KARL JASPERS FORUM

Short Note 50 (on N48, Benjamin)

( ON CHRISTMAS )
by Raman and Adams
14 January 2003, posted 21 January 2003

---------------------------------------

(A) V.V. Raman

<1>
I appreciate Mr. Philip Benjamin for sharing his reflections on the significance of Christmas from the perspective of a Christian of faith.

<2>
I trust he knows that I was only expressing views from the perspective of a sympathetic non-Christian.

<3>
As to my referring to Islam as a religion whose name means Peace, I agree with Mr. Benjamin that this neo-etymology is inaccurate. I used it in full knowledge of this fact for two reasons :

(a) Islamic thinkers and politicians (including Mr. Musharaff of Pakistan at the U.N. General Assembly in 2002) have been spreading the idea that Islam literally means Peace. In fact, this has been repeated so many times on TV, in newspapers, and in lectures, that most people in the West think that this is what the name Islam actually means.

(b) However, I tend to think that such myths are helpful. By making the people believe that this is what the name means, one can perhaps persuade more people to peaceful and non-aggressive behavior. It is not unlike making people think that when they said, "All men are created equal," they really meant all human beings, whereas in actual fact, they had in mind only white males, just as when the French said Liberté, Égalité, Fraterinté, they were not thinking of applying these to Algerians or the Indochinese. But by modifying meanings and original intentions we can tame societies and religions, or so I feel.

<4>
I am afraid Mr. Benjamin is creating his own neo-etymology about "slam." The word is actually of Scandinavian origin, and has no Arab connections whatever, let alone Islamic roots.

---------------------------------------

V.V. Raman

---------------------------------------

(B) Bill Adams

<6>

I was shocked by Phillip Benjamin's doctrinaire and vitriolic comments on religion. Shocked for two reasons. First, because it did not seem like the kind of material I expect to see in the KJF. It contributes nothing that I can discern to any rational discourse. The published Statement of Purpose of the KJF says it is

<7>
"To provide an interdisciplinary international e-mail testing ground for propositions in the areas of psychology, psychopathology, and related fields, including clinical and basic sciences and questions concerning the mind-brain relation and 'consciousness'; with some emphasis on clarification of conceptual pre-suppositions...

<8>
This leads to a request to elucidate basic assumptions in the argumentation, and it is hoped that this will stimulate the discussion of aspects which may otherwise remain hidden, or cannot be addressed, and which are an essential complement to empirical studies. Basic assumptions should be described in practical terms and should not be limited to a label such as 'realism', or 'objectivity', nor to a reference to some author or epistemological school, because the labels are used in different ways by different writers."

I am at a loss to understand how Benjamin's Bible thumping meets those criteria.

<9>
Secondly, I was naively shocked to be reminded that literal-minded fundamentalists are so close at hand; not just vaguely off in Iran, Palestine, or Texas, but right here among the educated. According to Karen Anderson's recent book, "The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism" (Ballantine, 2000), dialog between fundamentalists and secular liberals is virtually impossible.

<10>
Anderson makes a strong case that fundamentalism is a reaction of mythos against domination by logos. Mythos is the set of cultural beliefs and practices that directs a people to the timeless and universal aspects of human life, in order to provide meaning. The mythological stories were not to be taken literally, she says, but were designed to

"bring light to the obscure regions of the subconscious realm, which is not accessible to purely rational investigation, but which has a profound effect upon our experience and behavior. . Myth could not be demonstrated by rational proof; its insights were more intuitive, similar to those of art, music, poetry, or sculpture. Myth only became a reality when it was embodied in cult, rituals, and ceremonies which worked aesthetically upon worshippers, evoking within them a sense of sacred significance and enabling them to apprehend the deeper currents of existence." (pp. xv-xvi).

<11>
But in the modern world, logos has displaced mythos. Logos is the rational, pragmatic, and scientific approach to the world. Logos relates exactly to facts and corresponds to external realities. Anderson admits that logos cannot "assuage human pain or sorrow. Rational arguments could make no sense of tragedy. Logos could not answer questions about the ultimate value of human life." (p. xvii).

<12>
Nevertheless, she notes, in modern society, logos has come to be the only means to truth. Mythos is discounted as false and superstitious. That changes religious experience for educated people. They presumptively regard scientific and logical rationalism alone as true, so they try to turn the mythos of their faith into logos by taking the ancient stories literally, insisting upon their rationality and interpreting them as absolute truths impermeable to reasoned discourse. It is a confusion fundamentalists are susceptible to.

<13>
Religious fundamentalists, she says, feel alienated and lost in a logos-dominated world. They feel they are battling against forces that threaten their most sacred values, and often lash out in hatred. They don't dialog appropriately with "modernists" because fundamentalists are responding out of fear, desperation, and a deep sense of being marginalized and helpless.

<14>
Anderson supports these themes with careful historical documentation of Islamic, Jewish, and Christian experience, dating from the "early modern" period from 1492 to the status of the "Moral Majority" and survivalist movements in the US in 1999. It is striking how her thesis is borne out time and time again in all parts of the world, throughout history.

<15>
A shortcoming of the work is that she never defines "modern." Fundamentalists are "pre-modern" she says. But obviously, everyone living in society today, including fundamentalists, is modern, by the ordinary definition of modern. So she seems to mean something like a complex of attitudes roughly captured by the phrase "secular humanism," a favorite straw dog for whipping by fundamentalists.

I recommend the book to Philip Benjamin, and other readers of the KJF, as one analysis of how underlying, unquestioned epistemological assumptions can distort efforts at dialog.

---------------------------------------

Bill Adams

http://members.bainbridge.net/~bill.adams/

---------------------------------------

(C) Adrian v d Meijden on N49 (Bone)

( DE-MILITARIZATION )

15 January 2003, posted 21 January 2003

Time Mag has a poll as to who's the biggest threat to peace.

UNited snakes leads at 79.4% with 137 753 votes Korea about 9 and Saddam at 13.4 % Time 11.13 am NZ time.

The disclaimer is that the poll is not scientific, haha.

---------------------------------------

Adrian van der Meijden

e-mail <afme@ihug.co.nz>