Dialogue Among
Civilizations – Toward Better Understanding
By: Dr. Mohammad Sadeq
Mahfouzi
Dialogue has always been one of the main focuses of attention in
every school of thought. Without reaching agreements, harmonizing
and holding dialogues, it is really impossible for any school at
thought to survive.
All thinkers had similar
ideology, philosophy and thought harmoniously during the mythical
eras. So did theologians during the height of the monotheist
religions.
They also held dialogue when
they faced discord.
The ancient Greek
philosophers, too, agreed with each other, or at least had akin
temperaments and natures. Today also the intellectuals of the new
era, speak the same language and understand each other.
But could the thinkers of
the mythological era understand the language of the ancient Greek
philosophers?
If the foundations of these
two eras had some shared components, they could understand each
other. How could that happen otherwise?
Did the ancient Greek
philosophers speak the same language as the priests of the Middle
Ages and could they ever have dialogue with each other? The answer
is still the same. We finally ask; "Can the intellectuals of the
new era, who are from the camp of the domineering thoughts of our
time, have any shared viewpoints, or a common language with each
other to hold a discourse with the divine theologists? Do they
have any common ground with one another? In order to seek a
logical answer to these questions we need to ascribe to the
origins and fundamentals of these two schools of thought.
The most basic rule in a
monotheist system of thought is believing in the Existence of the
Creator that has always been and will never cease to exist. No
creature or object can exist independently from his power and
everything and everyone, are, but the signs and shadows of that
eternal, immortal Trainer of All. Everyone and everything is
mortal in this realm, except Him. They all rely on Him and it is
only He who does not rely on anyone or anything else. The
creatures are all poor and in need, while the Creatures rich and
needless. That is the first rule in this realm.
But it is the human mind
that is the axis of all affairs in the context of the new era
mentality. The relationship between the creator and His creatures
that originates in the religious realm, is turned into an artistic
or a non-artistic source of creativity for the man who has severed
his relationship with the generous source of the Divine
Revelations. The religious realm's wisdom is turned into digital
arithmetic, that is in turn employed to gain absolute hegemony
over mankind and the whole of universe. The religious traditions
are turned into commercial human culture and history into a
memorandum of the frequent and customary affairs of the
all-encompassing, vastly expanded ego.
As you notice, the origins
and foundations of the new era mentality contradict with the
religious thoughts. How could there possibly be a dialogue or any
type of exchange, using the same language as the means of their
communication?! So long as any of these two realms speak from
their own rightful and justified standpoint, such a thing can not
logically happen. Unless one of them, or both, turn their backs on
their indisputable prophecies.
It is therefore not possible
to make a logically improbable event occur, just by willing it to
do so as well as political maneuvers, etc. Politics, sciences, the
arts, history, social viewpoints and every other human matter
takes roots in a unique system of thought. Also the domineering
mentality of any given era, in the context of any given situation,
has its special and fundamental rules.
The thinkers of any society
illuminate the various paths in which the people need to act,
including the political paths. If these thinkers would cease their
contemplation and reasoning, everything else in the universe would
turn into chaos and disorder and all would move toward extinction.
A politician, a scientist,
an artist, and the rest are all benefit from the thoughts of the
intellectuals. The thinkers of any society are thus the lighters
of the torches of wisdom and everyone is a benefactor of the
output of their activities. Sad is the situation of a people whose
politicians, scientists, artists, businessmen, experts,
capitalists, powerful individuals and et cetera, decide to take
the lead. The real leaders of a people should be chosen from among
the thinkers and intellectuals. Of course, we do not mean to
convey the idea that a politician cannot be an intellectual at the
same time.
An individual might
simultaneously be both. Or for instance, a scientist might also be
a thinker who has taken abode in the house existence.
We are not talking of any
particular individual, but trying to illuminate both the scene and
the path by raising these arguments.
The main question is: “How
could we remain in our own religious realm and at the same time be
able to hold a dialogue, or any type of a meaningful communication
with the new era Western thinkers, whose mentality is the essence
of domineering, arrogance, selfishness as well as the main
platform for the descendants of mankind?”
It is true that we, as well
as everyone else, wishes for a world filled with justice, truth
and prosperity for all. But can we possibly achieve those
admirable goals merely by wishing for it or even by having a
strong political will?
The West, so long as it is
the way it is now, has no shared ideology with the Eastern
monotheist realm that takes roots in divine revelations, nor can
it ever have such a relationship. It will not even be able to do
so no matter how hard it might wish or try. The religious realm
also, so long as it is in its present posture cannot communicate
with the ego centrist West.
But if any of these two
realms would retreat from their stands, such a dialogue would take
place.
The new era is not too
dissimilar or different from the mentality of the Middle Ages.
During the Middle Ages the
Church authorities somehow followed the trails of the ancient
Greek philosophers and believed that the subjects and the objects
to be basically separate issues. This idea was based on the
concept of human thought during the Middle Ages, but it came to
aid a divine religion. Therefore, a type of veiled communication
existed and even today continues between the intellectuals of the
Middle Ages and the new era thinkers. However, there also existed
a type of dialogue among the priests of the Christian Middle Ages
and the Muslim thinkers of that era. They did share some
characteristics, too. After all, even the priests of the Middle
Ages did believe in the creation of man by God. But after the
Renaissance all the monotheist – divine ties between man and God
were gradually diminished in the West. Therefore, if we seek to
have a sort of similarity with the West, in order to serve as a
platform for holding a dialogue with them, we would either have to
forget about our fundamental beliefs, or they would have to turn
their backs at their ideals. Otherwise, there will be no common
grounds for holding a meaningful dialogue. It has now been a while
since some Western philosophers such as Heidegger -who does not
really deserve to be labeled as Westerner, due to the quality and
content of his beliefs have voiced the call for the West's retreat
from the Western realm of existence toward the Eastern realm of
existence.
Now the question that comes
to mind instantly: "Is it not stupidity at such state of affairs
to play the role of those who have lost their identity and plead
to the West from tip to toe. A West that is now going through its
repentance period?
When we talk about holding
dialogue, we must first make sure in what realm we wish to hold
such a dialogue. Is it going to be in the realm that we wish to
hold such a dialogue. Is it going to be in the realm of the new
era after the Renaissance? In such an event, the dialogue would
mean a medium for reaching a compromise. Just a tool. Even the
world "tool" in its new era sense of the word is essentially quite
different from the "tool" of the past centuries. A dialogue in the
intuitive realm, on the other hand, is synonymous with speaking
the same language and narrating the friendly tales of unity. Now
what type of a dialogue do we wish to have with the West? Our
dialogue and narration of tales should take place with those
thinkers in the West who have rehearsed their lines, calling for
leaving behind the Western realm.
Those who care for the
intuitive way of thinking are those whose hearts crave and long
for it. In such cases, narrating the tales of one's own very
personal, spiritual experiences becomes possible.
But if we narrate our tales
and begin our dialogue with those Western thinkers who are like a
chapter of the Western metaphysics, they would never think of us
as a serious partner for conversation. That is because their
viewpoints are quite contradictory with ours and these two realms
of thought are essentially like two unparalleled lines in space
that never meet. When encountering such Western thinkers we should
only reflect on it within their own works in order to find the
path to pass through them. Of course, even in order to contemplate
and hesitate at this extent, a certain degree of unity, or at
least similarity is required.
But we might get out of such
realms intact, safe and sound only if we are able to maintain a
firm and unshaken belief in our own realm and our own views. It is
possible to speak to Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel and
even Nietzsche, but it will merely be a one-sided dialogue! That
is because they would have no conduit to approach them, take a
look at their real face in the mirror of existence and bring them
out from the semi-dark corners into the middle of a bright day.
But it is possible to form a two way dialogue with Anaximander,
Heraclitus, Paramendes, Meister Eckhart, Hoelderlin, Rilke and
Heidegger. We listen to their arguments and they listen to ours.
Therefore, in the expression, “Dialogue Among Civilizations” there
is an intentional simplification and lenience. This dialogue,
narration of tales for each other and speaking the same language
with the intuitively reasoning Western thinkers, on the one hand,
and the Eastern divinely oriented intellectuals and friends of
God, on the other, is possible. The intuitive intellectuals of the
West have in fact left behind the Western metaphysics' realm and
thus washed the faces of their thoughts off the commonplace
Western mentality. Thus, they are not dwelling at the West of
existence any longer. Therefore, the destiny of the day after the
tomorrow of history, as our talented believe, Seyyed Ahmad Fardid
says, “is the emergence of the existence and the truth and the
divine realm. And that would be the foundation of the veiled word
and representative of a light that is the essence of darkness and
a darkness that is the essence of light.” The semi-dark,
semi-light era of metaphysics is over now. The truth in the real
sense of the word would be the very essence of a light that is
darkness and a darkness that is illuminating. But this dark light
or that illuminating darkness would never pretend to be the other
one. During the moment that it represents itself as the light, it
is actually the light too, while its darkness, also, is solidly
united with it. And at the moment when it represents itself as the
darkness, it is actually darkness itself, while its light, too is
solidly with it, and united with it. This light or that darkness
does not sneak into the back room storage. They do not attack, as
if in an ambush either. The Glorious day for such an existence
will come.
The illuminated light that
is lit from a divine source will light our day after tomorrow.
