Human Civilization

For 3 billion years the earth was made up of nothing but single celled organisms that functioned as individuals. Then, a billion years ago, gradually the cooperation of some cells created a new kind of life. The world of multi-celled life created new potentialities that allowed human intelligence to form. In the same way, throughout the evolution of humans, each person functioned as an individual. Then gradually the conscious cooperation of different people allowed communities to form. The world of community life created new potentialities, such as language, education, and technology.

If the cells that make up your body were to develop an ego and free will, they may decide not to cooperate with the rest of the body. If your liver became self-conscious it could demand to be better compensated because you wouldn’t survive without it. Luckily your cells and organs have no choice. They are composed and function with perfect cooperation, following a code that instructs their behavior. The human body regulates and heals itself, but your conscious self is not involved in the instruction of cells and organs.

Humans do have free will. An individual may decide to act selfishly, a nation may decide to use force against another, but in reality we are all part of the same world community, and the full potential of human civilization has only dimly been realized. When true cooperation, love, and unity become a reality, the organism of human civilization will throb and produce fruit.

Religions, over the centuries, have been the primary gardeners and advancers of human civilization. In the centuries following, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, and others, a civilization thrived under their teachings and achieved the highest level of development and unity possible at the time. Baha'u'llah's teachings will bring about the first true world civilization, and create a new organism, as significant as the cooperation of cells that created life on earth.

Self Identity

Who are you? What makes up... you?

Are you a collection of cells? Are you a brain? A personality? Memories? This seems like such a simple and fundamental question, but the answer is not apparent. If you are your body, then chopping off a finger or arm would reduce your essence, but that doesn’t happen. A person may lose all 4 limbs and still be considered a whole person. Likewise, a person may lose their memory entirely, but still keep their intellect intact.

You can’t live without a heart. Is the essence of you in your heart? No, it just pumps blood. What about the brain? After all, your brain is where it feels like your “thinking” takes place. Your brain controls your nerves, processes your senses, gives you endorphins when you do what it likes, but your brain is not you. If you switched brains with Barack Obama, which one would be you? The body with your brain? Or your body with his brain? The brain would retain much of the memories of your life, but where is the thing that makes YOU.

“When you wish to reflect upon or consider a matter, you consult something within you. You say, shall I do it, or shall I not do it? Is it better to make this journey or abandon it? Whom do you consult? Who is within you deciding this question? Surely there is a distinct power, an intelligent ego. Were it not distinct from your ego, you would not be consulting it. It is greater than the faculty of thought. It is your spirit which teaches you, which advises and decides upon matters. Who is it that interrogates? Who is it that answers? There is no doubt that it is the spirit and that there is no change or transformation in it, for it is not a composition of elements, and anything that is not composed of elements is eternal… the body may become weakened in its members. It may be dismembered, or one of its members may be incapacitated. The whole body may be paralyzed; and yet the mind, the spirit, remains ever the same. The mind decides; the thought is perfect; and yet the hand is withered, the feet have become useless, the spinal column is paralyzed, and there is no muscular movement at all, but the spirit is in the same status.”

Abdu’l-Baha

After some time passes, your body will get old, your brain will falter, your hair will grey, and you will get old. Is that old person you? After all, that person will likely not remember anything you’re doing right now, and will probably have different values and priorities. You will work for decades putting away a retirement fund for that old person to spend on vacations to Italy. Think back to when you were in second grade, was that you? That young person who if you met now you might be annoyed with. Is YOU a momentary thing? Are you only YOU right now at this moment?

Let’s say that you are your brain. If that’s true, then what part of your brain? If you cut out whole chunks of your brain, the rest will still function. And what’s a brain? A bunch of cells, billions of neurons connected by synapses, running trains of electrical pulses that even with today’s technology cannot even be dimly deciphered. What does a brain get us anyway? Jellyfish get by without a brain, and they are able to hunt very intelligently.

“The mind which is in man, the existence of which is recognized—where is it in him? If you examine the body with the eye, the ear or the other senses, you will not find it; nevertheless, it exists. Therefore, the mind has no place, but it is connected with the brain.”

Abdu’l-Baha

Obviously there is something special about the human brain, because we have self-consciousness. Modern humans are called Homo sapiens sapiens, which means, “earthly being who thinks about thinking”. We don’t just think, we think about what it means to think. Yet we can never fully comprehend our own self identity, the rational faculty of our minds.

“Having recognized thy powerlessness to attain to an adequate understanding of that Reality which abideth within thee, thou wilt readily admit the futility of such efforts as may be attempted by thee, or by any of the created things, to fathom the mystery of the Living God, the Day Star of unfading glory, the Ancient of everlasting days. This confession of helplessness which mature contemplation must eventually impel every mind to make is in itself the acme of human understanding, and marketh the culmination of man's development."

Baha’u’llah

Religions of the world teach of this conscious self as continuing on after physical death. This, in a sense, is the essence of religion, and the next world is taught to be the real world.

“Thou hast asked Me whether man… will retain, after his physical death, the self-same individuality, personality, consciousness, and understanding that characterize his life in this world. If this should be the case, how is it, thou hast observed, that whereas such slight injuries to his mental faculties as fainting and severe illness deprive him of his understanding and consciousness, his death, which must involve the decomposition of his body and the dissolution of its elements, is powerless to destroy that understanding and extinguish that consciousness? How can any one imagine that man’s consciousness and personality will be maintained, when the very instruments necessary to their existence and function will have completely disintegrated?
“Know thou that the soul of man is exalted above, and is independent of all infirmities of body or mind. That a sick person showeth signs of weakness is due to the hindrances that interpose themselves between his soul and his body, for the soul itself remaineth unaffected by any bodily ailments. Consider the light of the lamp. Though an external object may interfere with its radiance, the light itself continueth to shine with undiminished power. In like manner, every malady afflicting the body of man is an impediment that preventeth the soul from manifesting its inherent might and power. When it leaveth the body, however, it will evince such ascendancy, and reveal such influence as no force on earth can equal...
“Consider, moreover, how the fruit, ere it is formed, lieth potentially within the tree. Were the tree to be cut into pieces, no sign nor any part of the fruit, however small, could be detected. When it appeareth, however, it manifesteth itself, as thou hast observed, in its wondrous beauty and glorious perfection. Certain fruits, indeed, attain their fullest development only after being severed from the tree.”

Baha’u’llah

Depression as an Opportunity

What is depression but an opportunity to tackle (bear hug) an emotive and neglected soul?

A loom to climb upon between layers of lint and dust atmosphere, a toy to fight for-cry over. Big energetic snow dog, tail wagging against the flattened tire, is only a symbol of much needed warmth. "Your teeth are strung with tendons, does this mean you have to leave? No, please, don't 'leave', run away, into...The sky dominates the vast, empty, long transformed, shrubby excuse for land. Broken and vulnerable. Streaks of light discover themselves illumined orange on the abrupt white peaks, reflecting and being absorbed into the supple and defiant storm clouds. Abyss. Isolated rain bursts alternate preseance of the horizon. The dream landscape has escaped its prison, has broken into my waking. Turned inside beyond. "Is the spiritual world this beautiful?" "Can it really be this lonely?

Going back home to Taos where I grew up is always accompanied by nostalgia and beauty, but more and more now, by depression and angst. I try so hard to cling on to its foundation of my life. The dirt is too soft however, too many ghosts. There are many different memories, places, situations, songs, movies, even people, that invoke these feelings. It seems natural to avoid situations which bring them about, but is it healthy to avoid them?

Awake...again...but from where? The gray skies, the muddy memories. What have I done now, at this moment (the only one that matters), to deserve the events drawing me into these warm blankets. What does it mean, standing here, eyes fixed in the mirror, this flesh is still so young, someday old with rot. He couldn't understand. The mold in the corner. How every indication of age and growth all boiled down to the single moment. Now cold, damp, alone. Alive, terribly. Exhilarating sadness.

I remember moving to Oregon from Taos in the 8th grade. Moving from the expansive skies and towering mountains which could be seen from miles away, I was suddenly in a place sunk in, always damp and gray. I didn't get along with anybody either, for the first year I was largely friendless and alone. Never had I been so depressed; never had I felt anything so strongly. After a while it became exhilarating. I started to seek that isolation, not as a form of nihilism or narcissism, but as a form of self reckoning. I began walking around the city late at night, writing poetry, reading books, listening to the Doors, and doing other things which fed this feeling of being truly alive and authentic.

I think we have grown up in a culture that emphasizes self-distraction. When we say, "I need to get motivated", what we really mean is, "I need something to distract me from this desperate loneliness and pain that I feel". Psychiatric treatment can be useful and necessary, especially when a person has been through a traumatic experience or the brain's chemical state has been altered. But generally, by pursuing distraction, aren't we just avoiding the existential fear of nothingness, fear of mortality, fear of God, when we need to be embracing it? What if God resides in our depression? What it is the gateway to our liberation?

Uncovering Nobility in a Fallen World

*This post was co-written with Brenden Rogers*

A while back I wrote about the Christian idea of "original sin" and reinterpreted it from a Baha'i point of view, Adam symbolizing the physical self, and Christ symbolizing the spiritual self. In the post I outlined the Baha'i's view of people as inherently noble. Baha'u'llah exhorts us in "Gleanings" to "Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value".

Inherent nobility is definitely not a new idea, even if it has fallen out of favor with Christianity. It can be argued however, that the recognition of Christ as Savior presupposes a human capacity to recognize the truth. To recognize something is to remember...

Plato wrote extensively about inherent nobility. In chapter 7 of Plato's "Republic", Plato depicts a fictional conversation between Socrates and Glaucon about the nature of education in search of the idealized form of "the good". He uses the now famous "allegory of the cave", where he asks Glaucon to imagine a number of individuals shackled since childhood in an underground cave so that they can only look in the direction that they are sitting. Above and behind them there is a bright fire burning, and in between there are other people carrying statues and images which are reflected onto the wall in front of the prisoners. At a certain point one of the individuals is compelled to break free and is dragged up out of the cave and into the light. If told that the images he had been watching were mere shadows of reality, and that the things towards the light are more true, he would be confused and stubbornly insist that the old images more real. Then as his eyes adapted to the light, and he became accustomed to the world above, he would eventually recognize that his vision had actually been increased, a whole new world had been revealed. If he were then to go back down into the cave and rescue his friends, they would laugh him to scorn and mock his poor vision in the dark.

Plato uses this analogy to argue for the existence of a soul in each individual which, if oriented properly, is naturally drawn towards true reality. He describes this reality as the "good", the search for which can become lost in the lower states of ignorance and delusion.

"Whereas, our present argument shows us that there is a faculty residing in the soul of each person, and an instrument enabling each of us to learn; and that, just as we might suppose it to be impossible to turn the eye round from darkness to light without turning the whole body, so must this faculty, or this instrument, be wheeled round, in company with the entire soul, from the perishing world, until it be enabled to endure the contemplation of the real world and the brightest part thereof, which, according to us is the ideas of the good...

Hence, I continued, there should be an art of this turning around, involving the way that the change will most easily and most effectually be brought about. Its object will not be to produce in the person the power of seeing. On the contrary, it assumes that he possesses it, though he is turned in a wrong direction, and does not look towards the right quarter-and its aim is to remedy this defect."

I believe that a core human attribute is the ability to recognize truth when we see it. Often times our vision is veiled and we become content with the shadows on the wall. While it is possible to be shaken violently out of slumber, or dragged out of a cave kicking and screaming, most of us are best served by the gentle guidance of a mentor, teacher, or friend. Our system of education can and should play a role in this. The word education comes from the Latin root educare (ex + ducare), literally meaning to "bring out". Socrates and the classical philosophers held that education is not something one takes in, but rather something one uncovers and "brings out" of themselves. While no one can find the gems for anybody else, they can help them open their eyes to self discovery and ignite a passion for seeking out truth. In the second part of the aforementioned quote from "Gleanings, Baha'u'llah states that "Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom."

Baha'u'llah describes the search for truth in the "Seven Valleys"

"the traveler abideth in every land and dwelleth in every region. In every face, he seeketh the beauty of the Friend; in every country he looketh for the beloved. He joineth every company, and seeketh fellowship with every soul, that haply in some mind he may uncover the secret of the Friend, or in some face he may behold the beauty of the Loved One."

Socrates and the Baha'i Faith: Parallel Thinking on the Nature of Leadership

Approximately 2500 years ago, Socrates, according to Plato in "The Republic", broke into a conversation with a fellow named Thrasymachus over the qualities of a ruler and the nature of justice. Thrasymachus's basic argument was that justice was a relative concept, defined by the interest of the stronger party. Power and happiness could best be obtained by the unjust, who could then define justice according to their choosing:

"Therefore, my good sir, my meaning is, that in all cities the same thing, namely, the interest of the established regime, is just. And superior strength, I presume is to be found on the side of regime. So that the conclusion of right reasoning is that the same thing, namely, the interest of the stronger, is everywhere just..."

"...But when a man not only seizes the property of his fellow-citizens but captures and enslaves their persons also, instead of those dishonorable titles he is called happy and highly favored, not only by the men of his own city, but also by all others who hear of the comprehensive injustice which he has wrought. For when people abuse injustice, they do so because they are afraid, not of committing it but of suffering it. Thus it is , Socrates, that injustice, realized on an adequate scale, is a stronger, a freer, and a more lorldy thing than justice; and as I said in the beginning, justice is the interest of the stronger; injustice, a thing profitable and advantageous to oneself"

Through the characteristic Socratic method that we know and love, Socrates went on to systematically dismantle the argument through a barrage of relentless questioning. In the process he defined justice as a requisite quality of leadership, and a just leader as one who does not crave leadership, but who accepts it reluctantly out of necessity. In other words a just leader accepts some responsibility for the affairs of others in the capacity of servitude:

"Now the heaviest of all penalties is to be ruled by a worse man, in case of one's own refusal to rule; and it is the fear of this, I believe, which induces virtuous men to take the posts of regime and when they do so, they enter upon their rulership, not with any idea of coming into a good thing, but as an unavoidable necessity, not expecting to enjoy themselves in it, but because they cannot find any person better or no worse than themselves, to whom they can commit. For the probability is, that if there were a city composed of none but good men, it would be an object of competition to avoid the possession of power, just as now it is to obtain it; and then it would become clearly evident that it is not the nature of the genuine ruler to look to his own interest, but to that of the subject- so that every judicious man would choose to be the recipient of benefits, rather than to have the trouble of conferring them upon others."

Clearly, his account of leadership is visionary, even by today's standards. The electoral process in the United States is set up as a campaign style election, which favors those with the most money and well crafted, poll-tested message. Leadership is a thing to aspire for, requiring careful planning and relentless self-promotion.

The definition and process of electing a leader in the Baha'i community is completely different; it actualizes much of Socrates's vision of leadership. This is not surprising, he was the favorite philosopher of Baha'u'llah. In the "Tablet of Wisdom" he writes:

"After him came Socrates who was indeed, wise, accomplished and righteous. He practised self-denial, repressed his appetites for selfish desires and turned away from material pleasures. He withdrew to the mountains where he dwelt in a cave. He dissuaded men from worshipping idols and taught them the way of God, the Lord of Mercy, until the ignorant rose up against him. They arrested him and put him to death in prison. Thus relateth to thee this swift-moving Pen. What a penetrating vision into philosophy this eminent man had! He is the most distinguished of all philosophers and was highly versed in wisdom. We testify that he is one of the heroes in this field and an outstanding champion dedicated unto it. He had a profound knowledge of such sciences as were current amongst men as well as of those which were veiled from their minds. Methinks he drank one draught when the Most Great Ocean overflowed with gleaming and life-giving waters. He it is who perceived a unique, a tempered, and a pervasive nature in things, bearing the closest likeness to the human spirit, and he discovered this nature to be distinct from the substance of things in their refined form. He hath a special pronouncement on this weighty theme. Wert thou to ask from the worldly wise of this generation about this exposition, thou wouldst witness their incapacity to grasp it. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth but most people comprehend not."

Abdu'l Baha, the center of the "Covenant" and the preeminent figure in Baha'i history who isn't considered a "manifestation" of God, thought of himself primarily as a servant of God and humanity. In a letter to Baha’is in the United States, he wrote,

"My name is `Abdu'l-Bahá [literally, Servant of Baha]. My qualification is `Abdu'l-Bahá. My reality is `Abdu'l-Bahá. My praise is `Abdu'l-Bahá. Thraldom to the Blessed Perfection [Bahá'u'lláh] is my glorious and refulgent diadem, and servitude to all the human race my perpetual religion... No name, no title, no mention, no commendation have I, nor will ever have, except `Abdu'l-Bahá. This is my longing. This is my greatest yearning. This is my eternal life. This is my everlasting glory."

Following on his grandfathers example, Shoghi Effendi, the "Guardian" of the Baha'i Faith, outlined the system of Baha'i elections that explicitly elect individuals who have the greatest capacity to serve. The transparency of an individual’s desire for power often precludes them from consideration. In a letter to a local spiritual assembly, he wrote

"I feel that reference to personalities before the election would give rise to misunderstanding and differences. What the friends should do is to get thoroughly acquainted with one another, to exchange views, to mix freely and discuss among themselves the requirements and qualifications for such a membership without reference or application, however indirect, to particular individuals. We should refrain from influencing the opinion of others, of canvassing for any particular individual."

Arash Abizadeh has written a useful summary of how Baha'i's should vote

Assembly members, when elected, hold no individual power and receive no individual glory. Through the rules of consultation, nicely outlined here by Farzin Aghdasy, assemblies guide community life. The attitude is one of servitude and responsibility, which are not usually associated with positions of power.

Cycles of Growth

"As ye have faith so shall your powers and blessings be. This is the balance -- this is the balance -- this is the balance."

-Abdu'l-Baha

everyday Issa: lingering daylight

everyday Issa: lingering daylight

I was deeply moved by this Japanese gentleman's daily activity. Each day he gets an English translation of one of the haiku by the master Issa.

Social Action and Baha’u’llah’s Addresses to the Kings: Part I

Let us take as our starting point that one task for the Baha’i world in the coming years is the systematic study of social action that resembles, to a great extent, the systematic study of expansion and consolidation that has at this point come to dominate Baha’i life. With the global establishment of the Ruhi Institute, Baha’is around the world consult upon the requirements of teaching using passages from the Baha’i Writings on topics such as the nature of living a Baha’i life, the power of Divine assistance, making new contacts, confirming new believers, educating children, etc. Similarly, new forays into social action will require intensive re-visitation of Baha’i teachings on such topics as education, the environment, health care, agriculture, power relations across racial, gender, and religious lines, and a number of other pressing matters. For so long, the vast sea of statements from the Writings on these topics has been glossed over with single expressions, buzzwords, and clichés. A deeper understanding is needed. And a conscious basis for action, let alone which passages to focus on, is not a matter of flipping a light switch.

Fortunately, there are many books and tablets that are clearly relevant to such an endeavour. Undoubtedly, Shoghi Effendi’s letters on World Order will be essential for consulting on the global and historical context of Baha’i social action. And certainly, Abdu’l-Baha’s “Secret of Divine Civilization” and his recorded utterances while travelling the West will be indispensable. But what of Baha’u’llah Himself? Certainly, His later works, those written in Adrianople and Akka, will be the most important. Focus will of course be given to the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Tablet of the World, Tablet of Maqsud, and other tablets included in the compilation “Tablets of Baha’u’llah.” And then there’s Baha’u’llah’s addresses to the kings and rulers of the world, largely contained in the compilation “Summons of the Lord of Hosts.” This is where, philosophically we run into a problem. And that’s what I want to look at here. These tablets are specifically addressed to generally autocratic rulers like Nasiri’d-Din Shah, Sultan Abdu’l-Aziz, Napoleon III, and others. His commands to them are written with the assumption that the reader is a Head of State: A Just king is the shadow of God on earth. All should seek shelter under the shadow of his justice, and rest in the shade of his favor.[1] Should thou cause rivers of justice to spread their waters among thy subjects, God will surely aid thee with the hosts of the unseen and of the seen and would strengthen thee in thine affairs.[2] The poor… verily. Are thy treasures on earth. It behoveth thee, therefore, to safeguard thy treasures from the assaults of them who wish to rob thee.[3]At the moment there are no Baha’i Heads of State. And even if there were any then that wouldn’t detract from the fact that Baha’i social action is conducted by the generality of believers taken from all walks of life. The gems of wisdom Baha’u’llah encloses in these addresses must be disclosed in such a way as to guide broad-based collaborative action they undertake. I don’t think it’s enough to say that Baha’u’llah enjoins justice, and that this can be abstracted from the recipients’ legal and social status. The relation of sovereign/subject is essential to a great many of these passages. The final passage I quote above is a good example of this: The position of sovereign entails a responsibility for the affairs of the poor and downtrodden. I think what’s needed is a conceptual framework by which to translate these tablets from an autocratic context to a collaborative context. We need a way to learn how to apply what Baha’u’llah teaches them specifically to a social situation very different than that of Napoleon III or Czar Alexander II.


[1] SH 217 pp. 112
[2] SM 64 pp. 211
[3] SM 68 pp. 213

Social Action and Baha’u’llah’s Addresses to the Kings: Part II

There are two concepts that I think are vital for this enquiry. The first is power. The second is decision, choice, free-will, or however else one might call it. I think, what matters most about these figures is the combination of power and decision. The way these two combine in the figure of “the kings and rulers of the world” is very rare. Baha’u’llah addresses these tablets to the most concentrated and intense instances. But the combination of power and decision is something that characterizes the lives of all people, high and low alike.

First, we must recognize the distinction between social power and the power exercised through large institutions. For example, it doesn’t make sense to say that one is “powerless.” Certainly, a person can be excluded from the decision-making processes of certain institutions. But, though that may be the case, the mere utterance of the words “I am powerless” is itself an exercise of power, however small. And in most cases, a person is capable of quite a few other things besides that. One theorist writes: “Power is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” The condition we casually refer to as powerlessness is not so much the absence of power, but rather the lack of will or organizational capacity to make use of what power is at hand.

Secondly, the same can be said for decision-making. Very few of us are CEOs or politicians. Some of us may supervise other workers on the job, but even then, that responsibility probably has more to do with enforcement than substantial choices. Nonetheless, each of us are endowed with choice, far more than is comfortable to think about. I don’t have to eat today. I could choose not to. I could grab a blunt object from the trash and smash someone’s head in. I could refuse the laws of the State. I could refuse the Manifestation of God. All of this is within my choice. What’s key is recognizing that the iron law of necessity, especially with regard to society, often has more to do with an unwillingness to recognize the reality that one does have choice in the matter, and that a person could do otherwise. I could dedicate my life to the spiritual and material upliftment of my community. Or I could just watch TV. Both are viable choices.

I think what defines the figure of the sovereign is the combination of power and decision. Anyone can decree that the US government will dedicate 50 billion dollars to renewable energy research, but if that is not in one’s power then it won’t happen. And someone or some group can hold the power to do exactly the same. But that money will never be allocated if no decision is ever made, if that power is left to sit idle, or is directed towards other ends. Power and decision are only combined in the sense of “kings and rulers of the world” very rarely. Baha’u’llah could list them off by name. But power and decision are combined in innumerable ways through society. The two come together to some extent with all people. Each of us is a Napoleon in our own little way; some more so than others. But the coordination of a great multiplicity of these small instances of power and decision can create enormous forces for social change. The great triumph of the Ruhi Institute is the finesse with which it does this.

I think, what is required of us when reading writings of Baha’u’llah addressed to the kings and rulers of the world is that each of us is responsible in some way for carrying out the social transformation mandated therein. Very few of us could rightly be called kings or rulers. But each of us can make a substantial difference if only we arise individually, coordinate and consult with others, develop each other’s capacity, channel our energy into sustainable endeavors, learn along they way, build momentum, and keep looking to the horizon for what possibilities we might choose to seize upon next. This is a major way in which the Baha’i Faith is democratic. The demos arises to rule, not at the expense of the State or God’s appointed authority, but rather inasmuch as the people are the animating force that decides on the structure of future society.

Does Religion Contribute to Material Well Being?

Bryan posted a great piece analyzing conservatism in America. I can't link to it because it is on facebook. Anyway, an interesting discussion evolved in the comments section between Bryan and myself, who are Baha'i's, and Mavaddat Javid, who is an ex-Baha'i. It is generally about the problems in the world and the role religion (specifically the Baha'i Faith) will or will not play in solving them. I have decided to bring the conversation over here to get more people involved and to get more room for commenting. The comments so far are reposted below.

Please feel free to contribute to the discussion in the comments section.

Mavaddat Javid
Bryan, your description of "conservative" American mania is precisely accurate. But with all due respect, I find the etiology and solution you suggest incredible.

Institutionalized partisanship as a cause for the problem, sure. But you also blame "the excesses of liberty and civilization" as somehow responsible. What could this possibly mean? The source of political mania in the United States is too much of liberty? Surely I have not understood you properly.

Your advocacy for "drastic reforms" and world governance is also historically naive. Drastic reforms in social engineering do not work. At least, not in leaps. What is needed is a series of very acute changes of cumulative reform. What are these small changes? is the real question.

Effective world governance is also historically untenable. It would be nice, but there's no practical or theoretical way to keep the most powerful country from manipulating that institution to their interests.
September 12 at 8:10pm

Bryan Donaldson
Adam, yeah I think you're right about oscillations getting more intense.

Mav, I mean liberty in the sense of individualism and a level of selfishness. A typical cry I hear from conservatives is that they want to be left alone, which means they really don't understand the value of public schools, roads, etc. That's what I would call an extreme of liberty. Drastic reforms typically only follow some kind of catastrophe or hardship (e.g. the League of Nations following WWI, UN following WWII, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 following bank runs of 1907, the New Deal following the Great Depression).

The US created a federal system where each state was autonomous and afraid of central authority, much like countries today. Similar principles could be applied to ensure that powerful countries don't manipulate others for national gain. Currently the world is manipulated to the interest of the US, and it's the lack of world authority, divest of nationalism, that allows it to happen.
Sun at 11:38am

Jason Snyder
A lot of the commotion seems to be the result of certain people who are on the losing end globalization, directing their anger in the wrong place. Most of the people who are protesting are older, white, and poorly educated folks who see their share of the pie dwindling in the face of global competition. Instead of realizing that globalization is inevitable, and that the best thing is to focus on education and embrace diversity, they see it as a threat that must be a conspiracy on the part of everybody not like them. As this population gets smaller and smaller, unfortunately they will probably also get louder and more irrational

Mavaddat Javid
Bryan, thank you for clarifying.However, the ideology you're criticizing is not liberty (excessive or otherwise), but libertarianism. The idea is not selfishness, but self interest. Easily confused, but different. Libertarianism is the philosophy that says the greatest number are benefited when behaviour emerges from individual choices. I tend to believe individuals are usually better off in government coordinated action rather than coordination emerging from individuals' choices. Government, whether socialist and libertarian, is in the business of promoting individuals' interests; the question is merely one of efficacy. So let's not pretend this has anything to do with "excesses of liberty" (a very Bahá'í way of framing the problem).

The United States were able to coalesce precisely because of common geography, language, religion, etc. These are the very factors that make a world government untenable. Working for this goal is distracting us from real solutions.
Sun at 6:23pm

Jason Snyder
Following on Bryan and Mavaddat's thread, In the short term (at least 100 years) I am more in favor of the idea of world governance than world government. World governance implies collective action on a whole range of global issues that cannot be addressed only by nation states. It does not imply that a single governmental body decides upon policy for the whole world. In Baha'i lingo this is the difference between the lesser peace and the greater peace. Clearly we can pragmatically pursue the lesser peace through greater global cooperation and representation. We have to or else we will face distinction as a species. Simultaneously we can pursue spiritual transformation, which will eventually allow for the level of cultural and ideological unity-in-diversity required before world government can even be considered.
Sun at 8:42pm

Mavaddat Javid
Jason, it sounds like world governance has been happening since the beginning of civilization. Nations have been taking collective action on "global" issues since Mesopotamia. Have I misunderstood you? If the Lesser Peace implies any kind of progress since the days of Bah... Read Moreá'u'lláh, this cannot be what Bahá'u'lláh intended. Am I wrong?

Honestly guys, is working to establish spiritual transformation a practical way to solve the world's problems? The plenitude of causes to our woes have nothing to do with how righteous humans have been. For example, lack of knowledge is in the largest part a technological, administrative, and economic problem. No amount of piety has solved human ignorance.

In my opinion, religion is not the answer. It's nice to think one has the answers without intense study of history, group psychology, game theory, etc. But it's not helping. Confidence from faith breeds fighting about what authority to follow instead of what lessons to draw from our actual experience.
Mon at 4:49am

Bryan Donaldson
Mav, each decade of the 20th century saw a declining number of deaths from war. It also saw the first attempt, and later establishment of a weak international structure to establish and maintain peace. While humanity's ability for destruction has increased, its actual use of those powers has declined. So yes, since the days of Baha'u'llah there has been progress towards the lesser peace.

Per the Baha'i writings, the greater peace cannot be established on spirituality alone, but must be in conjunction with institutions. The financial meltdown was a result of a lack of spirituality and an excess of self. The buyers, realtors, brokers, even some investors knew that the housing market was in a bubble and loans being made were bad, but each party was profiting so the game continued. Religion teaches to control and suppress the self. Nothing else is effective at accomplishing that goal, so the economic problems actually are spiritual problems.
Mon at 9:03am

Jason Snyder
Mav, world governance has happened since the beginning of civilization, but it occurs along a continuum. Clearly the world can cooperate on international issues much more effectively than it is doing today, no? Compared to what was happening in the days of Baha'u'llah, clear progress has been made, as Bryan has described

Jason Snyder
Regarding knowledge and virtue, I think they often go hand in hand. As people become more knowledgeable, they also develop the ability to expand their moral imagination on a global scale. There is a high correlation between ignorance and bigotry in my opinion. But on the other hand, there are very intelligent people who have no moral bearing, and cause great harm. One could argue that the correct institutions will harness selfish behavior for the public good, that is the core assumption of classical macro-economics, but their is a high bureaucratic cost to enforcing virtue. I argue that the more inherent virtue individuals have on a global scale, the more affective world governance will be. That is not to say that spiritual transformation is our only plan. The Baha'i community is very involved in social/economic development, conflict resolution, women's and minority rights, and many other very practical endeavors grounded upon spiritual virtues.
Mon at 10:21am

Mavaddat Javid
I agree with you both that *effective* cooperation between nations is good, but the question is how to accomplish it. What I wonder is if there's any reason to believe that spiritual transformation is the way.

Bryan, you suggest that if investors had controlled themselves, the stock crash wouldn't have happened. This is seriously flawed. The problem was in faulty SEC regulations that allowed circular investments. But you want investors to know when they've made "too much money." How, exactly? Investors are paid to turn profit. We like to think they are "greedy," but they were just playing by the rules. It's the rules that need changing, not the people.

Rules must account for human nature. Any ideology that depends for its success on society being more altruistic, less greedy, more kind -- in short, any ideology that depends on humans being superhuman -- is committing itself to failure. All forms of utopianism, including the Bahá'í Faith, fall into this category.
Mon at 9:51pm

Jason Snyder
Mav, you make a good point that better policy can go along way to making improvements. But what guides policy? The problem I have with a lot of economists is that they claim to be value neutral under the guise of utility theory and preference satisfaction. But things are very messy when you try to balance definitions of welfare with ideals of liberty, justice, equity, etc. All theory is built upon certain moral assumptions which come from some conceptual framework of the world. Surely some conceptual frameworks are more advanced than others. I would argue (not here) that principles such as the unity of the human race, equality of men and women, harmony of science and religion, independent investigation of truth, and equality of opportunity are very advanced ideals that can and should be striven for. While in the past these ideals didn't conform to many peoples perceived self interest, today they do in theory. In application it is often hard and requires spiritual work.
Yesterday at 12:38am

Jason Snyder
Mav, you write "All forms of utopianism, including the Bahá'í Faith, fall into this category"

Actually, the Baha'i community is working in the cutting edge of social/economic development around the world. FUNDAEC is a great example of Baha'i inspired development. The focus on building up human and institutional capacity through a feedback loop of theory and experiential learning is a very practical approach to achieving the ideals. The "institute process" which is being implemented in almost every single community throughout the world, is a case study in experiential learning on how to deepen upon, apply Baha'i principles in concrete acts of service, and then reflect upon the learning for the next cycle of activity.

Global ideals are impossible unless they take root on a community level, where the rubber hits the road. In the Baha'i community the rubber IS hitting the road, it is hard but the path forward is clear. There is nothing utopian about it.
Yesterday at 1:14am

Mavaddat Javid
Jason, we've mentioned the Bahá'í vision of a "Most Great Peace." Such a goal is the defining mark of Utopianism. If this organization also engages in practical development (as you point out), that does necessarily not make it less Utopian. The Bahá'í plan (according to Bahá'u'lláh and Shoghi Effendi) is that the world embrace the infallible authority of Bahá'u'lláh so that glorious unity and progress between the nations will herald an age of bliss on Earth. I can mention specific scriptures here, if you like.

The goal is not only Utopian, but the means as well: According to the Universal House of Justice, the development activity of the Bahá'í world is meant to win people over to Bahá'u'lláh. There are no mechanisms for checking if these activities are making a practical difference. The Bahá'í goal is decidedly not "material betterment," but spiritual transformation (as I said). This is why Bahá'ís are discouraged from contributing to secular organizations like Amnesty Int'l.
Yesterday at 5:01pm

Jason Snyder
Mav, I think we will have to agree to disagree here. Just because the vision is spiritual in nature doesn't mean it is utopian. The word "utopian", popularized by the book "Brave New World" is decidedly unrealistic, and overly sanitary. If we look at the direction of history and cultural integration, I think that it is hard to argue that world integration is not inevitable. Baha'is acknowledge this historical inevitability as being part of a larger purpose, but it is not simplistic. It is messy, but progress is being made, and the material metrics you mention are being developed according to the aformentioned process. The idea that we believe in spiritual transformation but not material betterment doesn't make any sense. The two concepts our inextricably tied together. Baha'is avoid certain organizations due to their highly partisan nature. We clearly do believe in and work for many of the same goals as amnesty international, but our approach, which I described previously, is different
Yesterday at 5:29pm

Mavaddat Javid
Jason, the term "Utopia" was popularized by Sir Thomas More's eponymous book "Utopia," not Huxley's "Brave New World."

I was once a Bahá'í myself, though I continue to love my Bahá'í friends. So I understand your faith in the Bahá'í narrative of inevitable world unity. But I believe a sophisticated review of history would prove precisely the opposite conclusion. Beyond unquestioning faith, there is no reason to believe that international unity is a plausible or even desirable goal (let alone inevitable). "Agree to disagree" is usually a terminus reached by subjective differences of opinion. But we're talking about the facts of history, economics, and game theory; surely here is not the place for subjectivity.

The point is that spiritual transformation has nothing to do with material betterment. This is evidenced by the fact that the Bahá'í World Centre measures the number of new enrollees from development projects, not whether anyone is actually materially helped.
Yesterday at 7:15pm

Jason Snyder
"Beyond unquestioning faith, there is no reason to believe that international unity is a plausible or even desirable goal (let alone inevitable). 'Agree to disagree' is usually a terminus reached by subjective differences of opinion. But we're talking about the facts of history, economics, and game theory; surely here is not the place for subjectivity."

If only I could be more objective, I could see history clearly without any human bias. If only I were a computer..:)

I think we are both drawing from the same facts of history, economics, etc to develop our conceptual framework of the world. You are making a clear statement of your beliefs, are you saying that they are the objective truth? Aren't words such as "desirable" subjective claims? How is world unity not plausible but by unquestioning faith? There are many secular/materialist thinkers who see world unity as the next step in the direction of history. Robert Wright's "Non-Zero" is a good example. Buckminster Fuller was another
Yesterday at 11:37pm

Mavaddat Javid
Jason, it's important we be clear in the concepts we employ. By "unity" here I mean the unification of all nations in one common ideology, in agreement about the locus of good, cooperating to achieve mutually agreed upon goals. This is not what Wright or Fuller had in mind.

I think we've run the conversation dry, but to reiterate the points I consider important: The real issue in this note is with laissez-faire governance. The happiness of people depends on material and institutional improvements. Ideologies that, instead, aim to reshape human nature itself have always failed with terrifying consequences. The Bahá'í Faith, like all religions, flatters us by declaring that we know the answers to the world's problems (from authority) and then work out the reasons after. It's like having a computer tell you the answers to a math exam, and then try to force them to work. The only problem is when we don't know the math or how the program works, we don't know if the answers are right!
15 hours ago

Jason Snyder
I'm not sure about Fuller, but Wright definetely advocates a single universal theology... I think the goals of Baha'i unity are sufficiently vague that they are not restrictive. For example, the unity of the human race, universal education, bridging the extremes of wealth and poverty, these are hardly controversial, and yet the means to achieving these have not been prescribed. But if we can't have a vision that we can believe in and work for, others will do the shaping for us. All Baha'is are doing is sharing the vision. We are required to be non-violent, we expect independent investigation of truth, it really bears no resemblence to the terrifying ideologies of the past. And, in the end, material improvements only take us so far.. Happiness for me and many others, beyond the basic physical needs of existence, is a spiritual condition.
7 hours ago

Mavaddat Javid
Jason, I recently watched Wright declare that God is a human invention in an interview with Bill Moyers. He's agnostic. So I'd be interested to know how you conclude that he advocates a single universal theology. Why think so?

I want to be clear that I passionately agree with the secular principles that the Bahá'í Faith reiterates. These are maxims enunciated by Plato, Rousseau, Locke, and enlightenment philosophers. Although they are an integral part of the Bahá'í Faith, there's nothing especially Bahá'í about them. So I have no quarrel with you about racism, education, poverty, etc. It's the uniquely Bahá'í aspects of the Bahá'í Faith that I find disturbing.

Specifically, I fear the demand that everyone unconditionally submit to the authority of Bahá'í leaders, that "Covenant breakers" are spiritually diseased and to be shunned, and that becoming a Bahá'í is more important than knowing where your next meal is coming from.
about an hour ago