Question: Assuming we are the real free-thinkers, what must our
relationship be with the society? What route should we choose?
I think before we talk about the relationship between free-thinkers
and people, we must first start with the free-thinker himself. That
is, we must understand the free-thinking in its true sense. Can we be
sure that we can let our hair down with the free-thinkers of our
society and share with them what we have?
I believe we have not yet reached the second stage (the relationship
between free-thinkers and people). But assuming that we have, when we
get together with the masses, do we know how to talk to them? What
have we got to share with them? What message have we for them? This is
a difficult problem indeed. Should we, considering the fact that our
society is a religious one, reject the opinions and the thoughts of
the masses? Must we dictate to the masses? If so, are we not
strengthening and making the masses the more determined in their
religious stupor? If we denied their thoughts, have we not become
estranged from them and relegated them into the lap of the
reactionaries who are fighting us? We notice that in both cases the
problem has remained unsolved. On the other hand, we arc essen- tially
still feeding upon the European intellectuals' thoughts of the last
couple of centuries. To what extent can such thoughts, designs, and
ideas illuminate our atmosphere as well as our responsibilities?
First, the European intellectual is dealing with a worker who has gone
through three centuries of the Middle Ages and two centuries of
Renaissance. Second, this worker lives in an atmosphere not domi-
nated by a religious spirit. Third, he has reached the industrial
proletariat stage. Fourth, he lives in a well-developed industrial
bourgeois system in which the relationships are of an industrial type,
and finally, the worker has attained a higher stage of growth, and
self-consciousness. More important, the European intellectual listen-
ers (the industrial proletariat), have formed a layer-a distinct and
independent class in society which has developed a special cultures
concession, and form in the foundation of the Western European
economy. Now suppose as a free-thinker, (who wants to imitate the
ideas of the 19th century intellectuals). I try to speak to an Iranian
worker who does not have any of the characteristics of the 19th
century intellectual listener. I live in a society in which the
bourgeoi- sie, except in big cities, is in its nascent stage The
comprador bourgeoisie is a middle-man, not a bourgeoisie of the
genuine producing system. Apart from this we still do not have a
workers' class in our society. What we have are just groups.
There are groups of workers in the most primitive as well as corrupt
societies. For instance, in Saudi Arabia (where there are industrial
resources and western production), about 500-2000 work- ers live in
the top echelon, but the country as a whole lacks the workers'
foundation; it has a tribal, agricultural, or feudalistic base.
Further, we are not living in the 19th century. When we compare the
characteristics of our societies in Asia and Africa with a European
society we notice that we are living in the thirteenth century.
Therefore, we must first discover in what century we live, and then
understand our own ideas and teach them. To use 19th century ideas on
a 13th century society not only leaves us hanging in the air, but it
is also useless when we are unable to find any listener-the same
things that our free-thinkers are faced with now.
Our free-thinkers are living in the 13th century but their words,
thoughts, and ideas are borrowed from the Western European
intellectuals of the 19th and 20th Centuries. And as such, they cannot
find any listener. Our listeners are "classic" bourgeoisie who have
nothing in common with the European bourgeoisie. Our bazaars
bourgeoisie is 100 % religious, while the European one is 100 %
non-religious. The European bourgeoisie is so progressive that it
created the French revolution while ours just huddle in the bazaars-a
base for seeking tradition.
From our masses' point of view, the average citizenry is a villager.
They are our listeners and you cannot talk to them the same way. John
Moore talked to the British workers in 1864. And so, it is a mistake
to think that we are living in the 19th or 20th century, as well as it
is a mistake to follow the European intellectuals of these two
centuries as our models. Therefore, we must first throw the 10th
century European "contents" out of our heads and for the first time
discover our own century.
There are nations in the world now which are living in a pre-historic
stage, namely, they have not entered the historic period yet.
Therefore, to be in the 20th century is different than living in it.
Accordingly, we must first discover our own century, and then learn
from identical free-thinkers of Europe who are sympathetic to our
ideas of our centuries. We are now living in the 13 th or 14 th
centuries (the end of the Middle Ages, or the onset of the modern
age). In Europe, these were the periods of transition from feudalism
and traditional religion to a bourgeoisie which signifies an open
world- vision, revolutionary bourgeoisie, and protest against
religion. At the present we have all these conditions in our society.
However, we have to find out what Europe did in the 13 th and 14 th
centuries. And what were the reasons that European free-thinkers
played their role so well that they changed the frozen and the
stagnant Middle Ages to a new Europe?
The basic factors that helped to bring about the new civilization in
Europe were economical and intellectual in nature. Economically
feudalism changed to bourgeoisie. In place of the reactionary and
lowly aristocrats, bourgeoisie emerged. This was due to East-West
relations, the crusaders, the discovery of America and Australia,
mercantilism, and the exploitation of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and
even North America. Intellectually, the change was from Catholicism to
Protestantism. The 14th century free-thinker did not negate religion,
he transformed his inclination from the hereafter to this world; from
tendency towards spirit, nature, ethics, and ascetism to work and
effort; from sufism to objection and from self- centeredness to
society-centeredness. In short, the same powerful cultural and
religious resources which lay dormant in the heart of Europe were
changed to moving, emerging, creative, and constructive forces by the
free-thinkers.
Therefore, we must depend upon this fact, rather than what Sartre,
Marx, and Rousseau say. What these people say has to do with our next
two centuries. We must work for the society in which we live now
rather than for our own sole mental and physical satisfaction. What is
important to us now are Luther's and Calvin's works, since they
transformed the Catholic ethics (which had impris- oned Europe in
tradition from centuries) to a moving and creative force. For
instance, Max Weber discussed the relationship between capitalism to
the Protestant ethic. He argued that those predomi- nantly Catholic
Countries such as Spain, France, and Italy were less progressive than
England, Germany, and the United States which were predominantly
Protestant. Namely Weber maintained that there was a direct
relationship between Protestant ethic and capital- ism.
We notice that those countries which have changed the Catholic
religion from its reactionary form to a creative and protesting force
have made headway. On the other hand, those countries which have kept
Catholicism have remained in the condition of the Middle Ages.
Geographically, Spain and historically, Italy were in a position to
have been the most progressive countries in Europe. First, Spain had
the brightest past in Europe and Rome was the center of Christian
civilization (before Islam). Second, the Renaissance movement of the
15 th and the 16 th centuries originated in Italy with such great art-
ists and thinkers as De Vinci, Michaelangelo, and Galileo.
Although in the past Spain was not like Rome, from the 8 th to 12 th
centuries she had the greatest Islamic civilization, and thereafter
she played the role of transmitter of Islamic Culture to Europe.
Ironically, these two vanguards of civilization are the two most
backwards in Europe now. While America, England, and Germany, which
were the last ones caught up with civilization, are the most advanced.
In these, civilization, industry, capitalism, and material strength
are explainable only in light of religious factors and religious
differences. And so, at this point we reach the conclusion that the
flee-thinkers of the 14 th through 17 th centuries found their new
destiny by destroy- ing their old faith, and transforming traditional
Catholicism to a protesting, world-minded, political, and materialist
Protestanism.
Such a mission is also available to the religious East which is living
at the end of the Medieval period. But it is not fitting that we mimic
the European flee-thinkers of the 19 th and 20 th centuries and reject
religion. In a society like Iran, whose foundation is a religious one,
we must not turn ourselves into a so-called free-thinker cadre (that
gathers in coffee houses, cabarets, and parties to "talk big," and
show off by reciting new personalities), while our average citizens
are still living in the Middle Ages, having no access to our talents,
religion, ideology, and writing.
Any school which is not based upon the cultural foundations of a
society looks like a good book in a library which is used only by a
small group of students and professors. Even if thousands of such
books are printed, they will have no effect upon the masses. The
greatest danger, however, is self-separation of the free-thinker from
the society's context. If a free-thinker separates himself from his
society, no matter where he goes or what he does, his society will
remain in everlasting corruption. For example, in the 5 th and 6 th
centuries A.H., thinkers such as Avicenna, Ghazali (two of history's
great teachers) died in a society which was wallowing in the
corruption in the Seljuk and Ghaznavi periods. Why? Because these
free-thinkers stayed away from the society (consequently, we would
have been better off if, in place of Avicenna, Ghazali, Fakhr, and
Zakaria Razi, we had one Abu Zar; all the Islamic societies would have
been saved from the grips of Seljuk, Ghaznavi, and the Mongols.
In ancient Greece too, there were free-thinkers like Aristotle. But
throughout Aristotle's lifetime, the Athenian people were suffering
from corruption, aristocracy, and slavery. On the other hand, there
was not one single philosopher in Sparta, but here people were
sportsmen and brave. In Athens, hundreds of writers, philosophers and
so forth could not change and organize the society, their pres- enec
and absence did not make a bit of difference.
Our problem in the East, (e.g. Iran), is that we have created a
platonic garden out of our countries. For example, if you go to Tehran
and visit a few cafes you will meet many free-thinkers, socialists,
existentialists, and so forth. They have a super market of ideas along
with their own special publications. But unfortunately, the average
man in the street does not know who these "idealists" are and what
they are doing.
Q: In order to be able to talk to peoples is it sufficient to know
their language?
It is quite obvious. Suppose I go to one of the villages and visit a
mosque. A mullah is preaching something incomprehensible and vague. If
I can take his place and talk to people so they could see the
preacher's flaws and perhaps misleading statements, then I know my
mission as a free-thinker. However, if I cringe in a corner and shun
talking to the villager, thinking that he is stupid or because of fear
or being accused by the mullah of "uncleanliness," then I would be
ignorant and a fool. I must observe what the mullah does and how he
deals with people. Why are people listening to him? Is it his talk
that has attracted people or some other kind of tradition and
heritage? If we find our answers not only can we talk to villagers
more effectively and sincerely, but consequently, we can occupy the
mullah's position and find a base for the free-thinker in the society.
Otherwise, we are going to get nowhere by sitting and philosophizing.
Q: Can you impose yourself upon people as you are or is it enough to
talk their language? For instance, if I wanted to be a free-thinker
and talk to them, is it necessary to wear the same outfit as they do?
It is not necessary to wear their type of outfit. These types of
procedures or mannerisms belong to American sociologists. It is not
necessary to either change my clothes or face and mimic foreigners. If
I go to a mosque and explain a more appealing and logical Hossein to
the masses than what the mullah does, they will listen to me more.
However, as long as the mullah is dominating the villagers' mentality
and I (as a free-thinker) am yakking on the peripheries, no matter how
modern my yammerings are, they are not worth a farthing. There is no
difference between the yammerings of the existentialists and those of
the socialists. My job is to influence the villagers' minds.
Once I was reading an article by the Iranian movie director who made,
When The Storks Fly. He said, "If a director wants to know a villager,
he must become a friend to one in order to find out what he says and
feels as well as what kinds of problems, ideals, and pains he has. We
must learn how to talk and live with him so we can discover his
style." Therefore, a free-thinker must be the director of his society;
that is, he must constantly feel and be the designer of his society.
Suppose a couple of us free-thinkers drop inside a coffee shop in
which ordinary men chat around and drink tea. All of a sudden the shop
will become dead silent-everyone will stop joking, talking, and
working! They will stare at us as though we are from Mars, wishing to
see us out of there as soon as possible. We free-thinkers are out of
context in this atmosphere, since we come to this coffee shop to speak
rather than to listen. The point is, we must go in the heart of the
masses not with an arrogant attitude.
Once Jalal told me, "When I was coming out of the holy shrine in
Mashhad, I started to amble along with my coat hanging over my
shoulder. A villager approached me and said, 'Hey, man, how much are
you selling this coat for?' I said, 'My man, it is not for sale.'
Jalal was very elated about the whole incident since the villager had
mistaken him for one of his own kind, so much so that he wanted to buy
his coat. He thought this was a remarkable achievement for a Tehrani
to be mistaken for a villager. I told Jalal, "Yes, it was a great
achievement but the man had a better insight than you did, since he
treated you properly while you answered him badly. 'My man, it is not
for sale' was not the proper response of a free-thinker, since you
forced him to figure out that he had made a mistake. Thus, he
reproached himself for having mistaken you for someone else. You
should not have chased him away since he would have ultimately figured
out that a man with a top coat on his shoulder would not say, 'My
man....' since this utterance communicated to the villager that you
were a stranger and you belonged to a different class!
Q: What you are proposing takes a long time to accomplish. How can we
accomplish them all?
In solving social problems, we must not think of the shortest way,
rather, we must think of the most correct way. The reason why most of
our free-thinkers have not been able to get anywhere is because they
have been waiting to discover several ways. And when they realized
that they could not do much, they became desperate and resorted to
writing modern poetry: for instance, "For the past eighteen years, a
few times we made some catcalls in the streets. Alas! to no avail! So
we became desperate. Ah! we have no right to become desperate!"
The point is we must choose the best and the most logical way that
leads us to our objective. What do we want to do? If we are after
superficial jobs, they have been done myriads of times, and each time
disillusioned we have returned to our starting point.
A free-thinker's function is not to lead the society. This is one of
the most serious mistakes that free-thinkers around the world commit.
The most worthless elements for leading people are free- thinkers. In
all the African and Asian uprisings you will never see free-thinkers'
faces. Rather the revolutionary leaders are from among the masses and
the common people. Free-thinkers have always been the worst disaster
to revolutions.
In 1960, in a conference which was held in Northern Africa, it was
decided that in the event that the Northern African revolution became
successful and Africa free, the leadership positions (ministry of
education, economics, etc) should be given to free-thinkers rather
than to revolutionaries and guerillas. But who were the free-
thinkers? Those who were overseas working on their doctorates while
the revolutionaries were fighting in the trenches. And so, the
revolutionary must leave his gun, go about his business so the
engineer and the doctor (who were abroad) could lead. Unfortunate- ly,
those societies which have had successful revolutions became
conservative and corrupt when intellectuals and the educated wrested
the leadership from the revolutionaries. Tunis is a typical example.
Therefore, the function of free-thinkers is not the political
leadership of a society, rather, their sole job is to bestow awareness
on the masses, that's all. lf a free-thinker ean awaken his society,
the product of his mission will be heroes who can lead the
free-thinkers themselves. And as long as there are no heroes, the
mission of the free-thinker is not yet over. Religion, art, how to
communicate with people, poetry, and theatre are all important factors
with which free-thinkers can work; trying to handle more than these is
useless. That is, the mission of a free-thinker is confined to
returning the alienated society (by Europeans) to her real self,
restoring her character and her "usurped" human sentiment and
bestowing class consciousness, faith, and national history upon her.
In accomplishing such a mission, the most logical way (rather than the
shortest) must be chosen.
Unlike free-thinkers who expect more and sacrifice less, we must
sacrifice more and expect less. I would rather see two to three
generations work before they get any results. For instance, if we
reach our goals within ten years, we are apt to fall behind a hundred
years. We have always had a strange experience in Africa and Asia.
Those countries which have reached their objectives quickly, have lost
their former concessions as well. This is why I denounce all "quick"
and immature revolutions.
Q: In your opinion who must make us, ourselves or someone else?
No one. Only ourselves. The same way African free-thinkers did it. Who
made them? An African used to be denounced in France, thrown out of
restaurants in the U.S., and was not heeded as a human being in
England. However, he has gained self-consciousness now even though
some of them still do not know how to write.
Once I came across a vendor in France. He was Muslim, and the verses
of the Qur'an he had memorized were the ones that were beneficial to
his social struggle. The same thing was true about the personalities
he knew and the history he had read. All these were giving him
consciousness. He was so familiar with each country and was analyzing
the world's problem's to such a degree that I was stunned. Who had
trained this man? Had he been trained by a UNESCO expert, a prophet,
Sorbonne leftist professors, or him- self ?
Q: In case of the African thinker, he was despised so much that it
helped him to gain consciousness. But being despised is not so true in
our case. Is it?
It is not true that we are not being despised. The fact is that we are
not aware that we are being despised. Today's blackman is the same man
who was being despised in the 17th and 18th centuries in Paris. In the
15th and 16th centuries they were stowed away in ships (like
cucumbers) destined for America. They were bought at insignif- icant
prices and sold at much higher prices in the U.S. and Australia. At
the time these slaves did not realize that they were being despised,
but they do now.
However, the nature of the contempt and the existence of contra-
diction by themselves are not responsible factors for gaining con-
sciousness. As long as man's volition has not discovered the contra-
diction, it will remain in societal context for a thousand years. A
blackman must feel the contempt in order to become a factor in
awakening others. I must recognize and feel my enemy. But as long as I
have not felt him, I go to him blindfolded, and even take pride in
going close to him so he would not be my enemy anymore. The Iranian
man who is proud of working under a European (who has destroyed his
country and history), no longer has an enemy but a boss. And the boss
does not create consciousness in the servant. An enemy is anti-thesis
who can create consciousness but only if it is "realized" that such a
contradiction exists.
The free-thinker's and artist's functions are to remove the contra-
dictions and discrepancies that exist in the heart of a society and
enter them into the feeling and consciousness of the society. As long
as such contradictions exist in objectivity they will not cause any
movement. In the twentieth century we still witness societies that
live in feudalism; something that belongs to the second and third
epochs of man's history. Or, there are still societies which have not
entered the historical period; that is, they possess no clothing and
no handwrit- ing. Therefore, contradiction must enter subjectivity in
order to cause movement. This is why poverty does not cause movement,
it is the feeling of poverty that does. Isn't that so? Often times
poverty is even accepted and once this happens, there is no more
contradiction. The poor must develop consciousness of poverty.
One of the ways to enter the contradiction and positive realities into
the consciousness of the present generation is to seek help from those
who have covered this route already. That is, instead of studying
Marx, Sartre, Heiddeger, and so forth (which have nothing to do with
our condition anyway) we need to find out what Fanon, Mawloud, Yassin,
Radhakrishnan, the thinkers of Chad, the Congo, and so forth have
said. These people who are like ourselves and have an identical
mission as ours which they have accomplished. We must learn from these
people and countries, rather than imitate them. This is mere
translation and duplication. And duplicating Aime Cesaire is no
different than imitating Sartre. We must utilize them in our teaching,
research, and methodology.
Q: Assuming we are living in the cultural atmosphere of the 13th and
14th centuries, must we also accept that the 20th century European
ideas are for our use six hundred years from now?
You asked a very good question. Yes. However, you must note that
sometimes we can cover five centuries in twenty years. We now have
societies in Asia and Africa which have-through correct
planning-covered a few centuries in thirty years. Basically, the
problem of intellectual revolution and social movement is not subject
to calendrical measurement criteria. Sometimes a society covers an
epoch in a thousand years, at other times in a much shorter period of
time. I believe that if a free-thinker lives in a primitive society he
must not wait for that society to change to feudalism, bourgeoisie,
capitalism, imperialism, socialism, and so forth. One can bypass these
stages if one is familiar with his society. This is why a free-thinker
can employ historical determinism, cut it short, omit it, or change
it.
If we recognize that we are in the 14th century and subsequently work
with our society with 14th century methods, we will reach the 20th
century in less than half a century. I don't mean copying the 20th
century. As Fanon states, "We never want to make another Europe or
America out of Africa." What was meant to be accom- plished in the
U.S.? A different Europe, but they ended up with the U.S. of A! If we
try to turn Africa into Europe we will have two Americas. Is it worth
it?
We neither want to make a Europe, nor another America, but a human
society. Europe and America tried to create a human society. They
talked and bluffed, but they did just the opposite and ironically they
have always killed all the humans they could find. We absolutely do
not want to catch up with England, the U.S., and France. Never!
Q: What is a free-thinker's mission in building up a society?
If a free-thinker has a mission, it is leaping forward, otherwise he
must wait for historical determinism. In that case man will be subject
to determinism rather than having a reponsibility and a mission. What
is the difference between providential determinism and historical
determinism? One claims that God has made us the way we are, while the
other relates man's fate to historical determinism. In my opinion it
is better that man be made by God than by the latter.
Q: In order to be able to gain independence of thinking so that we can
make a leap, must we first possess technology?
How can a society which lacks identity possess technology and become
independent of Western technology? Which society has ever done so?
Japan has technology since she has identity. A society which lacks
spiritual character will always remain a consumer. Even if she can
produce she will still remain a tool in the hands of the Capitalist.
Q: Can we create technology and go our own way rather than dance to
their tune?
In order to reach economic production, we must first accomplish
cultural production. We cannot "culturally" remain a colony of the
West and industrially become independent; this is impossible. How can
an individual who cannot choose a simple thing gain his technological
independence in front of the West?
A servant must first gain his human independence in order to find his
economic independence. Mentally and morally he must first find his
human independence; leave the boss's house, and go after a different
job.
And so, we must first start cultural production so we can have
economic production, otherwise we will remain a consumer forever. Have
you ever seen a man behind a 1970 Buick in Tehran? He acts so puffed
up, it's as though he has invented it! Even a rat can save its money
and buy one! The Westerners announce that they have reached the moon
and we become excited here! What does this have to do with us?
Q: Should not cultural production and economic production go hand in
hand?
As long as man has not gained self-consciousness, he cannot have
economic consciousness. He must become a human being first; think,
choose, create, quit regurgitating European talks, and instead talk
about himself. In order to become independent of the West, I must get
to know her and reach a stage of 'mental independence.'
Q: But the West does not wait for us to reach her. Will their
technological rate of advance be proportionate to our pace?
Yes. This theory was designed in the 'conference of the year 2000.'
However, it was put forward by the tricky Western sociolo- gists. They
told us that thirty years from now the Asian GNP will advance 5 times,
but that of the West will advance 30 times. That is, the gap between
us will widen much more in the future than it is now. However, they
are not taking into account the "leap" factor. How are they measuring?
With their present rate of progress. Of course, if we keep the
existing factors constant for thirty years they are right. But these
factors do not remain constant. We now have socieities in Asia which
have had a constant production rate for the past thousand years.
However, suddenly in the past ten years they have made a multiple
leap. Due to a mental and social leap their GNP has made phenomenal
advances. The Western sociologists do not take this "leap factor" into
account (which the East brims with).
Q: If you do not accept the predictions of the year 2000 conference,
how do you see the future?
I do not predict. Prediction belongs to Western sociologists. I study
the present. However, I know that in the year 2000 consumer- ism will
vanish. And I know that "ideology" has always been the victor in
history. We now have ideology in Asia and Africa. I have been
witnessing the Western decline ever since the Spengler period. The
Asian graph is going up, and the Western graph is coming down. The
victory belongs to the East.
Q: Can we ever reach an internationalism?
Internationalism is a big lie. It is used to universally exploit and
deceive us. Assuming it can become a reality some day, then "sir" will
be replaced by "Mr. proletariat."
I accept internationalism only when Asia and Africa can have a
"free-choice" personality on par with the 500 million Westerners. In
that case I will accept it as humanism, meaning equality of humanity.
However, as long as I am not a human being, and I am accused of being
a primitive, I cannot do anything. The Westerner's partnership with me
will be like a slave-foreman relationship, or an empty- handed man
with a Capitalist. The former should toil, so the latter could get all
the profit. Internationalism is a big reason for creating a fake
partnership between the East and the West. Is not the partner- ship of
an empty-handed man with a rich man a lie? Can a rich man, based upon
his own volition and money, accomplish this task? This is like a Hajji
Bazzari, while he is exploiting everyone, he claims that he is
everyone's religious brother and he goes to mosque to mourn Hossein!
What does religious brotherhood mean here anyway!?
When a Proletariat is bourgeoisified, he is a bourgeoisie; I don't
care about his background! Yea, Edward Heath was the son of a
carpenter too; do we see him as a carpenter boy now? Thus, when a
proletariat becomes a bourgeoisie, the society is a bourgeoisie. In
this case we no longer have a hourgeois class, we have a bourgeois
society which exploits everyone in order to step up his consumption.
I must think and be myself. Whenever I have turned into a human being,
achieved an equal status with the international community, as well as
the power of decision-making, then I would claim that all men are
equal. But so long as internationalism does not recognize me as a
human being, I have nothing to say to it. What is internationalism?
Even the proletariat of the Western nations are ripping me off!
Q: Is it due to their technical progress that the Western countries
have attained such an economic prosperity?
Do you think it is due to only eight hours of work that Europeans have
a prosperous economy? A taxi driver in France works 6 hours and lays
around for the remaining 18 hours, and in the meantime he is secure
from financial anxiety. Is this due to his work or his country's
looting of Africa? France buys a bottle of Vin Rose from Algiers for
10 cents, tomatoes from Africa for almost nothing, and rents Chad's
coffee farms for free! She pays $9.00 a day to a few naked and poor
Africans to harvest the coffee and in the meantime she boasts that
Capitalism is nice because she pays a lot to workers. In the meantime
she turns around and sells the same coffee for millions of dollars.
France does not pay a penny out of her pocket, she steals them all!
Q: So, you are proposing a theory?
No. I am not a theory maker. Whoever makes up theory is only good for
universities. What is a theory for anyway?
Q: Europeans have reached a progressive thinking stage, why are they
behaving this way?
I think they are biased. They believe in their own superiority, and
have created a type of thinking atmosphere, called, "egocen- trism,"
which is self-centeredness. An egocentric individual does not count
others as human beings. This philosophy has existed in the West ever
since ancient Greece. Even humanists, antropologists, and socialists
are caught in the snare of egocentrism. Human relations to them is
limited to the relations among their own classes. They do not discuss
universal relations.
I can never forget that in the 19th century the great socialists,
humanists, and upholders of democracy and equality talked about
everything (they even meticulously analyzed the minute relationships
between the worker and the employer), but never mentioned exploi-
tation!
I must point out to something here, and that is, in human and social
problems we must not apply strict scientific methodology. For
instance, when dealing with a scientific issue, we concentrate upon
its validity or invalidity. However, in social problems we must not
pay attention to the logic of the statement, rather, we must focus on
the geography of the issue.
In the East, we are the victims of the same talks which bestowed life
upon the West. For instance, sometimes an "ism" which saved the West
from slavery and united her, found its way to the East in a particular
historical epoch and caused disparity and dissension. Or, the same
nationalism which was the cause of progress in the 16th and 17th
centuries and built Australia, France, England, and Germany, it caused
disparity and the consequent break-up of the Islamic power in the 19th
century.
Thus, it is obvious that apart from the truth and falsity and
logicality and illogicality of a social issue, one must take into
consideration the geography of an issue. Suppose there is an orphan
who has inherited some property. In the meantime I have my eyes on his
riches and am thinking of a way to rip him off. What should I do so he
can't read into my thought? I must create lots of sensitivities in
him. For instance, I must tell him, "The best way to become a man is
to resort to knowledge." I must keep poking into his head the
usefulness of knowledge and send him away to London. I must force him
to read scientific and philosophical books. Or, if the child has
religious sentiments, I must order him to go after praying and so
forth. The child-if he were going to do the right thing-he would grab
my collar and say, "Hey, pass the money!"
Thus everything must be understood and placed in its proper
context-its geography. We must not concentrate on mere "talks and
words," rather, we must evaluate the "talker" first.
Q: What sources do you suggest for awareness?
We must not think of a particular source which gives us awareness. For
instance, when I was a university student I used to read many old
books. These remained in my head as a collection of superstition and
myths until I went to Europe and became a student of Berg. With the
methodology I learned there, I transformed all those superstitions and
myths to awareness-producing elements. For instance, an untrue story
about the seventh century would provide me with awareness since I
would look for the context, the persons, and the purpose for which the
story was written.
The point is when one has a methodology at hand, a lie will help him
to recognize specific period in the past. In order to accomplish this,
one must have a specific outlook, and look for particular things in
history as well as look at history from a specific angle. We can,
then, use a piece of information to find the necessary ingredients for
building our present cultural foundations and awareness, as well as
familiarize ourselves with the conditions of our today as well as our
tomorrow.
For instance look at existentialism. The philosophical basis of
existentialism is this: man has existence first, and he makes his own
essence (characteristics and specifics) afterwards. We notice that our
own Mullasadra has talked about the same thing in the past. So, if we
maintain a historical and philosphical connection with our past, we
will have well-developed fresh mentalities and ideologies, rather than
a Persian dubbing of what Westerners say. Existentialism our country
is an immature Western imitation which is in need being enriched with
our 3000-year-old theosophic experience in order eligible to be called
philosophy.
When I was in Europe, Radhakrishnan had come to Belgium. Since I like
him I went to see him. In Belgium he delivered a lecture on the
history of religions. I witnessed the great scientists from all over
Europe who felt like children in his presence. That is, whenever Mr.
Radhakrishnan expressed a viewpoint, he was so well-versed with his
subject matter that European scientists felt like apostles around
their prophet. And when they wanted to ask a question, they were
cautious and timid. When a man like Krishnan (so familiar with the
Eastern theosophic schools) talked, one became enchanted with all that
beauty and depth. In those moments Europeans realized there was a new
personality in Europe! Unfortunately we turn around and hash over
European regurgitations, while a man like Kirshnan has offered
humanity's dinner table a new and fresh dish.
In 1961, when Nehru came to France, the Indian embassy (unlike all
others which try to imitate French dance and wine) served Indian
dishes. When European dignitaries came to visit, they noticed things
were different. . . this made the French feel inferior, since after
two centuries of suffering under exploitation, the Indians were
standing firm in their own tradition. This roused the European's
respect.
This is what I mean by originality and free-thinking, rather than our
Iranian free-thinker's hundred years of regurgitation of Marx's ideas
which are of no use to anyone. Those individuals who have been
successful in Africa and Asia have been the ones that have been able
to teach European philosophies and forget them. They were able to get
to know their societies, find and propose new solutions, based upon
their existing cultural, historical, and social resources, and create
a new foundation. We see that they have become successful too!
