neuron, it is understandable that he devotes the first several paragraphs of this "world vision" statement to talking about how brain processes not only influence but constitute our thought and will. Forel was a monist rather than a mind-body dualist, and believed that there is no difference between the firing of neurons and what we call mind, soul or will.
It is also evident from this article that he had not entirely given up his earlier racism, though to be fair he was only repeating the received scientific understanding of his age. The principle of harmony of science with religion demands that faith not contradict science "to its face," as it were, no matter how sacred we may hold the oneness of humanity. Of course, now science does not put much store by the weight of the brain as an indicator of intelligence or "superiority"; for example, Neanderthals and at least one other species of primitive man had much larger brains than we do, though they are not generally thought to have been more intelligent than homo sapiens.
As for his admonition to Baha'is at the end of the article to keep our hands off superstitious crap like astrology, I agree with Forel completely. You cannot believe in the scientific method and tolerate mysticism and New Age garbage without contradicting yourself. The more Baha'i scientists we have reminding us of that the better. But that does not mean we accept the monist's Force, however attractive George Lucas's Star Wars fantasy series may make it seem.
The World Vision of a Savant
By Dr. Auguste Henri Forel, Baha'i World, Vol. III, 1928-1930, p. 284
Original Editor's Introduction
Dr. Forel is one of the greatest scientists in the world and the greatest living author on ants. His life has been devoted to humanitarian aims and purposes; he is a thinker, a scholar, a doer. He has been very active in temperance work in Europe at a time when public opinion was wholly on the opposite side. He is a man who believes in deeds rather than words, and when he took up temperance reform, he had his vineyards destroyed.
True science should occupy itself only with what man can know. Now, we can know things only through the channel of our senses-sight, hearing, touch, and so forth. These take the impressions of the exterior world to our brain by the aid of the nerves. The human brain, of which I have made a profound study from 1872 to 1907, comparing it as well as its functions to that of animals -- this human brain is an organ weighing on the average twelve hundred and eighty grams, the cerebrum alone weighing about one thousand grams. It is composed of very tiny, interrelated nerve cells or neurones, of which it contains millions which are connected one with another by their fibers and their minute filaments. At a distance, these ramifications become covered with a white sheath which we call nerves, whether in the brain itself or serving to enter it or leave it.
The nerves of our senses enter the brain to carry to it their sensations; the nerves called motors leave the brain in order to direct our muscular movements which we call our will. But between the two, in the interior of the cerebrum, the living force which calls our attention travels from one neurone to another, combining there our sensations and our feelings in order to make of them immediate perceptions, then concepts, and finally abstract ideas with the aid of words, whether spoken or written. All these combinations demand their continual recall to our self-consciousness which is the synthesizing power over them.
Before the motor nerves leave the cerebrum, the attention is carried to the combinations mentioned above and concentrate a group of neurones called motors, which are situated on each side of the center the brain. With the aid of the motor nerves, the attention causes the transportation of the said combinations mentioned above to the spinal column, to the outer nerve systems of our muscles as soon as it becomes necessary to execute a movement of the will. The spinal column itself suffices only for the movements called reflexive. Now, with this necessary premise, let us come to our main subject.
Through ignorance human beings dispute and even make, alas, wars based upon misunderstandings; and these misunderstandings rest, for the most part, on words, which excite the passions of hate. It is just the opposite of science. Let us cite some examples.
Peoples often make wars because of not understanding each other's language -- as, for example, the Germans against the French and vice versa. But then, why does a German born in France take the part of the French in the case of war, and a Frenchman born in Germany do the opposite? This is nevertheless, what I have always observed. It is for this reason that Dr. Zamenhof, living in Poland and distressed by such hatreds, without common sense, constructed his splendid international language, Esperanto, which is spreading more and more. But it will be necessary, later on, to perfect this language by having a single word for a single meaning and several words for several meanings.
Moreover, one makes a pretext that there are differences in races; but if one excepts those races, altogether inferior, with a lighter cerebrum (according to Wedda about eight hundred or eight hundred and fifty grams instead of one thousand) it is a fundamental error. All Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Hindus, Semites, Americans, and so forth, are equal as races. It is necessary, therefore, to seek for other real causes for the hatreds and the wars than the differences of languages and of race. Here are five such causes:
1. Creeds. It is necessary to distinguish clearly between religion and creed or belief. The term creed ought to be reserved for the beliefs, rites, formalities and so forth which are man-made and crystallized into dogmas; different in the different faiths, and taught by the clergy over the entire world. Diversity of creed separates peoples and foments wars, improperly called religious wars. True religion, on the contrary, unites them.
2. Domination. Egoism gives to human emotions a tendency toward domination. The man wishes to rule over the woman, sometimes the woman over the man. Man wishes to rule animals, to rule the earth, to rule and control objects; but above all else, to rule other human beings. He wishes to be their superior, whether by brute force, by cunning, by manual skill and work, by speech, by writing, and so forth. The father or the mother, or both of them, wish in general to dominate their children in different ways. The spirit of domination, personal or collective, is, alas, hereditary. It is a very great obstacle to that social co-operation -- peaceful, fraternal, and impartial -- of which we have an urgent need.
3. Greed. But the worst hates, individual and national, are caused by money -- by the universal money -- greed which is corrupting today all humanity. There is only one remedy for this: the true co-operative state of the future, which I have treated elsewhere. It is impossible to adequately treat here of this great social question.
4. Alcoholic drinks. By complete prohibition the United States, Finland and Iceland give us a courageous example. All countries ought to follow their example; for alcoholic traffic is the most nefarious of things; it poisons life, above all, our brain and our soul. It causes deterioration, moreover, in the germ cells by what I have called "blasphematoire."
5. Tariff. Customs and duties tend to create national hatreds by their barriers created to bring revenue to national governments. The simplest remedy for this is international exchange or what is called free trade.
It is necessary, therefore, little by little to suppress wars by a true Society of Nations which shall be a Society fundamentally cooperative. In this super-national society, it will be necessary to take from each state its army, making it little by little a super-national army; and to replace everywhere gradually but surely, military service by civil service.
Our Baha'i religion, with its twelve principles, is therefore. a true religion without creed, super-national and spiritual, without dogmas or clergy. In December, 1917, before I knew about the Baha'i Movement I had published, myself as well as the Reverend Tschirn, the "Religion of the Social Good." In March, 1919, I completed it, adding to it the term, "Scientific Religion. It was not until January, 1921, that, at the home of my son-in-law I came to know of the Baha'i Movement. I wrote directly, to 'Abdu'l-Baha, Who was still living. Then I withdrew my "Scientific Religion of Social Good" as unnecessary in the light of this Movement and I became a Baha'i, like my son-in-law, Dr. A. Brauns.
Certain aspects of spiritual philosophy are strongly my belief. First as regards the term, "God." The term "God" can be interpreted very differently. All monotheistic creeds believe in a single, "All-powerful God." But while some declare Him personal, we Monists look upon Him as representing the Force (metaphysical) of the universe, unknowable to human beings.
There needs to be a harmonizing of these two concepts of God. The teachings of Baha'u'llah are perfectly clear on this subject, and in due time the conceptions of God, so different in different parts of the world and with different temperaments, will adjust themselves to the one true concept.
There are several conditions of utmost importance which Baha'is ought to meet, if they wish to remain scientific. They ought above all to remain super-national and strictly super-ritualistic. They ought, inasmuch as they are Baha'is, not to mix with their Baha'i truths any inherited creeds and beliefs or any other ideas in which error is mixed with truth. They should refrain from metaphysics, from seeking to know the Unknowable; and should occupy themselves wholly with the social good of humanity here on earth.
Confucius said about five hundred years before Christ, "Men of the four seas are all brothers. Do not do to others what you would not like them to do to you." And the Roman poet, Terence, about one hundred and seventy years before Christ said, "I am a man and nothing that is human can be foreign to me, I think."
Our duty as Baha'is is not only to speak and think of God, but to be active for the social good.
==========
Forel tells Baha'is not to mix error, "inherited creeds and beliefs" with the truth. Later, Shoghi Effendi translated a letter of Baha'u'llah that contains the same warning, and I cannot resist including here as an addendum.
"As to thy question regarding the sayings of the leaders of past religions. Every wise and praiseworthy man will no doubt eschew such vain and profitless talk. The incomparable Creator hath created all men from one same substance, and hath exalted their reality above the rest of His creatures. Success or failure, gain or loss, must, therefore, depend upon man's own exertions. The more he striveth, the greater will be his progress. We fain would hope that the vernal showers of the bounty of God may cause the flowers of true understanding to spring from the soil of men's hearts, and may wash them from all earthly defilements." (Gleanings, 81-82)
