Struggle for Survival

Abdu’l-Baha’s Idea of “Struggle for Survival.”

The “struggle for survival.” You come across this expression periodically in studying the writings of Abdu’l-Baha. By it, He seems to signify that this struggle is a bad thing. His expression seems close to what Darwin’s bulldog, Herbert Spencer, called “survival of the fittest.” The poor are underfoot for a reason; we do not want the inferior to rise to the top. The scientific way is to let the natural mechanisms of evolution determine who gets to swim in the human gene pool. Eugenics seems cruel at first but in the long run we are all better off. This idea wove through and pervaded secular thinking for well over a century after Darwin died. It only seems to be subsiding now that violence is losing sway and women crowd into public life. Abdu’l-Baha pointed out the “struggle for survival” is the mark of the materialistic worldview. It causes brutalization and tyranny, but the spiritual mind set does the reverse.

“I hope that in this nether world thou shalt attain unto heavenly light, thou wilt free the souls from the gloom of nature, which is the animal kingdom, and cause them to reach lofty stations in the human kingdom. Today all people are immersed in the world of nature. That is why thou dost see jealousy, greed, the struggle for survival, deception, hypocrisy, tyranny, oppression, disputes, strife, bloodshed, looting and pillaging, which all emanate from the world of nature. Few are those who have been freed from this darkness, who have ascended from the world of nature to the world of man, who have followed the divine Teachings, have served the world of humanity, are resplendent, merciful, illumined and like unto a rose garden. Strive thine utmost to become godlike, characterized with His attributes, illumined and merciful, that thou mayest be freed from every bond and become attached at heart to the Kingdom of the incomparable Lord. This is Baha’i bounty, and this is heavenly light.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Selections, p. 206)

Interestingly, I just came across an entire “Tablet on the Struggle for Survival.” It makes his meaning by "struggle for survival" quite unambiguous. The letter has not been officially translated, but it is interesting nonetheless, being marked by the Master’s usual simple but brilliant exposition. Who could ask for a clearer picture of the difference between secular brutality and the compassion that marks the worldview of faith? If you know the name of the society is to which he addresses himself here, do let me know.

Tablet on the Struggle for Survival

Provisionally translated by Keven Brown, edited by Mehdi Wolf published in Khitabat, pages 711-3  Hofheim, Germany: Baha’i Verlag, 1984  originally written as “Lawh-i-TanA’zu’-i BaqA”. http://bahai-library.com/abdulbaha_lawh_tanazu_baqa 

O honored society [for the advancement] of humanity!  All mankind should be grateful on account of your noble purpose and lofty intentions. All should be thankful and well-pleased that you are selflessly engaged in such a high endeavor, which is the cause of universal peace amongst mankind, inasmuch as the peace and tranquility of the entire creation depends upon improving the character of man; and the greatest means for training man to possess praiseworthy characteristics is noble aspirations and the expansion of the mind. Humanity must be invited to partake of this mighty gift.

Observe that the primary principle adhered to by every individual of the human species is to attract benefit to himself and to avoid injury. His aim is to secure his own tranquility and happiness. This is his sole desire in life, and he strives to distinguish himself from all others through the ease, wealth, and fame he has obtained. This is the goal of every individual of the human species. But, in truth, this is a base, dangerous, and inferior notion.

If man advances a little in his thinking and his aspirations become nobler, he will realize that he should strive to benefit his whole family and to protect it from harm, for he perceives that by bringing comfort and affluence to the whole family, his own felicity and prosperity will increase. Should his thinking expand even more and his aspirations grow in depth, he will realize that he should endeavor to bring blessings to the children of his country and nation and to guard them from injury. Although this aspiration and thought are for his own sake and that of his family, all the children of the nation will benefit therefrom.

But this aspiration will become the cause of injury to other nations, for he then exerts the utmost effort to bring all the advantages of the human world to his own nation and the blessings of the earth to his own family, singling them out for the universal felicity of humankind. He imagines that the more other nations and neighboring countries decline, the more his own country and nation will advance, until by this means it surpasses and dominates the other nations in power, wealth, and influence.

However, a divine human being and a heavenly individual is sanctified from these limitations, and the expansion of his mind and the loftiness of his aspirations are in the utmost degree of perfection. The compass of his thinking is so vast that he recognizes in the gain of all mankind the basis of the prosperity of every individual member of his species. He considers the injury of any nation or state to be the same as injury to his own nation and state, indeed, the same as injury to his own family and to his own self.

Therefore, he strives with heart and soul as much as possible to bring prosperity and blessings to the entire human race and to protect all nations from harm. He endeavors to promote the exaltation, illumination, and felicity of all peoples, and makes no distinctions among them, for he regards humanity as a single family and considers all nations to be the members of that family. Indeed, he sees the entire human social body as one individual and perceives each one of the nations to be one of the organs of that body. Man must raise his aspiration to this degree so that he may serve the cause of establishing universal virtues and become the cause of the glory of humankind.

At present the state of the world is the opposite of this. All the nations are thinking of how to advance their own interests while working against the best interests of other nations. They desire their own personal advantage while seeking to undermine affairs in other countries. They call this the “struggle for survival” (tanazu’-i baqa), and assert that it is innate to human nature. But this is a grievous error; nay, there is no error greater than this. Gracious God! Even in the animal kingdom cooperation and mutual assistance for survival are observed among some species, especially in the case of danger to the whole group.

One day I was beside a small stream and noticed some young grasshoppers which had not yet developed wings seeking to cross to the other side in order to obtain food. To accomplish their goal, these wingless grasshoppers rushed forward into the water and vied with each other to form a bridge across the stream while the remaining grasshoppers crossed over on top of them. The grasshoppers were able to pass from one side of the stream to the other, but those insects which had formed the bridge in the water perished. Reflect how this incident illustrates co-operation for survival, not struggle for survival. Insofar as animals display such noble sentiments, how much more should man, who is the noblest of creatures; and how much more fitting it is in particular that, in view of the divine teachings and heavenly ordinances, man should be obliged to attain this excellence.

In the estimation of God, distinctions of race, divisions of borders, favoring one people over another, and all individual limitations are unworthy and rejected. All the prophets of God were sent down and all the sacred books were revealed for the purpose of assisting man to achieve this heavenly grace and this divine virtue.

All the divine teachings can be summarized as this: that these thoughts singling out advantages to one group may be banished from our midst, that human character may be improved, that equality and fellowship may be established amongst all mankind, until every individual is ready to sacrifice himself for the sake of his fellowman. This is the divine foundation. This is the law come down from heaven.

Such a firm foundation cannot be impregnated into human consciousness save by one universal and all-pervasive power, for every other power is helpless except for the power of the Holy Spirit. The outpourings of the Holy Spirit are such that they can transform man, imbuing him with all the virtues, bestowing upon him the second birth, baptizing him with the fire of the love of God, which is love for all created things, and quickening him with the water of eternal life, and the Holy Spirit itself.

The philosophers of old had the strongest resolve to improve human morals and strove to the utmost in this regard, but at most they succeeded in refining their own characters, not the virtues of all mankind. Refer to history and you will find that this is clear and evident.

But the power of the Holy Spirit brings forth the universal virtues with which man is potentially endowed, illuminates the human world, bestows true exaltation, and trains all people. Thus, the well-wishers of the world must endeavor to attract by this attractive power the confirmations of the Holy Spirit. My hope is that the members of this honored society dedicated to the welfare of humanity, like a mirror, may acquire illumination from the Sun of Reality, and become the cause of training mankind to acquire virtues. I pray that my utmost esteem be acceptable to that eminent organization.

Elections and Monkey Brains

The Primal Three Musketeers

By John Taylor; 2010 Nov 16, Qudrat 13, 167 BE

This is sort of a review of a humour book I just read:

Scott Adams, Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain!: Cartoonist Ignores Helpful, Portfolio, 2007, pp. 252-253

I say sort of a review because I will also be talking here about some political ideas recently posted by Adams on his Dilbert blog. That is where the material for this book came from originally as well.

I was very glad to have a funny book like "Monkey Brain" to keep my spirits up during the past month, during which I suffered a seemingly endless severe cold or flu. Part of the misery for a talkative fellow like me was that every time I opened my mouth to talk I would go into coughing fits that threatened to drown me. I was feverish and voiceless, and I needed something to laugh at.

I enjoy Adams' twisted ideas and often cruel, power-mad sense of humour. You never know what he is going to come up with next. I have read most of his previous books with great pleasure, and I am realizing now that his ideas about politics have influenced me more than I imagined. His jokes are like a hammer that drives in some highly pointed ideas.

Adams watches and reads the news constantly, and comes up with half-cocked ideas that often have a touch of genius. He is a non-believer in God, but no anti-theist; he has as little patience for extreme skeptics as for dogmatic believers. Nevertheless, at times I found his lack of a grasp of the fundamentals of faith quite bothersome. This negated some of the benefit of the humour.

One good thing about Adams is that he sees how pathetically broken the political system is and tries to come up with suggestions. All are original, some are totally facetious, and others are serious and certainly deserve lengthy treatment. I am addressing some of them in the book I am writing -- especially my planned third volume, which will be on ways to improve democracy.

One essay in Monkey Brain in particular touches on issues that are very important to me; it is called "The Future of Voting." Here he suggests the idea of a law preventing any kind of political advertising.

"... we should ban all political advertising. I realize it's an issue of free speech, but ... freedom has always had lots of restrictions. For example, you can't libel someone, and you can't lie about your product's effectiveness, and you can't yell "Fire" if there's no fire. If a political ad sways an election and causes an unnecessary war (just to pick an example), then it's a lot like yelling "Fire." We routinely limit free speech when the alternative is worse." (Scott Adams, Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain!: Cartoonist Ignores Helpful, Portfolio, 2007, p. 253)

Here we see a confusion about freedom of speech that seems to be coming to a head in the U.S. It is the puss in a festering boil of corruption that is destroying their entire political system. The question that should be asked first is, "Free speech for whom?" Liberty of expression begins and ends as an individual right. It cannot be a group right.

As soon as you let entities -- groups, corporations, governments, organizations -- have an equal right to free speech along with individuals, then by that very fact you crowd out and nullify the right of individuals to say whatever they are moved to say. How can one voice compete against many? How can one voice compete against money, against vested interests, against even one other opinion? It is impossible.

A single mind and the opinions it forms are valuable if and only if they come out of the spirit of truth. Unlike groups, only an individual mind can investigate reality directly and come up with something new, be it through prayer, reflection, science, work experience, or whatever. A group can either amplify that genius or block it out. The amplification is what J.C. was talking about when He said, "When two of you gather in my name (i.e., in His spirit) then I am the third ... if three, I am the fourth, and so forth... " The trick of consultation is to let that spirit speak, and to follow that. And only an individual voice can stumble over the way the spirit wants to take us.

Adams, in a blog posting, tentatively suggests that political parties should perhaps be banned outright. Like a lot of others these days, he thinks that maybe we should be scientific about investigating the possibility.

"Imagine a democratic political system in which no one is allowed to be a member of a political party. How would things be different? My hypothesis is that confirmation bias, or cognitive dissonance, or something of that nature, influences voters to irrationally agree with the platform of their own party no matter what the facts suggest. My hypothesis is easy enough to test. All you'd need to do is come up with a phony issue and present it to your test subjects as something to which their party agrees, or disagrees, and see if party affiliation influences opinions. I think the effect would be large." (Scott Adams, Dilbert Blog, "Eliminating political parties," Nov 5-6, 2010 <http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/eliminating_political_parties/>)

In this suggestion, Adams is coming close to the total ban on politicking that is a rule for Baha'i elections. As a Baha'i, I used to jump up and down when I heard such suggestions, but now I am realizing that my viewpoint was too narrow. This ban on loose tongues at voting time is much older than the Revelation of Baha'u'llah.

Hellas had a systemic bias against politicking. This put it in the perfect position to invent democracy. How so? Religion was part of the political process -- in a good way. That is, priests themselves did not interfere, but they had the all important role of acting as hosts for many political functions. We forget that in Ancient Greece drama, banking and elections all were religious activities that often took place on holy ground, at the local temple. In other words, the location itself forbade loose tongues. You did not cheat in your banking or tax payments because the local god and oracle were right there, looking right over over your shoulder as it were.

Same thing for free speech. There was no need for legal sanctions in Hellas. What people said was limited by an inherent sense of the sacred. There could be no jostling for power, attacking others, all the garbage that is now fair game in elections if you were standing on holy ground, if, to use a Jewish analogy, you were standing in front of the burning bush and you were standing on cold earth, with your shoes off. Verbal vitriol is destroying democracy today, and the worse it gets the less and less people can appreciate the sacred nature of voting. The solution is simple. Forbid any talk at all about whom to vote for except on your ballot itself; then stage the election on the holiest ground available. Anybody who shoots off their mouth there will be committing sacrilege, limited by their own sense of shame.

Recent research has found that this effect has a tremendous influence on people, irrespective of what they believe, irrespective even of what they are thinking. In one study they left out a cup of coins along with coffee, relying on the honour system for paying. Some did not pay, some helped themselves to the money. But when they put up a poster with an image of eyes -- not even a face, just eyes -- looking right at you, suddenly the number of cheaters and freeloaders dropped drastically.

In other words, if you held a vote in the local synagogue or Buddhist monastery, it does not matter if voters are Jewish or Buddhist, they would feel the sacredness of the place and act accordingly. Another study found that children left alone cheated far less at a game if it was suggested that an invisible fairy girl was in the room with them. Whether they believed that this fairy girl existed did not matter. The suggestion that she was there all but wiped out cheating.

So, if voters said a few prayers together before the ballot is cast, probably this effect would multiply, even for atheists.

The most important thing to do is to unite religion, science and politics into a single process of investigation of truth. We forget that this ultimate goal is why conflict and arguing was tolerated in the American model of politics in the first place. The clash of opinions under free speech is supposed to act like a scientific experiment that squeezes falsity out and leaves standing only the right ideas.

Adams in his defense of banning political advertising points out that the spark from the clash often shows how to solve the root problem.

"Finding fault is how you usually determine whose job it is to shape up and fix things. But sometimes, as in this case, the people who can fix it are not the ones at fault." (Scott Adams, Stick to Drawing Comics, Monkey Brain!: Cartoonist Ignores Helpful, Portfolio, 2007, p. 253)

For Adams, the invention of the Internet is what has changed the situation and made political parties and political advertising obsolete. Instead we should invent a sort of political Facebook to iron out the flaws of the present political order.

"Lots of voters don't use the Internet, especially the elderly. But that will change over time. And elections are often so close that it wouldn't take much movement to improve the results. ... I think a couple of twenty-somethings with Web skills could alter the face of democracy forever. And maybe make a few billion dollars for themselves along the way." (id.)

Of course, when argumentation is done poorly or is taken to an extreme, all three, science, religion and politics, are destroyed. All that is left are inflammatory verbal wars. This is something that Plato realized and agonized over, as do I. Think about it. A democratic regime killed Plato's beloved mentor, Socrates. Yet as I slow-read his last work, the Laws, I notice that here Plato is, at the end of his life, toying and experimenting with democratic methods. In spite of his famous suspicion of what democracy could become, he was not throwing it out. He knew that any future government for all time has to have a democratic element.

For example, over and over Plato suggests very much the same thing that Adams does, unknowingly, that we should experimentally combine democracy with polling and come up with something that I call meta-democracy. I'll talk about that in future.

Anyways, let us close with Plato's suggestion that the three goals of religion (sobriety), science (wisdom) and politics (love) are all, in essence, the same goal. They are the primal Three Musketeers, one for all, and all for one:

"You must reflect that when we say he must look to sobriety, or again to wisdom, or to amity, these ends are not distinct but identical." (Plato, Collected Dialogues, The Laws, 693c, p. 1282)

Steles and Veridical Language

By John Taylor; 2010 Oct 27, Ilm 12, 167 BE

A Language of Truth

John Amos Comenius tried to devise an artificial language whose grammar made it impossible for a speaker to tell a lie. Imagine how such a language might work. A potential liar opens his mouth to speak but somewhere in his brain the liar's paradox kicks in. It short circuits his voice box and only silence comes out of his mouth. Clearly, human free will and ill will are so basic to speech that such an inherently ethical language will always an impossible dream, at least for human languages.

As the state of the art in the technology of war and peace accelerates, it may not only be possible but imperative to make machines incapable of lying, indeed of committing any other crime or wrongdoing. Our more sophisticated handheld devices now usually have GPS detectors built into them, but none, as yet, has a working moral compass. As a result, our tools can be used for good or evil. However, as we saw in a previous chapter, some robots are already being built with a decision tree of moral choices built into their circuitry. Researchers at Microsoft have even come up with a hardware interface device whose software is off-board; that is, it is constantly being updated by a live wireless feed to the Internet.

As such wireless links advance, robots will not need an entire moral philosophy built into their circuitry. A moment's interaction with an Internet server dedicated to the problem it faces will provide it with the latest conclusions of moral philosophers about what the right thing is to do. Once software, robots and machines are reliably connected to the collective wisdom of the human race, we can rest assured that our technology, at least, will do and say the right thing. What is the right thing? This is a difficult question now, but when we have global peace and democracy on a global scale it will be possible to commission common agreements by thinkers of East and West, at least upon basic ethical standards. Once this essential human ethical foundation is firmed up, we can safely build the standard interface between humans and tools that we have been calling the stele. As long as its connection to common wisdom is maintained, the stele will at last realize Comenius' dream of a totally truthful language.

The Language of Steles

The stele is a mobile robotic interface run by core software similar to today's time management programs, known as personal information managers, or PIM's. These PIM's plan the lives of humans, and interact with the world of technology to further these ends. The main service of the stele is to act as an interface between humans and more primitive tools and technologies. It rules over other machines with absolute, incontrovertible authority. The "DNA" embedded in its PIM software speaks the perfect ethical language envisioned by Comenius, a single ethical code decided upon by the latest consensus of expert opinion.

The words in the language may err, but as the machine subject approaches the level of conscious thought, it becomes ever more incapable of lies. As long as it makes choices based upon official, off-board criteria, all subsidiary technology will operate morally as well. This of course is what Isaac Asimov anticipated with his "Three Laws of Robotics," except that this code is infinitely more sophisticated, being the product of moral philosophers working together in universities around the world. All rules are transparent, the official conclusions of experts, and are subject to continual revision.

The Stele's Reason for Being

The stele is at the top of the technological food chain, the most sophisticated robot available. What makes it a perfect life companion is the fact that it is a blank slate. This reflects the nature of the human mind, which is boundless by nature. In his best known work on education, Comenius wrote,

"Aristotle compared the mind of man to a blank tablet on which nothing was written, but on which all things could be engraved. There is, however, this difference, that on the tablet the writing is limited by space, while in the case of the mind, you may continually go on writing and engraving without finding any boundary, because ... the mind is without limit." (Comenius, The Great Didactic (1649), translated by M.W. Keatinge (1896), from Wikiquotes, Comenius)

If the stele is a dictator to other machines, for an honest, sincere human being it is not arbitrary in the slightest. But it still needs to elicit compliance because, as already mentioned, a stele's first purpose is to promulgate the rule of law, to make sure that everyone knows the law and understands the difference between right and wrong. Is that enough to get everybody to obey the law? It is, according to Socrates, who taught that none do wrong willingly. All people need in order to do the right thing every time is just to know the truth. If for some the truth seems not to be enough, they have fallen short of the whole truth by failing to live the examined life. Plato caught the spirit of Socrates when he wrote in his final major work, the Laws, that,

"...whatever the way which promises to make a member of our citizen body -- male or female, young or old -- truly excellent in the virtues of soul proper to human character, be they results of some occupation, some native disposition, some possession, or passion, or conviction, or course of study, that and no other shall be the end, as I say, toward which every nerve shall be strained so long as life endures, and that not a single soul shall be found to prefer aught which hampers these pursuits. (Laws, 770d, Collected Dialogues, p. 1348)

The stele starts off as a blank slate on which a person writes the ideals by which to live throughout life. Throughout their schooling, each cosmopolitan citizen will collaborate with teachers in choosing the particular "virtues of the soul" that appeal to him or her. Once that is clear, everything on the stele is written largely by its individual owner. Everything in it contributes to the soul mission. Of course, many laws must be obeyed in order to avoid harming the central missions of others, but as Plato put it, "Any ... fate must be borne rather than the change to a polity which will breed baser men." (Laws, 770e) Those raised with a stele as a companion will not fear it or find its rules a burden.

Bent Enlightenment

People Without Borders

Yet more material for the fourth draft of 

the introduction to my book-in-progress.

Rectifying a Bent Enlightenment

By John Taylor; 2010 April 19, Jalal 10, 167 BE

After centuries of bloody conflict, persecution and wars motivated by faith and doctrine, Europe's Enlightenment project of the 18th Century rejected religion. For the first time in over a thousand years, human rights were discussed without reference to faith. Many Enlightenment thinkers rejected spirituality altogether and took seriously the idea that progress toward an ideal society could be accomplished with science alone. Some openly abandoned religion and many anti-theists openly proclaimed it to be incorrigibly reactionary, corrupt and likely to encourage fanaticism. At best it is a distraction, at worst, inherently harmful.

For centuries there was no effective ecumenical, much less interfaith movement to belie the early "libertines." What is more, the spectacular advance of scientific research seemed to justify their attitude, especially in physics and medicine. Since the close of the 20th Century, however, it has become clear that in spite of its spectacular benefit, scientific knowledge is no panacea. It has also contributed hundreds of new, potentially lethal threats to human survival. If it were not for science we would not live under the constant threat of, to name only two dangers, nuclear Armageddon and accelerating global warming.

Today most non-believing intellectuals regard the Enlightenment as an essentially atheistic phenomenon, as did I. Then I came across John Amos Comenius. As soon as I read it, it became clear that here is the first enlightenment thinker. Like Bacon before him, Comenius did not regard the goals of the Bible as at all incompatible with reformist science and politics. The idea of enlightenment is the major theme throughout Panorthosia. Comenius calls upon his fellow believers to subject their precious dogma to rational enquiry and to work together with the new science for the general good. At the same time, unlike the Enlightenment thinkers who followed, Comenius did not let politicians or scientists (philosophers) off the hook,

"Let our Philosophy be simplified, provided that it satisfies moderate minds and circumstances. Let our Religion be simplified, provided that it satisfies God, the source of simplicity, and men of upright conscience. Let our Political System be simplified, provided that it serves its purpose of peacefulness in human affairs." (Panorthosia II, Ch. 10, para 3, p. 152)

This project of simplification would permit anybody to enter the inner sanctum of the learned. Everybody would be at least three things, a philosopher, a politician and a theologian. Specialist knowledge would be public property. It would serve liberal ends for the first time in history. This simplification project would give great intellectual power to the people, and would tear down the ivory towers of professional privilege. Comenius calls this philosophical stance towards universalism "pansophy," or universal philosophy and compares its universal abilities to a skeleton key. A specialist has a key to get into one room of a castle, but a universalist thinker can get into any room and feel at home there. Including the room of religious faith.

The cause of human betterment would have been better served had there been no divorce between science and religion, for ultimately the purposes of both are the same, the betterment of humanity. Although they have slightly different purposes and methods, and they tend to deal in vastly different scales of time and space, as long as all sides, scientists, believers and politicians recognize their own bounds and keep within their limitations, all can enrich human experience and conduce to progress and enlightenment.

By the way, scientists were universally called natural philosophers, not scientists, until a hundred and fifty years after Comenius's death. I am auditing a course on the history of science, and I recently learned from the lecturer that this change in nomenclature was originally suggested as a joke, a bit of satire against the arrogance of certain members of the profession. Calling natural phenomena "Scientia," knowledge, implies that other, broader, non-material ways of knowing are not knowledge. They might even be forms of ignorance. This divorces the study of nature not only from religion but art, literature, history, philosophy, and on and on. The fact that the name "science" stuck does not mean that it makes any sense. In my opinion it remains a huge mistake and scientists should make a concession to humility and reality by going back to calling themselves natural philosophers.

The Enlightenment project, as it turned out, had grave flaws. Yes, human rights were openly proclaimed and, to some extent, put into practice. But the Enlightenment also ensconced a bitter rivalry, if not hatred, among the three pursuits that should be the intimate concern of each and all, science, religion and politics.

One of the most noticeable and lamentable effects of this divorce was on ordinary conversation. In polite company today it is considered a grave mistake to bring up religion or politics. To do so is to invite conflict. The result? Most conversations must remain frivolous. The public forum is ineffectual. Sports and celebrity gossip are the best that we have to talk about. Nuclear war and global warming grow with each passing day, and we fritter away our chances for reform in useless banter.

==========

Rather than drawing false dichotomies and bringing the three essential kinds of knowledge into competition, we should heed the latter writings of that great pre-enlightenment genius, Comenius, who in his own life exemplified what he advocated for reform. He straddled all three of the great potential sources of human progress: politics, science and religion. John Amos Comenius was an experienced peace negotiator, a renowned educational reformer, a founding father of the Royal Society, and a leader in his religious community, the Moravian Brotherhood.

His long experience in these three fields inspired his posthumous masterpiece, the Panorthosia, or Universal Reform, a detailed proposal for a comprehensive reform program that works simultaneously on the personal, local and planetary levels. Panorthosia shows in great detail how we might unite science, religion and politics and thereby strike a happy balance for both individual and social progress.

Furthermore, his is by far the most persuasive proposal for a world government ever put forward. The Comenian model of world governance offers the best government conceivable. Properly implemented, it promises a world order far more reliable and efficient than any past ordering of the international system. By nature it stands against the "hard truth" that Barak Obama affirmed will remain unchanged in our lifetimes in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. It refutes all of the objections to a world government that have been brought up. We will discuss that in the next essay.

::

On Kites, Philosophers and Saints

Comenius on the principle of harmony between science and religion

From Universal Philosophy to the Philosophy of Saints

By John Taylor; 2009 May 04, Jamal 07, 166 BE

Everybody is trying to save the world. That is a good thing, I am not saying that it is not. For example, I just posted on the Badi' Blog a video of a TED talk where a scientist and engineer proposes that we solve the energy crisis by flying giant kites on strings that are miles long. His argument seems plausible. Wind in the upper atmosphere seems to be the only green resource powerful enough to meet humanity's rapidly accelerating energy demand, though what effect exploiting it would have on the world's climate is anybody's guess. Still, according to his calculations it would be much easier and cheaper to go fly a large number of kites than, say, to build a new nuclear plant every nanosecond for the next several decades.

Nobody can deny that energy is an urgent need, but it is also undeniable that if we are ever going to solve the problems of the age we will have to go far beyond any single technical fix, no matter how effective.

I was initially intrigued by the reform proposals in Comenius's Panorthosia because of their age. Here was somebody back in the Seventeenth Century doing what everybody and his brother is trying to do now, urgently seeking a way to save the world. However as I delved deeper I came to see that this work stands on its own merits; it could have been written today. Having studied it almost a year, I am now convinced that this is not just one of the most important treatises on reform ever written, it is also one of the greatest books of any kind ever written.

Part of what makes Panorthosia great is its vision of harmonious collaboration between science and religion in service of peace – Comenius defines politics as the business of peace. Just as tethered robot kites might reach up into the stratosphere to tap powerful winds on high, so a coordinated, world-wide educational initiative might potentially tap powerful, unsuspected reserves of human potential. Just as kites are simpler to make than power plants, so Panorthosia lays out a plan to clarify, unify and reconcile the three basic areas of human endeavour, science, politics, and religion.

"Philosophy deals with books and knowledge and the reasons for things for the purpose of enlightening mankind. Politics deals with rule and authority for the purpose of keeping mankind in order. Religion deals with God and conscience for the purpose of kindling in mankind the flame of faith, charity and hope (or keeping it alight)." (Ch. 13, para 12, p. 205)

Although these three spheres of human activity are distinct, they also complement one another. For example, we may have knowledge from science and will from politics, but without religion we would not have hope or a sense of purpose. The bird would have one weak wing, and problems like suicide and lawlessness would be difficult to improve. Similarly, if the wing of science were weak, society would be dragged down by superstition and misused technology. Comenius envisioned instead a comprehensive grasp of science as becoming central to everybody's thought and education. Common sense, in knowledge, action and faith, would, with effort on all of our parts, become a truly common, a universal possession. The result he called "universal philosophy."

"We shall therefore be justified in calling the Philosophy Universal because of the Universality of its Object, its Subject, and its Use of its Object ... whereas popular philosophy flows along narrow channels of subtle speculation and serves but few people, Universal Philosophy adapts everything to the laws of common sense and will serve the cause of all men; and of its Use, as it applies to the whole Life of Man and all that he possesses under Heaven." (Ch. 11, para 3, p. 176)

However divergent their specialist knowledge, there would remain a core common to everybody, be they scientist, politician or religionist.

"The basis of the age of enlightenment will be a Universal Philosophy which gives the human understanding full, orderly, and true insight into everything that exists in the world. Just as the Wisdom of God, which is undivided, sees and disposes all things, so human wisdom, modelled on that of God, should be undivided and not fragmented into different Sciences, Arts, and Faculties. For obviously just as our mind is the image of the everlasting Mind, so also its light should be like an image of the everlasting Light." (Ch. 11, para 1, p. 175)

By participating in this universality of outlook, faith would become so infused in the personal motives of experts and scientists that the endeavour itself would become known as the "philosophy of saints."

"Universal Philosophy will therefore be the most perfect knowledge of everything which it is Man's lot to know, speak about, and do in his lifetime, enabling him to perceive the differences between all things through their different ends, means, and uses, and serving to suppress all the errors and hallucinations which have hitherto beguiled the human mind, but at the same time obtaining and preserving and increasing all manner of spiritual, physical and material blessings. This will entitle it to be called the Philosophy of Saints, whose most perfect teacher will be the very Wisdom and Goodness of God in Jesus Christ." (Ch. 11, para 1, p. 175)

Whatever specific solutions we take up in order to brake climate change, there is no way to avoid carefully looking at Comenius's proposal for an upgrade of knowledge from specialization to universality and of morality from competition to saintliness.

--
John Taylor

email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/

::

Integration of teaching, governance and faith

Three Mottos for a Comedy of the Commons

By John Taylor; 2009 April 24, Jalal 15, 166 BE

Precis

Baha'is are familiar with the comparison that Abdu'l-Baha made of science and religion with the two wings of a bird. If science and religion are the wings to the body politic, then politics is the body of the bird. The body controls each wing and it also has the eyes and brain that lead its flight. Comenius suggested brief mottos for the individual and the family, as well as each founding institution of world order, symbolized by the body and its two wings. Each motto defines in a few words its role and mission in the world.

Science and Education: "Light in Things"

Politics: "Peace on Earth"

Interfaith Religion: "Peace of Conscience"

==========

Our educational system permanently skews our thinking about the world and how to change it. The ideas of John Amos Comenius are a healthy corrective to that bias.

Right now in Ontario there is a public and a Catholic school board, both of which receive public funding, along with a private school system that takes in all the rest, including at least one Baha'i school, the Nancy Campbell Institute. The Catholic system gets public monies because, the argument goes, almost half of Ontarians are in or related to someone in the Catholic Church. Other parochial schools are funded exclusively by parents, and they can teach whatever faith is acceptable to them, within certain limits. In schools run by the Catholic school board, religion, including world religion courses, is actively taught. Unfortunately, public schools, funded by everybody, can barely mention God, religion or even philosophy because of the protests of parents. As a teacher recently explained it to me,

"We would like to teach philosophy and religion earlier, but how would you like it if your son in Grade Four was exposed to various beliefs and decided to become a Scientologist or a Moonie?"

I am perhaps a bad person to ask because of the liberal, universalist leanings of the Baha'i Faith. But even I had to pause and think about that for an uncomfortably long time. Certainly I would like to have a shot at influencing my children undistracted for at least a few of their early years. On the other hand, I would like to see them exposed to as broad a spectrum of thought and opinion as possible, as early as possible.

Comenius envisioned the public sphere in a much healthier, more integrated way than our fractured congeries of contradictions. As we saw in yesterday's essay, public affairs in a Comenian system would be in the hands of three permanent institutions concerned with the three main spheres of human endeavour, philosophy (including science and education), politics and religion.

These, he held, should be consecrated as firm common ground on which everybody stands. In other words, there is a part of philosophy, politics and religion that is sacrosanct, that every citizen has a stake in, and which we all have a duty to support without qualification or reservation. Although there may and indeed should be a variety of schools of thought in philosophy, a broad choice of political leanings and many kinds of religious bias, these should be kept outside a strong fence protecting a calm, sacred commons. Outside the pale, particularities may compete and disagree but dispute and contradiction cannot be allowed inside.

Comenius did not think that this would come about spontaneously or by magic but rather through the power of education. Our entire schooling, the press and everything in the public sphere must be designed to give as firm a grounding in the essentials of science, politics and faith as possible. Today we might call the tranquility inside the fence the science, politics and faith of supermen. However, for Comenius it was simply the way that saints consult with the world, with one another and with their God.

"The Philosophy of Saints is simply a conversation between Man and his soul or God's Creatures or His Oracles. The Politics of Saints is simply an amalgam of all human societies, a mutual conversation among men and a policy of service. The Religion of Saints is simply continuous walking with God, conversation with God, and working with God." (Panorthosia, Ch. 13, para 12, p. 205)

These ongoing conversations would be mediated and regularized by three institutions whose center is integrated in the world government and with branches in every nation, region, province and neighbourhood. As we saw in an essay series on the family last fall, Comenius even envisioned a miniature school, a governing council and a church to be held regularly in a common room located in the typical family household. These functions would be essential utilities to the minds and spirits within, just as electricity and heat to the bodies being housed.

Needless to say, in order for philosophy, politics and religion to be this universally applied, major adaptations would have to be made in the content each. The status quo or business-as-usual are out of the question. Universality in essentials is the order of the day.

"This will come to pass if philosophy submits all things to the human intellect, and politics commits human power itself to human prudence, and religion truly refers all men and all things to God. To achieve this, Philosophy must be a true mirror of God's wisdom, which contemplates all things; Politics must be a living example of the power of God, which manages all things rightly; and Religion must sweetly dispense the goodness of God, which spreads through all things." (Panorthosia II, Ch. 10, para 38, pp. 167-168)

Having said that, Comenius goes on to propose three mottos for the three fenced off areas, the sacred commons devoted to the good of all. For the institution dedicated to science and education, the motto is "Light in things," emphasizing its primal duty to enlighten, inspire and edify everyone.

"Perfect Philosophy will take the form of universal agreement and harmony between Art and Nature, and its end will be LIGHT IN THINGS, and an abundance of them." (Ch. 10, para 38, pp. 167-168)

On the door of larger, dedicated institutions of learning the motto "Light in Things" would perhaps be placed above the front portal. In a multitasking family common room of the future I imagine when the family school or laboratory goes into session a flashing sign saying "Light in Things" turning on while on the walls are projected a picture of a mixed native plant and classical garden, perhaps interspersed with buildings to reflect the theme of "art in nature." In a Baha'i home the obvious choice of decor would be a panorama of the Arc on Mount Carmel.

When discussion turns to a formal consultation, the sign would change to "Peace on Earth."

"The test of perfect Politics will be the restoration of human prudence to the certainty of the mechanical arts, and its end will be PEACE ON EARTH, and a quiet life."

If these three words were emblazoned over the door of every political institution and flashed on the table of every meeting, it is unlikely that old, disputatious ways would ever encroach the sanctity of the public sphere. As Comenius says, the laws of peace, well understood, would be as dependable as the mechanical laws that assure that when you press the "on" button a machine will start working. The final motto is for the one area that has been so disputatious that it is all but expelled from the public realm in advanced countries, that is, religion.

"The seal of perfect Religion will be full agreement between the human will and the Will of God, and its end will be PEACE OF CONSCIENCE, that passeth all understanding, which would be heaven on earth."

Currently believers have little training in avoiding fanaticism and in keeping parochial elements and particularistic beliefs out of public fora. At the same time agitation by their secular counterparts, atheists and anti-theists, keeps God out of the common conversation completely. It takes a genius like Comenius to think of a motto acceptable to every stripe of reasoned opinion, Peace of Conscience. Even humanists and other non-believers cannot object to peace or conscience, which would allow them to participate fully and without compromise in the interfaith activities of the third universal institution.

The fact that a relatively small body of specific knowledge is allowed into this commons is not necessarily a disadvantage for Comenius, since he considered simplicity to be at the heart of religion.

"The heart of Philosophy will be wisdom, of Religion, simplicity, and of Politics, vigilance." (Comenius, Panorthosia, Ch. 13, para 12, p. 205)

Whereas simplicity is the essence of religion, clarity is a general criterion for keeping all three specialties pure and healthy.

As already mentioned, Comenius in his plan for a world government invoked Descartes' method of approaching a difficult problem systematically; that is, in sorting out what countries a world government should deal with first, "the rules of method dictate that we must proceed from the easier to the more difficult." (Panorthosia, Ch. 25, para 10, p. 149) That is, the then undeveloped continents of Africa and America had best be left for later.

Similarly, Comenius proposed that those who guard the gates of the fence around the public commons imitate the law of ancient Rome. Roman judges would refuse a case if a judgement was not clear enough, declaring it "Non Liquit." In a footnote Dobbie cites Bacon in Advancement of Learning II, 8, 5, who wrote: `These doubts, or non liquets, are of two sorts, particular and total.' When a gatekeeper (and everybody who walks in is a gatekeeper) keeps out an unclear idea or doctrine from public discussion he or she is applying the virtue of modesty or prudence.

"... since it goes without saying that anyone with a modest opinion of himself has a fair opinion of all his neighbours and does not wish to appear to understand everything, the Romans at least had a solemn formula in their law-courts, when the issue tended to be obscure, i.e. 'It is not clear, I defer sentence,' and I see no reason why we should all be ashamed to copy this modesty. Each of us is equally a human being, and a man cannot perceive everything; he was made in the image of God, yet he is not God. Therefore whenever obscurities arise which we cannot quite grasp or see through (the sort of things on which disagreement usually occurs) it is useful and quite honourable to have recourse to the verdict 'IT IS NOT CLEAR' as a shield of modesty and a confession of ignorance. For it is fair to grasp the truth where it is revealed, but to worship and admire it where it is unrevealed." (Comenius, Panorthosia II, Ch. 8, para 19, p. 116)

::

3 Unwierd Sisters

Three Sister Handmaids to Love

By John Taylor; 2009 April 23, Jalal 14, 166 BE

First in a Series on the Impact of the Panorthosia of Comenius on the Principle of Harmony of Science and Religion

"I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also.' (I Cor 14:15)

This Biblical admonition, referred to by Comenius in Panorthosia, could well be taken as model and motto for his thinking about the divine principle of harmony between religion and science.

Comenius conceived of, planned and through his writings and correspondence had a hand in the birth of a new educational and scientific institution. It was to be founded in England and he was invited to move back there in order to become its first president. Unfortunately, circumstances (including war and revolution) decreed that it was never built. However it soon transformed into the wall-free institution known as the Royal Society. This amorphous but brilliant institution whose members included the likes of Harvey, Newton and Boyle, led the systematic inquiry into nature for some two centuries. In the mid-19th Century natural philosophy combined with wider education and the systematic, experimental laboratory method pioneered under Napoleon Bonaparte in France. This changed the activity so radically that the older name "natural philosophy" was dropped and it became known from then on as science.

Scholastic thinkers of earlier centuries had subordinated science to religion, as evidenced by the saying that "philosophy is the handmaid of theology." Comenius would have none of that. Properly conceived of science had the potential to contribute every bit as much as religion to order, advance and civilization.

"If our Mind is trained and refined by such a philosophy it cannot fail to live in the light, since Ideas and Nature and the Testimonies of God will send their rays to converge upon it so brightly from all directions that at every turn the Mind thus enlightened will find itself in joyful splendour. In this happy event, we may come to describe Philosophy not as the handmaid of Theology, which it has been in the past, but its true-born sister, akin to Politics, these being the three veritable Graces, each making its full contribution to the other two and receiving each other's gifts in return." (Panorthosia, Ch. 11, para 23, p. 185)

A footnote in Dobbie's text of Panorthosia explains that the three Graces in Greek mythology were three daughters of Zeus who attended Aphrodite, the goddess of love. Three sisters, then, work together as handmaids to love. The three equal servants of a single higher power are faith, science and politics.

Comenius took this tripartite format very seriously throughout the over one hundred and fifty books that he wrote. He even modelled upon it, as we have seen, the structure of his proposed world government. He saw these three fundamentals as arising from the nature of the universe, one the physical universe, two, human nature and three the nature of God.

"Universal Philosophy should be the Practice of the Artificial World, Universal Politics that of the Moral World, and Universal Religion that of the Spiritual World." (cf. Pansophia V-VII, Panorthosia, Ch. 13, para 12, p. 206)

Each of the three complements and reflects the others, but is distinct in its field of expertise. Each, in the words of Christ, is known by its fruits.

 "Universal Philosophy should be an agent of enlightenment for all men. Universal Politics should be their agent of government, and Universal Religion their agent of blessedness." (Ch. 13, para 12, p. 206)

Our problem is that we fail to treat universals as universals. In our immaturity, we particularize and dichotomize what should be common, or we do the opposite, we choose a part and try to make it into a universal. When human affairs fail and we fall short of happiness, it can always be traced to one of the three basic kinds of disease of the mind, blindness, delusion or violence (abuse).

"What plan must we therefore adopt? Three desperate diseases need three remedies. Blindness needs guidance and eye-salve. Delusion needs removal of darkness and clearer light. Abuses need the true use of things." (Panorthosia II, Ch. 9, para 10, p. 146)

The reason we fail to reform these basics and permanently erase these three problems from the slate forever is that we fall short of thinking comprehensively and simply enough for everybody to come to agreement on what is essential.

"But please notice that although Universality, Simplicity, and Agreement ... seem to apply to all three estates of Wisdom, Religion, and Politics, yet there is good reason for close relationship between the first and the first, the second and the second, or the third with the third. For example, our new Universal Wisdom or Philosophy ought to be just as universally available to all human minds as is the light of day to all men's eyes, our new Religion just as pure and simple as God, who is its object, and the new Government of man by man just as peaceful as that of the body by the soul." (Ch. 10, para 49, pp. 171-172)

All attempts at progress and reform will fail as long as philosophers and scientists fail to convey the flame of essential truth to large numbers of people, as long as religious leaders fail to turn souls in the direction of God, and politicians to accustom us to thinking in terms of peace, as Comenius puts it, with the same harmony that the soul controls the body.

"When human affairs are so reformed that our Philosophy, Religion, and Politics are all truly universal, it will be the task of scholars to collect and purify essential truths and transplant them into the minds of men, of churchmen to attract men's souls away from the world in the direction of God, and of politicians to maintain peace and tranquillity everywhere, competing with each other, as it were, in holy rivalry to make an outstanding contribution in their respective spheres to the salvation of mankind." (Ch. 15, para 1, p. 216)

Comenius envisioned the reins of these three basic human endeavours in the hands of three institutions with branches in every locale, region and even on the world level. Like the individual and the family, each of these founding institutions of world order has its own motto to define in a few words its role and mission in the world. These we will examine next time.

--
John Taylor

email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/

::