I have known Professor Lehmann's work since about 1977 and greatly respect the work he has done in Japanese studies and, more recently, in business and management.
However, in his article on Polytheism and Tolerance in this week's The Globalist, he is stepping into an area where he knows little. His basic argument is that monotheistic religions have made for intolerance, while polytheistic India is tolerant. Therefore polytheism must make for tolerance!
This has some face value and some superficial validity.
However, the fact is that tolerance in India was not built by polytheism.
Polytheists killed each other just as effectively and massively as monotheists did.
It was secularism that created a safe space for people of different views.
This happened in a sort of passive way under "Hindu" and Mughal rulers earlier in our (Indian) history.
However, what one may call "active secularism" started only under the British who for the first time in our history actively disregarded the religious views of people in terms of employment and in terms of where they lived in the new urban spaces the British created (cities such as Calcutta, Madras, Bombay and New Delhi). The British were interested only in whether the people they employed were competent, and in whether people had the money to live in the wealthier areas.
Up till the time of the British, employment and residence were dictated by one's religion and one's caste (they are still dictated by one's caste, in all Indian villages and pre-British towns).
Perhaps my point becomes clearest when one compares another polytheistic country (Nepal – the only officially Hindu country in the world) with India. Nepali polytheism did not lead to any tolerance (there was no religious freedom for people to move from one religious system to another even within "Hinduism", let alone outside it; people who did so had no civil rights at all, and were killed, imprisoned or beaten up in order to persuade them to return to their traditional social group and so preserve the stasis of Nepali society).
Basically this was because Nepali polytheism was and is part of a religious system that oppresses the common person (that is why there is such a strong Maoist movement in Nepal, responsible for the current political stalemate with the King).
British India, however, building on the work of William Carey from the eighteenth century and of William Wilberforce and the Clapham Group in the nineteenth century, created the sort of political space which not only gave equal respect to all religions, but also the political context in which the excluded classes could be (gradually) included in economic and human progress.
Had it not been for British education, for British values, and for training offered by the British to Indians in modern administrative methods from the late nineteenth century, it is doubtful if India would have been able to survive as an independent secular country till now.
Professor Lehmann is perhaps not aware that there is now a strong "Hindu fundamentalist polytheist" movement in India, which wants to take India back to our "previous Hindu" values. This movement has in fact nearly come to political power recently (it was the senior partner in the coalition government previous to the current one).
If this Hindu fundamentalist polytheistic movement does come to proper political power without depending on coalition allies, the future of India is an open question from a political and social point of view – though, in India, those have till now been a separate matter from the economic progress of the country.
I do not see many threats to India economically if the politicians keep themselves to themselves.
Regretfully, fundamentalist politicians rarely keep themselves to themselves and usually insist on using state power to browbeat (and sometimes physically attack) people who disagree with them. Under the government which included these Hindu fundamentalist polytheists, we saw plenty of evidence of both browbeating and physical attacks against not only Muslims and Christians but also against the excluded ("lower" or "dalit") castes and against "upper caste" Hindus who disagreed with the polytheistic fundamentalists.
I conclude that tolerance in the public square arose and arises neither from monotheism nor from polytheism. The first movers for political tolerance of religious and intellectual differences were the "Radical Reformers" in sixteenth century Continental Europe, then the Clapham Group in nineteenth century England, and their spiritual and intellectual heirs, initially in the United States and now of course in the whole world.
However, in the whole world now, we are facing a new intolerance against debate, against genuine intellectual disagreements, and against the monotheistic religions.
Lehmann), IMD, Lausanne, Polytheism, Tolerance, Japanese, The Globalist, monotheistic, religion, business, management, intolerance, India, Polytheists, secularism, Hindu, Mughal, history, British, religious, cities, Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, New Delhi, caste, Nepal, civil rights, Maoist, British India, William Carey, William Wilberforce, Clapham Group, Clapham Circle, Clapham Sect, Hindu fundamentalist, Hindu fascist, coalition government, future of India, political, social, economic, progress, dalit, public square, Radical Reformers, sixteenth century, Continental Europe, nineteenth century), England, intellectual, spiritual, the United States, Guptara
Sphere: Related Content
Friday, March 31, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Abraham Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" and the question of how much is "enough"
A reader responds to my piece on "enough":
"I am not completely convinced that "enough" is primarily related to contentment, philanthropy, spiritual, cultural, or economic factors. It seems to me that the concept of "enough" has several levels and that Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" serves as a good initial classification scheme. For all living entities, the satisfaction of primary physiological needs of the organism, enabling the maintenance of the normal homeorhettic processes of life, define the first level of "enough". The next level would then be the satisfaction of those additional physiological needs required to propagate the species, but not required for individual survival. The introduction of species survival adds the factor of time, in that "what is enough" changes with the (often implied) duration under consideration. Without at least the satisfaction of these primary, physiological needs, "enough" is meaningless, hence the satisfaction of these needs is, in mathematical parlance, necessary."
He goes on to say many other useful things, but I thought it might be worth discussing his point about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which, it seems to me, has been drilled into everyone who has studied any field connected with Psychology (and therefore shapes the thinking of most educated people who are either Westerners or Western-educated).
Maslow's first proposed the "Hierarchy" in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation. It posits that human nature first seeks to satisfy 'basic needs' before it seeks to satisfy successively 'higher needs': the four lower levels are grouped together as deficiency needs associated with the body. The lowest level is needs such as food and water, the next level is safety, then love or belonging, next esteem and finally what he called "self-actualisation" (which might also be called self-fulfilment). He called the higher levels growth needs as they are more associated with the mind or the psyche.
The "Heirarchy" has the advantage of intellectual elegance, and it certainly has some initial or superficial appeal.
However, anyone with any experience of the world, or even the willingness to reflect on the news headlines each day, will be aware, for example, that parents are often willing to go without food so that their children can be fed (which violates Maslow's point about his most basic level): something "higher" drives them to abandon their "most basic" needs. Similarly, people are often willing to sacrifice the level at which they live in terms of their physiological needs in order to live in a better house. Others are willing to sacrifice both their physiological needs and their housing needs in order to gain love or belonging (think of people who join gangs). Again, consider people who, for love, are even willing to give up their own lives (Dickens's novel, A Tale of Two Cities, springs to mind from the world of literature, in case readers have not come across this in their own experience). Similarly, anyone who has experienced the ghettoes of the West or life in Southern countries will know of millions of people who give up everything at "lower" levels in order to win esteem. You, dear reader, might want to reflect on whether you really eat "enough" or too much or too little – the psyche or mind clearly plays tricks with us even at our "most basic" level.
In other words, Maslow's theory suffers from the usual challenge that faces intellectuals: what is theoretically elegant and, on the face of it, plausible, is not necessarily the case in reality.
The fact is that humans are complex and contradictory. Who of us understands her or his own heart and motivations? How then can we accurately understand the hearts and motivations of others?
Let me tell you a story from my life. When I was around 12 years old, we lived in a tiny house along a little lane in the centre of Delhi. Our next door neighbour was a widow who earned an occasional living as a cleaning woman whenever she could find work. Dependent on her were her father-in-law and her two grown-up sons, none of whom seemed able to find work even as often as she did. The four members of that family had a total living space less than would be occupied by the bathroom in most middle-class families in the West. They usually slept in the lane outside their home: there was certainly not enough space inside, so they slept in the open, summer and winter. However, whenever my siblings and I returned from school, if my mother was absent (which was often the case, as she had to work to bring in the bread for our family, my father having died when I was eight), this neighbour, one of the poorest people in the world, would ask how we were doing at school and make sure that we were fed and watered till my mother returned - usually, five hours later. We were not rich enough to pay for this service and she would have been quite offended if we had attempted to compensate her in any way: she did this out of love for us, and indeed for everyone she came across.
You see why I think that the question of how much is "enough" is vitally connected to the question of how much we love others. Possibly, you see also why I was, and am, not impressed with Maslow's hierarchy.
This woman had learned to live not only within her ridiculously limited means, but learned to live so well within it that she was able to give away not only food and water but also affection. She certainly knew the meaning of "enough".
Maslow claimed deliberately to have studied ideal people such as Albert Einstein, and Eleanor Roosevelt, rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, on the basis that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy" (Motivation and Personality, 1987).
Possibly, Maslow might have come up with a more adequate description of human needs (especially from the viewpoint of our discussion of "enough") if he had widened his understanding of exemplary people to include folk such as my neighbour. By the way, there are millions of such people right across the world. Have you ever asked yourself why it is that people in the so-called "developing world", people with apparently NOTHING, are so often happy, whereas so many of the rich are so miserable? Has it ever struck you that world's highest rates of suicide are in the world's richest countries (Sweden, Switzerland, Japan and so on)?
In any case, I regard Maslow's Hierarchy not only as totally false, but also as quite perrnicious - it has now influenced for the worse the self-understanding and behaviour of the best-resourced and educated part humankind for something over half a century.
Is it possible that, if Maslow's theory had never been propounded, the level of philanthropy, charity, affection and joy might have been much greater in the world?
Abraham Maslow, Hierarchy of Needs, enough, wealth, poverty, contentment, philanthropy, spiritual, cultural, economic, classification scheme, physiological needs, satisfaction, Psychology, 1943, A Theory of Human Motivation,
self-actualisation, self-fulfilment, A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens, sacrifice, ghetto, (tagname), Motivation and Personality, Albert Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, cripple psychology, cripple philosophy, suicide, charity, joy, affection), Guptara) Sphere: Related Content
"I am not completely convinced that "enough" is primarily related to contentment, philanthropy, spiritual, cultural, or economic factors. It seems to me that the concept of "enough" has several levels and that Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" serves as a good initial classification scheme. For all living entities, the satisfaction of primary physiological needs of the organism, enabling the maintenance of the normal homeorhettic processes of life, define the first level of "enough". The next level would then be the satisfaction of those additional physiological needs required to propagate the species, but not required for individual survival. The introduction of species survival adds the factor of time, in that "what is enough" changes with the (often implied) duration under consideration. Without at least the satisfaction of these primary, physiological needs, "enough" is meaningless, hence the satisfaction of these needs is, in mathematical parlance, necessary."
He goes on to say many other useful things, but I thought it might be worth discussing his point about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which, it seems to me, has been drilled into everyone who has studied any field connected with Psychology (and therefore shapes the thinking of most educated people who are either Westerners or Western-educated).
Maslow's first proposed the "Hierarchy" in his 1943 paper A Theory of Human Motivation. It posits that human nature first seeks to satisfy 'basic needs' before it seeks to satisfy successively 'higher needs': the four lower levels are grouped together as deficiency needs associated with the body. The lowest level is needs such as food and water, the next level is safety, then love or belonging, next esteem and finally what he called "self-actualisation" (which might also be called self-fulfilment). He called the higher levels growth needs as they are more associated with the mind or the psyche.
The "Heirarchy" has the advantage of intellectual elegance, and it certainly has some initial or superficial appeal.
However, anyone with any experience of the world, or even the willingness to reflect on the news headlines each day, will be aware, for example, that parents are often willing to go without food so that their children can be fed (which violates Maslow's point about his most basic level): something "higher" drives them to abandon their "most basic" needs. Similarly, people are often willing to sacrifice the level at which they live in terms of their physiological needs in order to live in a better house. Others are willing to sacrifice both their physiological needs and their housing needs in order to gain love or belonging (think of people who join gangs). Again, consider people who, for love, are even willing to give up their own lives (Dickens's novel, A Tale of Two Cities, springs to mind from the world of literature, in case readers have not come across this in their own experience). Similarly, anyone who has experienced the ghettoes of the West or life in Southern countries will know of millions of people who give up everything at "lower" levels in order to win esteem. You, dear reader, might want to reflect on whether you really eat "enough" or too much or too little – the psyche or mind clearly plays tricks with us even at our "most basic" level.
In other words, Maslow's theory suffers from the usual challenge that faces intellectuals: what is theoretically elegant and, on the face of it, plausible, is not necessarily the case in reality.
The fact is that humans are complex and contradictory. Who of us understands her or his own heart and motivations? How then can we accurately understand the hearts and motivations of others?
Let me tell you a story from my life. When I was around 12 years old, we lived in a tiny house along a little lane in the centre of Delhi. Our next door neighbour was a widow who earned an occasional living as a cleaning woman whenever she could find work. Dependent on her were her father-in-law and her two grown-up sons, none of whom seemed able to find work even as often as she did. The four members of that family had a total living space less than would be occupied by the bathroom in most middle-class families in the West. They usually slept in the lane outside their home: there was certainly not enough space inside, so they slept in the open, summer and winter. However, whenever my siblings and I returned from school, if my mother was absent (which was often the case, as she had to work to bring in the bread for our family, my father having died when I was eight), this neighbour, one of the poorest people in the world, would ask how we were doing at school and make sure that we were fed and watered till my mother returned - usually, five hours later. We were not rich enough to pay for this service and she would have been quite offended if we had attempted to compensate her in any way: she did this out of love for us, and indeed for everyone she came across.
You see why I think that the question of how much is "enough" is vitally connected to the question of how much we love others. Possibly, you see also why I was, and am, not impressed with Maslow's hierarchy.
This woman had learned to live not only within her ridiculously limited means, but learned to live so well within it that she was able to give away not only food and water but also affection. She certainly knew the meaning of "enough".
Maslow claimed deliberately to have studied ideal people such as Albert Einstein, and Eleanor Roosevelt, rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, on the basis that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy" (Motivation and Personality, 1987).
Possibly, Maslow might have come up with a more adequate description of human needs (especially from the viewpoint of our discussion of "enough") if he had widened his understanding of exemplary people to include folk such as my neighbour. By the way, there are millions of such people right across the world. Have you ever asked yourself why it is that people in the so-called "developing world", people with apparently NOTHING, are so often happy, whereas so many of the rich are so miserable? Has it ever struck you that world's highest rates of suicide are in the world's richest countries (Sweden, Switzerland, Japan and so on)?
In any case, I regard Maslow's Hierarchy not only as totally false, but also as quite perrnicious - it has now influenced for the worse the self-understanding and behaviour of the best-resourced and educated part humankind for something over half a century.
Is it possible that, if Maslow's theory had never been propounded, the level of philanthropy, charity, affection and joy might have been much greater in the world?
Abraham Maslow, Hierarchy of Needs, enough, wealth, poverty, contentment, philanthropy, spiritual, cultural, economic, classification scheme, physiological needs, satisfaction, Psychology, 1943, A Theory of Human Motivation,
self-actualisation, self-fulfilment, A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens, sacrifice, ghetto, (tagname), Motivation and Personality, Albert Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, cripple psychology, cripple philosophy, suicide, charity, joy, affection), Guptara) Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, March 16, 2006
The Dalai Lama, Buddhism and Neuroscience
His Holiness the Dalai Lama recently addressed, amidst much controversy about the invitation to do so, the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience.
His remarks there raise important questions regarding Buddhism and science which need to be considered, in a scientific, in a historical, and then in a future-related context.
A. Science: His Holiness called for a dialogue between Buddhism and neuroscience, on the grounds that the two traditions have a lot to contribute to each other. For example, His Holiness points out that "the effects of mental training, such as simple mindfulness practice on a regular basis, or the deliberate cultivation of compassion as developed in Buddhism", brings about observable changes in the human brain correlated to positive measurable mental states. If so, this is of course to be welcomed. However, from a genuinely scientific point of view, the question should probably be posed differently: "Is the effect of such "mental training" any different from that of prayer in other world religions, or secular singing, or any enjoyable form of aesthetic or even physical exercise? If so, how?". In declining to raise such genuinely scientific questions, His Holiness's address descends to the level of mere propaganda on behalf of Buddhism. By contrast, a call for a dialogue between neuroscience, psychology, and what we might call the different aesthetic and spiritual traditions around the world, would have been very welcome.
B. History: One of the reasons that Alexander the Great wished to conquer India was because he wanted to meet the famous "gymnosophists" (yogis) of India at the Buddhist universities of Taxila and Nalanda. That is why Alexander brought with him not only soldiers and generals but also historians, doctors, philosophers and so on. The interaction between the Greek world and the Buddhist world resulted in the Indo-Bactrian Kingdoms, on which so much knowledge is now available, not least from art historians in terms of the Gandhara School of Art (which produced the distinctive Buddhas that are so famous today – including those that were blown up by the Taliban in Bamiyan). In contemporary India, the still-living mark of that interaction is the Yunani (Ionian) School of Medicine, which is officially recognised and patronised. To my knowledge, India is the only country in the world which is still sponsors research into the old Greek systems of medicine. No other country does so, not even Greece, so far as I know.
So the interesting question is "Why did Buddhism, with its world-renowned universities, not only fail to give birth to modern science but why has Buddhism remained, in those countries where it has the majority, so resistant to scientific thought and civilisational progress?"
The full answer may be difficult to find. However, I suggest, inter alia, the following:
B1. For Buddhism, this world is not only unimportant, it is an illusion and a distraction from one's "real calling and purpose" which is to escape the trammels of this illusory world. The most intelligent and sensitive Buddhists have always therefore been focused on trying to escape the world, while providing some emotional and spiritual guidance to lesser mortals ("ordinary people") who are, for whatever, uninclined or unable to pursue their "real calling". This is of course very similar to the notion of monkhood and priesthood in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which appear to have borrowed these notions from Eastern religious traditions, even though there is nothing to justify such ideas in the Bible, as the Protestant Reformers (magisterial and radical alike) demonstrated.
B2. Similarly, one's sense that one is a "person" ("I")is essential to human development in the whole understanding of Western psychology and neuroscience as a result of the Reformation. However, this sense of being a person is for Buddhism an illusion, from which one's highest calling is to escape. Such an orientation has not provided, and does not provide, any motivation or basis for individual excellence in relation to things of this earth, whether athletics or aesthetics, cuisine or community affairs, business or politics – as can be seen in any Buddhist-majority country throughout history right up to today.
BTW, it is probably worth observing that, unlike Buddhism, science does accept as fundamental that there is a real world which can be observed, however much it might be influenced by the process of observation, and that there is a real "I" doing the observing.
It is not surprising, then, that Buddhism played, eventually, a negative role in terms of preserving (let alone developing) the pre-Buddhist Indian understandings of medicine, sanitation, town-planning and so on. In fact, the civilisational decline of India from say the 1st century BC to the time of the development of what we today call Hinduism (say the sixth century AD) is at least partly due to the influence of Buddhism (and the related but different religious movement called Jainism) – even though both movements made various highly important positive contributions to which I have drawn attention in my little booklet, Indian Spirituality (Grove Books, Nottingham, 1984, but now out of print and available for free download from my website: www.prabhu.guptara.net). The main culprit for that civilisational decline, however, was the peculiar and repulsive movement known as Tantra, which developed as a reaction to Buddhist rationality, but as a result also of Buddhism's emphasis on experience. As Buddhism had no reason to reject Tantra, it eventually ended up accepting Tantra, with all its deleterious consequences for individuals and society.
C. The future: His Holiness's remarks raise the question of whether the Buddhist categories of "compassion, tolerance, a sense of caring, consideration of others, and the responsible use of knowledge and power" are sufficient to provide an ethical basis for science. I will collapse all those terms into "compassion", though of course we could take each of those terms and use them for similar analysis as that which follows, though these are merely first thoughts:
C1. As there is no adequate or sufficiently precise definition of "compassion" in Buddhism or in ordinary English, it might be as "compassionate" to prolong the life of a "terminally-ill" person, as it might be to end it (so the notion of "compassion" provides no substantial guidance to dilemmas posed regarding euthanasia)
C2. Similarly, "compassion" provides no guidance at the other end of life, in relation to the question of abortion – is it the life of the foetus that should be the object of "compassion" (so abortion should be banned?) or is it the feelings of the mother that should be the focus of our compassion (so abortion should be permitted and perhaps even encouraged in certain cases?)
C3. One can go on to discuss other specific examples of modern ethical dilemmas in relation to science (e.g. cloning), but we should perhaps consider more overarching issues, such as whether the notion of "compassion" provides any basis on which to decide whether, and if so at what scale, to continue to fund the kinds of scientific research which take up an overwhelming proportion of the money spent on scientific research at present – which we might describe as "science for the rich". A simple illustration is the amount of money spent on researching the diseases of the rich versus the amount of money spent on researching the diseases of the poor. Again, from a "compassionate" point of view, is nuclear research justified? At what scale? Is space research justified? If so, at what scale? And so on. Such questions have historically been, and continue to be, outside the frame of reference of Buddhism.
In other words, "compassion" is good and necessary, but it is insufficient to tackle the complex issues (or are they really very simple issues?) of modern society.
So it may not be merely Buddhist cosmology that needs to be modified in order to provide a basis for living in the modern world, as was argued by His Holiness at the Annual Meeting, but it may be the entirety of Buddhism that needs to be brought in line with Jewish and Christian understandings, for example of "holiness", "personhood" and "reality".
India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, once said that he was a "Hindu by birth, a Buddhist by philosophy, a Muslim by culture, and a Christian by ethics". He said this because the first was a fact, but the rest represented, in his view, the best in India. I would only slightly modify that: Buddhism knows more about psychology, but Jainism has a more consistent philosophy.
In any case, the above may perhaps go some way to explaining why I am not a Buddhist, though I retain the highest respect for His Holiness as a Head of State, as a religious leader, and indeed as a person for all his work and his many contributions to modern society.
Dalai Lama, Buddhism, Neuroscience, India, Jainism, Buddhist, psychology, philosophy, controversy, annual meeting, Society for Neuroscience, science, scientific, historical, future, dialogue, tradition, mental training, mindfulness, compassion, brain, href="http://technorati.com/tag/measurable" rel="tag" target="_blank">measurable, mental state, prayer,
world religions, secular, singing, aesthetic, physical, exercise, propaganda, Alexander the Great, soldiers, generals, gymnosophists, yogi, Taxila, Nalanda, doctor, Indo-Bactrian, Gandhara, Art, Taliban, Bamiyan, Yunani, Ionian, Greek, illusion, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Christianity, Protestant, Reformers, radical, Magisterial, person, personhood, athletics, cuisine, community affairs, business, politics, sanitation, town-planning, Hinduism, Indian Spirituality, Grove Books, Nottingham, (tagname), Tantra, rationality, experience, euthanasia, abortion, foetus, ethical dilemmas, cloning, science for the rich, nuclear research, space research, Buddhist cosmology, Jewish, holiness, Jawaharlal Nehru, Guptara) Sphere: Related Content
His remarks there raise important questions regarding Buddhism and science which need to be considered, in a scientific, in a historical, and then in a future-related context.
A. Science: His Holiness called for a dialogue between Buddhism and neuroscience, on the grounds that the two traditions have a lot to contribute to each other. For example, His Holiness points out that "the effects of mental training, such as simple mindfulness practice on a regular basis, or the deliberate cultivation of compassion as developed in Buddhism", brings about observable changes in the human brain correlated to positive measurable mental states. If so, this is of course to be welcomed. However, from a genuinely scientific point of view, the question should probably be posed differently: "Is the effect of such "mental training" any different from that of prayer in other world religions, or secular singing, or any enjoyable form of aesthetic or even physical exercise? If so, how?". In declining to raise such genuinely scientific questions, His Holiness's address descends to the level of mere propaganda on behalf of Buddhism. By contrast, a call for a dialogue between neuroscience, psychology, and what we might call the different aesthetic and spiritual traditions around the world, would have been very welcome.
B. History: One of the reasons that Alexander the Great wished to conquer India was because he wanted to meet the famous "gymnosophists" (yogis) of India at the Buddhist universities of Taxila and Nalanda. That is why Alexander brought with him not only soldiers and generals but also historians, doctors, philosophers and so on. The interaction between the Greek world and the Buddhist world resulted in the Indo-Bactrian Kingdoms, on which so much knowledge is now available, not least from art historians in terms of the Gandhara School of Art (which produced the distinctive Buddhas that are so famous today – including those that were blown up by the Taliban in Bamiyan). In contemporary India, the still-living mark of that interaction is the Yunani (Ionian) School of Medicine, which is officially recognised and patronised. To my knowledge, India is the only country in the world which is still sponsors research into the old Greek systems of medicine. No other country does so, not even Greece, so far as I know.
So the interesting question is "Why did Buddhism, with its world-renowned universities, not only fail to give birth to modern science but why has Buddhism remained, in those countries where it has the majority, so resistant to scientific thought and civilisational progress?"
The full answer may be difficult to find. However, I suggest, inter alia, the following:
B1. For Buddhism, this world is not only unimportant, it is an illusion and a distraction from one's "real calling and purpose" which is to escape the trammels of this illusory world. The most intelligent and sensitive Buddhists have always therefore been focused on trying to escape the world, while providing some emotional and spiritual guidance to lesser mortals ("ordinary people") who are, for whatever, uninclined or unable to pursue their "real calling". This is of course very similar to the notion of monkhood and priesthood in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, which appear to have borrowed these notions from Eastern religious traditions, even though there is nothing to justify such ideas in the Bible, as the Protestant Reformers (magisterial and radical alike) demonstrated.
B2. Similarly, one's sense that one is a "person" ("I")is essential to human development in the whole understanding of Western psychology and neuroscience as a result of the Reformation. However, this sense of being a person is for Buddhism an illusion, from which one's highest calling is to escape. Such an orientation has not provided, and does not provide, any motivation or basis for individual excellence in relation to things of this earth, whether athletics or aesthetics, cuisine or community affairs, business or politics – as can be seen in any Buddhist-majority country throughout history right up to today.
BTW, it is probably worth observing that, unlike Buddhism, science does accept as fundamental that there is a real world which can be observed, however much it might be influenced by the process of observation, and that there is a real "I" doing the observing.
It is not surprising, then, that Buddhism played, eventually, a negative role in terms of preserving (let alone developing) the pre-Buddhist Indian understandings of medicine, sanitation, town-planning and so on. In fact, the civilisational decline of India from say the 1st century BC to the time of the development of what we today call Hinduism (say the sixth century AD) is at least partly due to the influence of Buddhism (and the related but different religious movement called Jainism) – even though both movements made various highly important positive contributions to which I have drawn attention in my little booklet, Indian Spirituality (Grove Books, Nottingham, 1984, but now out of print and available for free download from my website: www.prabhu.guptara.net). The main culprit for that civilisational decline, however, was the peculiar and repulsive movement known as Tantra, which developed as a reaction to Buddhist rationality, but as a result also of Buddhism's emphasis on experience. As Buddhism had no reason to reject Tantra, it eventually ended up accepting Tantra, with all its deleterious consequences for individuals and society.
C. The future: His Holiness's remarks raise the question of whether the Buddhist categories of "compassion, tolerance, a sense of caring, consideration of others, and the responsible use of knowledge and power" are sufficient to provide an ethical basis for science. I will collapse all those terms into "compassion", though of course we could take each of those terms and use them for similar analysis as that which follows, though these are merely first thoughts:
C1. As there is no adequate or sufficiently precise definition of "compassion" in Buddhism or in ordinary English, it might be as "compassionate" to prolong the life of a "terminally-ill" person, as it might be to end it (so the notion of "compassion" provides no substantial guidance to dilemmas posed regarding euthanasia)
C2. Similarly, "compassion" provides no guidance at the other end of life, in relation to the question of abortion – is it the life of the foetus that should be the object of "compassion" (so abortion should be banned?) or is it the feelings of the mother that should be the focus of our compassion (so abortion should be permitted and perhaps even encouraged in certain cases?)
C3. One can go on to discuss other specific examples of modern ethical dilemmas in relation to science (e.g. cloning), but we should perhaps consider more overarching issues, such as whether the notion of "compassion" provides any basis on which to decide whether, and if so at what scale, to continue to fund the kinds of scientific research which take up an overwhelming proportion of the money spent on scientific research at present – which we might describe as "science for the rich". A simple illustration is the amount of money spent on researching the diseases of the rich versus the amount of money spent on researching the diseases of the poor. Again, from a "compassionate" point of view, is nuclear research justified? At what scale? Is space research justified? If so, at what scale? And so on. Such questions have historically been, and continue to be, outside the frame of reference of Buddhism.
In other words, "compassion" is good and necessary, but it is insufficient to tackle the complex issues (or are they really very simple issues?) of modern society.
So it may not be merely Buddhist cosmology that needs to be modified in order to provide a basis for living in the modern world, as was argued by His Holiness at the Annual Meeting, but it may be the entirety of Buddhism that needs to be brought in line with Jewish and Christian understandings, for example of "holiness", "personhood" and "reality".
India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, once said that he was a "Hindu by birth, a Buddhist by philosophy, a Muslim by culture, and a Christian by ethics". He said this because the first was a fact, but the rest represented, in his view, the best in India. I would only slightly modify that: Buddhism knows more about psychology, but Jainism has a more consistent philosophy.
In any case, the above may perhaps go some way to explaining why I am not a Buddhist, though I retain the highest respect for His Holiness as a Head of State, as a religious leader, and indeed as a person for all his work and his many contributions to modern society.
Dalai Lama, Buddhism, Neuroscience, India, Jainism, Buddhist, psychology, philosophy, controversy, annual meeting, Society for Neuroscience, science, scientific, historical, future, dialogue, tradition, mental training, mindfulness, compassion, brain, href="http://technorati.com/tag/measurable" rel="tag" target="_blank">measurable, mental state, prayer,
world religions, secular, singing, aesthetic, physical, exercise, propaganda, Alexander the Great, soldiers, generals, gymnosophists, yogi, Taxila, Nalanda, doctor, Indo-Bactrian, Gandhara, Art, Taliban, Bamiyan, Yunani, Ionian, Greek, illusion, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Christianity, Protestant, Reformers, radical, Magisterial, person, personhood, athletics, cuisine, community affairs, business, politics, sanitation, town-planning, Hinduism, Indian Spirituality, Grove Books, Nottingham, (tagname), Tantra, rationality, experience, euthanasia, abortion, foetus, ethical dilemmas, cloning, science for the rich, nuclear research, space research, Buddhist cosmology, Jewish, holiness, Jawaharlal Nehru, Guptara) Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Too soft on the Anti-Cartoonists?
Danish PM Rasmussen recently attacked people in the media, business and society for not having provided him with sufficient support during the "Cartoons Crisis". He charged them with being hypocrites, obsessed with profits, and even with being "unprincipled". Dismissing protests against him as "hatred" towards his government, he compared the situation at present to intolerance during the Nazi occupation.
By contrast, some Danish business leaders are outraged by Rasmussen's tirades and suggest that he has "lost touch with reality". Cabinet members, including Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard and Defense Minister Soren Gade, have publicly distanced themselves from Rasmussen. Friends within his party, as well as his government's conservative coalition partner have warned him against using "unecessarily strong rhetoric" and "stoking a domestic political crisis". The leader of Denmark's opposition Social Liberal party, Marianne Jelved, called Rassmussen "arrogant, dangerous and holier than thou."
So who is right: Rasmussen or his critics? And why is Rasmussen continuing down his colourful path?
Possibly because he really believes in democracy. But it can't have escaped his attention that support for the right-wing Danish People's Party has gone up from 13.3 per cent at the time of last year's general election, to 18.2% according to a recent poll. In the Danish context, that's a Himalayan upsurge of support for a party that is just about as virulently anti-immigrant and Islamophobic as it is possible to be among the normally remarkably mild-mannered Danes.
So I conclude that the Muslim furore over the cartoons has enormously strengthened the hand of the right wing which is anti-immigrant and Islamophobic.
I haven't seen the results for other countries, but we should not be surprised if the reaction is the same around the world.
The result is that it is much more difficult to be genuinely liberal today (as distinct from being merely an appeaser) than it was before Fatwas started being issued against supposed blasphemers such as Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists.
So much for the crazy antics of certain Muslim politicians who are trying to bolster their own base by pretending to their followers that they can get the West to live by Shariah rules if they boycott European businesses, burn Western flags and declare "War on Denmark".
Talk about unintended consequences!
cartoon, Anti-Cartoonists, Islam, Muslim, European, Danish, Rasmussen, Cartoons Crisis, (tagname), Environment Minister, Connie Hedegaard, Defense Minister, Soren Gade, Social Liberal Party, Marianne Jelved, democracy, freedom of speech, Danish People's Party, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, liberal, Fatwa, blasphemers, blasphemy, Salman Rushdie, Shariah, war on Denmark, Guptara Sphere: Related Content
By contrast, some Danish business leaders are outraged by Rasmussen's tirades and suggest that he has "lost touch with reality". Cabinet members, including Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard and Defense Minister Soren Gade, have publicly distanced themselves from Rasmussen. Friends within his party, as well as his government's conservative coalition partner have warned him against using "unecessarily strong rhetoric" and "stoking a domestic political crisis". The leader of Denmark's opposition Social Liberal party, Marianne Jelved, called Rassmussen "arrogant, dangerous and holier than thou."
So who is right: Rasmussen or his critics? And why is Rasmussen continuing down his colourful path?
Possibly because he really believes in democracy. But it can't have escaped his attention that support for the right-wing Danish People's Party has gone up from 13.3 per cent at the time of last year's general election, to 18.2% according to a recent poll. In the Danish context, that's a Himalayan upsurge of support for a party that is just about as virulently anti-immigrant and Islamophobic as it is possible to be among the normally remarkably mild-mannered Danes.
So I conclude that the Muslim furore over the cartoons has enormously strengthened the hand of the right wing which is anti-immigrant and Islamophobic.
I haven't seen the results for other countries, but we should not be surprised if the reaction is the same around the world.
The result is that it is much more difficult to be genuinely liberal today (as distinct from being merely an appeaser) than it was before Fatwas started being issued against supposed blasphemers such as Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists.
So much for the crazy antics of certain Muslim politicians who are trying to bolster their own base by pretending to their followers that they can get the West to live by Shariah rules if they boycott European businesses, burn Western flags and declare "War on Denmark".
Talk about unintended consequences!
cartoon, Anti-Cartoonists, Islam, Muslim, European, Danish, Rasmussen, Cartoons Crisis, (tagname), Environment Minister, Connie Hedegaard, Defense Minister, Soren Gade, Social Liberal Party, Marianne Jelved, democracy, freedom of speech, Danish People's Party, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, liberal, Fatwa, blasphemers, blasphemy, Salman Rushdie, Shariah, war on Denmark, Guptara Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Micro-lending in Practice: Usury; Property Rights, Culture and Responsibility
A friend from a Northern country writes:
"I am likely going to the ABC Republic in the summer and we will be talking with people about Micro Enterprise Development. I’ve been thinking about your comments on usury. Micro lending could fall in that category! What is the alternative? It seems to me one is trying to get them to gain ownership of the business, and our taking a stake in that business might be counter productive? Any thoughts you may have?"
My reply:
On financing without usury: an interest-free loan is fine, a grant is fine (to a group, so that they can recycle the money between themselves and grow it through productive enterprise). Also fine, as you suggest, is your folks actually taking a stake in the local businesses – which could be counter-productive if your stake is too large. But if it is less than 50%, and if you continue to support the business with skills, expertise, contacts... then that could be very beneficial. Naturally, you don't want the local folk to feel that it is "your" business, and the level of involvement that is appropriate for your team depends on their skills/availability, but it depends much more on the local culture (as that determines whether they feel it IS "their" business)
________________________________________
His response:
Thanks, Prabhu. The challenge, as I understand it, is to even do an interest free loan in the area we are going because there is no sense of the responsibility to pay it back. I have lots of reading to do before the trip, but am looking forward to it, Lord Willing. Where we are going is very primitive,….
I replied:
I know these sorts of situations well from my own experience in India.
Usually, the sense of responsibility is lacking for 2 reasons:
(1) because the immediate needs for survival are so great that people
cannot think any further than that, and
(2) because there is an inappropriate sense of responsiblities – e.g. responsibilities to relatives and friends come before responsibilities to strangers, even though the strangers are actually giving them money and the relatives are, parasite-like, taking money….
Logically speaking, (1) needs to be addressed before (2)…. but in fact the two are tied together....as long as poor people don't save and invest productively they will never come out of the poverty trap…
What seems absolutely obvious to you and me, brought up as we are in a culture that was built by the Bible (even though people may choose to reject it), is basic notions such as the right to earning, buying and using property, and keeping your word (all this is of course declining, as the culture decays, as it must do if the Bible is rejected)….
In any case, before the money will make any difference in practice, they need instruction on what the Bible teaches about property rights, about keeping your word, about breaking with the negative aspects of the current culture while preserving the positive aspects of the current culture, and so on.
People don't have to be followers of Jesus to do this, and not all Christians are good at such things: In Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries, for example (not to speak of Hindu, Buddhist and tribal societies), there was till recently very little sense of everybody's obligation to work, of the duty to save and to apply resources wisely, of creative hospitality and philanthropy but not to people who don't deserve it if they are lazy or spendthrift. By contrast, the resurgence of Japan from the middle of the 18th century, and specially after World War II, and the current resurgence of China, is testimony to the fact that any society can put at least some Biblical principles into practice and prosper….
best
p
micro-lending, usury, property rights, Micro Enterprise Development, responsibility, paying back, survival, invest, culture, followers of Jesus, Christian, development, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Hindu, Buddhist, tribal, hospitality, (tagname), 18th century, Biblical, China, Guptara Sphere: Related Content
"I am likely going to the ABC Republic in the summer and we will be talking with people about Micro Enterprise Development. I’ve been thinking about your comments on usury. Micro lending could fall in that category! What is the alternative? It seems to me one is trying to get them to gain ownership of the business, and our taking a stake in that business might be counter productive? Any thoughts you may have?"
My reply:
On financing without usury: an interest-free loan is fine, a grant is fine (to a group, so that they can recycle the money between themselves and grow it through productive enterprise). Also fine, as you suggest, is your folks actually taking a stake in the local businesses – which could be counter-productive if your stake is too large. But if it is less than 50%, and if you continue to support the business with skills, expertise, contacts... then that could be very beneficial. Naturally, you don't want the local folk to feel that it is "your" business, and the level of involvement that is appropriate for your team depends on their skills/availability, but it depends much more on the local culture (as that determines whether they feel it IS "their" business)
________________________________________
His response:
Thanks, Prabhu. The challenge, as I understand it, is to even do an interest free loan in the area we are going because there is no sense of the responsibility to pay it back. I have lots of reading to do before the trip, but am looking forward to it, Lord Willing. Where we are going is very primitive,….
I replied:
I know these sorts of situations well from my own experience in India.
Usually, the sense of responsibility is lacking for 2 reasons:
(1) because the immediate needs for survival are so great that people
cannot think any further than that, and
(2) because there is an inappropriate sense of responsiblities – e.g. responsibilities to relatives and friends come before responsibilities to strangers, even though the strangers are actually giving them money and the relatives are, parasite-like, taking money….
Logically speaking, (1) needs to be addressed before (2)…. but in fact the two are tied together....as long as poor people don't save and invest productively they will never come out of the poverty trap…
What seems absolutely obvious to you and me, brought up as we are in a culture that was built by the Bible (even though people may choose to reject it), is basic notions such as the right to earning, buying and using property, and keeping your word (all this is of course declining, as the culture decays, as it must do if the Bible is rejected)….
In any case, before the money will make any difference in practice, they need instruction on what the Bible teaches about property rights, about keeping your word, about breaking with the negative aspects of the current culture while preserving the positive aspects of the current culture, and so on.
People don't have to be followers of Jesus to do this, and not all Christians are good at such things: In Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox countries, for example (not to speak of Hindu, Buddhist and tribal societies), there was till recently very little sense of everybody's obligation to work, of the duty to save and to apply resources wisely, of creative hospitality and philanthropy but not to people who don't deserve it if they are lazy or spendthrift. By contrast, the resurgence of Japan from the middle of the 18th century, and specially after World War II, and the current resurgence of China, is testimony to the fact that any society can put at least some Biblical principles into practice and prosper….
best
p
micro-lending, usury, property rights, Micro Enterprise Development, responsibility, paying back, survival, invest, culture, followers of Jesus, Christian, development, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Hindu, Buddhist, tribal, hospitality, (tagname), 18th century, Biblical, China, Guptara Sphere: Related Content
Monday, February 27, 2006
How much is "enough"?
Having listened to me on PBS, a listener wrote:
"I am an Educator, of Young Adults and of Parents, helping families to teach a responsible relationship with money. I was grateful to listen to your ideas on the Feb 26 broadcast in the series "Speaking of Faith"; you speak with clarity and insight. Where can I learn more, particularly expanding on your mention of 'Enough'?"
My reply:
"Enough" is as difficult to measure or define as is "poverty".
Here are some preliminary thoughts:
The concept of "enough" is essentially related to CONTENTMENT and PHILANTHROPY - and those are driven by a load of spiritual, cultural, economic and physical factors.
Let's start with the economic/physical ones as these are the easiest to relate to:
1. "Enough" for a poor person is obviously different from what might be "enough" for a rich person (whatever may be the definition of "poor" and "rich" in any particular society)
2. "Enough" is obviously dependent to a certain extent on whether one has dependents (parents, spouse, kids...)
3. "Enough" is obviously related to a certain extent on one's state of health
4. "Enough" is obviously tied to one's metabolic rate (people who are highly active, mentally and/or physically, need more calories!)
5. "Enough" is obviously dependent to a certain extent on one's physical characteristics (a tall, heavily-built person usually needs more food compared to a short and slightly-built person, allowing for the metabolic rate, hormonal imbalances, and so on)
6. "Enough" for poor person "A" may be different from "enough" for poor person "B", depending on whether and what sort of roof/ clothes/ job s/he already has
7. "Enough" for rich person "X" may be different from "enough" for rich person "Y", depending on their social and professional and business responsibilities – e.g. some people are required by their job or social roles to have a bigger house then they would really wish to have, as the wining and dining of guests may be part of their job. Other people may like to have a larger home because they enjoy offering hospitality to friends, relatives and strangers.
8. All the research shows that, for most people (whether rich or poor), "enough" is about 10% more than they have currently!
Spiritual/cultural factors clearly influence one's concept of enough:
A. Most pre-modern cultures (i.e. pre-Reformation ones) emphasised being comfortable with the socio-political status quo, so the perception of what was "enough" was naturally influenced by the level of prosperity of any particular society (in addition to considerations 1-7 above)
B. Reformed or "Modern" cultures (starting with the European and American, but then spreading through globalisation to many other parts of the world), both democratised individual ambition and made rapid progress possible, and insisted that, because wealth is a gift from God, it has to be used responsibly as humans have to give account to God someday of how they have spent their life and resources. As modernity spread through other parts of the world, it planted some seeds of discontent with the status quo there, by enabling people to see that it is possible to have a higher level of income and quality of life, if one adopts specific values/ attitudes/ practices. However, modernity added, to the cultural norms that existed in these areas (regarding care for family and the immediate community, some seeds regarding "responsibility" so that, as the older cultural norms faded, in most cases, these were replaced at least to a certain extent by the Protestant concept of "responsibility". The difference between the Protestant view of "responsibility" and the pre-Protestant view is basically that the pre-Protestant focused on care for family and immediate community. The Protestant version looked well beyond it, so that at least 10% of one's income has to be given away to people who should not normally expect any help from you – this derives of course from Jesus' teaching in answer to the famous question "And who is my neighbour?".
C. Post-modern cultures may be considered to have started around the 1980s with the re-emergence of the notion of the lack of objective truth. Post-modern culture is at present confined to the intellectual elite levels (e.g. university professors, post-grads, and artists) but is rapidly spreading into the rest of the population. Post-modern attitudes split into two:
(a) "if you have it, flaunt it", and
(b) "I only have it because of luck, and I should be responsible in my use of wealth" (though people who hold the latter have, in light of their own worldview, no one to be responsible to, and no particular reason to be "responsible", beyond parental/cultural conditioning; they therefore have very little to say, objectively, to anyone who takes view (a) – because people who take view (a) presumably take it because of THEIR parental/cultural conditioning).
Implications for today:
Whatever the history and the reasons, people in developed countries (such as the USA) who wish to take seriously the concept of "enough" today, may wish to ask themselves the following questions:
i. Can I be considered to have internalised the concept of "enough" if I don't give away at least 10% of my income? (NOTE: in the past, really rich people have given away up to 99% of their income – e.g. the Barclay, Rowntree and Cadbury families in the UK, and families such as Colgate and Palmolive in the USA..... There is one such person who I know personally – though only a little! ).
ii. Are the goods in my house, the size of my house, the quality of my house, the location of my house, the holidays that I take, the car that I drive (you can extend the list for yourself) at the same level as they are for those who are earning what I am earning? How can I live on less than I do live on, so that I can give away more than I do? (of course, in some matters you may want to have MORE than the average for your income-level because you want to share them with others – but beware! the human heart is highly deceptive and many people use this argument to have, say, a large house, but rarely do the sharing!)
So here's my summary: If you have three square meals a day, two pairs of clothes and some sort of roof over your head, what is "enough" is a matter of what is going on in your head and your heart.
Perhaps this will become clearer if you will allow me to conclude by telling you a short story. There was a time when we were relatively poor and living in a rather small house. A relative came to visit and, at the end of his visit that evening, I expressed my ambivalence about the visit as it had been lovely to see him but the visit had been rather short. My child innocently asked me "But, Taji (that's what the children call me), if he had wanted to stay, where would we have put him up?". My answer was the simple and traditional answer: "Dearest one, if there is space in your heart there will always be enough space in your home, however small the house may be. But if you don't have space in your heart, then there will never be enough space in your home, however large the house may be".
BTW, if you don't know the Tolstoy story, "How much land does a man need?", it is a riveting exploration of exactly the same subject, and far easier to use in teaching!
Warm regards, prayers and blessings for your important work
Prabhu
Tolstoy, enough, money, contentment, philanthropy, spiritual, cultural, economic,
physical, poor, rich, pre-modern culture, pre-Reformation, prosperity, Reformed, Modern, Post-Modern, Jesus, intellectual elite, Guptara Sphere: Related Content
"I am an Educator, of Young Adults and of Parents, helping families to teach a responsible relationship with money. I was grateful to listen to your ideas on the Feb 26 broadcast in the series "Speaking of Faith"; you speak with clarity and insight. Where can I learn more, particularly expanding on your mention of 'Enough'?"
My reply:
"Enough" is as difficult to measure or define as is "poverty".
Here are some preliminary thoughts:
The concept of "enough" is essentially related to CONTENTMENT and PHILANTHROPY - and those are driven by a load of spiritual, cultural, economic and physical factors.
Let's start with the economic/physical ones as these are the easiest to relate to:
1. "Enough" for a poor person is obviously different from what might be "enough" for a rich person (whatever may be the definition of "poor" and "rich" in any particular society)
2. "Enough" is obviously dependent to a certain extent on whether one has dependents (parents, spouse, kids...)
3. "Enough" is obviously related to a certain extent on one's state of health
4. "Enough" is obviously tied to one's metabolic rate (people who are highly active, mentally and/or physically, need more calories!)
5. "Enough" is obviously dependent to a certain extent on one's physical characteristics (a tall, heavily-built person usually needs more food compared to a short and slightly-built person, allowing for the metabolic rate, hormonal imbalances, and so on)
6. "Enough" for poor person "A" may be different from "enough" for poor person "B", depending on whether and what sort of roof/ clothes/ job s/he already has
7. "Enough" for rich person "X" may be different from "enough" for rich person "Y", depending on their social and professional and business responsibilities – e.g. some people are required by their job or social roles to have a bigger house then they would really wish to have, as the wining and dining of guests may be part of their job. Other people may like to have a larger home because they enjoy offering hospitality to friends, relatives and strangers.
8. All the research shows that, for most people (whether rich or poor), "enough" is about 10% more than they have currently!
Spiritual/cultural factors clearly influence one's concept of enough:
A. Most pre-modern cultures (i.e. pre-Reformation ones) emphasised being comfortable with the socio-political status quo, so the perception of what was "enough" was naturally influenced by the level of prosperity of any particular society (in addition to considerations 1-7 above)
B. Reformed or "Modern" cultures (starting with the European and American, but then spreading through globalisation to many other parts of the world), both democratised individual ambition and made rapid progress possible, and insisted that, because wealth is a gift from God, it has to be used responsibly as humans have to give account to God someday of how they have spent their life and resources. As modernity spread through other parts of the world, it planted some seeds of discontent with the status quo there, by enabling people to see that it is possible to have a higher level of income and quality of life, if one adopts specific values/ attitudes/ practices. However, modernity added, to the cultural norms that existed in these areas (regarding care for family and the immediate community, some seeds regarding "responsibility" so that, as the older cultural norms faded, in most cases, these were replaced at least to a certain extent by the Protestant concept of "responsibility". The difference between the Protestant view of "responsibility" and the pre-Protestant view is basically that the pre-Protestant focused on care for family and immediate community. The Protestant version looked well beyond it, so that at least 10% of one's income has to be given away to people who should not normally expect any help from you – this derives of course from Jesus' teaching in answer to the famous question "And who is my neighbour?".
C. Post-modern cultures may be considered to have started around the 1980s with the re-emergence of the notion of the lack of objective truth. Post-modern culture is at present confined to the intellectual elite levels (e.g. university professors, post-grads, and artists) but is rapidly spreading into the rest of the population. Post-modern attitudes split into two:
(a) "if you have it, flaunt it", and
(b) "I only have it because of luck, and I should be responsible in my use of wealth" (though people who hold the latter have, in light of their own worldview, no one to be responsible to, and no particular reason to be "responsible", beyond parental/cultural conditioning; they therefore have very little to say, objectively, to anyone who takes view (a) – because people who take view (a) presumably take it because of THEIR parental/cultural conditioning).
Implications for today:
Whatever the history and the reasons, people in developed countries (such as the USA) who wish to take seriously the concept of "enough" today, may wish to ask themselves the following questions:
i. Can I be considered to have internalised the concept of "enough" if I don't give away at least 10% of my income? (NOTE: in the past, really rich people have given away up to 99% of their income – e.g. the Barclay, Rowntree and Cadbury families in the UK, and families such as Colgate and Palmolive in the USA..... There is one such person who I know personally – though only a little! ).
ii. Are the goods in my house, the size of my house, the quality of my house, the location of my house, the holidays that I take, the car that I drive (you can extend the list for yourself) at the same level as they are for those who are earning what I am earning? How can I live on less than I do live on, so that I can give away more than I do? (of course, in some matters you may want to have MORE than the average for your income-level because you want to share them with others – but beware! the human heart is highly deceptive and many people use this argument to have, say, a large house, but rarely do the sharing!)
So here's my summary: If you have three square meals a day, two pairs of clothes and some sort of roof over your head, what is "enough" is a matter of what is going on in your head and your heart.
Perhaps this will become clearer if you will allow me to conclude by telling you a short story. There was a time when we were relatively poor and living in a rather small house. A relative came to visit and, at the end of his visit that evening, I expressed my ambivalence about the visit as it had been lovely to see him but the visit had been rather short. My child innocently asked me "But, Taji (that's what the children call me), if he had wanted to stay, where would we have put him up?". My answer was the simple and traditional answer: "Dearest one, if there is space in your heart there will always be enough space in your home, however small the house may be. But if you don't have space in your heart, then there will never be enough space in your home, however large the house may be".
BTW, if you don't know the Tolstoy story, "How much land does a man need?", it is a riveting exploration of exactly the same subject, and far easier to use in teaching!
Warm regards, prayers and blessings for your important work
Prabhu
Tolstoy, enough, money, contentment, philanthropy, spiritual, cultural, economic,
physical, poor, rich, pre-modern culture, pre-Reformation, prosperity, Reformed, Modern, Post-Modern, Jesus, intellectual elite, Guptara Sphere: Related Content
Monday, February 20, 2006
Disruptive Innovations and Technologies
There is a fascinating discussion taking place on a particular list, which prompts the following thoughts:
Every new technology is disruptive, though some new technologies are more disruptive than others
The degree to which any particular technology is disruptive depends not only on its inherent disruptiveness (technologically and socially) but also on the degree to which it is allowed to develop its own momentum in the marketplace
Today, the technologies that are being released into society are more and more disruptive – e.g. in nano, bio, info, and robotics.
The world is divided between those who are blithely ignorant about the potential impact of these technologies, and those who are aware of it.
Those who are aware are divided between unfettered market-believers who think that all new technologies are eventually beneficial even if temporarily disruptive, and market-skeptics who think that technology-induced disruptions are not always beneficial, or might need to have their disruptiveness moderated for a while in order to have a better balance of disadvantage and benefit.
Market-skeptics are further divided between those who are principally concerned for the welfare of society as a whole, and those who are simply trying to protect vested interests – though it may be difficult to distinguish between these two groups.
For a variety of reasons, market-believers tend to focus on the upside and underplay the downside; conversely, also for a variety of reasons, market-skeptics tend to focus on the down-side and underplay the upside.
Generally, the principal and undisputed beneficiaries from the introduction of any technology tend to be the owners of that technology, though some benefit (nowadays less and less) goes to employees, suppliers and customers.
Society benefits in terms of increased "wealth-creation" but suffers in terms of the disruptive effect of the new technology. Till recently, the social benefit was large: technology tended to enlarge the middle class, principally because of new employment opportunities. But, nowadays, technology (combined with financial and other economic and political factors) is doing the opposite: technological advances are reducing the size of the middle class in Europe, America and other developed countries.
The result (well documented by any number of economists in any number of developed countries) is that the decreasing middle class is tending to splinter into a smaller fraction becoming richer and a larger fraction becoming poorer. This trend towards the decline of the middle class is offset by two developments:
(a) an increase in the size of the middle-class in "currently successful" countries such as China and India; and,
(b) greater mobility across classes, upwards as barriers to entry are lowered and new opportunities are presented by technological disruption in society, and downwards, because investment is not without its risks and hardly anyone understands the financial world as it is now (even the Fed has admitted that it does not understand all that is going on in the US, let alone the global, economy).
However, due to continued technological advances, the size of the middle classes in "currently successful" countries such as China and India is also going to decline (even without taking demographic factors into account).
Increasing social instability is therefore evident both in the developing and in the developed worlds.
It is easy to see why technologists and entrepreneurs are market-believers, and call for faster introduction of innovative (and disruptive) technology.
It is also clear why those who are not technologists, and those who are entrepreneurial and innovative in other areas than technology, wish to question whether further disruption of society is necessarily a good thing right now, or whether the introduction of socially-disruptive technologies might not usefully be slowed: if there is such a thing as a metabolic rate in society, is it possible that the metabolic rate was possibly too slow for the period preceding say the nineteenth century, but is becoming too fast in the twenty-first century?
When I raise points such as the above, market-believers tend to say "Nothing can stop the onward march of technology!".
However, they forget that money is what enables technological innovation to take place. Starve certain kinds of science/technology of money and that sort of science/tech tends to slow down. Improve the input of money into a particular area of science/technology, and the development of that kind of science/technology tends to speed up.
The question therefore is WHAT KIND OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS DOES GLOBAL SOCIETY MOST NEED AT PRESENT? Certainly we most need technologies that reduce our consumption of fossil fuels such as oil and gas, technologies that enable the environment to be healthier, technologies that improve family life, technologies that enhance the quality of life of the poorest and most disadvantaged. Regrettably, in spite of the self-serving publicity given to financing of technologies for these purposes, the proportion of money spent on these is actually declining. Compare, for example the amount of money spent on research into drugs for the diseases of the rich versus the amount of money spent on diseases for the poor.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
Every new technology is disruptive, though some new technologies are more disruptive than others
The degree to which any particular technology is disruptive depends not only on its inherent disruptiveness (technologically and socially) but also on the degree to which it is allowed to develop its own momentum in the marketplace
Today, the technologies that are being released into society are more and more disruptive – e.g. in nano, bio, info, and robotics.
The world is divided between those who are blithely ignorant about the potential impact of these technologies, and those who are aware of it.
Those who are aware are divided between unfettered market-believers who think that all new technologies are eventually beneficial even if temporarily disruptive, and market-skeptics who think that technology-induced disruptions are not always beneficial, or might need to have their disruptiveness moderated for a while in order to have a better balance of disadvantage and benefit.
Market-skeptics are further divided between those who are principally concerned for the welfare of society as a whole, and those who are simply trying to protect vested interests – though it may be difficult to distinguish between these two groups.
For a variety of reasons, market-believers tend to focus on the upside and underplay the downside; conversely, also for a variety of reasons, market-skeptics tend to focus on the down-side and underplay the upside.
Generally, the principal and undisputed beneficiaries from the introduction of any technology tend to be the owners of that technology, though some benefit (nowadays less and less) goes to employees, suppliers and customers.
Society benefits in terms of increased "wealth-creation" but suffers in terms of the disruptive effect of the new technology. Till recently, the social benefit was large: technology tended to enlarge the middle class, principally because of new employment opportunities. But, nowadays, technology (combined with financial and other economic and political factors) is doing the opposite: technological advances are reducing the size of the middle class in Europe, America and other developed countries.
The result (well documented by any number of economists in any number of developed countries) is that the decreasing middle class is tending to splinter into a smaller fraction becoming richer and a larger fraction becoming poorer. This trend towards the decline of the middle class is offset by two developments:
(a) an increase in the size of the middle-class in "currently successful" countries such as China and India; and,
(b) greater mobility across classes, upwards as barriers to entry are lowered and new opportunities are presented by technological disruption in society, and downwards, because investment is not without its risks and hardly anyone understands the financial world as it is now (even the Fed has admitted that it does not understand all that is going on in the US, let alone the global, economy).
However, due to continued technological advances, the size of the middle classes in "currently successful" countries such as China and India is also going to decline (even without taking demographic factors into account).
Increasing social instability is therefore evident both in the developing and in the developed worlds.
It is easy to see why technologists and entrepreneurs are market-believers, and call for faster introduction of innovative (and disruptive) technology.
It is also clear why those who are not technologists, and those who are entrepreneurial and innovative in other areas than technology, wish to question whether further disruption of society is necessarily a good thing right now, or whether the introduction of socially-disruptive technologies might not usefully be slowed: if there is such a thing as a metabolic rate in society, is it possible that the metabolic rate was possibly too slow for the period preceding say the nineteenth century, but is becoming too fast in the twenty-first century?
When I raise points such as the above, market-believers tend to say "Nothing can stop the onward march of technology!".
However, they forget that money is what enables technological innovation to take place. Starve certain kinds of science/technology of money and that sort of science/tech tends to slow down. Improve the input of money into a particular area of science/technology, and the development of that kind of science/technology tends to speed up.
The question therefore is WHAT KIND OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS DOES GLOBAL SOCIETY MOST NEED AT PRESENT? Certainly we most need technologies that reduce our consumption of fossil fuels such as oil and gas, technologies that enable the environment to be healthier, technologies that improve family life, technologies that enhance the quality of life of the poorest and most disadvantaged. Regrettably, in spite of the self-serving publicity given to financing of technologies for these purposes, the proportion of money spent on these is actually declining. Compare, for example the amount of money spent on research into drugs for the diseases of the rich versus the amount of money spent on diseases for the poor.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Understanding "Islamic rage"
My last blog ended by challenging the Muslim world to make up its mind regarding whether it belongs in the modern world or whether it wants to continue to belong to the pre-modern parts of the world.
On reflection, however, I am now convinced that the reaction to the Danish cartoons is being framed the wrong way around the world.
The matter has little to do with the issue of freedom of speech or the freedom of the Press, whether in the West, or internationally. The rules for that are more or less well settled in each Western country, as well as in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights– even if those documents are not followed in many countries who are members of the UN, such as China and most so-called Islamic countries.
As we should all know by now, unlike Judaism and Christianity, the Koran does NOT forbid representations of the Prophet (PBUH), though some schools of thought among Muslims do so. There are images of the Prophet (PBUH) in a pulpit in Medina itself, in the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in museums in Bokhara, Samarkand and Isfahan itself. Most European museums have miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have even been statues of Muhammad, and several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honoured as one of the great "lawgivers" of mankind. The Janissaries -- the elite of the Ottoman army – used to carry into battle a medallion stamped with the Prophet's head (sabz qaba). As for images of other Muslim prophets, they run into millions. Two years ago, the Islamic Republic of Iran honoured the painter Kamal-al-Mulk, who is famous for having painted a portrait of the Prophet (PBUH)showing him holding the Koran in one hand while the index finger of the other hand points to the Oneness of God. The rulers of Islam probably did this only because Kamal-ul-Mulk had been exiled by King Reza Shah in 1940!
Therefore, logically, the Muslims who claim to be so upset about the Danish cartoons should not burn the Danish flag, but the Iranian one!
In any case, the matter has little to do with asking people around the world to be "sensitive" to the religious concerns of their Muslim neighbours – or, for that matter, other religious neighbours: some people are sensitive, and so much the better for them; some are insensitive and so much the worse for them.
The matter has to do primarily with the need for Muslim fundamentalists to "mobilise and motivate" the Muslim masses in relation to their cause. And if they don't find Danish cartoonists and newspapermen to use for this purpose, it is clear that they will find something else to do so.
Witness the fact that "in retaliation" for the Danish ones, some Muslim leaders have come up with use of anti-Jewish cartoons - not anti-Christian cartoons or anti-modern cartoons or anti-liberal cartoons! As if Jyllens-Post, the Danish newspaper which published the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), or its editor or the people or government of Denmark had anything particular or special to do with Zionism! In any case, Zionism (as Muslims understand it today) was a bogey inherited from Hitler's fascists and their campaign to take over power in Germany and has little to do with the real issues facing a resolution of the problems in the Middle East today.
I don't deny that understanding the Danish cartoons as a "Zionist plot" is a remarkable bit of self-delusion on the part of individuals.
However, for the key instigators of the protests - the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba) – it is merely cynical manipulation of any fact or incident or idea that might somehow be possibly twisted to suit their purposes.
The modern world should expect such tactics from such organisations.
What is worrying is when entire States get in on the act, such as Iran's cessation of trade relations with Denmark.
Why ever would any country want to do so, when it should be clear at least to the rulers of such countries that there is a completely different political and cultural context in the West, where political parties do not control the Press and Media either formally or informally?
Well the answer to that question is simple. The ruling elite in Iran too needs to use religious hysteria to continue to keep its people in thrall, at a time when the people are becoming restive, as they see through the religious masks used by their rulers to conceal their greed and corruption.
Increasing recognition of the true nature of their rulers is spreading in the Muslim world, along with a recognition of the material and civilisational benefits of the modern world, so the rulers need to find ways of distracting the populace with "threats" in order to "justify" putting in place ever more draconian measures to keep the population under their control.
If the leaders of the Muslim world really believed, for example, in the Palestinian cause, they would not have stopped funding the Palestinians simply because their then-leaderYasser Arafat supported Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait. The claim of Muslim leaders to genuinely support the Palistinian people would have been easier to accept if they had created ways of continuing to support the Palestinian people while trying to influence Yasser Arafat.
Instead, for years and years, the ONLY people around the world supporting the Palestinians financially were the European Union!!!
So it should be clear at least to the Palestinian people, who are their true friends and who are simply using their cause for their own nefarious purposes.
Similarly, it should be clear to Muslims who their true friends are in the current clashes and who are simply manufacturing and using "Islamic rage" for their own purposes.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
On reflection, however, I am now convinced that the reaction to the Danish cartoons is being framed the wrong way around the world.
The matter has little to do with the issue of freedom of speech or the freedom of the Press, whether in the West, or internationally. The rules for that are more or less well settled in each Western country, as well as in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights– even if those documents are not followed in many countries who are members of the UN, such as China and most so-called Islamic countries.
As we should all know by now, unlike Judaism and Christianity, the Koran does NOT forbid representations of the Prophet (PBUH), though some schools of thought among Muslims do so. There are images of the Prophet (PBUH) in a pulpit in Medina itself, in the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in museums in Bokhara, Samarkand and Isfahan itself. Most European museums have miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have even been statues of Muhammad, and several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honoured as one of the great "lawgivers" of mankind. The Janissaries -- the elite of the Ottoman army – used to carry into battle a medallion stamped with the Prophet's head (sabz qaba). As for images of other Muslim prophets, they run into millions. Two years ago, the Islamic Republic of Iran honoured the painter Kamal-al-Mulk, who is famous for having painted a portrait of the Prophet (PBUH)showing him holding the Koran in one hand while the index finger of the other hand points to the Oneness of God. The rulers of Islam probably did this only because Kamal-ul-Mulk had been exiled by King Reza Shah in 1940!
Therefore, logically, the Muslims who claim to be so upset about the Danish cartoons should not burn the Danish flag, but the Iranian one!
In any case, the matter has little to do with asking people around the world to be "sensitive" to the religious concerns of their Muslim neighbours – or, for that matter, other religious neighbours: some people are sensitive, and so much the better for them; some are insensitive and so much the worse for them.
The matter has to do primarily with the need for Muslim fundamentalists to "mobilise and motivate" the Muslim masses in relation to their cause. And if they don't find Danish cartoonists and newspapermen to use for this purpose, it is clear that they will find something else to do so.
Witness the fact that "in retaliation" for the Danish ones, some Muslim leaders have come up with use of anti-Jewish cartoons - not anti-Christian cartoons or anti-modern cartoons or anti-liberal cartoons! As if Jyllens-Post, the Danish newspaper which published the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), or its editor or the people or government of Denmark had anything particular or special to do with Zionism! In any case, Zionism (as Muslims understand it today) was a bogey inherited from Hitler's fascists and their campaign to take over power in Germany and has little to do with the real issues facing a resolution of the problems in the Middle East today.
I don't deny that understanding the Danish cartoons as a "Zionist plot" is a remarkable bit of self-delusion on the part of individuals.
However, for the key instigators of the protests - the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba) – it is merely cynical manipulation of any fact or incident or idea that might somehow be possibly twisted to suit their purposes.
The modern world should expect such tactics from such organisations.
What is worrying is when entire States get in on the act, such as Iran's cessation of trade relations with Denmark.
Why ever would any country want to do so, when it should be clear at least to the rulers of such countries that there is a completely different political and cultural context in the West, where political parties do not control the Press and Media either formally or informally?
Well the answer to that question is simple. The ruling elite in Iran too needs to use religious hysteria to continue to keep its people in thrall, at a time when the people are becoming restive, as they see through the religious masks used by their rulers to conceal their greed and corruption.
Increasing recognition of the true nature of their rulers is spreading in the Muslim world, along with a recognition of the material and civilisational benefits of the modern world, so the rulers need to find ways of distracting the populace with "threats" in order to "justify" putting in place ever more draconian measures to keep the population under their control.
If the leaders of the Muslim world really believed, for example, in the Palestinian cause, they would not have stopped funding the Palestinians simply because their then-leaderYasser Arafat supported Saddam Hussein's attack on Kuwait. The claim of Muslim leaders to genuinely support the Palistinian people would have been easier to accept if they had created ways of continuing to support the Palestinian people while trying to influence Yasser Arafat.
Instead, for years and years, the ONLY people around the world supporting the Palestinians financially were the European Union!!!
So it should be clear at least to the Palestinian people, who are their true friends and who are simply using their cause for their own nefarious purposes.
Similarly, it should be clear to Muslims who their true friends are in the current clashes and who are simply manufacturing and using "Islamic rage" for their own purposes.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
On the cafuffle regarding the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)
It may be instructive to recollect the history of the relationship between blasphemy (lack of religious "correctness") and state power in the West, something that most Westerners forget, having been secularised for two or three generations.
Representations of God are forbidden in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. However, the Christian West, from the time of the adoption of Christianity as the state religion by the Emperor Constantine in the 3rd/4th Century, started accepting representations of God and of Jesus, though various reformers tried to get the churches to go back to the original ban, with some success from the time of the Reformation (sixteenth century) onwards. One of the main differences between the Reformed (Protestant) churches and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox ones (with Anglican/Episcopal ones falling somewhere in the middle as they are not "properly Reformed" but only "half-Reformed") is that the Radically Reformed ones do not accept representations of God.
It is necessary to make a distinction between, on the one hand, the Magisterial Reformation of reformers such as Luther, which entered into collaboration with state power and do accept representations of God and, on the other hand, the Radical Reformation which does not accept representations of God, and moreover drew a sharp separation between religion and state e.g. in the USA.
Since the Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans were integrally connected to state power, they were more interested in the concept of blasphemy, so that blasphemy laws were put in place more in such countries than in Protestant ones, which pioneered religious liberty, and were therefore more open to discussion of religion from all sorts of perspectives, including attitudes ranging from "merely negative" to that of scoffing and ridicule.
Not only were and are the Protestant areas of the world more economically successful, they were responsible for all the developments that broke the mould of the pre-modern world and created the modern world. These developments include, inter alia, universal literacy, freedom to debate and therefore free thought, the birth of modern science and technology, economic progress and political liberty. It is no exaggeration to say that, in terms of the history of ideas, what we call globalisation is simply Protestant culture without any necessary allegiance to Protestantism (with a still unresolved battle between individualistic greed and communal/global responsibility). That is why the attitude of the Protestantism (lack of interest in the concept of blasphemy) has come to mark the modern world more than the attitude of the Orthodox/ Catholics/Anglicans (and Muslims).
Gradually, the Protestant attitude has come to erode, in this as in other areas, the attitudes of the Orthodox/Catholic/Anglicans, so that such countries have gradually relaxed their blasphemy laws till these are now a dead letter (though the space previously occupied by them is now sought to be filled by laws such as the recent Racial Hatred Bill passed last week in the UK).
India is a special case, where the ruling powers have only rarely (e.g. under the Emperor Aurangzeb in the 17th century) attempted to use state power to enforce a particular religious line. That is, till recently, when the Hindu fascist parties, such as the BJP and its allies in the Vishwa Hindu Parishad) under the previous government of Mr Vajpayee tried to do so (and will no doubt do so again if they come back into power). A similar story could be told of Buddhist countries, where traditional tolerance has been replaced by militant Buddhism at the same time as the populations of the countries concerned have largely moved to modern tolerance or even indifference regarding such questions.
My own view is that one cannot have a progressive society, characterised by free markets in goods and services, without an equally free marketplace in religious ideas – because it is impossible to distinguish religious ideas from non-religious ones, or to distinguish ideologies from non-ideologies (the connection between "science" and state power has recently been documented by Philip Mirowski, _The Effortless Economy of Science?_ Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004. v + 463 pp. $25 (paperback), ISBN: 0-8223-3322-8). Capitalism itself is an ideology after all and its religion-like qualities have been documented in a spate of books.
So what bearing does all this have on the matter in hand? Briefly, that in a free world, people have the right to express their opinions, including the right to make cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, of Jesus the Lord, of the Buddha, or of any other leader, religious or secular. Equally, individuals and groups (whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or owing allegiance to any other ideology/religion), have the right to be offended, to withdraw their custom/patronage and to express their outrage in any form – except violence.
Of course whenever one takes that view, one has to be aware that one is taking the view that was pioneered by the Radical Reformation and is what distinguishes the modern world from the Islamic world.
Islam has to decide whether it belongs in the modern world pioneered by Protestantism, or whether it will continue to belong to the mental world of the pre-Protestant (that is, pre-modern) parts of the world.
yours sincerely
Prabhu Guptara Sphere: Related Content
Representations of God are forbidden in both the Jewish and Christian scriptures. However, the Christian West, from the time of the adoption of Christianity as the state religion by the Emperor Constantine in the 3rd/4th Century, started accepting representations of God and of Jesus, though various reformers tried to get the churches to go back to the original ban, with some success from the time of the Reformation (sixteenth century) onwards. One of the main differences between the Reformed (Protestant) churches and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox ones (with Anglican/Episcopal ones falling somewhere in the middle as they are not "properly Reformed" but only "half-Reformed") is that the Radically Reformed ones do not accept representations of God.
It is necessary to make a distinction between, on the one hand, the Magisterial Reformation of reformers such as Luther, which entered into collaboration with state power and do accept representations of God and, on the other hand, the Radical Reformation which does not accept representations of God, and moreover drew a sharp separation between religion and state e.g. in the USA.
Since the Catholics, Orthodox and Anglicans were integrally connected to state power, they were more interested in the concept of blasphemy, so that blasphemy laws were put in place more in such countries than in Protestant ones, which pioneered religious liberty, and were therefore more open to discussion of religion from all sorts of perspectives, including attitudes ranging from "merely negative" to that of scoffing and ridicule.
Not only were and are the Protestant areas of the world more economically successful, they were responsible for all the developments that broke the mould of the pre-modern world and created the modern world. These developments include, inter alia, universal literacy, freedom to debate and therefore free thought, the birth of modern science and technology, economic progress and political liberty. It is no exaggeration to say that, in terms of the history of ideas, what we call globalisation is simply Protestant culture without any necessary allegiance to Protestantism (with a still unresolved battle between individualistic greed and communal/global responsibility). That is why the attitude of the Protestantism (lack of interest in the concept of blasphemy) has come to mark the modern world more than the attitude of the Orthodox/ Catholics/Anglicans (and Muslims).
Gradually, the Protestant attitude has come to erode, in this as in other areas, the attitudes of the Orthodox/Catholic/Anglicans, so that such countries have gradually relaxed their blasphemy laws till these are now a dead letter (though the space previously occupied by them is now sought to be filled by laws such as the recent Racial Hatred Bill passed last week in the UK).
India is a special case, where the ruling powers have only rarely (e.g. under the Emperor Aurangzeb in the 17th century) attempted to use state power to enforce a particular religious line. That is, till recently, when the Hindu fascist parties, such as the BJP and its allies in the Vishwa Hindu Parishad) under the previous government of Mr Vajpayee tried to do so (and will no doubt do so again if they come back into power). A similar story could be told of Buddhist countries, where traditional tolerance has been replaced by militant Buddhism at the same time as the populations of the countries concerned have largely moved to modern tolerance or even indifference regarding such questions.
My own view is that one cannot have a progressive society, characterised by free markets in goods and services, without an equally free marketplace in religious ideas – because it is impossible to distinguish religious ideas from non-religious ones, or to distinguish ideologies from non-ideologies (the connection between "science" and state power has recently been documented by Philip Mirowski, _The Effortless Economy of Science?_ Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004. v + 463 pp. $25 (paperback), ISBN: 0-8223-3322-8). Capitalism itself is an ideology after all and its religion-like qualities have been documented in a spate of books.
So what bearing does all this have on the matter in hand? Briefly, that in a free world, people have the right to express their opinions, including the right to make cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, of Jesus the Lord, of the Buddha, or of any other leader, religious or secular. Equally, individuals and groups (whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or owing allegiance to any other ideology/religion), have the right to be offended, to withdraw their custom/patronage and to express their outrage in any form – except violence.
Of course whenever one takes that view, one has to be aware that one is taking the view that was pioneered by the Radical Reformation and is what distinguishes the modern world from the Islamic world.
Islam has to decide whether it belongs in the modern world pioneered by Protestantism, or whether it will continue to belong to the mental world of the pre-Protestant (that is, pre-modern) parts of the world.
yours sincerely
Prabhu Guptara Sphere: Related Content
Friday, January 13, 2006
The destruction of words, language and thought - 1
The language used in economic, financial, management and business writing seems to me to be getting more and more lax.
Take the following headline in an electronic newsletter from one of the most respected firms in the world: "Corporate governance in emerging economies: stronger boards boost performance".
In order to keep the discussion at a digestible lenght on this Blog, let us take for our purposes today only the use of the word "boost".
This indicates a strong sudden upward thrust, not merely gentle improvement. So, for what kind of improvement in performance should one use "boost performance" rather than "improve performance"? Clearly, when the improvement in performance becomes unusually strong.
Is any such improvement indicated in the article concerned? No.
So the word "boost" has been used in the headline simply because it seems the stronger word to use - not because the stronger word fits the facts of the case.
This tendency to use "strong" words even when a "weaker" word is more fitting, devalues the "strong" word and makes it unfit for any use at all. If every little improvement is to be described as a "boost", what words does one have left to describe genuinely above-average performance improvement? Clearly, only long and cumbersome words such as "outperformance".
Now that's a perfectly good word in itself, but it is not the sort of word that fits easily into a headline. Can you imagine a headline such as "Stronger boards outperform performance"? NO! So, what about "Stronger boards help outperformance"? Well, pretty inelegant, really.
The solution lies in trying to use the right word for the right occasion, not merely the strongest word that occurs to one.
Consider that a hammer is entirely appropriate if one wants to drive in a nail, but it is not the right instrument if the nail needs to be taken out. On the other hand, a hammer is nowhere near appropriate if one what has to put in or take out is a screw! And not every hammer is right for every nail: some hammers can be too big, others too small.
If one uses the wrong instrument, or an instrument of the wrong size, it is not only the nail or the screw that can get ruined but sometimes the wood itself can get damaged.
In the same way, the tendency to avoid thinking about the words one uses and, instead, to use the first word that comes to hand, distorts otherwise good words - and, in the end, damages language - which is the instrument with which we think. So the result is damaged thinking.
A point that we will explore further in my next Blog on the subject (whenever I have time to get around to it!)
FINITO Sphere: Related Content
Take the following headline in an electronic newsletter from one of the most respected firms in the world: "Corporate governance in emerging economies: stronger boards boost performance".
In order to keep the discussion at a digestible lenght on this Blog, let us take for our purposes today only the use of the word "boost".
This indicates a strong sudden upward thrust, not merely gentle improvement. So, for what kind of improvement in performance should one use "boost performance" rather than "improve performance"? Clearly, when the improvement in performance becomes unusually strong.
Is any such improvement indicated in the article concerned? No.
So the word "boost" has been used in the headline simply because it seems the stronger word to use - not because the stronger word fits the facts of the case.
This tendency to use "strong" words even when a "weaker" word is more fitting, devalues the "strong" word and makes it unfit for any use at all. If every little improvement is to be described as a "boost", what words does one have left to describe genuinely above-average performance improvement? Clearly, only long and cumbersome words such as "outperformance".
Now that's a perfectly good word in itself, but it is not the sort of word that fits easily into a headline. Can you imagine a headline such as "Stronger boards outperform performance"? NO! So, what about "Stronger boards help outperformance"? Well, pretty inelegant, really.
The solution lies in trying to use the right word for the right occasion, not merely the strongest word that occurs to one.
Consider that a hammer is entirely appropriate if one wants to drive in a nail, but it is not the right instrument if the nail needs to be taken out. On the other hand, a hammer is nowhere near appropriate if one what has to put in or take out is a screw! And not every hammer is right for every nail: some hammers can be too big, others too small.
If one uses the wrong instrument, or an instrument of the wrong size, it is not only the nail or the screw that can get ruined but sometimes the wood itself can get damaged.
In the same way, the tendency to avoid thinking about the words one uses and, instead, to use the first word that comes to hand, distorts otherwise good words - and, in the end, damages language - which is the instrument with which we think. So the result is damaged thinking.
A point that we will explore further in my next Blog on the subject (whenever I have time to get around to it!)
FINITO Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Japan's Population and National Budget are Shrinking – So how come Guptara argues that its Economy will Expand to Number One by 2020?
I have just finished writing an article on why Japan (and neither China nor India) will become the number one economy in the world by 2020. The editor tells me that he is making it the lead article in the edition of The Globalist in the week after next. So you might like to watch out for it.
In the meanwhile, the figures for the Japanese national budget for 2006 make interesting reading.
Inspite of an economy that has been in the doldrums for nearly a third of a century, Japan marked a fifth straight yearly increase in R&D expenditure, to a record 17 trillion yen. In percentage of gross domestic product, the R&D expenditure remained at an all-time high 3.35% and is among the world's highest. BTW, the number of researchers in Japan has also increased to a record 790,900.
That is particularly notable in view of the fact that, at the same time, Japan has set its LOWEST national budget in 8 years, down from 82.18 Trillion Yen in 2005 to 79.69 Trillion Yen in 2006. So what's being cut? Tax grants to local governments will go down to 14.56 trillion Yen (that's 1.53 trillion less than last year) and there will be a cut of 920 billion Yen in other areas of policy-related expenditure, so that comes down to 46.37 trillion Yen. General spending is going to include a 4.4% cut to public works projects. In brief, that's pain for general welfare, gain for science and technology.
I also see that, according to a survey by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan's population has started to shrink for the first time ever this year (2005). The number of births fell to a record low of 1,067,000 and the number of deaths increased by 48,000 to 1,077,000. The balance between births and deaths is therefore minus 10,000 – representing the first natural decline in Japan's population since records started being kept in 1899. Political and business circles are apparently taken aback at the drop in population. In 2002, the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research had predicted that the country's population (including immigrants) would begin to decline only in 2007. The concern is that the decline in the birth rate will begin to lead to a decline in the working population and therefore a decline in GDP and consumption, and that the decline in the number of workers would make it difficult to maintain social security.
This is typical of bureaucratic nationalistic thinking which makes it impossible to see the effects of the robotic revolution that Japan is launching.
BTW even The Japan Robot Association (JARA) suffers from this kind of compartmentalised nationalism. The history of JARA, a voluntary organization, goes back to March 1971, and records its aims as furthering "the development of the robot manufacturing industry by encouraging research and development on robots and associated system products and promoting the use of robot technology. Through this, the Association strives to promote the use of advanced technology in industry and to enhance the welfare of the nation".
Note that there is apparently no understanding or concern for the impact of robots on the welfare of humanity as a whole. But that is not surprising, considering that robots will benefit Japan but create chaos in the rest of the world as Japanese robots displace most workers worldwide. That is what will happen very quickly if the current international arrangements in taxation, subsidy, retraining, education, finance, monetary policy and so on don't change rapidly - as I have been urging for some time now.
If you are not aware of my recommendations, read the article in The Globlalist, the week after next.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
In the meanwhile, the figures for the Japanese national budget for 2006 make interesting reading.
Inspite of an economy that has been in the doldrums for nearly a third of a century, Japan marked a fifth straight yearly increase in R&D expenditure, to a record 17 trillion yen. In percentage of gross domestic product, the R&D expenditure remained at an all-time high 3.35% and is among the world's highest. BTW, the number of researchers in Japan has also increased to a record 790,900.
That is particularly notable in view of the fact that, at the same time, Japan has set its LOWEST national budget in 8 years, down from 82.18 Trillion Yen in 2005 to 79.69 Trillion Yen in 2006. So what's being cut? Tax grants to local governments will go down to 14.56 trillion Yen (that's 1.53 trillion less than last year) and there will be a cut of 920 billion Yen in other areas of policy-related expenditure, so that comes down to 46.37 trillion Yen. General spending is going to include a 4.4% cut to public works projects. In brief, that's pain for general welfare, gain for science and technology.
I also see that, according to a survey by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan's population has started to shrink for the first time ever this year (2005). The number of births fell to a record low of 1,067,000 and the number of deaths increased by 48,000 to 1,077,000. The balance between births and deaths is therefore minus 10,000 – representing the first natural decline in Japan's population since records started being kept in 1899. Political and business circles are apparently taken aback at the drop in population. In 2002, the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research had predicted that the country's population (including immigrants) would begin to decline only in 2007. The concern is that the decline in the birth rate will begin to lead to a decline in the working population and therefore a decline in GDP and consumption, and that the decline in the number of workers would make it difficult to maintain social security.
This is typical of bureaucratic nationalistic thinking which makes it impossible to see the effects of the robotic revolution that Japan is launching.
BTW even The Japan Robot Association (JARA) suffers from this kind of compartmentalised nationalism. The history of JARA, a voluntary organization, goes back to March 1971, and records its aims as furthering "the development of the robot manufacturing industry by encouraging research and development on robots and associated system products and promoting the use of robot technology. Through this, the Association strives to promote the use of advanced technology in industry and to enhance the welfare of the nation".
Note that there is apparently no understanding or concern for the impact of robots on the welfare of humanity as a whole. But that is not surprising, considering that robots will benefit Japan but create chaos in the rest of the world as Japanese robots displace most workers worldwide. That is what will happen very quickly if the current international arrangements in taxation, subsidy, retraining, education, finance, monetary policy and so on don't change rapidly - as I have been urging for some time now.
If you are not aware of my recommendations, read the article in The Globlalist, the week after next.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
Saturday, December 31, 2005
On the British Court of Appeal's grant, to a Muslim schoolgirl, of the right to wear the hijab, in a uniform-wearing school
In March 2005, a Muslim girl was given the right to wear the traditional Muslim dress, the hijab (or, in Bengali, the jibab) in schools that have, up to now, had a school uniform.
This is as unhelpful a decision as the decision was some years ago for Sikh boys to be allowed to wear a turban in school.
Neither is essential to the religions concerned, according to their own texts.
A turban is a traditional sign being "respectable" in traditional Indian society and is worn by people of EVERY religion in India either all the time in public (for example, among landlords) or on appropriate public or ceremonial occasions (e.g. marriage). Sikhism elevated all converts to sikhism to the upper-caste and the turban was the sign of this elevation.
Similarly, the neither the Koran nor the Hadith says anything about wearing the long shapeless robe that was traditional for women in the Arab world and has now become part of the fashion for some religiously-committed Muslims also in other parts of the world.
What Islam is adamant on (and, in my opinion, given the sorts of minds men have, the Islam is quite correctly adamant on this) is that women should be modestly and fully dressed.
That requirement does not have to be met by a jibab. It can be met as fully with a school uniform as it can by a salwar kameez (traditional dress among Muslims and NON-Muslims in Pakistan, North India and areas of the world influenced by fashions there).
The requirement can also be met by long Western dresses.
By contrast, there are now some highly expensive and fashionable long Arabian dresses, that are supposed to be hijabs, that can be quite as sexually-provocative as any short Western dress.
The ignorance of Cherie Blair in representing this case is only topped by the unbelievable ignorance of the British Appeal Court.
We will next be told that all sorts of other totally non-Islamic things are also "fundamental" to practicing Islam.
These kinds of decisions do nothing to bring the law into respect with most British people today, whether they be Asians or others.
So this is now the end of the school uniform, which has been the single greatest leveller of class in the UK.
We will now have materialists who will no doubt claim that it is part of their fundamental right to practice their religion to wear diamond-encrusted clothes and accoutrements to school – leaving those students who can't afford these, or whose parents on principle object to such displays of wealth, feeling like second-class citizens.
Shame on the Labour Party for further accentuating such nonsensical divisions within schools.
This "victory" for Islam is a classic case of winning on something superficial, while losing thereby something equally valuable and much more important: equality in schools.
In Western societies, Muslims ought to focus on decreasing, not increasing, class differences.
In British society (unlike most Islamic societies), the girl concerned certainly has the right to wear whatever she wants outside school, and she would of course continue to have the right to wear whatever she likes after she finishes school.
There are much bigger and more important battles for Islam to fight. In so-called "Islamic" societies, Muslims need to focus their energies on working towards freedom of religion, as freedom of thought is the fundamental building block of personal happiness, social well-being and economic prosperity - and all of these are at risk in all so-called "Islamic" societies today.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
This is as unhelpful a decision as the decision was some years ago for Sikh boys to be allowed to wear a turban in school.
Neither is essential to the religions concerned, according to their own texts.
A turban is a traditional sign being "respectable" in traditional Indian society and is worn by people of EVERY religion in India either all the time in public (for example, among landlords) or on appropriate public or ceremonial occasions (e.g. marriage). Sikhism elevated all converts to sikhism to the upper-caste and the turban was the sign of this elevation.
Similarly, the neither the Koran nor the Hadith says anything about wearing the long shapeless robe that was traditional for women in the Arab world and has now become part of the fashion for some religiously-committed Muslims also in other parts of the world.
What Islam is adamant on (and, in my opinion, given the sorts of minds men have, the Islam is quite correctly adamant on this) is that women should be modestly and fully dressed.
That requirement does not have to be met by a jibab. It can be met as fully with a school uniform as it can by a salwar kameez (traditional dress among Muslims and NON-Muslims in Pakistan, North India and areas of the world influenced by fashions there).
The requirement can also be met by long Western dresses.
By contrast, there are now some highly expensive and fashionable long Arabian dresses, that are supposed to be hijabs, that can be quite as sexually-provocative as any short Western dress.
The ignorance of Cherie Blair in representing this case is only topped by the unbelievable ignorance of the British Appeal Court.
We will next be told that all sorts of other totally non-Islamic things are also "fundamental" to practicing Islam.
These kinds of decisions do nothing to bring the law into respect with most British people today, whether they be Asians or others.
So this is now the end of the school uniform, which has been the single greatest leveller of class in the UK.
We will now have materialists who will no doubt claim that it is part of their fundamental right to practice their religion to wear diamond-encrusted clothes and accoutrements to school – leaving those students who can't afford these, or whose parents on principle object to such displays of wealth, feeling like second-class citizens.
Shame on the Labour Party for further accentuating such nonsensical divisions within schools.
This "victory" for Islam is a classic case of winning on something superficial, while losing thereby something equally valuable and much more important: equality in schools.
In Western societies, Muslims ought to focus on decreasing, not increasing, class differences.
In British society (unlike most Islamic societies), the girl concerned certainly has the right to wear whatever she wants outside school, and she would of course continue to have the right to wear whatever she likes after she finishes school.
There are much bigger and more important battles for Islam to fight. In so-called "Islamic" societies, Muslims need to focus their energies on working towards freedom of religion, as freedom of thought is the fundamental building block of personal happiness, social well-being and economic prosperity - and all of these are at risk in all so-called "Islamic" societies today.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
Monday, December 26, 2005
The Demonisation of Regulation
The global elites have now made it politically correct to demonise regulation.
All attempts at any kind of regulation are regularly ridiculed by them.
Particular bits of regulation can of course be incompetent or worse.
But the solution to bad bits of regulation is the right political process so that it can turn out the right kind of regulation.
Without government regulation, all business activity would immediately cease.
Why? Because money is itself a product of government regulation, as are the existence of the Internet and the financial agreements which make international trade possible.
The global elites understand this very well.
That is why, alongside demonising regulation in public, they privately spend such vast sums of money in lobbying politicians to try to ensure that regulation benefits themselves!
In a discussion on a private e-mail discussion group, I called for taxation on the development and implementation of a particular technology. A representative of a large multinational company responded that my observation and analysis were entirely correct, but that my solution was not, because "nothing good ever came out of regulation".
I felt like asking (but politely did not, specially as there were more substantial issues at stake) how much his corporation had spent on lobbying every single day in the last 12 months.
Routine demonisation of government regulations started in the USA. Tom Delay, till recently arguably the most powerful man in the US congress, started his very successful political career in the 1980's crusading against environmental regulations he saw as "unfairly" constraining his Texas-based pest control business.
Today, this demonisation has spread worldwide and, to my surprise, I find otherwise good-hearted and publicly-spirited people falling prey to this political correctness.
People who are good-hearted and publicly-spirited should undoubtedly decry all bad legislation and regulation. But we should also try to work toward the right political processes, so that the best kind of regulation and legislation is produced.
Today, what is vitiating the legislative and regulatory process is not only this kind of demonisation of regulation (and indeed of all politics) but also the weakening of politics. That is, in turn, the result of the weakening of the civic impulse in the West (in the rest of the world it was never as strong anyway). And the civic impulse was itself the result, as I have pointed out elsewhere, of the European Reformation with its strong emphasis on duties rather than rights - an emphasis that began to be weakened by the French Revolution, which emphasised rights instead – with results that are plain for all to see.
So we need to kick aside the debilitating effects of the French Revolution and get back to the public spirited sense of duty that was inculcated by the European Reformation.
Of course, we don't all have to be Evangelicals and Protestants if we want our countries to have public-spiritedness, good-heartedness, proper legislation and healthy politics. But it is essential to find ways of inculcating in the masses that sense of duty which alone leads to healthy politics.
Through history, Marxism, Nationalism and various other "isms" have succeeded in inculcating a sense of duty, but none of them have done so as effectively or with such long-lasting effect as the Reformation. Countries which were most influenced by the Reformation remain to this day the countries which have the most extensively-demonstrated sense of duty, public spirit, good-heartedness, clean politics and responsible legislation.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
All attempts at any kind of regulation are regularly ridiculed by them.
Particular bits of regulation can of course be incompetent or worse.
But the solution to bad bits of regulation is the right political process so that it can turn out the right kind of regulation.
Without government regulation, all business activity would immediately cease.
Why? Because money is itself a product of government regulation, as are the existence of the Internet and the financial agreements which make international trade possible.
The global elites understand this very well.
That is why, alongside demonising regulation in public, they privately spend such vast sums of money in lobbying politicians to try to ensure that regulation benefits themselves!
In a discussion on a private e-mail discussion group, I called for taxation on the development and implementation of a particular technology. A representative of a large multinational company responded that my observation and analysis were entirely correct, but that my solution was not, because "nothing good ever came out of regulation".
I felt like asking (but politely did not, specially as there were more substantial issues at stake) how much his corporation had spent on lobbying every single day in the last 12 months.
Routine demonisation of government regulations started in the USA. Tom Delay, till recently arguably the most powerful man in the US congress, started his very successful political career in the 1980's crusading against environmental regulations he saw as "unfairly" constraining his Texas-based pest control business.
Today, this demonisation has spread worldwide and, to my surprise, I find otherwise good-hearted and publicly-spirited people falling prey to this political correctness.
People who are good-hearted and publicly-spirited should undoubtedly decry all bad legislation and regulation. But we should also try to work toward the right political processes, so that the best kind of regulation and legislation is produced.
Today, what is vitiating the legislative and regulatory process is not only this kind of demonisation of regulation (and indeed of all politics) but also the weakening of politics. That is, in turn, the result of the weakening of the civic impulse in the West (in the rest of the world it was never as strong anyway). And the civic impulse was itself the result, as I have pointed out elsewhere, of the European Reformation with its strong emphasis on duties rather than rights - an emphasis that began to be weakened by the French Revolution, which emphasised rights instead – with results that are plain for all to see.
So we need to kick aside the debilitating effects of the French Revolution and get back to the public spirited sense of duty that was inculcated by the European Reformation.
Of course, we don't all have to be Evangelicals and Protestants if we want our countries to have public-spiritedness, good-heartedness, proper legislation and healthy politics. But it is essential to find ways of inculcating in the masses that sense of duty which alone leads to healthy politics.
Through history, Marxism, Nationalism and various other "isms" have succeeded in inculcating a sense of duty, but none of them have done so as effectively or with such long-lasting effect as the Reformation. Countries which were most influenced by the Reformation remain to this day the countries which have the most extensively-demonstrated sense of duty, public spirit, good-heartedness, clean politics and responsible legislation.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
Movie review: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE
Just back from business travels in India and Jordan (which concluded nearly 16 weeks of more or less unceasing travel), the family whisked me off for a couple of days skiing in the Swiss Alps, after which we came back to the beautiful Christmas Eve service at the International Protestant Church in Zurich (standing room only!) with its Zurich Opera singers and Conductor, who outdid themselves this year.
Then on to the next hightlight, director Andrew Adamson's cinematic retelling of C S Lewis's classic THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE. I should say that I know the story only from dim memories of overhearing my wife reading it at bedtime to the kids a couple of decades ago. However, I do remember seeing the BBC film of the story, so the inevitable comparison in my mind was with that.
First, I must say that Adamson's version is thoroughly enjoyable, and I warmly recommend it.
Then, I probably ought to say that as the BBC version was more "British", it was probably more in keeping with the spirit of the original story (all the villains in the Adamson version story have American accents!). And the BBC version's Ice Queen (or Witch) was more striking (more deliberately beautiful, so more likely to gain at least initially to attract one character's as well as the audience). Apart from that, the two versions are comparably good, with a greater use of special effects in this version.
For those who don't know the story, here is my summary of it (no doubt a melange of memories from long ago, the BBC version and this version!):
The four young Pevensie children are evacuated (as so many other children were) to a country estate while London suffers under the German Blitz during World War II. There, the bored kids—Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy—discover a mysterious wardrobe that leads them all to a land called Narnia, which has familiar elements from our world as well as fantastical creatures from Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology. An Evil Witch (the Ice Queen) has usurped Narnia from its rightful owner, Aslan the Lion, and keeps Narnia in a perpetual state of winter (with no hope of Christmas, let alone Spring). It turns out that the arrival of the two Sons of Adam and the two Daughters of Eve in Narnia has a unique role to play in fulfilling an ancient prophecy so that the witch's spell will be broken and her reign ended. One of them (Edmund) betrays the rest to the Ice Queen, with the result that, when he is rescued, she demands his life. Aslan offers his own life instead, and is killed by the triumphant Ice Queen, leaving a transformed Peter and company to lead Aslan's troops in a valiant but losing battle against the hordes led by the Queen. However, Aslan is miraculously restored to life and intervenes in the battle, so that the Foursome are, at the end, elevated to four royal thrones, before Aslan leaves.
Adamson's film, and especially Georgie Henley as Lucy, convey wonderfully Lewis's childlike entrancement in the story and though I have various minor cavils, there is excellent use of motion picture technology, particularly in the visualization of C.S. Lewis' beloved creatures.
However, the highlight of the film, for me, is James McAvoy's acting as the faun Tumnus, with human torso and lower body of a goat - believably awkward but comfortable.
One word of warning. When you go to see the film, don't walk out when the credits begin to roll: the final scenes of the film are still to come before the final roll of credits continues.
I am not sure why Adamson took to this gimmick. It detracts from the film: the cinema that I was in opened the doors at this point and several people got up to leave (this probably happens in other cinemas too!), depriving the final scenes of the film of some of their poignance.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
Then on to the next hightlight, director Andrew Adamson's cinematic retelling of C S Lewis's classic THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE. I should say that I know the story only from dim memories of overhearing my wife reading it at bedtime to the kids a couple of decades ago. However, I do remember seeing the BBC film of the story, so the inevitable comparison in my mind was with that.
First, I must say that Adamson's version is thoroughly enjoyable, and I warmly recommend it.
Then, I probably ought to say that as the BBC version was more "British", it was probably more in keeping with the spirit of the original story (all the villains in the Adamson version story have American accents!). And the BBC version's Ice Queen (or Witch) was more striking (more deliberately beautiful, so more likely to gain at least initially to attract one character's as well as the audience). Apart from that, the two versions are comparably good, with a greater use of special effects in this version.
For those who don't know the story, here is my summary of it (no doubt a melange of memories from long ago, the BBC version and this version!):
The four young Pevensie children are evacuated (as so many other children were) to a country estate while London suffers under the German Blitz during World War II. There, the bored kids—Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy—discover a mysterious wardrobe that leads them all to a land called Narnia, which has familiar elements from our world as well as fantastical creatures from Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology. An Evil Witch (the Ice Queen) has usurped Narnia from its rightful owner, Aslan the Lion, and keeps Narnia in a perpetual state of winter (with no hope of Christmas, let alone Spring). It turns out that the arrival of the two Sons of Adam and the two Daughters of Eve in Narnia has a unique role to play in fulfilling an ancient prophecy so that the witch's spell will be broken and her reign ended. One of them (Edmund) betrays the rest to the Ice Queen, with the result that, when he is rescued, she demands his life. Aslan offers his own life instead, and is killed by the triumphant Ice Queen, leaving a transformed Peter and company to lead Aslan's troops in a valiant but losing battle against the hordes led by the Queen. However, Aslan is miraculously restored to life and intervenes in the battle, so that the Foursome are, at the end, elevated to four royal thrones, before Aslan leaves.
Adamson's film, and especially Georgie Henley as Lucy, convey wonderfully Lewis's childlike entrancement in the story and though I have various minor cavils, there is excellent use of motion picture technology, particularly in the visualization of C.S. Lewis' beloved creatures.
However, the highlight of the film, for me, is James McAvoy's acting as the faun Tumnus, with human torso and lower body of a goat - believably awkward but comfortable.
One word of warning. When you go to see the film, don't walk out when the credits begin to roll: the final scenes of the film are still to come before the final roll of credits continues.
I am not sure why Adamson took to this gimmick. It detracts from the film: the cinema that I was in opened the doors at this point and several people got up to leave (this probably happens in other cinemas too!), depriving the final scenes of the film of some of their poignance.
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, December 25, 2005
The Corruption of Ideals in our Time
Having just been in Delhi for a week, travelling around on business, I could not help noticing the enormous increase in the number, size and spendour of the temples there.
In my youth, Delhi had only one Hindu temple with any size and that was the Birla Mandir. Though architecturally impressive, it is not particularly splendid, and the Birla family achieved a nice balance (to my mind) between creating something attractive on the one hand, and something reasonably in keeping with the spirit of most Indians.
The recent penchant for temple-expansion and temple-glory reminds me of Europe in the 14th to 16th centuries when all the splendid Roman Catholic cathedrals were built.
Europe was then, as India is now, increasingly corrupt, with religion itself part of that corruption.
In conversation in India, you will find any number of people ready to regale you with tales of the corruption and the incredible wealth of Indian "religious leaders".
When religion itself becomes a corrupting influence then there is no hope for the masses.
And we are now witnessing the world-wide corruption not only of religion but also of idealism of all sorts.
There are now innumerable examples of people using "high and noble and apparently humanistic" objectives only to make money for themselves. The biggest secular temple in the world, the World Economic Forum in Davos, is (as far as I can make out) one such example. Various gurus (from different religious traditions!) are other examples. I am not saying that all gurus are charlatans or that WEF necessarily belong in this category till one has evidence one way or the other.
But we have sadly reached a situation worldwide that one has to be specially careful and suspicious when people invoke what is "high and noble and humanistic". Or, to put it differently, the more "high and noble and humanistic" the aims of the individual or organisation, the more careful and suspicious one needs to be....
Idealistic people can be gullible and that tendency has always been exploited by the hypocritical – think back to Chaucer's The Pardoner's Tale in the 14th Century!
That is why there has always been a danger of "dharma" (principles, ideals, values, religion) becoming "dhanda" (business).
Of course idealisms and religions do not have to become corrupt and corrupting. Religion can also be a great cleansing and progressive force, as it was in Reformation Europe, when it struggled with a corrupt and corrupting Roman Catholicism and finally to a large extend cleaning up feudal society and transforming it into what we would today call a modern society.
Similarly, as I have pointed out elsewhere, religion was an enormous positive force in early nineteenth century England, where the Evangelical movement both saved the nation from revolution and cleaned it up, transforming one of the most corrupt countries (including a corrupt and corrupting religion) and making it one of the cleanest that history had known till then. I am not saying that Victorian England was perfect. I am saying merely that in terms of social and environmental concern, political freedom and public justice, no society till then had achieved what it did (and this involved, moreover, cleaning up as much as any colonial power had ever done in history in its colonies, by means of a relatively enlightened colonial policy). I am also saying that the achievement was entirely the fruit of the Evangelical movement.
The challenge for people of all idealistic, humanitarian and/ or religious motivations is how to match the achievements of the European Reformation and the Evangelical movement in nineteenth century England.
The sad thing is that, since the end of the Second World War, the systematic inculcation by the British and global elite of the Theory of Evolution, and the consequent rise of godlessness, has had the result that the achievements of the Reformation and Evangelicalism are understood, even in Christian circles, only "religiously" and not in terms of transformation in knowledge generation, intellectual power, economic progress, political justice and social and environmental concern.
Recovering and studying the real history of the European Reformation and of the Evangelical movement in eighteenth century England has important lessons for our struggle today to clean up idealisms, clean up religions, and focus energy on addressing the enormous challenges posed by the totalitarianism of the capitalist elite, whether in India or around the world.
That is great theory.
But how can you, in practice, tell whether someone (let us call this person Mr Krishna) is a charlatan or whether s/he is truly idealistic/religious/committed to human values?
I have 3 simple questions that I ask myself, and I commend these questions to you as a reasonable place to begin:
1. Considering other people who run charitable organisations of a size similar to that run by Mr Krishna in her/his country, does Mr Krishna have property, possessions and a lifestyle approximating the middle class among such people?
2. How sacrificially does Mr Krishna live?
3. How much of his personal income does Mr Krishna give away to people who are not related to him (by blood, marriage, caste, and so on)?
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
In my youth, Delhi had only one Hindu temple with any size and that was the Birla Mandir. Though architecturally impressive, it is not particularly splendid, and the Birla family achieved a nice balance (to my mind) between creating something attractive on the one hand, and something reasonably in keeping with the spirit of most Indians.
The recent penchant for temple-expansion and temple-glory reminds me of Europe in the 14th to 16th centuries when all the splendid Roman Catholic cathedrals were built.
Europe was then, as India is now, increasingly corrupt, with religion itself part of that corruption.
In conversation in India, you will find any number of people ready to regale you with tales of the corruption and the incredible wealth of Indian "religious leaders".
When religion itself becomes a corrupting influence then there is no hope for the masses.
And we are now witnessing the world-wide corruption not only of religion but also of idealism of all sorts.
There are now innumerable examples of people using "high and noble and apparently humanistic" objectives only to make money for themselves. The biggest secular temple in the world, the World Economic Forum in Davos, is (as far as I can make out) one such example. Various gurus (from different religious traditions!) are other examples. I am not saying that all gurus are charlatans or that WEF necessarily belong in this category till one has evidence one way or the other.
But we have sadly reached a situation worldwide that one has to be specially careful and suspicious when people invoke what is "high and noble and humanistic". Or, to put it differently, the more "high and noble and humanistic" the aims of the individual or organisation, the more careful and suspicious one needs to be....
Idealistic people can be gullible and that tendency has always been exploited by the hypocritical – think back to Chaucer's The Pardoner's Tale in the 14th Century!
That is why there has always been a danger of "dharma" (principles, ideals, values, religion) becoming "dhanda" (business).
Of course idealisms and religions do not have to become corrupt and corrupting. Religion can also be a great cleansing and progressive force, as it was in Reformation Europe, when it struggled with a corrupt and corrupting Roman Catholicism and finally to a large extend cleaning up feudal society and transforming it into what we would today call a modern society.
Similarly, as I have pointed out elsewhere, religion was an enormous positive force in early nineteenth century England, where the Evangelical movement both saved the nation from revolution and cleaned it up, transforming one of the most corrupt countries (including a corrupt and corrupting religion) and making it one of the cleanest that history had known till then. I am not saying that Victorian England was perfect. I am saying merely that in terms of social and environmental concern, political freedom and public justice, no society till then had achieved what it did (and this involved, moreover, cleaning up as much as any colonial power had ever done in history in its colonies, by means of a relatively enlightened colonial policy). I am also saying that the achievement was entirely the fruit of the Evangelical movement.
The challenge for people of all idealistic, humanitarian and/ or religious motivations is how to match the achievements of the European Reformation and the Evangelical movement in nineteenth century England.
The sad thing is that, since the end of the Second World War, the systematic inculcation by the British and global elite of the Theory of Evolution, and the consequent rise of godlessness, has had the result that the achievements of the Reformation and Evangelicalism are understood, even in Christian circles, only "religiously" and not in terms of transformation in knowledge generation, intellectual power, economic progress, political justice and social and environmental concern.
Recovering and studying the real history of the European Reformation and of the Evangelical movement in eighteenth century England has important lessons for our struggle today to clean up idealisms, clean up religions, and focus energy on addressing the enormous challenges posed by the totalitarianism of the capitalist elite, whether in India or around the world.
That is great theory.
But how can you, in practice, tell whether someone (let us call this person Mr Krishna) is a charlatan or whether s/he is truly idealistic/religious/committed to human values?
I have 3 simple questions that I ask myself, and I commend these questions to you as a reasonable place to begin:
1. Considering other people who run charitable organisations of a size similar to that run by Mr Krishna in her/his country, does Mr Krishna have property, possessions and a lifestyle approximating the middle class among such people?
2. How sacrificially does Mr Krishna live?
3. How much of his personal income does Mr Krishna give away to people who are not related to him (by blood, marriage, caste, and so on)?
ENDS Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Financial Bubbles, Damaged Brains and the Condition of Society Today
On 21 July this year (2005), there was an intriguing article published by Jane Spencer, a staff reporter, in The Wall Street Journal.
Titled "Lessons from the Brain Damaged Investor", it said that researchers from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, and the University of Iowa had concluded that people with an impaired ability to experience emotions might be able to make better financial decisions than other people under certain circumstances.
Intrigued, I thought I would follow up at some convenient time. That has finally arrived, and I found that the research had been published the previous month in the peer-reviewed journal, Psychological Science, so we can be confident that the study is "scientifically valid", at least from the viewpoint of the peculiar mixture of science and art that is called psychology. Actually, the research is part of a fast-growing interdisciplinary field called "neuroeconomics" that explores among other things the role biology plays in economic decision making, by combining insights from cognitive neuroscience, psychology and economics.
The fifteen brain-damaged participants who were the focus of the study had normal IQs, and the areas of their brains responsible for logic and cognitive reasoning were intact. But they had lesions in the region of the brain that controls emotions, which inhibited their ability to experience basic feelings such as fear or anxiety. The lesions were due to a range of causes, including stroke and disease, but they impaired the participants' emotional functioning in a similar manner.
In the study, the participants' lack of emotional responsiveness gave them an advantage when they played a simple investment game. The emotionally impaired players were more willing to take gambles that had high payoffs because they lacked fear. Players with undamaged brain wiring, however, were more cautious and reactive during the game, and wound up with less money at the end.
The trouble with biologists and psychologists is that they do not understand real-world finance. The way their game was constructed "rewarded" taking high risks. In the real world, high risk can sometimes equal high reward, but it can also mean high loss, or complete loss, of capital.
The highest-risk form of investment is straightforward gambling, and the returns from that are well established. If you are in love with gambling, then the best way to "play" is not to place bets, it is to set up a company that organises gambling games or, better, invest in a company that is already successful at gambling. (NOTE: I am not recommending that you be involved in gambling at all. I personally consider gambling immoral – not necessarily to participate as a gambler (that is merely financially stupid but if you enjoy the activity I can't see that a moderate amount of the activity does any harm – the problem is only that one can get "hooked" on gambling, but then one can also get "hooked" on chocolate or coffee or anything else, so it is not the coffee or the gambling that is the problem here, but one's tendency to get "hooked"); however, organising gambling as a commercial activity is immoral because it exploits the weakness of those who are most vulnerable to the "attractions" of gambling, such as emotionally and financially weak people.)
Having considered the study, I can only conclude that the researchers "fixed" the results by "fixing" the rules of their game. If you construct a game in which those who take high-risks win (which is not necessarily the case in the real world) then you will get high-risk takers winning.
The only thing that the study proves is that brain-damaged people are less able to take a balanced view of the nuances of a situation, and so are more likely to take higher (and probably unrealistic) risks.
So all that the study proves is that brain-damaged people are likely to take high risks – but we did not need the experiment to tell us that!
Modern academic activity is unfortunately now too full of such rubbish. My advice to anyone thinking of investing their lives in such research is to stay away till the researchers can learn some basic lessons about logic, experimental design and real-life economics, finance and investing.
In fact, we have known from experience for at least a hundred years that successful investing requires objectivity. To put it differently, it requires the ability to look at all the facts and come to one's own rational conclusions. It requires the ability not to be swayed by emotions such as fear or greed or ambition or what might be called the "herd factor".
On the other hand, the successful investor does have to take the "herd mentality" into account rationally as a factor in making any investment decision today, because so much of the market has stopped being driven by fundamentals. Most of the market is in fact driven by emotions as more and more "small investors" are doing their own investment and disinvestment. As these inexperienced and professionally untrained and perhaps even psychologically-unsuitable investors have entered the market in greater and greater numbers, they have changed the nature of the market from a more or less rational field, to an increasingly emotion-driven field.
The challenge as an investor is how to "sense" where the market is going, when there are no (or few) fundamentals to guide you. The current housing bubble in metropolitan areas around the world clearly illustrates the challenge. We know that, from the viewpoint of fundamentals, house prices should have started coming down a long while ago. The key questions are: WHEN will they actually start coming down and how far will they fall.
A parallel case was the IT bubble from 1998 or so till Spring 2000. No one knew when the "bust" would begin or how low prices would fall, even though it was clear (certainly from 1998) that the situation was a real bubble. But we had apparently serious students of economics, technology and finance telling us that we were in a "new economy" where the old rules did not apply. The old rules certainly did not apply in this market for a couple of years or more, but then they struck with a vengeance.
So investors who were stupid, emotionally-challenged or even brain-damaged could profit for a couple of years from a market gone mad. And they did profit. Many executives ended up in top positions simply because they were functioning in an area which "benefited" from that madness. Many CEOs earned millions who should never have been CEOs in the first place. Many companies were bought and sold that should never have been bought or sold (think AOL-TimeWarner). The ability to be genuinely objective is unfortunately too rare, whether among investors, executives or CEOs. It is easy to be influenced by what is currently fashionable or by your class or your nation or your own family.
However, the good thing is that everyone can play and you might be lucky or unlucky with your timing. The "irrational exuberance" regarding shares the late 1990s has, since then, been replaced by the "irrational exuberance" regarding housing now. Only a fool will invest in housing now. But fools can get lucky. (I am just buying a house myself at present, but that is for domestic reasons and because I have no option in the location where I need a house).
The interesting question, as more and more people enter the investment market and realise that ones needs to be either lucky or "brain damaged" in order to be successful is the following: "What are the consequences of living in a brain-damaged society such as we are producing today?" Sphere: Related Content
Titled "Lessons from the Brain Damaged Investor", it said that researchers from the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, and the University of Iowa had concluded that people with an impaired ability to experience emotions might be able to make better financial decisions than other people under certain circumstances.
Intrigued, I thought I would follow up at some convenient time. That has finally arrived, and I found that the research had been published the previous month in the peer-reviewed journal, Psychological Science, so we can be confident that the study is "scientifically valid", at least from the viewpoint of the peculiar mixture of science and art that is called psychology. Actually, the research is part of a fast-growing interdisciplinary field called "neuroeconomics" that explores among other things the role biology plays in economic decision making, by combining insights from cognitive neuroscience, psychology and economics.
The fifteen brain-damaged participants who were the focus of the study had normal IQs, and the areas of their brains responsible for logic and cognitive reasoning were intact. But they had lesions in the region of the brain that controls emotions, which inhibited their ability to experience basic feelings such as fear or anxiety. The lesions were due to a range of causes, including stroke and disease, but they impaired the participants' emotional functioning in a similar manner.
In the study, the participants' lack of emotional responsiveness gave them an advantage when they played a simple investment game. The emotionally impaired players were more willing to take gambles that had high payoffs because they lacked fear. Players with undamaged brain wiring, however, were more cautious and reactive during the game, and wound up with less money at the end.
The trouble with biologists and psychologists is that they do not understand real-world finance. The way their game was constructed "rewarded" taking high risks. In the real world, high risk can sometimes equal high reward, but it can also mean high loss, or complete loss, of capital.
The highest-risk form of investment is straightforward gambling, and the returns from that are well established. If you are in love with gambling, then the best way to "play" is not to place bets, it is to set up a company that organises gambling games or, better, invest in a company that is already successful at gambling. (NOTE: I am not recommending that you be involved in gambling at all. I personally consider gambling immoral – not necessarily to participate as a gambler (that is merely financially stupid but if you enjoy the activity I can't see that a moderate amount of the activity does any harm – the problem is only that one can get "hooked" on gambling, but then one can also get "hooked" on chocolate or coffee or anything else, so it is not the coffee or the gambling that is the problem here, but one's tendency to get "hooked"); however, organising gambling as a commercial activity is immoral because it exploits the weakness of those who are most vulnerable to the "attractions" of gambling, such as emotionally and financially weak people.)
Having considered the study, I can only conclude that the researchers "fixed" the results by "fixing" the rules of their game. If you construct a game in which those who take high-risks win (which is not necessarily the case in the real world) then you will get high-risk takers winning.
The only thing that the study proves is that brain-damaged people are less able to take a balanced view of the nuances of a situation, and so are more likely to take higher (and probably unrealistic) risks.
So all that the study proves is that brain-damaged people are likely to take high risks – but we did not need the experiment to tell us that!
Modern academic activity is unfortunately now too full of such rubbish. My advice to anyone thinking of investing their lives in such research is to stay away till the researchers can learn some basic lessons about logic, experimental design and real-life economics, finance and investing.
In fact, we have known from experience for at least a hundred years that successful investing requires objectivity. To put it differently, it requires the ability to look at all the facts and come to one's own rational conclusions. It requires the ability not to be swayed by emotions such as fear or greed or ambition or what might be called the "herd factor".
On the other hand, the successful investor does have to take the "herd mentality" into account rationally as a factor in making any investment decision today, because so much of the market has stopped being driven by fundamentals. Most of the market is in fact driven by emotions as more and more "small investors" are doing their own investment and disinvestment. As these inexperienced and professionally untrained and perhaps even psychologically-unsuitable investors have entered the market in greater and greater numbers, they have changed the nature of the market from a more or less rational field, to an increasingly emotion-driven field.
The challenge as an investor is how to "sense" where the market is going, when there are no (or few) fundamentals to guide you. The current housing bubble in metropolitan areas around the world clearly illustrates the challenge. We know that, from the viewpoint of fundamentals, house prices should have started coming down a long while ago. The key questions are: WHEN will they actually start coming down and how far will they fall.
A parallel case was the IT bubble from 1998 or so till Spring 2000. No one knew when the "bust" would begin or how low prices would fall, even though it was clear (certainly from 1998) that the situation was a real bubble. But we had apparently serious students of economics, technology and finance telling us that we were in a "new economy" where the old rules did not apply. The old rules certainly did not apply in this market for a couple of years or more, but then they struck with a vengeance.
So investors who were stupid, emotionally-challenged or even brain-damaged could profit for a couple of years from a market gone mad. And they did profit. Many executives ended up in top positions simply because they were functioning in an area which "benefited" from that madness. Many CEOs earned millions who should never have been CEOs in the first place. Many companies were bought and sold that should never have been bought or sold (think AOL-TimeWarner). The ability to be genuinely objective is unfortunately too rare, whether among investors, executives or CEOs. It is easy to be influenced by what is currently fashionable or by your class or your nation or your own family.
However, the good thing is that everyone can play and you might be lucky or unlucky with your timing. The "irrational exuberance" regarding shares the late 1990s has, since then, been replaced by the "irrational exuberance" regarding housing now. Only a fool will invest in housing now. But fools can get lucky. (I am just buying a house myself at present, but that is for domestic reasons and because I have no option in the location where I need a house).
The interesting question, as more and more people enter the investment market and realise that ones needs to be either lucky or "brain damaged" in order to be successful is the following: "What are the consequences of living in a brain-damaged society such as we are producing today?" Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)