From Tucson to Changsha

Share

From Tucson to Changsha:

China through the Kaleidoscope of a Curious Traveller with 18 Exchange Students

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

(You may see our China photos at http://picasaweb.google.com/edipyuksel/China2008 )

 

I went to China knowing only one Chinese word, nǐ hǎo (hello), and after two weeks I returned with only one additional word, “xiè xiè”  (thanks, which is pronounced ‘she-ay, she-ay’ with falling tone on the first word). That is it! For someone who is a polyglot and teaches both at college and K-12, this performance in acquiring another language might be considered disappointing. Since English is chronologically my fifth language, I had little motivation to add a sixth language in my linguistically tortured and fragmented brain. Instead, I focused on other things. Though I did not dare to penetrate the insurmountable walls of Chinese calligraphy and tones, during a short trip I learned a lot about Chinese people, their country, their culture, and about us.

As a Kurdish-Turkish-American author/philosopher/educator/activist, as a curious adventurer with too many hyphens and slashes, I decided to share with you my observation through my seasoned kaleidoscope.

Our Aquiline, Straight, and Hawk Noses Standout in China

Together with four other parents and teachers, I accompanied 18 exchange students, including my 13 year-old son, from Accelerated Learning Lab in Tucson, to Lushan International Experimental School in Changsha for a two week academic and social adventure. Our exchange students, whose ages ranged between 8 and 16 (with average age of 11.8, median of 12, and mode of 9), were academically way ahead of their peers here and abroad; six of the students had taken six semesters of AP classes and tests in Calculus, Physics, and Biology, besides History, English and Chinese. They had already received college credits while they were in Middle school. The team in which my son was a member had just received first place in Algebra at the annual Math Fair competition organized by the University High among Middle school students, beating other top schools in Tucson. Two years in row. They won first, second and third prizes at Arizona’s Science Olympiad in numerous categories and demonstrated similar performance at Language Fair competitions in Turkish and Chinese. The elementary students were no different. For instance, the 8 years-old girl was finishing the intermediate algebra. This trip was a reward for their extraordinary academic accomplishment. So, we considered ourselves lucky for traveling with a group of academically and behaviourally excellent group of kids.

The moment we arrived to Changsha we noticed that we were noticed; indeed very much noticed by the Chinese. When we walked, they turned their heads and occasionally stared at us. When David, the headmaster, told us in advance that we would be treated like rock stars, I thought he was exaggerating as he occasionally does. However, it was an accurate description of Chinese reaction to us, and it was an understatement regarding their reaction to some younger students, especially the blond ones; they felt that they were like Pandas in the San Diego zoo.

The stares occasionally were accompanied by action by the most assertive ones who attempted to talk to us. Ironically, many of those confident Chinese could continue only a few words beyond their initial reaction to our inquiry about the level of their English: “I know little.” Then you ask, “Is there a restroom around here?” “I know little.” Where is the bathroom?” “I know little.” You will soon learn that the word “bathroom” is not included in their short list of English words, neither “around” nor “here”! All they knew was “I-know-little” and it was indeed very little.

Unlike the USA, China is very homogenous. Westerners are easily noticed here. From an animated description of a Chinese woman who was watching us together with others in awe, I learned that their Foreigner Diagnostic Algorithm (FDA) has a very simple formula, which I will call: Pinocchio Identification. In their eyes, we are people with vertical (if you wish, you may read it snobbish) noses! There are two categories of people: those with flat noses and those with pointy long noses! We belonged to the second category. As we confuse Japanese with Chinese, they also confuse Mexican and Anglos, Turkish and Italians; they appear to be blind to some of the visual clues easily recognized by us.

Chinese are Slim, but Horizontal Growth might be in the Horizon

On June 2nd, I wanted to get some fruits and a few bottles of water nearby my hotel, which is at a major crossing. I could not find a grocery store on the street; most were fashion boutiques, restaurants, or banks. I decided to use the underpass to cross to the other side. Well, suddenly I found myself, like Alice in Wonderland, in an underground market, as big as the Super-duper Wal-Mart, perhaps bigger than that. I was very excited and started to buy some familiar fruits and snacks, and a few more that I had no clue about. I was going to let my taste buds experience new things. There, I searched for diet soda–you may not believe it, but the spirit of my dietitian wife has followed me till here–but the word “diet” and its Chinese equivalent does not yet exist in their daily language. They are slim people; I rarely saw an obese Chinese. It is either because of their diet, or their tradition of eating slow with those uncooperative chop sticks. I do not know.

However, this fitness might soon become an old glory. Already, the golden ark of McDonald’s, the red hut of Pizza Hut, and the goatee of the KFC are blinking and winking in major corners of the city. If the Chinese do not pay attention, they might soon import our obesity in addition to paying us hefty franchise loyalty. I remember reading an article in Time magazine on Wal-Mart’s expansion in China. The reporter directed a loaded question to the director of the China operation, which I paraphrase: “Wal-Mart is carrying junk food and fatty snacks. Wouldn’t those items harm the health of Chinese population?” The leader of Wal-Mart’s Chinese operation did not lose a beat, “Well, no problem. They will learn through experience. And we will also open up a new shelve selling diet products followed by exercise equipment. The business will be good!”

Being in China and personally experiencing the fact that they are humans like us, with families, feelings, concerns and dreams, I am disturbed by the audacity of financially attractive, yet morally questionable business plan of that Wal-Mart top manager.

Right Foot, Left Foot. Chicken Foot, Pig Foot. Here Comes Chinese Food!

Compared to Americans, Chinese are petite, yet they have promiscuous appetite. They eat every living creature, every flying, swimming, walking, crawling, swarming, slithering organism, except humans! Even a French stomach would not compete with theirs. In addition to variety of plants such as sea weed, taro, and bamboo, they enjoy all animals and insects. Frogs, turtles, snails, pigs, beetles, scorpions, worms, snakes, cats and dogs… You name it. They also eat almost every organ of an animal or insect. For instance, pig feet, pig head, pig skin, pig blood, chicken feet, chicken head… You imagine. I went along as much as I could. Upon insistence of our Chinese teacher, I ate a boneless chicken foot at a first class restaurant. It had a very delicious spice; but the foot was as tasteless as a cardboard. Coincidentally, that night at hotel, I could not sleep until 2:30 a.m. because of an unusual itch that inflicted my right feet; by itching so hard I damaged my skin. If I were as superstitious as Chinese, I would connect the toes and would conclude that eating left chicken foot causes itch on my right foot!

I also ate bamboo, sea weed, rabbit, and anchovy. Under the stares of students, I enjoyed devouring anchovies with their heads and eyes intact. Somehow, I had no problem with that. This led the 9 years-old Christiana to make a remark with a beautiful smile, “I do not like my lunch to stare at me!” So, while the students, with the exception of three, enjoyed the half a dozen dishes containing pork, I had the monopoly over the plate of “staring” anchovies on the lazy Suzie.

I heard many superstitions about food. Like most places, superstitions have many followers in China. I heard from my son’s Chinese teacher that Chinese believe that pig blood cleans the lungs off dust, or chicken feet treat wrinkles. Perhaps, Chinese have historical fetish about feet. Remember, how they deformed and mutilated the feet of their daughters while they were little kids through a torturous and evil custom known as “foot binding”? (Remember that we do also practice these kinds of superstitious ceremonies, albeit in a less torturous manner, by chopping the tip of our male children’s tiny organs). One of the worst superstitions is about shark fin, which is considered an aphrodisiac that enhances sexual drive and male potency. Based on this baseless belief, tens of millions of sharks are maimed and killed every year just for their fins to be used in soup. A kilogram of shark fin is sold for about $700 in China. Fishermen usually cut off the fins and toss the rest of the shark back to the sea to die in a horrible agony.  (For more information see: http://www.sharkinfo.ch/SI4_99e/sanfrancisco.html )

I recently learned that feed conversion efficiency (FCE) to body mass for cows is 10% while it is above 40% for beetles. In other words, 90% of food is wasted by cows. Pigs waste seven times even more than cows, since they discharge seven times more stinky waste. No wonder, pig farms pose environmental threat in their surrounding towns by polluting their underground water. Besides efficiency, insects have another advantage: they are so abundant they outweigh all animals combined.

Those of us who are raised in Western societies have aversion to entomophagy, but it might be our destiny. Instead of killing them through insecticides, future generation of Americans might cultivate and harvest bugs in their backyards! Imagine: rather than killing termites, sucking them with straws from infested backyards for dinner! Ironically, we the Westerners, enjoy eating lobsters and crabs which are as ugly as other little insects. Some of us also enjoy eating pigs which are as filthy as an animal could be. For those who are interested in increasing their food menu from a few hundreds to millions, I recommend them reading a delicious and creepy article titled “Environmental Art Project Proposal: Instar” at http://julieclipse.org/artwork/instar_proposal.

You may eat and drink anything in China, depending on the tolerance of your culture and digestive system, but beware of Durian Fruit. It smells like a pile of rotten boneless chicken breasts marinated in garlic and onion. A South-Asian administrator and the mother of two students in our group served me that presumptuous fruit. Her humble nose never attracted the curious stares of the natives, but my nose was fabulous in detecting the noxious odor. Since I had no clue about it and I did not know that the odor was not originating from the nearby trash, I accepted a bite. I noticed the mischievous smirk on her face! If you are going to China and you are as curious as I am, beware of the fruit solicitors with tiny noses; do not touch that stinky creature. Here is some information from Wikipedia about this so-called fruit:

“The durian is the fruit of trees from the genus Durio belonging to the Malvaceae, a large family which includes hibiscus, okra, cotton, mallows, and linden trees. Widely known and revered in Southeast Asia as the “King of Fruits”, the fruit is distinctive for its large size, unique odour, and formidable thorn-covered husk. … The edible flesh emits a distinctive odour, strong and penetrating even when the husk is intact. Regarded by some as fragrant, others as overpowering and offensive, the smell evokes reactions from deep appreciation to intense disgust. The odour has led to the fruit’s banishment from certain hotels and public transportation in Southeast Asia.”

Besides the diversity in Chinese diet, I also observed a lot of waste. Food was wasted in school’s cafeteria and all-you-can-eat restaurants. Wasting food makes me furious, since I cannot fathom any conscious being habitually or deliberately waste nutrition while millions of people around the world are starving. I consider deliberate or reckless food waste a sign of moral bankruptcy.

China’s Wall Merging with the Walls of MacDonald’s and Wal-Mart

While China is gradually evolving from authoritarianism towards democracy and transforming from socialism to capitalism, it will surely suffer from side effects. For instance, there are already snake-oil salesmen on TV programs, which are mostly aimed at young women. Fashion and beauty products are heavily advertised. If you want to increase the size of your breasts, just buy that bra that augments their sizes with the help of its special design and magnets. If you want to lose weight (after frequenting to McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, and KFC for instance), and wish to become as beautiful as the ones on the cover of Vogue and Cosmopolitan (yes, the Chinese versions of these magazines and more were shown in the ad’s background) you may just rub your stomach with a magic cream. Voila! You are now as slim and as beautiful as those American models. Perhaps the advertisers were aware of the popularity of rubbing Buddha’s belly for luck. So, selling fitness by rubbing a woman’s belly with cream was a perfect sales pitch. You become your own Buddha and generate your own luck!

MacDonald’s walls are merging with China’s wall and they display posters of major Hollywood films. Both corporations sell consumerist lifestyle, albeit without competing with each other. I do not know how the symbiotic relation between McDonald’s and Hollywoodwas created. It seems to be a clever economic alliance, which eliminates the current U.S. government from being a party in the conspiracy.

China has no option but to remain and embrace the global market. The US companies are ubiquitous. From Microsoft to Ipod, from Nike to Wal-Mart, from McDonald’s to Pizza Hut! American brands are everywhere. We have already invaded China with our brands and franchises. We research and develop. We investigate and innovate. They work hard and produce for less. Then we brand the products and market them. We may care less about the tags “Made in China” but Chinese, especially their youth, are caring about our brands. Perhaps, they are addicted to them. They are paying five or ten times more premium just to have our logos on their shirts, shoes or hamburgers! Who knows, what goes around may come around soon. Do not be surprised if you see cheap and fuel-efficient tiny Chinese brand cars filling our streets in less than a decade. Then the American Minivans, Trucks and Hummers will be the dinosaurs of automobile history. Furthermore, Chinese have learned how to clone our sophisticated products. Last year a company hired teams of hardware and software engineers and cloned iphone in less than a month, with a few additional features. I am not an expert in predicting global economy, but looking at our history of innovation, I can bet that American ingenuity and comparative advantage in high tech products and fashion will continue for decades to come.

Tough capitalism, with its good and evil, is conquering China; some Chinese are still living in their socialistic boxes. Two days after our arrival, Monday morning before the classes began; we were going to be introduced at the stadium to the entire school. David was expected to deliver a short speech to more than 6000 students and 600 teachers at the Lushan International Experimental School, a semi-private institution. Monday morning, before leaving the hotel, we hurried to print the speech. But, we could not find a printer in the hotel’s business center. The secretary at the lobby had a printer hooked up to her computer, but she did not honor our request to print it. I showed her the USB drive, and asked the translator that I would pay 5 dollars, which buys three Big Mac meals. Then, I doubled the offer. I put 10 dollars on the counter for her to print just a single page from her computer. She could not. Because she had never done so for any customer before. Ten dollars for a page was not sufficient to break the wall of that bureaucratic box!

Yet, China is in great transformation. Many Chinese, especially the younger generation, have adopted the paradigm and attitude of free market; both a blessing and a curse. While increase in productivity and quality in service leads to comfort and prosperity, it depletes natural resources and replaces contentment with greed. “If you cannot afford caviar all your life, do not taste it” said the Greek philosopher Epicures. Well, Chinese are tasting caviar and beyond. As the gastronomic version of the First Law of Thermodynamics is “there is no free lunch,” Yuksel’s First Law of Economy is “there is no free free-market.” Free market has its own peculiar costs on environment, society and individual. The future of China will most likely have more abundance, more luxurious cars on the roads, more sophisticated gadgets in homes and pockets, better buildings; but at the same time, they will grow horizontally, the divorce rate will go up, and their children will be addicted with video games and other vices. And they will learn the ADD and the rest of the alphabet soup of ailments that follow our hectic, fragmented, over-stimulated, and stressed and depressed lifestyle.

Within two days, the Olympic torch was going to be relayed in Changsha. Everyone was very excited. The media is a great tool to mobilize masses to any direction wanted by the elite. If you know about Chomsky’s depiction of our democracy, “manufactured consent,” you will fully understand what I mean.

Predicting the national Olympic fever, the textile manufacturers flooded the Chinese market with T-shirts carrying slogans for the coming Olympiad. I was going to buy a few for myself. My interest was not in the Olympic, but t-shirt itself. I stood by a peddler on the side walk. While waiting for my turn, I enjoyed observing the bargaining of a Chinese couple. I was surprised to see the guy taking off his old sweat-soaked T-shirt and putting on the new one. After his wife made a comment, he took the shirt off returning it to the peddler. The peddler was constantly talking loud and encouraging them to buy it. Then, the woman decided to try it herself. She did not take her shirt off; she just wore it over. The peddler was continuously talking; perhaps telling her how nice she looked inside that white thin T-shirt. After about ten minutes, she decided to purchase it. She took out 100 Yuan from her purse. Since I did not have any idea about the price of the T-shirt, I started carefully watching and counting. She received 45 Yuan back. The T-shirt was sold to 55 Yuan or $8. The peddler started to wrap up the T-shirt. But the woman picked it up from his hands and sniffed it. Yes, she sniffed the very T-shirt that she and her husband tried on themselves. She made a face like a male chauvinist changing his child’s diaper, and uttered a few words pointing at another T-shirt. The peddler did not object. That was the time I decided not to buy any T-shirt from that peddler.

The following day, I purchased five of the same T-shirts from another peddler who had reduced the price because of the timeliness of the souvenir. I paid 15 Yuan or $2.2 per shirt. A parent, who was going to purchase more than 20 shirts for students and staff, became greedier. She decided to wait after the Olympic torch passed through the town. Then she thought she could buy them for 10 Yuan each or $1.5. I accused her to be greedy and she accused me of being gullible. What she did not know that I wanted those poor peddlers to make a few extra dollars from me. Well, the night the Olympic torch left the town, no peddler was selling the same T-shirt. So, she missed the best discount on t-shirts in town.

You might wonder why I was buying 5 T-shirts in one day. Well, the following days I would buy even more. I had a capitalistic dilemma, which danced around two questions: to buy or to wash? The cost of laundry per t-shirt at our hotel was 20 Yuan ($3) and buying a new one at price of 15 Yuan made more sense. Changsha is known for its heat. We thought that Tucson was very hot. Well, it was before we landed in Changsha. Here, in June, the temperature is around 100 F. No problem, we the desert lizards, could handle that. But, enter the high humidity and we were done. We were melting like the Antarctic ice cap. Everyday, I had to change my entire garment: shirt, pant, underpants, and socks twice! So, I had two choices: either invest daily in the laundry or buy thin and cheap t-shirts and shorts. I solved the stinking socks problem by purchasing sandals. We were told that the real heat is in July and August. We could not wait to return to Tucson to enjoy its dry heat!

Fitness Centers: Free and Fun

There was a public square and a fountain in the middle of the intersection where our hotel was located. (As you may notice, I do not give the street names, since I was totally illiterate there, and I could neither read the names of the streets nor pronounce them properly). In early morning and after the sun set, there were free activities for every age group on the streets. The young and restless Chinese enjoyed shopping, eating at MacDonald’s, KFC, etc., while the adult and aged women following the rhythm of the Chinese music generated by a hand-held CD player, exercised together in public. And middle aged men like me and children watched them. It was like a public aerobic and solo dance class in the middle of the town square. I wanted to join the group, but I did not want to violate the perceived norms. Though anyone could join the dance, the demographic was non-verbally discriminating against men and younger women. Nevertheless, I saw this mass public exercise/dance in the sidewalks of smaller streets and parks, and they were mixed in gender and age.

After a week, I was taken to the lively neighborhood where a colossal closed stadium, a giant Ferris wheel, and a French-owned underground super store were located. The stone tiled vast area was filled with children riding little motorized cars, skating with rollerblades with lighted wheels, and adults dancing, mostly in pairs.

These street classes have no ceilings, no air conditioners, no teachers, no membership cards, and no monthly fees. But, if you ask me, I would prefer these to any luxurious American aerobics class. I found the street version to be more elegant, open, and more natural. You can feel the spirit of a community there, not the spirit of a spoiled individual. There you can enjoy the spirit of an egalitarian society, an extinct one indeed; not the spirit of an exclusive class and the sound of a money-counting machine. (What do you think if we start that tradition in Tucson? In front of the Main Library?)

Streets with No Trash, Yet Still Look Dirty

What about children? Well, they have their territory on the streets too. On the corner of the public squares every evening, children as young as 2 years-old show up with their rollerblades. They do all kinds of practices under the loving and caring eyes of their parents. Somehow someone brings small orange cones and places them on the street in rows and there you have a great show on the street. Open and free of charge, both for the players and spectators.

When you speak of Chinese children, you cannot ignore the zippers in the backs of their pants. Some do not have zippers at all; just a hole in the back. I detest it, and I am sure so does the multi-billion diaper industry, which has considerable contribution to the amount of trash and pollution. Though I have yet to see, but I am told by others, that when small children want to leak the uric acid in their bladders they just squat on the sidewalks. I was told that they do so also for the “number two” but not exactly in the middle but on the side of the street, perhaps next to a bush. To make it easier for you, compare the Chinese children with no diapers to spoiled American pets, which enjoy the goods of the multi-billion pet industry, health care insurance, and occasional cosmetic surgery.

I hate this practice, I said, because despite the omnipresent street sweepers with brooms and dustpans, the sidewalks and stairs have spots of dirty yellow, brown and black, which remind me the floor of a garage with a geriatric Ford or Chevy. Chinese people have not yet embraced the idea of not littering the streets. Though litters and trash are immediately swept away, their traces or shadows remain on the streets. I assume that most of those spots were created by the leaks of children with backward zippers and gums discarded by young and adults. Based on my little investigation before visiting China, I expected to see everyone spitting in public, yet so far, I saw only one in a week, which can be considered an anomaly in the city. I was told that the country side is very bad in hygiene, though.

With its 2.5 million central city population, Changsha is about five times bigger than Tucson. Its downtown where major department stores are located, an area consisting of several blocks, is restricted to automobile traffic. With its busy sidewalks, high rising buildings, flickering huge advertising displays, and gleaming colorful lights, it resembles Times Square or the Strip at Las Vegas.

Being an Illiterate Professor in China

The rule for real estate is 3L: location, location, location, and I believe the rule for a trip to a foreign country is also 3L: language, language, language. Without language you may end up wetting your pants, or get frustrated and frustrating at the same time, or buy a bag of dry fruit that deceptively looks like delicious sour plums sold in America, but have a bizarre sweet flavor which make you hesitate to take a second bite.

Nineteen years ago when I immigrated to USA, escaping from political and religious persecution in my country of birth, I found myself in a very difficult situation. At age thirty one, as an accomplished author and public speaker; I was suddenly reduced to the level of a secondary school kid. My conversational English was even worse. I knew some big words, yet I was unable to ask some simple and vital questions or understand the given answers. I used to carry a dictionary in my hand to communicate. I still remember the embarrassment of asking the lady who lived in the next apartment with the aid of the dictionary. I needed to wash my socks and I did not want to waste water and energy by using the washing machine. I wanted to wash them in a container by hand. When she opened her door and heard me asking her, “Kathlyn, Can you give me your pelvis?” I noticed the shock and surprise in her face. To make myself clear, I added, “Can I burrow a pelvis; I want to wash my socks in the pelvis!” We were both relieved when she understood me. I washed my socks by hand; but after that incident I lost my trust to my dictionary, which confused the Turkish word “leğen” (big bowl) with the word “leğen kemiği” (big-bowl bone, that is, pelvis).

Here, in China, I cannot even ask to wash my socks in someone else’s pelvis. If I were in Spain, in Italy, or France, I would not be illiterate at least. I could recognize the words and use a dictionary to find its translation, which would allow me to roll clumsily some isolated words on my tongue. This would greatly help me survive the debilitating alienation in a foreign country. But, the Chinese characters are like noodles and doodles, and I had no clue how to identify them, thousands of them.

You should now pay attention to what I will say: If you are planning a trip to a non-English speaking country, you must type a list of most important words and phrases in a card, laminate it and carry it like a passport. You should include the following words: Hello. Yes. No. Where is the restroom? How much is this? And in my case, I must add: “Do you have diet soda?” And “I do not eat pork!” You do not need to bother with “I do not know Chinese” since your face will scream that statement before even you say it in perhaps an unintelligible accent. I have a business idea for tourism companies: print a list of most needed words and phrases in two languages on the front of T-shirts and sell them in airports nearby related airlines. The tourists could just point at the words and sentences when they needed them. You could even include, “I love you!” or “I am a good American!”

The second day of my trip, I ventured a solo trip to the nearby subway market. It was like two Super Wal-Mart store underground. Lacking the 3Ls haunted me there. I learned that they have not heard the word “diet.” They really did not need diet sodas, yet! They were oblivious to the obese genies lurking in those Cola and Sprite bottles. After I lost my way in the subway super market, unable to ask the direction of the exit that would take me towards my hotel, I was disappointed in myself. As an Americanized person I was considering myself the center of the universe and for a while I blamed the Chinese for not listing the ingredients in English or not including English to their signs. I also blamed them for not understanding my sign language.

Finally, I made it to the hotel. There I would discover two beautiful creatures, two American girls; Maggie and Molly! I entered the elevator and somehow loudly pronounced the word FIVE before pushing the button. It was followed by a loud voice “SIX”. The moment I saw them I struck a conversation and expressed my excitement of seeing other Americans in that town. They were from North Carolina. Maggie was working as a salesperson for an American company that was selling home automation or smart home devices. Molly was a university student and had come for her summer trip and was hoping to make a few bucks by tutoring English to those who could afford it. We met each other in the lobby several more times.

Another day, while walking on a busy side walk I noticed a tall guy with blond hair. I yelled from behind: “Go home Yankee!” He turned back, and upon seeing my face he smiled. Perhaps his facial expression would be different if I looked like a Chinese. He was an American, studying Chinese at Hunan University, while melting in the sweltering heat of Changsha. When I told him that we were there with 18 exchange students who had already studied Mandarin from a Chinese teacher for one year in USA, his eyes opened with happiness. I could not help but remind him the reality: hey these kids are your competition! He woke up and cracked a joke: “let me go to my dorm and study more!” I tried to console him: “do not worry; there are more than a billion Chinese!”

I have never been flag-waving, gun-toting type of a citizen, and I will never be. Nationalism or jingoism has been responsible for the biggest atrocities and wars in the last century. Replacing the religious zeal of medieval era, nationalism has surpassed religious bigotry in terms of producing hate, enemies, evil empires, axis of evil, wars, genocide and appalling atrocities. Nevertheless, my excitement for meeting two Americans among millions of Chinese was the expression of my peaceful, cultural patriotism. You may never know how much you love America and Americans until you move to another country where English is like French and Americans are a rarity. You may never know how lucky you are for being an American citizen until you are stopped by police for your political/religious views or affiliation, as it happened to me in my hometown numerous times.

Chinese Children: the Most Precious Commodity

Back to the “more than a billion Chinese!” Egypt? Pyramids and Nile. France? Eiffel Tower and Wine. Turkey? Blue Mosque and St. Sophia. China? China Wall and Population! China has adopted a one-child policy for decades. This controversial policy has reduced the increase in population. The law does not have much power over the rich who can afford to pay the fine for the second child and those living in countryside. Some rich people avoid the restriction by taking their wives abroad, usually to the US or Europe, to give birth to their second or third children. Still, the impact of one-child policy on the society is huge. The only child gets the whole attention of the family and is luckier than older generations in terms of enjoying prosperity and freedom. Children with no siblings feel lonely, which is bad; but this brings families together with other families, which is good. Many weekend activities are shared by families!

At Lushan International and Experimental School, during the first week of our arrival, I gave three lectures to senior students who were interested in studying abroad. An average class had 60-70 students, about three times the average class we have in Tucson. Another visually outstanding fact was the piles of books towering over each desk. Chinese students appeared to be literally drowning among books which covered the faces of some shorter students. They had little space left on their little desks to use for taking notes. This was just the opposite of what we were experiencing in America. In the beginning of every class, I would ask my secondary and even college students to take out their books, or papers and pens. Almost every teacher in American schools is used to see some students coming to the classroom with neither paper nor pen! So, those Chinese classes had a shocking first impression on me.

My first lecture was an impromptu one: on the importance of critical and creative thinking. I grabbed a plastic drinking water bottle in the classroom and compared it to a clay jar. I called the plastic bottle a technological marvel. I pulled their attention to the structural and design improvements over the clay jar, from the verticals on the lid to the transparency of the container, from the concave ring in the middle to the weight ratio of the container to the water, from its durability to its mass production… And I pulled their attention to a big negative aspect of the plastic bottle: not biodegradable. I told them that anyone who would improve this bottle’s design or make it environmentally friendly would be snapped by a bottle manufacturer. In the second lecture, I compared and contrasted the cultures of both countries. I shared with them the cultural shock I experienced 19 years ago when I immigrated to theUS. I could not believe my eyes when I first saw Americans shaving in their cars while driving, or reading magazines in their bathrooms. I talked about the pros and cons of American individualism and the same for Chinese socialism. My third lecture was more pragmatic and practical. It was about how to increase their chances to be accepted by top US universities. I advised them to explore and discover themselves. I told them to choose a scientific field and educate themselves deeper. I gave them hope by informing them that the 70% of graduate students who study engineering or sciences are foreign born. Almost all were very attentive and interested in studying at a US University.

In the end of a lecture, noticing a book cover containing both vertically and horizontally organized Chinese characters, I asked them about the direction of the Chinese writing. (I confess that I did not do my homework before the China trip). My question led me to learn an interesting fact. In ancient times, Chinese used bamboo strips to write. Since they would attach bamboo strips to each other with silk strings, the most reasonable way of writing would be vertical. Writing horizontally would create practical problems in both reading and writing. The direction of adding extra strips and the vertical flexibility of the bamboo surface dictated the direction of old Chinese: vertical!

I have little knowledge of Chinese history, but I noticed that the Chinese students are proud of their history and heritage. A group of students signed a book containing advices from Confucius and presented it to me while highly praising him. On the other hand, unlike Turks or Arabs, Chinese have no problem assuming English or Western nicknames. Every student at the Lushan School had a Western nickname. This identification makes them highly receptive to Western culture, fashion, lifestyle, and Christianity. A student at Hunan University told me that these days it is fashion to conduct graduation ceremonies at church; according to him, about fifty percent of students had no problem with affiliating to Christian church. Surely, joining the bandwagon of the winning world, and getting a share of the pie has its appeal beyond seeking the truth in theology.

Melancholy and Cultural Sensitivity

If television programs are a measure, Chinese people are socially conservative. Surfing the 44 channels in my hotel for days, I never saw prolonged kissing scenes or couples in bed. Though, I saw a few ads about how to make one’s breasts bigger. I did not find a single English channel, but I heard that people could have some English channels such as HBO and CNN through cable. After ten days in China, I started craving English channels; I could even watch the unbalanced and unfair Fox News. At any time, you may find almost one fifth of the channels showing war movies. If you include Karate and violent American movies such as Rambo or Indiana Jones, perhaps the violent movies would fill more than a quarter of the programs. I also noticed plenty of feuding people, sad and crying faces. You may not only see women, but also men crying and sobbing.

I saw a couple of reality shows too. For instance, the one about obstacle competition, where young men and women are expected to pass a series of obstacles in less than two minutes without falling into dirty water… I did not see a sitcom like Everyone Loves Diamond or Sinfilled (don’t bother correcting the spelling errors) where people are shepherded through laughing tracks to laugh exactly when the director wants them to. Though Chinese people are politically manipulated more directly than Americans, they are not yet shepherded so directly when to laugh.

My observation about Chinese TV and films is not based on a quantified survey made for a long period of time; thus you should caution against generalizing it.

Our hosts showed sensitivity towards our culture and even my idiosyncratic preferences. For instance, my son’s host family together with another host family invited me for a dinner. They first took me to their home, but there I learned that we would meet in a restaurant. When I saw the restaurant, I could not believe it. Learning that I was a Muslim, they had picked a restaurant ran by Muslims adjacent to a big mosque facing the huge stadium and the colossal Ferris wheel. The Restaurant’s wall had a huge Arabic calligraphy on a green background testifying to oneness of God, while adding Muhammad’s name, which was a violation of strict monotheism expressed in the Quran.  While waiting for the orders, I wanted to visit the mosque. If I met an English speaking Chinese Muslim, I was going to present him/her my recent publication, Quran: a Reformist Translation. I found none there.

The mosque had a courtyard and the adjacent building was used as a school and dorm for religious education. Noticing several Chinese Muslims lingering there, I greeted them with the universal “Salam” (Peace) and a big smile on my face. Receiving no response, I charged towards the door of the mosque to satisfy my curiosity. The host parents translated their words for me: “The mosque is not open on Sundays.” I tried to talk with someone, but I was shunned. My repeated efforts trying to get to know a Chinese Muslim failed. I could not believe their apathy and lack of curiosity. For a moment, I thought perhaps they showed aversion towards me because of the short pants on me. But, I later saw the waitresses in the restaurant wearing no headscarves. I am not sure whether my experience in that mosque was an anecdotal one. But, I know for sure that the backward sectarian teachings that have replaced the progressive and liberating teaching of the Quran, have turned many so-called Muslims to zombies!

Mao here, Mao there, Mao Everywhere!

China was once among the short list of hero-worshipping totalitarian countries that included the names of their national or religious heroes in their Constitution. I learned about this strange common characteristic, when I wrote a journal article titled, Cannibal Democracies, Theocratic Secularism: the Turkish Version, which before its publication became the topic of an interdisciplinary international symposium at Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University. The Turkish Republic’s constitutionally baptized and protected hero has been Mustafa Kamal Atatürk. Saudi Arabia’s constitution glorifies King Saud. Iran adds Ayatollah Khomeini to its long list of historic idols. Albania had included the name Anwar Hodja in their constitution and China had Mao Zedong!

We were just two hour away from Mao Zedong’s birth place, which is now a museum attracting domestic tourists. I will leave Mao’s life story and his polices to history books or Encyclopedias, and share with you a few observations of mine during our short trip to Mao’s birth place.

While looking at historical pictures in the museum, our guide kept repeating some statements: “Mao picked a good home, therefore he became lucky.” Or “Mao’s grandfather picked the right place for his tomb; so Mao got such a position.”

There is even a popular superstition about a pimple or perhaps a benign tumor on Mao’s chin, which I had not even noticed until the guide enthusiastically volunteered to enlighten us: “In his middle age, when Mao moved up in leadership, a mark emerged on his chin!” I am not now sure about the alleged order of cause and effect. Perhaps she said the other way around: “When that mark emerged on his chin, Mao moved up in leadership” Either way, it is a pure nonsense, a political propaganda using superstitions in a gullible community. Unfortunately, the young and the educated guide was a believer of such superstition. She was sharing the miraculous story of the tumor on the chin with a conviction of a Mormon or Evangelical missionary.

Mao (1893-1976) who united his country after the civil war and founded the People’s Republic of China in 1949 and transformed China to become one of the major powers is still revered officially. His face is on Yuan and his pictures and statues can be found everywhere in China. However, Mao’s economic, social and political programs, his communist agenda, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution lost popularity soon after his death. A series of economic and social reforms started by his successor, Deng Xiaoping, opened China up to the world, making it a major player in global economy.

Yet, many of the older generation still remember Mao positively. They may not want his policies to continue, but they appreciate his work for his nation in the past. During our visit to Mao’s birth place, Shaoshan, we saw busloads of Chinese tourists visiting his birth home and buying various gift items inscribed with Mao’s name and pictures. Mao was everywhere. Hundreds of small busts in gift shops winked at me like little pagan idols. However, one scene stood out among others.

I noticed groups of citizens marching one after another in unison behind two soldiers carrying wreaths to a huge Mao statute erected in the town’s square. There were dozens of fresh ones covering the base of statue. Within ten minutes, I witnessed four or five groups of five to twenty people, offering wreaths and respect to Mao. Afterwards, they would take their pictures before the super-sized concrete Mao. It was not much different than a religious ceremony, though a very simple one. Soon after their wreaths were placed in the base of the statute, the groups would line up in rows and upon the instruction of their leaders or tourist guides, would start bowing down three times. I wondered about the meaning of the words preceded each bow. I was expecting some inspirational political slogans or something flattering remarks similar to those you find inside Chinese cookies. But, the words were no different than church bell:

“Bow once; bow twice; bow thrice!”

As an iconoclast, I found these ceremonies silly and scary. Silly, since worshipping another human being is degrading and is insult to the intelligence of an individual. I found not much difference between the worshipped and the worshipper, except the false inferiority feelings created in the minds of the subordinated people. For Pharaoh to be Pharaoh there must have been those who accepted humiliation and slavery. The astronomical power and charisma of celebrity or a leader does not originate from his or her own extraordinary powers, but depends on the illusion of inferiority created in the minds of celebrity worshippers. The idol carvers, be of political or commercial, fabricate, solicit, propagate and orchestrate popular emotions. Emotions of inferiority generate brand loyalty, adoration, admiration, money, and power for the celebrities and their entourage. It is a vicious and self-perpetuating cycle. The fame, money and power in turn, generate more emotions of inferiority that seeks affiliation with a more superior power to balance the comparative inferiority.

I also found the offering of flowers to the concrete resemblance of a dead leader scary. In fact, hero worship or human worship is the source of the many atrocities committed in the history of humanity. Those who idolize their religious or political leaders become fanatic dogmatic that do not hesitate to destroy others. Since their unity and cause is not based on reason, but on emotions, they are easily manipulated by corrupt and power-hungry politicians and their accomplice religious leaders.  Thus, you end up with superhuman celebrities like Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Hitler, Khomeini, Atatürk and many others. Whether those celebrities were agents of peace or war, justice or injustice, their intoxicated worshipers are prone to commit all kinds of stupid and destructive acts. Sure, the biggest damage is caused by the worshippers of religious and political heroes, their ideologies, and symbols.

There I wondered the meaning of 5 stars in Chinese flag, one being bigger than the others. I learned that the larger star represents the leadership of the Communist Party and the small stars represent the four classes of people united by Mao: Workers, Peasants, Petty Bourgeoisie (Small Business Class), and National Bourgeoisie (Chinese non-governmental businessmen). There are few other interpretations and according to Wikipedia article, the most popular one is “the four stars represent the four occupations central to the state, which are Farmers, Workers, Soldiers, and Teachers.”

America, the Beautiful Country

The day before our last day, I joined the two-hour Chinese language and culture class together with our 18 students. The teacher used a computer, projection machine and a big screen for the presentation. In that class I learned the Chinese for the word China and America:

  • China: Zhōng guó (Center/Middle Country or In Country)
  • America: Měi guó (Beautiful Country)

(Ooops! That means, I learned more than just two Chinese words). I could not believe my ears. The billion plus Chinese people calls our country BEATIFUL! Isn’t this a sign of cultural courage and openness! Imagine us calling Russia, France, Korea or Iran with the same name! “The leader of Beautiful Country Ahmadinejad condemned the US occupation and atrocities in Iraq!” Wouldn’t be much better to separate countries from the governments? I just wonder how the Chinese leaders and people condemned the American government when our relation became tenuous and even hostile, such as after our bombing their embassy in Belgrade in 2000.

As most Americans do not behave like the U.S. Government does, most Chinese too do not resemble their government. For instance, we generally prefer, at least in theory, the Golden Rule, while our current government prefers the iron rule, or pre-emptive strike. While the Chinese government is authoritarian, Chinese people are friendly, and even submissive.

On our way to America, we had to spend about ten hours in Guangzhou, the third most populous city in mainland China. Unlike Changsha, cars were not using their honk to communicate with each other and pedestrians. We learned that the city imposed a 500 Yuan fine for honking. To our surprise, the cars were following the designated lanes. We decided to spend several hours in the city mall. The city had numerous high towers and modern infrastructure. New constructions were everywhere… Last year China consumed 1.3 gigaton of cement, emitting about the same amount of CO2, more than any country in the world. (We are still number one in terms of per capita pollution). The mall we visited had nine stories and was modern. There you could find any American, European and Chinese brand of goods. Though Chinese goods were very cheap, the American and European brands were as expensive or even more than those sold in American malls. In the US we could buy Nike shoes on sale, less expensive. I checked the price of Casio Exilim 10.1 Mega pixel, 3x optical zoom with 1 gigabyte memory card. I had purchased mine from Costco for a discounted price of $229 dollars. In the Guangzhou mall it was sold for 2600 Yuan, which was equivalent of $376. American brand electronic goods were very expensive, yet there were many Chinese customers flirting around them.

I do not want turn this article to a book, yet I have still some of my observation or facts, which I deem interesting to share. So, I will list them in bullets:

  • Wal-Mart charges one Yuan for renting to you a locker to put your belongings in before you enter the market.
  • Chinese shoes are smaller sizes. I could hardly find a few 44, or 270 mm, or 10.5.
  • Chinese cities are almost always two syllabus and Chinese names three.
  • There are 93 million with family name Wang inChina.
  • Chinese use metric system. All countries, except the US, Liberia and Burma(Myanmar) have officially adopted the metric system. (How is our company?)
  • The luckiest person in Changsha, as far as the weather is concerned, is a mummy! Her preserved dead body in the museum is under constant cool air.
  • Due to the heat, men (not women) open their stomach by lifting their T-shirts upward.
  • Junior and Senior students at Lushan International and Experimental School are not supposed to have boyfriends and girlfriends. You do not see a boy and a girl, kissing each other, hugging each other or even holding each other’s hands on the campus.
  • Like the USA, China too has homeless people and trash-scavengers.
  • Chinese people mostly are very honest.
  • Chinese waiters and waitresses do not accept tips. But, they could not resist my insistence.
  • Cars have the right of way not the people. By law if a car hits a pedestrian while it had a green light, its driver is not considered guilty. We did not see anyone hit by cars, tough. The rule works well.
  • Wal-Mart sells live turtles and frogs in its food section.
  • I noticed that our hotel’s elevator skips the number 4. Upon investigation, I learned that Chinese consider it a bad luck, as some superstitious westerners consider 13 to be the unlucky number.
  • Bathrooms do not have seats; you need to squat on a black hole. You better carry cleaning tissues with you, since most public bathrooms do not have tissues.
  • Chinese have a funny way of translating their language to English: I took the picture of a warning poster on the Hotel wall. Its title read: Check Hotels do not forget to live fire!

So search Google or check your travel agent for a trip to China, and do not forget taking an electronic English-Chinese dictionary with you so that you may not live fire or chew your luggage!

 


Share

Why Study Philosophy, Love of Wisdom?

Share

Why Study Philosophy, Love of Wisdom?

Edip Yuksel

  

The adventure of students of philosophy in the multi-dimensional intellectual maze has many surprises and seasons. In the start, you think that you know the maze very well. You know a lot, and you are sure that you will solve all the ethical, metaphysical and legal problems after your graduation. You may hope to find answers for your questions or to confirm your mostly inherited answers. Does God exist? Who created God? Is abortion murder? What is life? Does language shape our thoughts, or the other way around? What are the limits of our empirical scientific method? Golden rule or Brazen rule? Is my father right or my uncle? What about reincarnation? Should we kill the killers? Do animals have rights? Is Dr. Kevorkian an “angel” of death? If there is God, and if He/She/It is omnipotent and benevolent, then why does he allow evil? So on and so forth.

Soon you start hitting the walls of counter arguments. You first tend to ignore them. Then, if you have enough energy to continue in that intellectual maze you will learn that finding your way is not as simple as you thought. Initially, you will subscribe to one of those positions, the one which comes from your kindergarten years. Your inexperience in analytical arguments will enhance your zeal towards your inherited position. And you will miss many points of the counter arguments. Paradoxically, this becomes both the consequence and the reason of your zeal.

With time you will learn to understand the arguments better. That is the beginning of the trouble. If you are raised as a believer of something you may experience some fear and helplessness in the darkness of the second stage. The density of fear is proportional to the salience of your family values and the degree of your relation with your close family members, and society.

Then, if you don’t retreat and keep continuing you will be given hope by every alley you enter and get disappointed in the end. Every alley will appear as the straight path leading to the truth. But each alley will divide into many other alleys showing different directions. You get dizzy and disoriented. In that point you have four choices:

  • You say “this is it” and become a “dogmatic” without calling yourself with that word;
  • You give up and say “the truth is a mirage,” and go back join Pyrrho and Sextus;
  • You continue with tenacity and say “there must be an exit” hoping that you have found micro patterns of the macro plan;
  • You may say “……….” and do “……….” (Now I am experienced enough not to discredit my statements by limiting the options).

If you have enough passion, patience, and courage to continue in the maze, you will stumble over many new questions: Is genetic engineering good? What is happiness? Kant or Mill? Deontological or Utilitarian ethics? Descartes or Berkeley? Positivism or Relativism or Falsification or none of them? Does the Perfect Island exist only in the “ontological” mind of St. Anselm? What is the medium between mind and matter? Parallelism or Occasionalism or Epiphenomenalism? Should Socrates drink the poison? Can we invalidate induction with deduction? Spatial Congenuity or Constant Conjunction? What if Nietzsche is right? More and more questions… You are blazed by the abundance of jargon and intricate statements employed in lengthy arguments.

In the end, if you are lucky, you will become a “philosopher.” Then you are supposed to know how to construct coherent arguments and counter-arguments. Whether your arguments are conventional or bizarre they all will share one common quality: they are ingenious in their construction and masterpiece in exposing other’s flaws and hiding theirs. Nevertheless, philosophy is the closest candidate to be a panacea for our social problems: It can produce fruits of tolerance, mutual understanding, and respect among the members of society.

After this warm up statements, let me list some of the reasons why I enjoy philosophy. Each starts with a “Because”:

  1. I get Epicurean pleasure from philosophical inquiry and arguments.
  2. I cannot agree more with Socrates that the “unexamined life is not worth living.”
  3. I marvel the Cartesian surprise of arriving to the chilling point of certainty by starting from the boiling point of extreme scepticism.
  4. I have the revolutionary spirit of Nietzsche against self-righteous morality-monger clergymen.
  5. I think that I have more and better reasons to believe in the existence of God than St. Anselm had.
  6. I believe that philosophy is the most effective medicine for blinkered fanaticism and its disastrous consequences.

I bet, you have also many reasons to study and enjoy philosophy.

Share

Why philosophy does not prove anything?

Share

Why philosophy does not prove anything? 

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

“In philosophy there are no proofs; there are not theorems; and there are no questions which can be decided, Yes or No. In saying that there are no proofs I do not mean to say that there are no arguments. Arguments certainly there are, and first-rate philosophers are recognized by the originality of their arguments; only these do not work in the sort of way they do in mathematics or in the sciences.”

Says Waismann in the beginning of his paper titled “How I see philosophy.” It is not coincidence that Waismann’s title contains an “I” statement. Philosophy, according to Waismann is a personal judgment. A philosopher builds a case. You are like a juror who will arrive at a verdict after watching the parade of confronting philosophers. You don’t drive in a “deductive highway” to reach a rational decision, but you have to use discernment.

“No philosophic argument ends with Q.E.D. However forceful, it never forces. There is no bullying in philosophy, neither with the stick of logic nor with the stick of language,” claims Waismann. Obviously, neither with the stick of experiment, nor with the stick of eternal punishment!

Philosophy does not use deductive arguments. Deductive arguments are limited with self-evident premises. It is constrained, since it leaves out experimentation and sensory information. It is limited on what we know. You are confined with what is defined. Logic, geometry, math is not sufficient to explain many phenomena surrounding us. The realm of philosophy, however, is far beyond the reach of deductive arguments.

Philosophy doe s not use inductive arguments. Though induction cannot really prove anything, it is a useful and a practical tool of sciences. After a “satisfactory” number of observations or experimentation a scientist can make generalizations. Science employs both deduction and induction. Science predicts or concludes after certain observations. Philosophy, however, is a self-claimed supervisor. To some it is a jealous nitpicker.

Philosopher is a trouble maker who dares to ask the most dangerous questions, such as how fertile is deduction, or how reliable is induction. He may use deduction to cast doubt on induction, or he may use induction to show how infertile is the deduction. He may even give up from both of them and appeal to “intuition” or just create “another faculty” to make his case.

Philosopher is an omnivorous intellectual virus who challenges the limits of time and space, and sometimes the limits of brain cells. He is interested with the questions where science or logic has given up, or never thought about them. Philosopher is a wanderer in the dark mazes of arguments with his personal compass and flashlight. If you want to follow his maze you may reach the same exit without feeling any pitfalls or obstacles or dead ends. But if you don’t want to follow his maze, you may see nothing but all dead ends, flaws and pitfalls.

Philosopher is sometimes brave enough to acknowledge his incompetence, and declare the dead end, and sometimes naive enough to declare his discovery of truth. Philosophers can be seen like knights with plastic swords. As intellectual entertainers, or brain-wrestlers… Ironically, many philosophers believe that they swing the sharpest sword in the universe.

Philosopher infers, presumes, reasons, and speculates. He (rarely she!) makes assumptions and seeks justifications for them. He may even try to justify his justifications. None of his arguments can be considered as proof, since very few of his audiences will share exactly the same prejudices, psychology, motivations and knowledge that contribute to the construction of his argument.

Philosopher cannot convince a hard-core disbeliever; but can confirm and revitalize a believer. Philosopher can plant the seeds of doubt in minds of his opponents. Indeed, philosophers are very good in exposing the weakness of their counter-arguments. They build their castles on the cracks of rival philosophers.

How can we define “a philosophical argument”? If we claim that all arguments that are not capable of being proved or refuted is philosophical, then we have a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are, indeed, some philosophic arguments that are resolved. For instance, no one is seriously considering the ancient arguments on the existence of “ether.” No one is seriously considering the arguments on whether animals feel pain or not. Nevertheless, most of the philosophic arguments are surviving for thousands of years without any solution, face to face with their counter arguments.

The reasons why ph

ilosophical arguments can’t provide proofs like mathematics or exact sciences can be listed below:

  1. Philosophical issues have a very complex character and they can be influenced by numerous factors ranging from childhood experiences to social environment, from political or personal agendas to religious dogmas. For instance, any ethical argument will be interpreted and perceived in different contexts by every audience depending on their experience, upbringings, preconceived values, interests, etc. The philosophical arguments, by nature, are not authoritative, but demanding. They demand a voluntary intellectual reflection and a positive attitude from their audience to follow their constructed intellectual highway. A slight distraction or a different intention can take the audience to one of the many exits before reaching to the desired conclusion.
  2. The constraining, vague and deceptive character of natural languages can complicate the simplest arguments.
  3. The philosophical arguments on “metaphysical” issues are extraordinary claims and they require extraordinary evidences which cannot be found in ordinary nature of objective arguments.
  4. Many philosophers cannot avoid letting their hidden premises, emotions, passions and assumptions creep in their arguments. An indisputable argument according to Descartes can be considered a baseless argument by the one who does not share those hidden ingredients.
  5. Many of the philosophical issues do not require a single true answer. They are not black or white. We can describe them as “the more appropriate argument” rather than “the true” argument. Furthermore, “the more appropriate” can change depending on time, place, conditions, societies and even persons.
  6. Scientific theories are not proved by rational arguments but by observations. Scientific theories predict and we evaluate them according to their predictive power. But, we cannot observe or rank most of the philosophical arguments by their predictive power; they do not predict but they reach verdicts.

The most essential feature of philosophy: vision

“At the heart of any philosophy worth the name is vision, and it is from there it springs and takes its visible shape. When I say ‘vision’ I mean it: I do not want to romanticize. What is characteristic of philosophy is the piercing of that dead crust of tradition and convention, the breaking of those fetters which bind us to inherited preconceptions, so as to attain a new and broader way of looking at things.” (Frederick Waismann, How I see philosophy)

Philosophic arguments enrich our vision and suggest different alternatives. For instance, let’s assume several philosophers riding in a buss hearing someone say “There are 38 persons in this bus.” They can refute this statement with different arguments. One may claim, “if we consider 6 month-old fetuses as persons there are 39 persons in this bus, since there is a pregnant lady here.” Another may add, “if we consider animals as persons there are 40 persons here, since the blind man has a dog.” One may interrupt, “if we are really referring to persons, not to bodies, then there are probably more than 40 persons on this bus, since some of the passengers may have multiple personalities.” This argument may continue. In the end:

  1. The amount of money paid for tickets more likely won’t change.
  2. People will learn how inexact and unreliable is their daily language.
  3. The lawyers will try to find a way to exploit this tricky language.
  4. The debate on abortion will focus on the definition of ‘personhood.’
  5. Some of the passengers will have a feast of intellectual entertainment, while some others will plug their ears.

I won’t liken philosophers to a gang of blind wannabe zoologists trying to describe an elephant by touching her body from different positions. Philosophers develop and create new perspectives for old problems. As a by-product of their zeal they create many new problems. Nevertheless, each argument, by opening another peephole from a different direction contributes to enlarge our vision. Occasionally, one of those peepholes changes the whole picture.

It was the vision of Copernicus and Galileo, not their observations that put the Sun in the center of Solar system. Who can claim that the Copernican revolution was merely the result of scientific observations and deductive arguments? If Copernicus did not have the vision, he could easily follow Ptalamos. The Copernican revolution was a paradigm shift, a new vision, before the hard evidence was produced. Indeed, this vision motivated him and Galileo to look for evidence. It was the vision of Einstein that suggested the general relativity and questioned the Newton’s law.

In a particular philosophic argument, vision is always prior to the argument. I fully agree with Waismann that “every great philosopher was led by a sense of vision. . . . arguments come only afterwards to lend support to what he has seen. . . . In this sense, philosophy is the retesting of the standards.”

Traps of language 

“People are deeply imbedded in philosophical, i.e., grammatical confusion. And to free them from these presupposes pulling them out of the immensely manifold connections they are caught up in. One must so to speak regroup their entire language.–But this language came about // developed // as it did because people had–and have–the inclination to think in this way. . . . Language contains the same traps for everyone; the immense network of well-kept // passable // false paths. . . .

“One keeps hearing the remark that philosophy really makes no progress, that the same philosophical problems that had occupied the Greeks are still occupying us. But those who say that don’t understand the reason it is // must be // so. The reason is that our language has remained the same and seduces us into asking the same questions over and over. As long as there is a verb ‘to be’ which seems to function like ‘to eat’ and ‘to drink’, as long as there are adjectives like ‘identical’, ‘true’, ‘false’, ‘possible’, as long as one talks about a flow of time and an expanse of space, etc., etc., humans will continue to bump up against the same mysterious difficulties, and stare at something that no explanation seems able to remove.” (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophy, Contemporary Approaches to Philosophy, p. 134, 135.)

If logical argument is likened to pure water, the natural language will be its container. The shape and color of the container may create superficial attributes for water, such as being green or cylinder. Our previous experiences allow us to distinguish the attributes of water from the attributes of its container. We can do this easily since we can put the same water into different containers with different colors and shapes. We may even be able to observe water without the interference of any container. We will know water as a transparent liquid, since light can pass through it. However, our visual information of water will always be dependent on the nature of light and the interpretation of our brain.

In scientific experiments, especially the ones that involve atoms and subatomic particles we are constrained with our tools. They influence both the precision and the outcome of our experiments. We cannot observe an atom without the existential interference of electronic microscope. We cannot observe any particle smaller than electrons, since light, our best medium won’t be able to convey this information to us. Similarly, we cannot discuss any philosophical issue without the interference of the medium, that is, language.

Language is shaped throughout human history which carries the flavor of collective wisdom and knowledge, misinformation and ignorance as well. Language can create many traps in front of philosophic arguments: some obvious, some very difficult to detect, and some impossible to eliminate. Ironically, language itself is the real cause of some arguments. Hence, we have developed a new discipline, philosophy of language, to assess the role and function of language in our thought process and expression. Though the philosophy of language has created a myriad of new arguments, its “linguistic technique in our day has put an end to the great speculative systems of the past” says Waismann, in his paper ‘How I See Philosophy.’

Wittgenstein also agrees with Waismann on the importance of critical attitude towards language. He lists some problematic verbs, adjectives and expressions as they are the defective genes of our language, and holds them responsible for ‘mysterious difficulties.’

Though I disagree with Waismann in particular (on some of his suspect words, such as ‘true’, ‘false’), I agree with him in general. Let’s reflect on the following example to see how languages can create false or phantasmagoric entities:

If your language allows you to use the first person possessive pronoun as in “My hands, my legs, my eyes, my ears, my nose, my brain . . . “then you will most likely be puzzled by the question “who am I?” From this question, you may incline to consider the existence of an “I,” a soul, independent of “your” physical body.

It may be simple to eradicate the “mysterious difficulty” that originates from this grammatical quirk by trying the same expressions for non-living things: “car’s window, car’s tire, car’s steer, car’s engine . . . “If you won’t be puzzled by the question “what is car?” then you will be advised not to be puzzled on similar question about yourself. But, if you join Plato, then it will be difficult, if not impossible, to convince you.
PS: Written in 1993 for an undergrad philosophy class at the University of Arizona.

Share

BigBang

Share

      
BigBang
 
EdipYüksel
www.19.org
 
 
In the beginning there was nothing, not time, not space, not matter, not energy, not gravity, not even emptiness. There was utter nothingness. Then, some 10-12 billion years ago, the seed of everything came into existence from an incredibly big explosion of an infinitely dense and infinitely small point. The first atoms came to existence in about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. Since then, the universe is expanding and every moment a vaste amount of space is created from nothingness.
 
Me, you, your loved ones and your nemesis, your dreams and your nightmares, your eyes and the computer now you are staring at, yas all came into being from that point called Singularity. We are all children of Singularity! We are all product of the same nothingness, of the same explosion!
 
Remember your origin and reflect on the very existence of your mind. You are a beta program launched by the Eternal, Omniscient and Omnipotant Singularity. One day, like every atom in this universe you will be recalled in a BigCrunch!
     

Share

Biology And Law

Share

Biology And Law

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

In this paper, I will try to evaluate the dynamics of human societies by using the analogy of human body. The paper is not suggesting duplicating the natural principles and rules that govern human body, but it is a novice attempt to reflect on their efficiency and utility, hoping that it may provide us with a useful perspective regarding how to regulate and ease the tension between the individual and society.

In the Beginning

According to modern cosmology, in the beginning there was nothing. Not time, not space, not even emptiness. An absolute void. Everything started from an incredibly big explosion, a node of pure energy. Universe was smaller than the tiniest dust mote. This initial moment was so wild and crazy that no physical law can explain its dynamics. The so-called chaos was the king. Paradoxically, this chaos would give birth to law and order in a very short time. Within the four minutes after the Big Bang the subatomic particles emerged in this extremely hot and dense cosmic soup. Then, those particles somehow hit each other and formed Hydrogen atoms. The loss of heat and gravity stimulated a chemical evolution towards heavier elements. The flirtation of elements formed the traditional family of atoms, that is, molecules. Some of the big molecules, somehow, attracted each other and gave birth to RNA and DNA on a tiny planet called earth.

After a long and complex romance period, these basic chemical programs started a bizarre activity called life, in single cell organisms. A long process of random mutation and non-random Cumulative Natural Selection formed and developed the united states of DNA’s, or Chromosomes. We, the Homo Sapiens are the consequence of these highly complicated but integrated chemical programs contained in our each cell. DNA is a very sophisticated program. The coded instructions in the DNA of a single human cell can fill a 1,000 volume encyclopedia if the instructions could be translated into English. Trillions of cells construct human body crowned by a 3-pound brain the most intriguing mass colony in the universe. Finally, those organized cells (humans) learned to cooperate with each other and formed communities.

A fifteen or twenty billion years old adventure! From utter void to existence, from chaos to law, from subatomic particles to protein molecules, from multi-trillion-member of well-organized cell colonies to human communities. Human communities, like human bodies, try to decrease entropy in an entropic universe. Cooperation and competition are oxymoronic characteristics of the incredulous evolution of anti-entropy movement that gave birth to life. After the emergence of life on the planet, cooperation and competition was rewarded by survival. The quantity and quality of cooperation among members determine the winners of competition. These two opposite behavior co-exist in balance. Domestic competition is regulated and limited by natural contract and punishment. Extraneous competition, however, is regulated and limited by long term utilitarian considerations called ecosystem.

We can easily predict the future of this adventure: Our modern primitive societies will evolve and progress as the result of random and non random mutations and cumulative natural selection. The mutations are caused by internal forces, such as creativity and/or learning, and fostered by liberty. The selection, however, is accomplished by revolutions and/or reforms and fostered by ideas and laws.

The analogy of biology

In this paper, I will try to evaluate the dynamics of human societies by using the analogy of human body. The paper is not suggesting duplicating the natural principles and rules that govern human body, but it is a novice attempt to reflect on their efficiency and utility, hoping that it may provide us with a useful perspective regarding how to regulate and ease the tension between individual and society.

I agree with Mill that Truth, in the universe, has an intrinsic value.

“The truth of an opinion is part of its utility. If we would know whether or not it is desirable that a proposition should be believed, is it possible to exclude the consideration of whether or not it is true? In the opinion, not of bad men, but of the best men, no belief which is contrary to truth can be really useful. . .” (On Liberty, John Stuart Mill, Meridian, 1974, p. 148-149)

Truth is the nature itself. We don’t invent it, but only discover it. Everything in the universe appears to have submitted to their natural role and function, that is physical law. We can consider humans as exception by their apparent free will. But, they are still a part of the nature. The agile chemistry of brain that can create joy and grief is just a curious quirk of universal physical law. The universality of physical law may inspire us the following message: if you want to be happy, learn the truth of the nature; so that you may discover better ways to solve your problems regarding law and order.

Human body is a very complex but a well-organized federal community of cells governed by a holographic federation of naturally appointed (or naturally volunteered) brain cells. The fate of governing cells and their citizens is interdependent. Each cell is an independent individual with certain rights and responsibilities. There are variety of cells equipped with different but useful qualities. Generally, similar cells form metropolitan factories serve for the health and survival of whole body. In turn, the surviving healthy body helps each cell for their ultimate goal: a healthy life. In other words, pleasure of existence and security from inappropriate intrusion.

Each cell has a job suited to its abilities and capacities. Some work in the construction of teeth,  or in the eye center, or in liver, or in kidney. Some secrete hormones, or carry oxygen, or contract the muscles, or provide communication services. The brightest ones work in the government, that is the brain. The brain is well protected and cared by other communities of cells. Communities are autonomous in their private lives. This freedom is limited and regulated during interaction with the others. The distribution of nutrition is regulated according to their need and the importance of their service. Brain, (the government) consumes 25% of total energy to serve the body and get served in turn. The brave and smart white police force defends the whole body against aliens such as viruses, and against domestic lobbies such as corrupt and greedy cancer rebels. They don’t hesitate to sacrifice their lives to save the body from pain and danger. Corrupt cells are punished with the capital punishment, since their activity is a grave threat for the entire community. Before their treason they have tacitly accepted a social contract which allows the body to punish the rebels and greedy aggressors.

If an external cause gives damage to a city or state of cells, the federal government orders national emergency to help them. Ironically, the federal government may be the very source of invitation of the problem, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. Many construction workers and civil engineers are mobilized to repair the damage, accompanied by white detectives. Communication and intelligence services are carefully governed by the brain. Brain governs human body according a very simple principle: avoid pain, acquire pleasure. The brain of a masochist is an exception regarding the identification of pain and pleasure; however, it is not an exception regarding the principle: a masochist brain takes a perverted pleasure from pain. It would be more accurate to define pain and pleasure as the subjective perception and interpretation of brain.

The story of how the integrated billions of cells operate cannot be told even in volumes of books. However, from our basic knowledge of biology we can infer the following principles:

  1. Each cell has a border (membrane) indicating both their limits and liberty. They are free in their private life as long as they fulfill their citizenship duties and do not harm others.
  2. Each cell has a guaranteed freedom of speech. They can e-mail their feelings and ideas to the Gray & White House through an intricate network. Their information is mostly reliable. Brain may punish the sources of misinformation or lies by disregarding them in the future through endorphin or cognitive interpretation.
  3. Any cell that exploits or abuse its neighbors is disciplined or punished according to the severity of their crime. If they cannot be rehabilitated they are replaced. Small and benign rebellions may be tolerated, since taming them may cost the lives of many white fighters and resources.
  4. The problems in the brain have a direct and immediate impact on the rest of entire body. A poor function my cause a lot of damage even chaos in the community, and eventually will hurt the brain. The brain either will get a lesson from the warnings, or drag the whole community, including itself to annihilation.

The most important difference between a democratic human society and human body is that the former can elect, replace, or reform the government, while the later is governed by an absolute oligarchy. A body is almost helpless against an imbecile brain.

Now, let’s compare and contrast human body (the integrated cells), to human society (the unified bodies of integrated cells).

Natural Quality Assessment and Employment

HUMAN BODY: The abilities and qualities of each cell are exactly measured and automatically placed in appropriate occupation, since the initial appointments are done by the same program (DNA) that designs the body of cells. Nerve cells are employed inside the head, while hair cells outside the head. Both are happy and proud with their position and function (but they may not be happy with external world). The cells in the toe nails, normally, do not covet the prestigious position of cornea cells. The ratio of biological government to citizens is approximately 1 to 50 and the ratio of energy consumption is 1 to 4.

HUMAN SOCIETY: There is no an a priori natural program that can objectively measure the talents of all citizens and place them in appropriate occupations. Since the fates of individuals are not interconnected as immediate and strong as the single cells in human body, humans can act with bias for instant personal gratification. A just recognition of talents and employment can only be expected in a case of a long lasting emergency (not panic). A long lasting emergency can force individuals to acknowledge their true talents and recognize others’. It is this mechanism that produces the best politicians during the foundation of a nation or during a popular and peaceful revolution.

For instance, during the six-hour sinking of Titanic, all talents and skills found their most appropriate recognition and occupation. Just think of the emergence of natural leaders, life savers, the preference of children and their closest care givers, the sacrifice of elderly, etc. A communal emergency can artificially be created in order to allow the natural assessment and selections take place. A manager of a civil engineering company can threaten a team of engineers with reducing their salary if a certain task is not done before a short deadline. Under the pressure of punishment and deadline, a freshman, but a creative engineer will find freedom and even encouragement from his previous jealous colleges. The manager can recognize and rank each engineer more accurately after a secret monitoring or insider report. The manager, however, will be out of this natural selection and election process.

This method will not work for ambiguous services or products. The possibility of different interpretation of performance and outcome is a great obstacle for a just and natural selection. The method of “artificial emergency and equally shared consequence” is not recommended for a large society either, since it cannot be controlled and monitored.

A democracy performed by critical thinkers, and a free market economy curved by social institutions and logarithmic increase of taxes parallel to the wealth can foster a better quality assessment and employment in human society. Thus, a society should relentlessly pursue the following two goals: 1) Increase the number of critical thinkers by guaranteeing an absolute freedom of speech and providing channels for dissipation of information. 2) Don’t allow a small wealthy class to monopolize economy and politics.

Job according to the capacity, pay according to the need

HUMAN BODY: Biological economic system is a utopia; it is communism. Jobs are acquired according to the capacity; food and services are distributed according to the need. Again, the biological communism should not be confused with the ideological one. The former does not carry the psychological weakness of the later. Therefore, neither production, nor quality of the service fall.

However, the moral value of human body is strictly based on biological utilitarianism. There is no room for emotions or psychological moral considerations. If a cell is corrupt, lazy or handicapped, the biological society will try to fix it. If it is not repairable, they will dump them without mercy. Every member must do their assigned job.

HUMAN SOCIETY: For the same reasons that I mentioned earlier, the biological utilitarian economic model cannot be efficiently implemented by human societies. Humans, by their nature are greedy, which is different from the nature of their biological components.  Capacity and need cannot be objectively determined as it is done by the very nature of cells.

Second, human being considers the dumping of the handicapped, elderly or the sick as cruelty, or immoral. This morality may originate from selfish probabilistic concern regarding individual’s own future. Welfare system is the result of psychological utilitarianism.

Wild capitalism, like cancer cells, can destroy the entire community. Monopolies can  enslave masses economically and devour their virtual freedom and happiness. Communism, on the other hand, does not seem to be realistic because of human psychology. The transitional stage, that is socialism can easily turn to oppression, and cause reduction in production and happiness. Therefore, a carefully planned mixed economic system can maximize the happiness in society.

Strict Authority and Implementation of Order for The Common Goal, That is, Health and Security

HUMAN BODY: The members of the government (brain), belong to a different race and class. They are not replaceable like other cells. This unique quality allows them to benefit from their previous experiences labeled as “memory” or “knowledge.” A biological cast system does not normally allow cells to promote in their career or change their jobs.

A strict authoritarian regime governs the multi-trillion member body. The government is mostly fair, but unforgiving in implementation of law and order. The utilitarian principle, that is, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is the constitution. Freedom of will (if there is such a thing called free will!) is enjoyed by only the ruling class. Citizens, apparently have happily accepted (or deserved) this situation.

The biological class system should not be confused with economical or religious class system. The biological authoritarian regime is also different from monarchy or tyranny. The difference is clear and big: The members of biological government can’t hoard fat (wealth). Therefore, they are extremely dependent to the happiness of their citizens. The mutual, vital, immediate and clear interdependence requires both parties to treat each other with respect and continuous compassion. The members of biological government are sensitive to the tiniest complaint and trouble of their citizens. A little thorn in the toe can keep the entire government sleepless. Government immediately mobilizes the police force and rush medical and construction units to the disaster area. During this aid process, pain relieving hormones may be released temporarily to let the government continue monitoring and implementing the vital functions of body.

HUMAN SOCIETIES:

The interdependence of human government and citizens is not as mutual, vital, immediate and clear as it is in the biological body. Therefore, an authoritarian regime can oppress and exploit its subjects by abusing its power. Ruling members of the regime can hoard a lot wealth. (They can even secure it in the banks of Switzerland.) Nevertheless, new studies done by psychologists claim that authoritarian system is somehow superior over democratic and laissez faire systems:

“As we have discussed, a high level of productivity leads to increased group satisfaction and cohesiveness in the long term. It appears that authoritarian groups can often be more productive than democratic ones.” (Small Group Discussion: a Theoretical Approach, Charles Pavitt & Ellen Curtis, Gorsuch Scarisbrick, Scottsdale AZ, 1990, p. 261).

However, the risk and danger of an authoritarian system is much greater than its benefits in human societies. Especially, after we tasted the sweetness of freedom. It seems that a hybrid system, a Democratic Authoritarian System, can combine the advantages of both. Indeed, the presidential democratic system in the USA is an attempt to combine the two.

We cannot imitate human biology; but can we adapt and modify some of its aspects to our political system? Why not? For instance, the rulers, such as governors and congress members, should not be allowed to increase their wealth during their service (remember that brain cells cannot collect fat). Their salary may be fixed to the median salary. Government spending can be limited with maximum 25% of national income. Their expectation to become fat cats should be diminished. This strict regulation will also reduce the influence of special interest lobbies. A fixed median salary and prestige are enough to attract many skilled candidates to the arena of politics.

 

Share

Seven Questions to Solve the Problem of Evil

Share

Seven Questions to Solve the Problem of Evil

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org 

Our world is full of evils which cause enormous human pain and suffering throughout history. We can classify those evils under three categories:

    1. Natural evils, such as earth-quakes, volcano eruptions, hurricanes etc.
    2. Moral evils, such as, murder, torture, discrimination, racism, rape, theft, etc.
    3. Hybrid evils (combination of two), such as, pollution, AIDS, ozone depletion, starvation etc.

For Judaeo-Christian theology, including Islam, the existence of both God and evil creates one of the devilish paradoxes of all time. We can summarize this problem in three propositions:

    1. God is omnipotent and omniscient
    2. God is all good and  merciful
    3. Yet, evil exists

The paradox or contradiction appears when a person accepts ALL of these three prepositions. If any two of them were true the third would be false. It seems that an all good and omnipotent God cannot exists simultaneously with evil. In other words, the concept of God in Judaeo-Christian theology is not compatible with this world contaminated with all kind of evils.

Theologians tried to solve the problem with a variety of solutions. However, a close analysis of those suggested solutions shows that they are fallacious. Analyzing those fallacious solutions is beyond the scoop of this paper. However, I will briefly touch some of them:

1. Evil is necessary as a means to good.

This suggested solution is possible only by rejection or restriction of the first preposition, that is the omnipotence of God. Can’t God create good without using evil as a means?

2. Evil is necessary as a counterpart to good.

Do all what we perceive have necessary counterparts? Many qualities seem to be relative to each other, not counterparts, such as short and long, big and small. What is the counterpart of blue, or red? Even if we grant that evil is necessary as a counterpart to good still a Judeao-Christian theologian will be troubled by the question: “How much evil is enough to satisfy this requirement? What is the minimum necessary dose of evil in order to expose the good?

3. Evil is due to human free will

Could not God create human in such a perfect way that they always choose the good with their free will?

Several questions to solve or discard the problem

I have several arguments which I think some or all of them may solve the problem. The solution may not be a conventional solution. I think your answers to the following questions will create foundations for a coherent argument for an alternative approach to the problem:

    1. Do you like to have freedom of choice, though you may sometimes suffer as the consequence of your own choice?
    2. Do you consider intelligent computers more advanced than today’s computers?
    3. Do you think that if your father gives you freedom which is limited by his list of “good” things can be really called “freedom”?
    4. Think of two creators: One can only create good but not evil. The other can create both. Which one of the two can be considered more omnipotent?
    5. Let’s assume that one day scientists will be able to create “intelligent computers” which can make their own choices with their free will. Should one of the computers make an error, who will you hold responsible for that error? If you hold the scientist responsible, won’t you be contradicting with your previous acceptance that computers have free will? What does “free” mean?
    6. Do you believe that you have free will?
    7. Are the all numbers of odd numbers equal to the all the numbers of all numbers?

I will base my argument on your logically possible answers to the above questions. Alas, I need to write a book.

But, I believe you can imagine my argument by thinking on your answers to my seven questions.

 

PS: This paper was written in 1993 for Paranormal Anthropology 301, Inst: Turner, T.A.: Beth Bohon

Share

Are Rules Futile or Helpful?

Share

Are Rules Futile or Helpful?

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

The Stoics  believed that virtue is a product of rationality. It is natural for humans to reason and act accordingly. The life which is in agreement with nature is virtuous. To, them, division in moral issues comes from bad information and upbringing. Discussions on moral issues can be solved by discussions among moral people, since their reasoning will eventually lead them to unity. The Stoics’ starting point of moral values is summarized as “what is natural is to be taken for its own sake and what is unnatural is to be rejected. . . All appropriate actions proceed from the natural principles” (Cicero On Goals 3. 20, 23 quoted in Hellenistic Philosophy p. 149).

Ariston: “Rules are useless”

Ariston was an intuitionist. He held that our moral values were not reducible to rules. His objection to moral rules was based on four reasons, as they are quoted by Seneca in Letters 94:

1. Rules are trivial and external. Following the rules create habituation. But our nature, (reason) requires reflection, not habituation. Rules don’t tell you why to do or not to do something. Without knowing why to do this or not to that is not virtue. It is not the rules but the principles of philosophy that makes a person know why. Virtue must be pursued for its own sake and this can be possible only by having a holistic view of morality which generates well understood personal rules.

2. Rules are not limited and not exact. For instance, the rule “don’t tell lie” is not practical since it does not provide the exceptional cases. Detailing all the exceptional cases without any exception is not possible. Therefore, in order to act virtuously in all situations, understanding is necessary. A moral person knows the principles of morality and creates his own rules on particular occasions with understanding, and rules become limitless and exact.

3. If you are not virtuous rules are useless, since they don’t give you the insight for “why” to do. If you are virtuous, again rules are futile, since the virtuous person is equipped with the formulation of final good, or the principles of philosophy which enables him how to act in particular situations.

4. Rules can be the carriers of “bad information.”  They contain “old wives’ rules.” Accepting and following them without reflection keeps the wrong (irrational) ideas and actions alive throughout generations.

Later Stoicism: “Rules are helpful. . . “

First, they reject Ariston’s assertion that rules “are not limited.” According to later Stoics, rules “do not lack limits concerning the greatest and most crucial matters” (Seneca, Letters 94.35). They claim that infinite number of sub-rules required by different occasions, interactions and situation can be expressed in a few universal rules.

Second, they do not see a categorical difference between the principles of philosophy and rules. They consider principles also as rules. The only difference is that the former directs a person in general, the latter in particular ways.

Third, principles are the sacred roots of rules. Rules are the fruit of principles. Principles can be known only by philosophers, while rules can be known by lay people.

Fourth, though following rules does not make a person’s intention correct, however, rules may help a person in becoming virtuous.

Later Stoicism is more defensible

We can consider the discussion on moral rules as a moral issue, since it involves  their value. Therefore, according to all Stoics, as we mentioned in the first paragraph of this paper, moral people can solve this issue by reasoning. Though Ariston is not alive, we can be fair to him by using our reasoning in the best way.

Let’s reiterate the position of Later Stoicism on rules: following the rules does not make a bad person virtuous, however, a virtuous person may benefit by following the rules and may still be considered virtuous.

If living according to nature is virtue, then, how does a virtuous person know what is the nature? Can a moral person deduce from the general principles of philosophy that lying is bad while selling a merchandise, but okay while telling a joke? If he can, then he must have observed the moral rules set by the society.

Rediscovering rules, or benefitting from previous discoveries?

There are many rules which have become integral parts of human societies. Even if we don’t learn them from someone or from books, we will learn and follow them through our natural personal experience. Since many rules are the result of historical experiences of many individuals, it is reasonable to learn them and follow them in the beginning. A virtuous person will eventually reject the ones that are not compatible with reason or nature–through rational reflection, presumably. It seems more reasonable to benefit from previous experiences by following them initially and reject them later.

The reverse process, that is, rejecting them initially and discovering them later is not reasonable for the following reasons: Human societies promote and stick with actions which helps their members to interact in the best possible manner in their societies. This is the nature of societies. Its existence and survival depends on their common agreement on “appropriate” rules. Those rules must be compatible with the natural elements of society, such as environment, economy, technology, physical and psychological needs of individuals, the size of population etc.

In other words, rules must be in hormony with those elements. Rules are modified and retained throughout life span of societies. Rules undergo a process of “natural selection” continuously.

Rediscovering rules is not reasonable

The principles of philosophy are universal. In fact, some rules have become universal throughout thousands-year long human experience, such as respecting parents, taking care of children, not stealing etc. However, some rules can slightly vary according to the elements of societies. Therefore, a virtuous person who “prefers” to live in a certain society cannot find the appropriate rules without violating them or without learning them. It is very painful and time consuming to learn the rules by violating them one by one. Also it is not virtuous to expect the society to tolerate and bear with the wiseacre virtuous rediscoverers.

Violation of some rules may have some fatal consequences on society and on individuals as well. For instance, having unlimited sexual intercourse with multiple partners without protection can create many unwanted children and spread sexual diseases. A young pupil who wants to be virtuous should not be advised to find the appropriate rules based on his immature philosophy. Until he learns the nature he may destroy himself and others. Obviously, our reasoning command us to find the appropriate rules through the best method. A method that eventually leads a person to eliminate some of the unreasonable and unnatural rules knowingly, should be preferred to the one that jeopardizes the well being of society and individuals. The former method is less risky and less regretful. Indeed, the collective reasoning of generations can be perfected in optimum way by natural selection, not by a default wholesale rejection of their moral rules.

Habituation can be avoided while following rules

I agree with the Stoics that mere following the rules without the full understanding of them does not necessarily make a person virtuous.  A person with “bad” intention can abuse and exploit those rules, since rules are not limited and exact in many cases. (Here, I agree with Ariston). However, a person who has chosen to become virtuous according to the philosophy of Stoicism, can be considered virtuous while following the rules, because he has a continuing good intention in doing so. His good intention (which is to become virtuous according to basic principles shared by Stoics) will not let him repeat unnatural or irrational rules twice. In the course of this growing up period he will understand and internalize most of the rules.

Furthermore, he later will participate in discussions with other virtuous individuals to amend or discard those unnatural rules. This process, eventually, will create a natural and intellectual selection of rules. Each generation will leave a better set of rules to next generation.

There is not a clear line between maturity and immaturity

A person is not born as a virtuous person. I think that Ariston agrees with this statement. Learning the principle of moral philosophy, discovering the appropriate rules and internalizing them is a long process which require biological growth, analytical brain and time. Hence, how can Ariston expect from a four year old Yahya (my son) to learn by his mere reasoning not to bite his sister? Rules and sanctions are necessary to protect the virtuous people and their daughters from the harms of irrational actions of immature creatures, like Yahya.

Besides, Ariston cannot give us a certain age that following rules will be considered unnecessary. The speed and quality of learning varies dramatically from one to another person. Ariston may became able to generate his own rules, say, after his age of 27; but how can he claim that everyone should be expected to comprehend the fundamental formula of morality by that age? Furthermore, how can Ariston claim that he should be free of following the rules that he is not able to understand?

In summary, rules can help a virtuous person in many ways:

He can find the “proper actions” with less error, since many of the surviving rules have been already examined by previous rational generations.

He can be trusted to a certain degree by strangers who do not know him, and he can also trust strangers. Trust is a very important ingredient in developing  of virtuous disposition. Lack of trust can create cynical and paranoid viruses in the mind of a person who wants to be virtuous.

He can receive the help of rules indirectly, as well. Encouraging or forcing bad people to appear to act virtuously in most of major cases creates a better community which makes it easier for new generations to become virtuous.

He can participate in the virtuous activity of improving and bettering the rules. Benefitting from collective discoveries of previous generations is a natural method.

 

PS: This was written in 1993 Phil 470: Greek Philosophy taught by Prof. Julia Annas at the University of Arizona

Share

My Normal and Paranormal Adventures in Kazakhstan:

Share

My Normal and Paranormal Adventures in Kazakhstan:
Bukhari’s Ghost Dancing with a Hungry Holy Sunni Goat, Misogynistic Dogs Barking at Pigs, Russian Pyrokinesis Burning Holes in Brains and Pockets, Two Extra Letters Correcting Quranic Bismillah, Kazaks Eating Almaty’s Apple and Horse Meat…

Edip Yuksel

www.19.org

This is my third country report since 2008. In my first report, From Tucson to Changsha, my mission was to discover China educationally, culturally, socially, politically and of course, culinarily. Other than a short visit to an Uygur Mosque, I had no encounters with religious people. In my second report, I shared my experience at Oxford University, Muslim Institute in London, Book Fair and one night in a Turkish jail in Istanbul. During that trip, using my arguments from Manifesto for Islamic Reform, I created a multiple choice test, which I called Theometer or Sectometer, and applied it on my distinguished audience in two countries with remarkable success. Now you are reading this report which you might find as delicious as Almaty’s apple!

Hoping that your mind is not already polluted by that obnoxious Cohen the Borat, let me first give you a paragraph of dull and boring background information aboutKazakhstan, which declared its independence from Russiain 1991 becoming a presidential republic. Though its democracy is confused between bureaucracy and autocracy (as theUSA’s between corpocracy and oligarchy), we hope that one day it will become a model country for peace, justice and progress. In Kazakhstan, I was told, “men are manly, sheep are nervous and flies are everywhere.” It is the worlds 9th largest country, land locked, and rich with numerous natural resources. Its population of 17 million comprises of about 70% Kazaks and 20% Russians, and its GDP per capita is about 11,000 dollars.

In March of 2007, an elite group of well-educated and well-connected Kazaks discovered my work, especially the Manifesto for Islamic Reform, which they immediately translated into Russian and distributed it in tens of thousands. Before discovering my work, they had adopted the Salafi version of Sunni religion as the product of intense propaganda by regressive forces fromSaudi Arabia, the scourge. For instance, they had destroyed their songs and music paraphernalia and had given up many blessings. This unfortunate experience, however, proves their sincerity and commitment. They were lucky, sinceKazakhstandid not block the progressive Internet sites and they had not yet traded their brains for good with the volumes of authentic nonsense called hadith and Sunna. Trashing human brains and deactivating their rational faculties is the ultimate goal of the religious viruses, especially of the Salafi mutation.

The group was the cream of the crop. I had met the leading two members, Aslbek and Aidar, at the home of my Turkish colleague Dr. Caner Taslaman inIstanbul. They were young and restless, curious and humorous, intelligent and knowledgeable, rationalist and monotheist, brave peacemakers and fighters for justice. They were also macho man, according to my standards. They were excited and appreciative of discovering the Message of the Quran, unaltered by fabricated hearsay stories and sectarian jurisprudence. In a short time we became friends, which led me to challenge them to get 1 out of 5 scores in a physical game of power, balance and concentration, which I had mastered while I was in Turkish prisons. They repeated the fate of many young and strong men whom I had challenged: they lost the game, 5 to 0.

My trip in October 2009, lasted about 24 hours fromTucsonto Almaty, which has been declared sister cities for a few decades. I was welcomed by Dinmukhamed and Talgat, two young men sent by Aslbek, and taken to an A-Club Hotel, located on a hill in a beautiful section of the city. All streets were lined with rows of trees as well as the median. I have never seen a city as tree-friendly as Almaty. Modern accommodations were combined with fresh air… Everything in the hotel met the Western standards of luxury, except for the bathroom tissues which were coarse and difficult to tear. I could not learn much from their media, since the twenty plus TV channels were broadcast in either Russian or Kazak.

The Intellectual Ambush at Almaty

Aslbek Mussin (30) decided to organize a live debate between me and a Sunni scholar/preacher. He contacted a list of Sunni preachers, including one of the best contemporary Sunni apologists, Zakir Naik. I was told that he was not receiving positive responses to his invitation, which was fully paid by the hosts. However, a popular Sunni imam from theUnited Kingdomaccepted the invitation. He thought that he was going to preach to a Sunni herd, as usual. He was not aware of the exact nature of the event, yet he was treated in the best possible manner. It took him a few days to notice that he did not have a crowd; but a group of critical thinkers, rational monotheists. The exact moment where he realized the real nature of his mission has been recorded on video. My friend Raymond Catton fromCanada, whom I first met through Rashad Khalifa in 1988, was our moderator for the first two sessions. Raymond was using the Manifesto for Islamic Reform for his questions. At one point, the Sunni preacher loudly complained about the questions, which were designed as curveballs to expose the manifold contradictions in his Sunni religion.

Several Kazak monotheists acted like Salafi Sunnis and they served him around the clock. Since they were Salafis before, they knew all the relevant jargons and mannerisms. He was allowed to lead the prayers, which he appeared to think was his God-given right because of his black robe and long beard. Anytime the call for prayer was made, he would leap forward and choose himself to lead the prayers. (Those of us who do not mention Muhammad’s name besides God in our Sala prayers did not join him). The audience was instructed by Aslbek to cheer for both sides. It was a bizarre scene: while we were in a hot debate, our audience was like in the refrigerator clapping for both sides in an orchestrated and reserved fashion. Our moderators did even better. For instance, Arnold Mol, our moderator for the last session, roared like a lion when I interrupted our Sunni imam; for a moment,Arnold’s face turned red and declared his authority to cut me off. I was glad that he did, since Abu Eesa would not have any excuse to complain about the Kazak-style intellectual setup: he had the chance to share the teachings and dogmas of his Sunni religion with Muslims in a very friendly and free environment.

Ironically, Sunnis has so far never allowed us to debate with them in their conferences. I wish we were invited by Sunnis to debate with their imams and sheiks. I wish we were set up by them! I do not expect them to pay for my trip, to assign two friendly young men to serve me, or cheer for me so that I would not feel lonely. None of that! A simple invitation, equal opportunity to debate and a promise of not beating us or killing us during the event would be sufficient. My past experience with the Sunnis and Shiite people is just the opposite. For instance, on October 7 of 1989 they kicked me out by force from their conferences in Chicago, when I directed a few questions from my first English book, 19 Questions for Muslim Scholars, to the mullahs they ignorantly call Mawlana (Our Lord). They had sent an invitation to Dr. Rashad Khalifa to attend their conference; not as a speaker, but as an audience. Rashad knew that their intention was to humiliate him. Upon Rashad’s request, I accepted to substitute him at the conference. I flew fromTucson toChicago to confront the mullahs and their followers. Rashad had printed two hundred copies of a special issue of the Muslim Perspective, addressing the participants of the conference. I had also a draft copy of my upcoming book, 19 Questions for Muslim Scholars. Asking the speaker a loaded question was sufficient for my excommunication. They banned me from entering their conference rooms, and then they tried to get rid of me from the lobby, where I was surrounded by curious youths, mostly ethnic Pakistanis. Later, they sent two big guys to my hotel room to physically hurt me; but God sent an African American Muslim who sneaked me out of the hotel just seconds before they reached me. Since then, I have had numerous similar experiences. One of them is memorable. In November 23 of 2002, I had a live debate on a popular Turkish TV program with Dr. Süleyman Ateş, the former head of Religious Affairs. Towards the end of the debate, which was full of surprises, I made a surprise announcement. I declared that for the first time I would be participating in a public event since my emigration to theUSA. I was going to show up at a book fair to meet my readers. It was a decision I made at that moment. The host of the show advised me not to do such a crazy thing, but I did not listen. Upon my arrival at the huge external yard of the Kocatepe Mosque, I was welcomed by dozens of monotheists. Several of them, especially Hamza Gürer, begged me not to enter the inside the courtyard. They had noticed a Sunni gang gathered in front of an Islamist publishing house’s exhibition tables talking about me. They were getting prepared to hurt me. I barely averted their mischief.

When Sunni or Shiite clergymen gain power, they rarely, if ever, allow their sectarian teachings to be challenged by monotheists like me. Though we always open our doors, windows and occasionally our chimneys for them, they rarely allow us in their Internet forums or Paltalk rooms. The moment they realize that we are monotheists, that we do not associate fabricated hadith to the Quran, that we do not praise Muhammad more than God, that we do not accept verses abrogated by hungry holy goats, that we do not believe that music is prohibited and women should be avoided like a dog, and hundreds of other non-Quranic teachings and practices, they insult us, falsely accuse and sensor us. Their leaders have called me Zionist, Bahai, or the member of the Moon Cult who received a million dollars… They are very good in producing many rabbits from their hadith-trained imaginations, and ironically they tend to believe the objective reality of their imaginary rabbits. I hope that Abu Eesa appreciates this great difference between monotheists and polytheists. Rational monotheists have nothing to fear, since they have nothing to hide.

Abu Eesa Niamatullah was a smart, articulate and cordial tall man with very long arms that could hug a camel vertically. He was born in theUnited Kingdom, of Pakistani heritage. With his Arabized title and first name, black robe, kosher beard and short hair contrary to what his hadith literature describes his fashion idol, he was wearing a strait jacket around his outgoing personality, screaming the troops of contradictions: a former disk-jockey who considered music a sin, a science-educated man who was promoting nonsense, a humorous man who somehow ended up playing the role of a Sunni scholar. Abu Eesa (The Father of Eesa), was a British-educated Pakistani man impersonating the composite Sunni character created by medieval Arab, Persian, and Turkish pagans, Jewish Rabbis and Christian Monks through mishmash stories and norms! Holy concoction! Under the same garb, he was both a mullah and a normal human being. Perhaps we could become close friends if he did not have his second personality, which promoted a cruel, oppressive and repressive religion. But he has hope. As long as he has some sense of humor left in him, as long as he can listen to the opposing voice, he may be able to free himself from the dogma of the master hypnotist. Time will tell.

Like all religious people who follow dogma blindly, he too was convinced that his cloth and grooming was an integral part of his faith. Knowing that faith is a euphemism for wishful thinking or joining a particular bandwagon for petty tribal, social, political and/or economic interests, it was not a surprise to see many of the followers of dogma showing off with their cloth and grooming; a juvenile way of making a point: I am different and holier than you, and I am the center of the universe! I am the missing link between you and heaven! In this regard, Abu Eesa was better than the Catholic priests; at least he did not generate dust and smoke like the Pope with a funny hat who breaks multiple records in Yuksel’s Record of Religious Oddities. (I am working on a new book now. I will rank the top 100 religious oddities according to the amount of logical, natural and internal contradictions they cause.)

Sunni Polytheism Exposed

Noticing his talent of smooth-talking and pleasing the crowds, I knew that if I acted softly, brother Abu Eesa would beat around every bush and tree, every pebble and rock, trying his best to window-dress and cover up the devils in the details of Sunni teaching. I applied pressure on him, I provoked him. I had no personal vendetta against him; in fact, I was in admiration of his passion, dedication and zeal. I was tormented by watching him being tormented between his God-given reason and the nonsense he was indoctrinated to follow as a religion. Until the age of 29, I was not much different than him. In other words, I was encountering myself, my ghost from my days of ignorance. I had empathy for him. I knew exactly what my brother Abu Eesa was feeling/thinking, and why he was feeling/thinking that way, and I tried my best to help him to see himself in the mirror. My primary target was not to debase his person but the diabolic teachings he was promoting. I was praying for his freedom. He had chance to accept the truth, so that it could set him free!

At one point, I used the Quranic trap to expose the Sunni polytheism. I read verses 6:145 to 6:150 from the Reformist Translation. I gave a few-seconds pause and looked at him after the challenge: “Bring forth your witnesses who bear witness that God has forbidden this.” Like many whom I had tested before him, he too fell into the Quranic trap. He responded with one of his idols’ names with the usual fabricated phrase: “Muhammad Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam.” Then, I continued finishing the verse 6:150 and reminded him of the beginning of the section by reading verses 6:112-6:117. This debate was being recorded live in front of the select Kazak audience. Suddenly, he realized that his polytheism was exposed naked. He appeared to have woken up from a nightmare and complained for not hearing anything I had read to him. Ironically, his answer to the question testified to the opposite. Perhaps, his reception of verses was interrupted with troops of hadiths bouncing in his head. He was walking with the help of lightning; he would see the truth surrounding him for a few seconds; but would immediately revert back to the darkness of ignorance. I then reminded him and the audience the verses explaining the phenomenon: when you recite God’s aya to them, they do not hear and do not understand, since there is a wall (Hijab) and curtain between them and God’s message (17:45).

Abu Eesa was trying to prove his monotheistic zeal by criticizing those who visit graves of saints and ask for their help. At one point he reminded us that ONLY God could be Omnipresent and Omniscient, and condemned the practice as idol-worship. Of course, we were all in agreement with him on this. But, I knew for sure, he had no clue what he was talking about. I knew the nature of hadith and sunna, a forest of vertical, horizontal and diagonal contradictions (68:35-38). I knew that he would contradict his own criticism against calling on dead saints and prophets. So, I asked him whether he was commemorating God alone in his Sala prayers in accordance with the Quran (20:14; 72:18; 39:45; 3:18). I asked him whether he was addressing Muhammad in the Tahiyyah just after addressing God when he was reciting al-Fatiha in the standing position. Those who betrayed God and His messenger by associating various sources to the Quran, call on Muhammad while they are in sitting position: “Assalamu alaika ayyuha annabiyyu…” (Peace be upon YOU, O the Prophet…) as if Prophet Muhammad was Omnipresent and Omniscient second person while they pray. At that point, Abu Eesa forgot about his criticism against the worshippers of dead saints and prophets, and declared his polytheistic practice by emphasizing the word AYYUHA, which is a strong indication of the presence of the person. What was his justification for this contradiction? No surprise: HADITH, a word that has been prophetically condemned by the Quran. He used the same justification to continue asking for help from the most popular idol in the world, al-Hajar al-Aswad, the black rock in Mecca. (For details of our arguments against Hadith and Sunna, please see the Manifesto for Islamic Reform. It is published by BrainbowPress and also available online in several languages at www.islamicreform.org).

Abu Eesa could not respond to many fatal criticisms to his Sunni position. For instance, his interpretation of the hadith in which Omar stops a sahaba from bringing pen and paper so that Prophet Muhammad in his death bed could write something to help them not deviate from right path. According to that “authentic hadith,” Omar declared “The prophet is sick and has fever. He does not know what he is saying. Hasbuna Kitab-ulllah (God’s book is sufficient for us)”. According to the same hadith, Omar’s reasoning for stopping Muhammad from writing anything in his death bed was accepted by all the prominent sahaba present there. Abu Eesa’s attempted defense of this hadith missed the entire point. He had also hard time to explain the three different versions of the most important statement in the most witnessed hadith, The Last Sermon, in his “holy hadith books.” According to numerous hadith books, Prophet Muhammad left people (a) The Quran and Sunna; (b) The Quran and his family; or (c) The Quran. Even a rudimentary knowledge of history would be sufficient to know the reason for these discrepancies and the reasons behind the fabrication of the two versions that contradict the Quran.

Women are in the Company of Dogs, not Pigs!

Abu Eesa was a talented demagogue. He was not a “straw man” that I could punch to death and declare a cheap victory. He was one of the best apologists Sunnis could get. During our discussion on women issues, he took the lead in defense of women. He went even further than me and most of the feminists. He declared women to be superior to men. Yes, this Sunni imam was declaring superiority of women over men! One of the signs for the end of the world! Our Sunni imam’s superwoman, however, would not last more than a few seconds. I was not moved by such a hyperbole, since I knew the double talk… If later he were to be interrogated by his misogynist followers, he would defend himself by saying: “I meant mothers; not wives and sisters!” If Abu Eesa were honest about his promotion of hadith and Sunna, than he should have said exactly the opposite about woman. I did not list dozens of hadith from his so-called “authentic hadith books” that discriminate against women, demean, insult, decry, disparage, deprecate, reprehend, reproach, condemn, and accuse women for being the cause of the biggest troubles of ignorant men. I just reminded him of one of his hadiths from his favorite book, Bukhari (I am not misrepresenting his position regarding Bukhari, since he publicly declared that he believed that some hadiths abrogated verses of the Quran):

“What do you think Abu Eesa about this hadith: ‘If a donkey, a pig and a woman passes in front of a praying person, the prayer is nullified.”? After a short pause, our Sunni imam got animated and pointed at my ignorance of his hadith! He proudly corrected my error. I had misquoted his hadith; it was a dog not a pig! If you are a pet-loving American, you may find little problem with such a company. But, his hadith collections condemned dogs, required those touched by a dog to wash themselves seven times in a special way, and instructed the killing of all black dogs… So, there was not much relief for women to be promoted to the level of female dogs, even the white ones. To show off his knowledge of hadith, our imam inadvertently abrogated his own imaginary hadith with a dog. The dog in his hadith books came to life and ate my erroneous pig together with his imaginary Sunni superwoman!

The Extraordinary Powers of Psychokinetic, Telekinetic or Pyrokinetic Energy!

Besides Hadith and Sunna, there was another hoax I had to deal with. I was hearing from my hosts about a Russian guy with paranormal powers. According to many eye-witness testimonies, he was burning holes in things with sheer mental concentration. As a rational monotheist, as a critical thinker, I did not hesitate to reject the claims to be 99.9 percent a hoax. They laughed at me. They had in the past taken extreme skeptics who did not give even a 0.1 percent chance. One of their recent guests was a philosophy professor fromMoscowUniversity, who had become a total believer in pyrokinesis. They wanted to take me to a session so that I could witness the paranormal event. I could not pass up the offer.

During the nine days in Almaty, I met three Kazaks who shared the name Serik (from Arabic Sherik, that is Partner or Friend). This Serik was educated in theUnited Statesand was a successful businessman and financial advisor. He was in his early thirties. Cool as cucumber. He had two Mercedes cars, one driven by his private driver. He enjoyed trying to scare me by accelerating his new Mercedes G Wagon in Almaty’s narrow streets. The Russian guy lived on the fifth floor of a dilapidated apartment building. The door had multiple locks on it. Upon our entry, he gave an envelope to the Russian who called himself Alexander. Later, I learned that he had popped-up 2,000 dollars for the half-an-hour session. Alexander was a skinny man in his forties. He had a very serious demeanor and all-business attitude. I noticed that before leading me to a chair across from him, he rushed to sit at a chair in front of a little desk with a circular top. He started talking in Russian about his talents of collecting energy from nature and focusing on things he wanted to burn. Serik was a fluent translator and experienced disciple. Alexander was claiming connections with Russian military.

Alexander then produced an inflated little balloon and put it between my right hand and his left hand. I was expecting some kind of laser guns hidden somewhere, but nothing appeared suspicious; he wore a simple shirt with short sleeves. He was talking about the special energy he had that would not pop the balloon. The balloon stayed suspended between his palm and mine for about thirty seconds. He was making low humming noises. I started feeling warmth in the middle of my palm. Then the heat increased and I felt as if there was a ball of fire in my palm. I had to let the balloon fall. It was a very unusual experience. I had in the past studied hypnosis and participated in hypnotic sessions, but this had nothing to do with it. I was not even informed beforehand that I would feel heat inside my palm. But, I was open to every scientific and “normal” explanation before believing that all my lost socks were indeed stolen by Martian visitors. Unfortunately, I knew that for many people Martian thieves were the first explanation for the disappearing socks phenomenon!

I was not paying much attention to what was he telling me through Serik. I was carefully watching like James Randi who had exposed Uri Geller, the notorious Israeli fraudster. Alexander moved to his second show. He opened his hand and let me feel it. It was colder than usual. He then pressed against my right hand palm and started doing the same thing: concentrating and humming. I heard a puff sound and felt a burning pain in the back of my hand between my thumb and index finger. I tried not to overreact. I wanted to take the picture of him, but I respected his wish not to be photographed.

Then, Alexander showed me several plastic cups and placed them on the floor next to my feet. He went all the way into another room which was connected to his office. He sat on a chair about 20 feet away. He started humming and I noticed the plastic cup starting to melt from the side facing him. Within a few seconds he carved a hole in the plastic cup. He did a few similar burnings and poking holes in plastic. Noticing that he was burning and poking holes on the same straight line, I grabbed a cup and put it on the floor at another location and asked him to burn it there. He grabbed it and located it somewhere else in an animated fashion and rapid talking. He made me sit on another chair and from behind started concentrating on the cup. He excitedly claimed that he burned it by sending his energy through my eyeglasses or eyes. I then took a dollar bill from my wallet and put it on his desk and asked him to burn a hole in it. He put it inside his palm and pointed his right hand’s index finger accompanied with exaggerated concentration and bragging words about his powers. He did poke a little whole in the American dollar that had already been turned to a doughnut by the “robber banks”, Wall Street and corporate thieves who stole billions of taxpayers dollars during their recent major heist in American history.

Alexander the pyrokinesis charlatan exposed by Edip Yuksel at Almaty

 

 

I asked Alexander a few questions about the source of his powers. He talked about his veins, about a special diet of 400 gram of vegetables and 40 gram of nuts, about earth, water, fire, air and ether. Long live Empedocles! I had already witnessed so many red flags that when he started to diagnose my potential health problems and missing the ones I already had, I tried my best to endure his insults to my intelligence. I also wondered about his knowledge about the Randy Foundation, which has been offering 1 million dollars for anyone that could prove paranormal powers. I asked him to go there and claim the money. He made up an excuse: he had a contract with the military for four more months and he would not be able to go out during this period. When I left his office, I was impressed by his talents and showmanship, yet I was sure that he was using some devices to create the burning effect. I suspected two things: laser engravers and chemicals that could have a delayed burning reaction.

The following day, I asked Serik to take me there so that I expose the hoax. I also decided to record my encounter with the fraudster. To make my job easy, Serik arranged this session with Alexander for Aidar, the journalist. At the door, I entered his office with a camcorder. I demanded him to apologize for three things: for insulting my intelligence, for burning my hand and for defrauding thousands of dollars from my friends. I added that he had to give back all the money he received from them. He appeared to be composed and cool. Serik was doing very well in translating our conversation. At a point, I grabbed a plastic cup and put it by the entrance door and challenged him to perform his powers there. He accepted with a condition: he would do it only with the presence of Aidar, the new “recruit.” I had no choice but to accept since I had no clear idea what his trick was about and the two of my friends were not sure about my allegations. Serik and I got out and he locked the door behind us. Taking advantage of this period, I decided to climb to the attic from the opening. I climbed the metal stairs on the wall and pushed the square door all the way pulling myself to the attic. It was dark and dirty. I looked for wires and vertically installed laser engravers in the ceiling of his office room. I was disappointed, nothing was there. I came down and asked Serik to call Aidar and learn what was going on. We had to wait a few more minutes. When the door opened I entered, Aidar put his arms on my shoulder with his head down, “Let’s get out of here; he is real. I am hundred percent sure, he is genuine.” I could not believe my eyes and ears. Aidar appeared pale and shaken. He was very scared. There was big hole on his nylon windbreaker on the right side of his chest. He had not responded to my challenge by poking hole in the cup by the door. Instead, he had chosen to have a new recruit. He had chosen offence. I asked Aidar whether he was injected with some kind of medication. I could not explain his betrayal of me through normal circumstances.

Alexander was now working on Serik, perhaps his best disciple. I had to interrupt. I searched under the desk. I saw sticky stuff under it. I thought they were the secret chemicals he was using; but they were most likely gum pieces as he claimed. Then, I opened the little door under the desk. There I noticed a pedal, exactly as I had predicted. When Serik and Aidar saw it, they were shocked. But, this would not last long. Alexander pointed at a little camera on the corner of the wall and claimed that the pedal is for the camera; he was recording the sessions secretly. I did not buy his explanation. I immediately jumped over the seat by the wall and pulled off the device that looked like a small camera. I suspected it to be a laser, disguised inside a camera cover. But, after a brief inspection I was disappointed in myself. I was wrong in my accusation; indeed it was a camera. But, I was still not convinced that the pedal was for the camera. I suspected a clever cover up. If someone discovered the pedal, then Alexander has a convincing explanation for it. I had promised Aslbek and others that I would surely expose the hoax and now I was nowhere near close to it. The attic had not produced any clue, nor the pedal hidden under his desk. Meanwhile, I noticed that I was losing Serik too. He did not have much faith in my claims to start with. And now, after two failures, he had perhaps no faith at all. I felt the urge to discover the devises the scam artist was surreptitiously utilizing.

I sat down on the chair and held the balloon in my hand and challenged him to do his trick right there. He appeared to accept my challenge. But after a brief moment of concentration, he started telling Serik that he had accumulated too much energy and could blow my hand off. I did not swallow his bluff. I challenged him to blow my hand off and while at it he should also blow my head off. I started timing him, using my watch. I told him that he had only five minutes to unveil his tricks and apologize for his three crimes; otherwise I would call the American embassy and ask them to send police here to ransack his office. He was not giving up. He was trying to influence Serik to ask me to give up. I would not. I informed him about the few minutes left for him to avoid the police.

When the five minutes finished I asked Serik to call theUSembassy. I was going to tell them that a Russian scam artist had attempted to defraud me, an American citizen, and I needed police to come to the address. Serik did not respond to me. Losing both of my comrades and my patience, I decided to use some force. I charged the desk which was attached to the floor. I kicked it hard, breaking the jar and spreading some knickknacks to the floor. From the bottom of the table, a bundle of white cables were exposed. They were curving back to the bedroom. Following the lead of the wires, I went to the bedroom across. At that point I heard Serik telling me that he confessed his trick. He was using chemicals. I knew that he was still trying to hide his real trick. So, I continued my search. Behind the bed there was a section covered with blankets. When I removed the blankets, an electronic devise enclosed in two big boxes was exposed. My friends were in shock. They never expected such a professional set up. The devices, according to Alexander, were generating microwaves. He also mentioned using chemicals in combination. I did not pay much attention to his explanations, since I never trusted him. I am not yet sure exactly how it worked, perhaps he was filling the room with microwaves which would activate the chemical that he would secretly attach to things. Perhaps he was sticking the chemical to the back of our hands with his thump when he was shaking our hands. In fact, the location where he burned our hands was exactly corresponding to where the tip of his thump would land. But how could he manage to delay the burning of the back of my hand when he directed heat to my palm? Why he was not able to produce the same effect when I challenged him in different locations? Perhaps, he would not have chance to obtain extra chemicals and attach it under scrutiny. I am not sure. Considering all the locations that he performed his tricks, they were on a straight line across his bed room. Regardless of the details, it was now clear that he was using a high tech device to create the burning effect on his subjects.

I recorded his apology. He apologized for insulting the intelligence of a philosopher, for burning my hand and for defrauding my friends. Later I felt compassion for him and gave him a heart-to-heart advice. I kept my word and did not call police on him. Serik took the envelope containing several thousand dollars. Then, he asked for all the money previously paid by him and his friends. The scam artist told us that he was stashing his money somewhere else. Serik’s chauffeur took them; he retrieved about ten thousands dollars.

Two days later, Aslbek wanted Abu Eesa to experience the same show. He was curious about his reaction. I went with Abu Eesa pretending being there for the first time. We recorded his experience and reaction. He was acting like a scientist, but a gullible and confused one. He appeared to trust every word of explanation given by Alexander. Alexander was using natural terminology to explain his powers, but he was also mixing the word spirit with them. Abu Eesa was eager to explain his powers with jinns or ghosts. So, he was trying to hear more about the spirit part. I asked Abu Eesa a few short questions so that he could elaborate on his jinni theory. I reminded him about the paintings containing Christian figures and symbols. He was convinced that it was jinni power. Before leaving, Abu Eesa advised Alexander to read the Quran. It was refreshing to hear Abu Eesa promoting the Quran. I could not stop myself interjecting: “Brother Abu Eesa, you are peddling Bukhari to us, but I see that you are advising the Quran to outsiders. Why don’t you ask him to read Bukhari?” I am sure, Abu Eesa knew that no sound person would accept Islam by starting from Bukhari. None would have any respect or sympathy for the fictional Muhammad depicted by Bukhari. For converts, Bukhari would be inserted into the scene afterwards; to gradually distort the message of the Quran! In other words, hadith would be introduced in a fashion to induce the effect known “the boiled frog syndrome”. (I have been receiving numerous letters from converts complaining about this “bait and switch” method. Dr. Maurice Bucaille was one of the vocal modern tactic of this sophisticated scam of Sunni apologists.)

In Order to Blind Himself to Code 19, the Sunni Imam adds Two More Letters to Bismillah!

The following day, I was asked to give a lecture on Code 19 to a small group of mathematicians and philosophers. I had little time and on top of that the translation slowed me down. I made a philosophical introduction and presented the tip of the iceberg. One of the philosophers, Beket Nurzhanov, invoked Pythagoras’s name and dismissed my presentation as numerology. I knew Pythagoras very well and I very much liked him. But, I knew that code 19 was based on a verifiable and falsifiable physical facts and had little to do with Pythagorean esoteric number mysticism.

Hearing that he had company among our distinguished guests, our imam, Ebu Eesa got a second wind. He declared that the frequency of the word Month in the Quran was not 12, and the frequency of the word Day was not 365 as I presented. He obviously had no clue about what he was talking. I wished that we had more time to discuss this issue face to face; but we did not have time. The imam added one more refutation: the number of the letters in the Bismillah (Basmala) was not 19 either; it had 21 letters. He also claimed that he could come up with similar numerical patterns by using theKazakhstanconstitution. I was glad to hear such a concrete statement and I challenged him to do so in three or four months. Later I changed my mind regarding the Kazakh constitution since it is not in the Latin alphabet and he could easily tamper with its letters as he did with the most popular verse of the Quran. So, I challenged him to produce similar patterns from the Constitution of theUnited States.

Abu Eesa demanded more time and the stage to spew his aversion against the number 19, prophesized in chapter 74 of the Quran as one of the greatest divine signs. I gave him the marker, the board and asked him to show the extra two letters in Bismillah that I had missed! I was glad that the session was recorded by a professional so that the world would witness the kind of ignorance and arrogance the enemies of the prophetic sign have. Interestingly, the former head of the religious affairs inTurkeytoo had made exactly the same absurd claim in front of millions in a live debate with me, which is now available on the internet. It is such an absurd claim since the number of letters in Bismillah is no secret and it does not require the knowledge of hadith and so-called (pseudo)science of hadith to know it. Any student in an elementary school in Arabic speaking countries could easily count its 19 letters. In fact, not a single Sunni or Shiite scholar who happened to mention the number of letters in Bismillah contradicted that simple fact. For instance, famous Molla Jami starts his divan by referring to the 19 letters of Bismillah. Abu Layth Samarqandi in his Quran interpretation refers to a hadith about the three (not four!) letters of its first word, Bism. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi in his impressive interpretation of the Quran, Tafsir al-Kabir, refers to an interesting connection made between the 19 letters of Bismillah and the guardians of hell, claiming that each letter protects from their harms. Al-Qurtubi in his Al-Jami’ li Ahkam il-Quran, reports hadith about 19 letters of Bismillah. Similarly, the Kurdish Sunni scholar Said Nursi too refers to that simple fact numerous times. Furthermore, millions of Pakistani and Hindu Muslims have the tradition of using 786, the numerical value of the 19 letters, for Bismillah. In sum, our imam neither could verify the simple facts nor was he aware of his own sources.

After the discovery of the code 19 and the fulfillment of its prophecies mentioned in chapter 74, Muslim scholars started adding letters to the most repeated verse of the Quran, BiSMi ALLaH AL-RaHMaN AL-RaHYM. As usual, they could not agree about the number of letters they were hallucinating. Some claimed that it had 21 letters and some claimed 22. Our Pakistani-British imam was hallucinating 21 letters. However, during the few seconds it took him to reach the white board with the marker in his hand, he changed his mind. Instead of adding two alifs as he claimed while sitting in his chair, somehow he did just the opposite. He deleted three alifs from Bismillah and uttered a few nonsensical claims regarding the ease of coming up with a numerical structure based on its 16 letters! Of course, he did not come up with a single example, except his utter confusion by first claiming two extra alifs in Basmala and then when challenged, this time deleting three alifs from it! He managed to do both in less than a minute! I should not have expected a better criticism from someone who considered Bukhari a holy book, believed the authority of holy hungry goats in shaping his sharia law, and believed that some hadith reports abrogated the verses of the Quran.

At one point during one of the debates, Imam Abu Eesa made a negative remark regarding the www.19.org logo followed by a question mark on my T-shirt. He called it a “cult.” I asked him to define “cult” and then check whether I were a cult member. Upon my rebuke and invitation to substantiate his accusation, he gave up. Later, Hasan Mahmud came up with a great line of defense: “No cult would put a question mark under their logo”

The Derrida-loving Philosopher Joins the Sunni Imam in an Imaginary Universe!

While talking against code 19, our imam cleverly reminded the audience his agreement with the great doctor in the room who dismissed the code 19 as a modern version of Pythagorean numerology. He was in complete agreement with Professor Beket Nurzhanov, Head of the Department of History of Philosophy of theKazakhstanNationalUniversitynamed after Al Farabi. Beket was well-groomed and knew how to speak English. His appearance, age and title demanded respect. A few minutes later when the session ended with a tea break, I joined him.

While sipping from my cup of tea, I wondered about Beket’s mind and I asked him about his philosophy. He listed the names of his favorite philosophers. Derrida was among them and it was enough for me to get some idea about his modus operandi. I did not find any common philosopher, except for Nietzsche, among our favorites list. I liked Socrates, Leibniz, Wittgenstein, Hume, among many others. I questioned this Derrida-loving professor about the reason of his dismissal of my presentation, without even bothering to study it. He told me this, “According to a mathematician, there could be another universe where 2+2 could be making 3 or 5.” Yes, read it again if you wish, without spilling your cup of tea.

I did not ask him the identity of that mathematician. Honestly, I did not care about such a nerd. Our doctor, who dismissed the code 19, was the worst of all relativists. He doubted the reliability of universal mathematical statements. As a constant seeker of truth and servant of the Truth, I could not try to appease his ego or feelings. I had to tell him what he needed to hear: “According to your mathematician, dear professor, these words coming from your mouth too could be nonsense in another universe.” I noticed surprise in his face. I corrected myself. “In fact, I do not need to trust your extraterrestrial mathematician. Forget about another universe, your words are nonsense in many languages and countries of this very little planet!” I meant both meanings of the “nonsense”! He was relying on arbitrary human language to deny universal language of the universe.

When the issue became the divine sign in mathematics, our professor was leaving the mathematics of his universe which he relied on without doubt when he counted his money, his children, his socks and fingers. In order to blind himself to one of the greatest signs and reject the most profound facts of this universe, he was seeking refuge in a mathematician from another universe. He was switching universes. At that moment, I felt pity for his students and remembered the Quranic verse 7:146.

By now, you might think that my adventure with Abu Eesa and Beket was the normal one. Honestly, I think my adventure with them was the real paranormal one. The scam that the Russian guy was performing had nothing to do with paranormal; it was based on perfect science and technology. The real paranormal, the real odd events were performed by these two gifted and highly educated individuals. The first had no problem in believing a hungry holy goat abrogating verses from his holy book, thinking that he could value women by equating them to dogs and donkeys, could add letters to Bismillah, and many more religious nonsense, while the second one, seeking refuge in an imaginary universe to blind himself to one of the greatest divine signs. These were the real paranormal beings and events, and you can see their clones everywhere on this planet.

Back to Normal

Aside from confronting theological and scientific hoaxes, among the many memories that I will remember for a long time is my experience in a Russian sauna which, reportedly, had the temperature up to 80 degrees Celsius. For the first time I ate horse meat and drank horse milk (kımız), which was the most disgusting thing after the Durian fruit I had tasted in China a year before. Again, for the first time, I saw young Kazaks juggling not one but two dual cell phones, each phone having two phone numbers. By the way, 2×2=4 phone numbers in our universe!

There I had a great time with Ray Catton, his wife Sophia, and Hasan Mahmud who all joined us fromCanada. Tufan Karadere and Gökhan Aycan fromTurkey, and Arnold Mol fromHollandcontributed to the conference with fresh voices and pleasant conversations. I was impressed by Hasan Mahmud who is an activist serving in Muslim Canadian Congress as its Director of Sharia Law since last six years. He was well prepared to expose the so-called Sharia Law. A half-an-hour interview with him by Raymond was recorded, and inshallah it will soon be available on the Internet together with other video recordings.

Unfortunately, several other invitees could not make it there. For instance, Mohammed Jaseer ofIndiahad to return fromDubaiairport because of miscommunication regarding visa. My colleague Layth al Shaiban planned to join us, but could not make it.

During my brief visit to Almaty, I met many bright Kazaks and enjoyed their company. Aslbek Musin (maverick), Serik Kushenov (entrepreneur) , Yerlan Salmenov (entrepreneur), Aidar Kaipov (journalist), Serik Ryszhanov (thinker/researcher), Serik Kupeishin (lawyer), Damir Almarekov, Berik, DinMukhamed (dusinessman), Abu Walid Khamdi (dentist), Murtaza İzcilik (accountant), Timur, Talgat (lawyer), Ismail, and many others will inshallah be the pioneers in promoting Islamic Reform in Kazakhstan, the surrounding countries and the world. We ended the conference with an evaluation and some decisions, which included the following:

1. Redesign the 19.org and turn it to a multilingual hub of communication and cooperation for monotheists around the world.

2. Start weekly Quranic studies at homes.

3. Include women in philosophical, educational, cultural and social activities. Without women’s participation an Islamic reform is not possible.

4. Translate some books into Russian, including the introduction and endnotes of the Reformist Translation of the Quran and the upcoming book, Nineteen: God’s Signature in Nature and Scripture.

5. Promote critical and creative thinking among secondary school students, and campaign to include critical thinking courses in public school curriculum.

6. Establish a club or foundation to promote culture of innovation through competition among young inventors.

7. Considering the importance of comparative advantage in global economy, focus on a few technologies with great potentials and attract the best minds from around the world to do research on them.

8. Avoid the extravagant life-style and addiction with consumption; focus on charity.

9. Fight corruption and leadKazakhstanto be a role model for the so-called Muslim world.

10. Without compromising individual freedoms and idiosyncrasies, establish a strong network and cooperation among monotheists.

11. To promote rational monotheism, peace, justice and progress, facilitate global projects and organize the next conference either inLondonorIstanbul.

Let me finish this report with a remark made by Serik Kushenov in a fancy restaurant in Almaty. When I complained about a fly hovering over our table and bragged about American restaurants having no flies, Serik swatted with a big smile: “We have flies here because our food is natural and organic” Well, I found people of theKazakhstanas natural and organic! J

To see the pictures of our conference in Almaty, you may visit my Picassa at:

http://picasaweb.google.com/edipyuksel

To watch the video recordings of our debates, you may visit the following links:

Ooops… Not ready yet.


Share

Paranormal: Jealous phenomenon, dejavu, ghosts, psychics, UFO..

Share

Below you will find some of the articles I wrote in 1993 for the Paranormal Anthropology class.

If Nails Are Jealous

Edip Yuksel

I have many interesting memories twinkling from my four-year prison experience in Turkey. Torture, terrible conditions, overpopulation, dangerous inmates, cockroaches, mice, bribery, shortage of water and food are few of many headlines of long stories. Ironically, there was always fun and amusement, simultaneous with those negative phenomena. I knew how to laugh at tragedies.

One of my inmates was a mystic. He fanatically believed in many things that I did not. After a while, I learned not to take him serious. I enjoyed his friendship. My new attitude created a lot of fun. He was a happy guy like me, and he was not bothered by my sarcastic style. One day I had a head ache. He sincerely wanted to help me. He would get rid of my head ache by nailing the wall. Irresistible curiosity, and moral obligation to show my appreciation for his concern made me accept his offer.

He drew a magic square, five to five, on the wall. He wrote a different letter from the Arabic alphabet in each box, corresponding to a certain number according to the Gematrical system. Then he started hitting the nail with the bottom of a thick glass tea cup. Each hitting would create a shallow hole on the wall. After each nailing he would utter a certain prayer followed by the routine question: “Are you okay now?” At each next box the number of nailing, praying and asking process increased geometrically. After ten minutes I was tired. But he was more enthusiastic than ever. I had two choices. Either not to get healed, or get healed. Unfortunately, I was not getting healed. However, that moment I acted in an unusual way. I felt pity for him. Therefore I created a third option: I appeared to get healed. It made him happy.

I had no better choice, because I knew that it was not possible to convince him that his method was not working. His method was working with a nonfalsifiable engine. I had no way to prove that his magic boxes, nails and prayers were useless. He would tell me that it did not work because of the vacuum of faith on my part. And he would be right. Indeed, I did not have “faith” in his nail.

Jealous phenomena 

Parapsychologists coin the failure of ESP or psi as “jealous phenomena.” That is, in the story mentioned above the nail was jealous. The psi phenomenon vanishes when a skeptic or a skeptical “vibration” is around. This is an excellent “explanation” to refute any skeptical examination that does not support the existence psi phenomena. In order to “witness” a phenomenon you must first be “certain” about it. This is a reverse process of what “common sense” requires. It seems that in our daily life, including our scientific studies, we first witness and then believe.

This “jealous phenomenon” in fact, is a “magic phenomenon.Ó It is an eternal armor, it is an everlasting guarantee for all kind of psi claims. It can work for any imaginable weird or extraordinary claim. However, we cannot completely trash the “jealous phenomena” for some paradoxical reason.

Hypnosis adopts this “jealous phenomenon.” And it works. We know that a person cannot be hypnotized against his will. In order to experience hypnosis, you must trust and believe in hypnosis, and hypnotists as well. Sure, there is a difference between hypnosis and psi, regarding the strength and volume of this requirement. But, the difference can be justified with a logical explanation: “Hypnosis is a semi-psi phenomenon which requires only the subjects to believe. The skeptical vibrations emitted by audience do not inhibit hypnosis. However, real psi phenomena require more than this.”

In sum, if nails are jealous, they can do everything behind locked rooms. Skeptics are prohibited to enter their domain by a supersensitive and coded jealous lock. And this is the only lock that cannot be opened by skeptics. They will never be able to know the password. I believe that it is hard for philosophers too, to invalidate that lock.

Several Non-falsifiable Explanations For Deja vu

Edip Yuksel

While you are talking on a dull issue, a twinkling event takes place in the deepest corner of your mind. This mysterious flash lasts no more than a fraction of second. But it is enough to excite you. Suddenly, you feel an ambiguous familiarity with the seen. You may even feel that you can predict what words will be uttered a fraction of second ahead. However, this little time does not let you be certain about that prediction. You don’t have any evidence to show that you had an “experience of perceiving the new situation as if it had occurred before” (Webster’s). Surprisingly, your friends believe you; you learn that they have also similar experiences.

There is something about that odd phenomenon that will bother you: you are not able to locate that flash in your memory files. You know that those files are chronologically, spatially, semantically, or idiosyncratically arranged in your memory shelves. Usually, you can trace back your past memories on a particular issue. You just need to “think” the time, space and file name. In a fraction of second the file is open in front of you. If you want, you can browse the files in neighboring shelves. If you want you can “rethink” and return to basic menu and enter to another section of your micro-gigantic, electro-organic library.

So, you try to locate that familiar seen. But you fail. The mysterious flash of memory floats on the air. During your life time you encounter many of these floating pieces of memories. You learn that these strange experiences are called deja vu, which means “already seen” in French. You do not have any rational explanation for them. There comes a friend of yours and tell you that those memories are from your past lives. He or she assures that you had many incarnations in time and space. You, initially, feel that this explanation is very odd, probably irrational. However, you are frustrated with not finding any explanation for your odd experiences. You have given up from “normal” explanations. It seems convenient to put your floating memories on a base of any explanation. Even though, that explanation by itself is floating on the air.

Our brain is a very complex computer. It stores memories in three dimensional holographic patterns. Memories overlap each other according to a very sophisticated network. Computer provide us with a primitive example of how our brain works. Modern research on the brain reveals new information every day. Nevertheless, it is still a wonder-land. Studies, for instance, showed that our brain does not store the memories about faces together with the memories about the names in the same category. Our brain works in a unique way. Thus, each new study comes with surprising conclusions.

I fully subscribe to the explanation of Hines that deja vu is similar to the “tip of the tongue” situation. “Deja vu happens when feeling of familiarity is present, but the memory of previous experience is not.” (Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, Terence Hines, Prometheus Books, New York, 1988, p. 53).

As a matter of fact, reincarnation is only one of the possible pseudoscientific explanations. Each of the following explanation of deja vu is as “valid” as the other. Please note that all of them are non-falsifiable, that is we don’t have any means to falsify them.

  • Deja vu experiences are memories of past lives.
  • Deja vu experiences are not related to our past; they are preview from our future life.
  • Deja vu experiences are the result of short day-dreaming.
  • Deja vu experiences are created by evil demons who occasionally have access to our brain. They want to confuse us with those illusions.

Anyone who subscribes to any of the above theories must come up with reasons for refuting others. The problem: Their theory should not be defeated by the same “reasons”.

The existence of ghosts is a probability bouncing between one out of googoplex to hundred percent

Edip Yuksel

(Alas, according to the falsification theory this statement does not have any scientific value)

“The cause of many fatal diseases are micro organic structures invisible by human eyes.” Today we accept this statement as one of the simple facts. We don’t have any problem with this claim, even though we might have never seen viruses via microscopes. However, if a fifteen-century-philosopher had predicted this fact merely by reasoning, he would have been rejected by his contemporaries. Being fanatic about their scientific methods and experimentations, mediaeval scientists and philosophers, would most likely ignore or just giggle at his claim . Had the claim gained some popularity, they would logically pontificate: “How can invisibly small living organisms exist? Besides, how can such tiny creatures kill a giant body?” The philosopher who believed the existence of micro-organisms, obviously, would not be able to produce any physical evidence for his claim. However, micro organisms would not vanish because of the ignorance of human beings. They exist independent from the human perception or acceptance.

The invention of microscope provided sensible proof for the existence of micro organisms. Similarly, the invention of the radio receiver made the discovery of radio waves possible. Thereafter, we realized that stars including our sun, were giant radio stations. Now, we know for certain that our five senses are naturally blind to many physical phenomena. We try to compensate this natural limit by inventing sophisticated machines and tools.

Furthermore, we cannot claim that the number of our senses (five) are the ultimate possible number of channels that are able to perceive all the existence in the universe. We can easily accept the possibility of having numerous senses and their domain. For instance, let’s assume that you are living in an island with forty deaf-born people. You can hear the songs of birds, the rustling of leaves, the hiss of snakes, and the noise of thunder. Will you be able to convince your friends about the existence of sound? Can you describe its nature to them? They will never be able to perceive and know the sound. If you are the only hearing person in that island, you will probably be perceived as a person with paranormal or abnormal talents!

Even though all the eyewitness reports about ghosts are proved to be outcome of hypnagogic hallucinations or result of constructive perception or product of fraudulent scheme, still we cannot deny their existence. Not because inductive reasoning cannot guarantee the truth value of future cases, but rather the induction is irrelevant in this case, for the reason expressed above (possibility of infinite number of senses). Assume that you are riding camels with fifty tourists in a hot day across a dessert. Even if you witness that all of the claims about water turned out to be mirages, you cannot be certain that the next claim won’t be true. Countless wrong claims cannot rule out the possibility of existence of oasis (or ghosts). Though, in fact, there may not be a single oasis (or ghost) around.

Let’s summarize our ghostly theory:

1. We cannot prove that ghosts or jinns or angels do not exist just because we found most of the eyewitness reports to be non-credible. Despite of countless mirages oasis do exist.

2. We cannot prove that ghosts or jinns or angels exist just because we could not find enough evidence to reject some of the eyewitness reports.

3. But we can believe to the possibility of their existence. This possibility may range from one out of googoplex to hundred percent. The latter may be possible if only if you are their eyewitness reporter!

Psychic Reading or Psychic Reaping?

Edip Yuksel

Dear reader, you need a cup of tea or coffee before reading this article. You are tired and probably sleepy. You have been staring at the screen of this computer monitor for long time. You are overwhelmed by your work and you have a lot of chores at your home. You are stressed because you have many unfulfilled dreams. You have difficulty in paying all your bills or you cannot afford to purchase the car you want so much. Your romance life has deteriorated and you are afraid that this relationship is too will go sour.  Your intimate friend is very stubborn, and it is obvious that your friend does not understand you at all. Nevertheless, you will hear a good news within a week. The person that hates you will suffer from a personal problem within a month. You need to lose more weight and you should avoid craving for ice-cream. By the way, your relative that died recently has gone to heaven; but hell is anxiously waiting for you. You can make to heaven however, if you dial 900 numbers more frequently.

If  I had talked to you, I would have received alot of feed back and my statements about your persent and future would be more to the point.

“I should remind you that I used to believe that fortune telling and witchcraft were nonsense; however, a very interesting experience compelled me to believe in them. In 1978 we were coming to Istanbul from Germany for our summer vacation. We stopped at Luleburgaz (a city about 100 miles away from Istanbul) for a rest. We heard about a fortuneteller in the town. My wife wanted to visit the fortuneteller.  So, we went to that small town of Luleburgaz.

There, in a cave-like place we saw an old lady with long gray hair, wrapped in white cloths. She looked at my hand and said: “When you leave here, give some money to the poor girl so and so, in the town. If you don’t give her your charity, your car’s windshield will be broken in the evening, and three period of times later you will have surgery from your stomach.” I laughed at it and considered it as nonsense and gibberish.

My father in-law lives in Kasimpasha (a region in Istanbul). We are at his house. The sun has just set. A noise from outside! We jumped out. What we see was incredible: Three Gypsy teenagers were running away with clubs in their hands, after braking my car’s windshield. Immediately, I remembered the words of fortuneteller lady in Luleburgaz. This time I feared about my stomach. But, I was muscular and I was careful about my diet. There was no reason to have any trouble with my stomach.

Later, we returned to Germany. Exactly three months after the psychic reading a severe pain in my stomach. I rushed to the hospital. They immediately took me to the surgery room. The readings of the fortuneteller lady was fulfilled verbatim By God, my friend, I don’t make comments any more on this kind issues.”

These are the “extra-ordinary” experiences of Mr. Yurda, a hairdresser in Yesilkoy, Istanbul. Let’s analyze this apparently striking report about a psychic reading. We have two main options:

1. It is probable that the reporter is not remembering all the events correctly. Or, he is just lying for some reasons.

2. If we are satisfied that the reporter is telling the truth, then, we can critically evaluate that particular psychic reading.

Let’s assume that this report is accurate. Before evaluating this incident we have to keep in mind an important lacking information: We don’t have any idea about how many of psychic readings of that fortuneteller did not materialize. Yurda’s whole story may be merely a winning lottery ticket with only two digits consisted of an odd (broken windshield) and an even (surgery) number.

Even if we isolate this incident, still it does not necessitate a paranormal mechanism.

Below is one of the possible comments that we can make. The accuracy of our evaluations are proportionally related to the volume of accurate details we know about so-called psychic readings.

Here is a simple explanation

The fortuneteller must have a high income, since she is well known in that region. Her town is on the route of Turkish workers who come from Germany. The poor girl whom she recommended for charity is most likely her relative or confederate employee. There is a gang of Gypsy teenagers around, hired by the fortuneteller to monitor naive clients.

Our hero, Mr. Yurda, while visiting the fortuneteller lady did not believe her readings. He exposed his disbelief by not paying “charity” to the recommended “poor girl” in the town. Obviously, disbeliever visitors are potential danger for the reputation and business of the fortuneteller. They should be punished occasionally. If the punishment can serve as an advertisement for the fortuneteller, it is the best punishment.

The Gypsy gang saw that Mr. Yurda did not stop by to pay the recommended money. Therefore, they followed him with their car to implement the prescribed scheme. As a matter of fact, they carried their job at Mr. Yurda’s next stop. Mr. Yurda acknowledges this fact, since he, by chance, saw the Gypsy teenagers with clubs in their hands. Otherwise, he would likely interpret the incident as “an extra-ordinary explosion of windshield by demons”.

Luleburgaz, the hometown of the fortuneteller lady, is one of the famous location of Gypsy minority.  However, Mr. Yurda lost his rational ability when he saw his car’s broken windshield. He must have had a conscious or subconscious doubt in favor of the credibility of fortuneteller, since he chose a paranormal interpretation for a normal event. The shock of the event made this irrational perception easier for him.

His mind made a leap from broken windshield to the “prophecy” of the fortuneteller lady. While his eyes saw the Gypsy teenagers, his mind did not see their tricky relation with the fortuneteller. We can claim that Mr. Yurda’s initial disbelief in fortune telling and witchcraft was not based on a well established intellectual knowledge. Therefore, he easily fell in the trap.

The second prediction, that is, the surgery in the stomach is a very clever augury. First, it is a common health problem among adult males. The probability of having a stomach ulcer is pretty high among Turkish population (there may be correlation with extreme smoking). A clever fortuneteller bets on a winning horse, not on a lame one.

Furthermore, the fortuneteller increased this probability by a clever chronology. She prophesied the stomach surgery after the breaking of windshield. Indeed, Mr. Yurda increased his risk of having a stomach surgery by his belief in the first prediction, that is the broken windshield. As a matter of fact, he acknowledges that he started concerning about his stomach just after the windshield incident. A self-fulfilling prophecy! He incubated a strong belief about having a stomach problem in “three periods of time”. This conscious and subconscious strong negative faith must have created a permanent stress. This stress, probably supported by overeating and smoking etc., eventually created ulcer in his stomach after three months. Stress, according to the modern medical studies, is one of the main factors which cause ulcer.

The “three periods of time” is a very vague and broad expression. Psychic readers deliberately and commonly use this kind of vague expressions to extend the time period of their prediction, virtually until the death of their clients. This unique expression provides an apparently very specific timing. Unfortunately, many people perceive it that way. However, in reality, it is a little bit more specific than saying “in your life time”. In our case, the “three periods of time” serves another important function towards the goal of the experienced fortuneteller. It will supply Mr. Yurda with continuous stress in frequently repeated climaxes. Three days, three weeks, three months, three seasons, three years are all “three periods of times.” Each of these periods would create high stress for Mr. Yurda, since he was strongly expecting the retribution. Finally, it happened. After surviving the three days, and the three weeks, Mr. Yurda was defeated by “three months”.

Naive Mr. Yurda, evidently, payed dearly for believing the fortuneteller. Ironically, he became a very efficient advertiser of that crook: a volunteer and sincere advertiser… He was punished to advertise his enemy. He became a double victim: Physically and mentally.

We can infer that the fortuneteller lady in Luleburgaz (probably her bosses) is very experienced and clever. Her prophecy about Mr. Yurda intrinsically contains the “punishment of advertising” in the case of disbelief. She, thus, guarantees a positive fame for her business.

If the client believes the fortuneteller and pays the money, then, the job is accomplished. His car’s windshield won’t be broken that night without reason. Even if he suffers stomach pains later, he won’t remember the fortuneteller. Because he had wiped out that psychic threat from his memory by paying the money. Even if he remembers the psychic he would most likely blame himself by thinking that he must had paid little money to the recommended “poor” girl.

If the client does not pay the money, and furthermore, makes fun of the fortuneteller, then, the first part of the reading will be carried out on him. He, out of naive faith, will most likely inflict the second part of the reading by himself. Ultimately, he will be an unfortunate evangelist for the fortuneteller.

Fortune telling is one of the oldest and biggest fraud in human history. There are thousands of fortuneteller around. But, not even one of them can predict the number of a winning ticket in the lottery. Not a single of them can predict the unknown ten digits of pi. However, they are very successful in reaping off naive people. They make good money. Their only product is self-fulfilling prophecies on mentally abused and econimically exploited clients.

They are teasing all of us!

Edip Yuksel

UFO proponents claim:

1) Thousands of eyewitness reports and many photographs prove that UFOs as intelligent extraterrestrial visitors exist, and our planet is being visited by them frequently.

2) There is a world-wide conspiracy to cover-up UFO visits. Governments are hiding this important fact from their citizens.

3) UFOs are abducting humans. Hypnosis sessions confirm abduction stories.

Some of the marginal UFO advocates even claim that:

4) The earth is hallow and is inhabited by Nazis. UFOs are their secret aircraft, coming out from a hole at the north pole.

Skeptics claim that UFOs are the product of one or all of three basic factors:

1) Constructive perception and memories. The information coming through our senses is interpreted and filtered by our brain, based on personal faith and previous knowledge. This fact is regardless of person’s education and intelligent level. A leading question by an investigator or hypnotist can alter a memory after the fact. This has been demonstrated through many scientific experiments.

2) Misidentification. After examination, most of the UFO claims were founded to have nothing to do with extraterrestrial bodies. In most cases planet Venus, space satellites, rockets, advertising aircraft were perceived as UFO for two main reasons: First, a light in the sky with no background can create visual deceptions, because of lack of cues to judge distance. Extreme emotions due to  excitement or fear contributes to misidentification.

3) Hoaxes. Many so-called photographs of UFOs when examined by experts are found to be fake. “UFO photographs are extraordinarily easy to fake: a double exposure, a little trick photography, and you have a very nice-looking UFO photo or film. . . . The numerous UFO pictures of “strange lights in the sky” that show nothing but vague blobs are photos of aircraft, seagulls, or balloons.” (Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, Terence Hines, Prometheus Books, New York, 1988, p 185).

Here is a sample argument between a UFO proponent and a skeptic:

Skeptic: UFO enthusiasts rely on eyewitness testimonies which in many cases prove to be illusions or wilful lies.

UFO proponent: Although many UFO sightings are the product of a particular man-made or natural phenomena, still there is an “irreducible minimum” number of sightings that skeptics cannot bring an explanation.

Skeptics: This is very normal. There will always be sightings that cannot be explained, because we cannot get sufficient information about some sightings. Our lack of information does not change illusions to reality. Furthermore, the unexplained pictures do not have sufficient background or clarity in order to evaluate them. “After more than thirty-five years and thousands of sightings, the best photographic evidence consists of a few grainy shots taken by trick photographers or people who claim to have had repeated experiences with UFOs. . . . There is no UFO photo that can be considered genuine showing anything other than vague shapes or blobs of light.” (Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, Terence Hines, Prometheus Books, New York, 1988, p 187).

UFO proponent: Well UFOs are “jealous phenomenon”. They do not want to be photographed.

Skeptic: Well, we are “curious phenomenon”. We don’t want to be fooled. We don’t accept extraordinary reports without having extraordinary evidence. Alas, you don’t have even ordinary one.

UFO proponent: Thousands of reporters have provided more than enough evidence to believe that extraterrestrial creatures are visiting our planet.

Skeptic: Well, thousands of reporters provide tons of “evidences” for their religions or sects. Many miraculous phenomena are being witnessed by sincere believers. For instance, just read this report:

NEW YORK (AP) — A “weeping” icon believed to have healing powers, . . . Some believers said the 72-year-old portrait of St. Irene, then on temporary loan to a church in Chicago, wept “tears of grief” at the start of the Persian Gulf War. . . . The icon, painted in 1919 by a monk in Greece, depicts the patron saint of peace and the sick, who is considered by many faithful to have healing powers. (The Arizona Daily Star, December 29, 1991)

UFO proponent: But, there is difference between those believers and UFO eye-witnesses. Some UFO eye-witnesses were skeptics before their experience.

Skeptic: There are also some converts among eye-witnesses of “miraculous” phenomena. I agree that the UFO eye-witnesses are diverse with respect of their religious conviction. However, this does not make them more reliable than the others. We can say the same thing for the eye-witnesses of the “Weeping Icon”. They are also diverse as far as their UFOlogious conviction is concerned. Nevertheless, both groups share one important quality: They are woefully gullible and terribly exploited. By the way, do you believe that UFOs are controlled by intelligent extraterrestrial creatures?.

UFO proponent: Obviously, yes?

Skeptic: Let’s assume that UFOs are controlled by intelligent extraterrestrial beings. Then, we can imagine several possible intention for them. Here are the ones that I imagined:

1. They want to contact us. But, after decades of trial and thousands of trips, it seems that they have failed. They could only convince a marginal group of people. This immense failure does not seem harmonious with their expected IQ level.

2. They want to make medical experiments on us. This option may explain why they mostly prefer psychologically sick and sexually abused people. However, the number of visits and the time spent on this goal is not compatible with the intelligence of inter-galactic travellers.

3. They secretly want conquer the planet Earth. This option may explain how they use all governments for cover-up mission. However, this cannot explain why they are still trying to keep this successful coup as a top secret. Are they scared from UFO proponents for some reasons that we don’t know?

We can add one more option. It is nonfalsifiable. Like the claims of UFO advocates:

4. They want to have fun  by implementing their idiosyncratic IQ test on us.

To me this option is the most probable one. Evidently, the UFO astronauts are very intelligent beings. Therefore, they must have a good sense of humor. They are having fun while creating one of the silliest argument for us. I can safely claim that some of the UFO proponents are the allies of extraterrestrial invaders. They are cooperating with them to carry out their IQ test on us. Extraterrestrial teasers are having fun when they see some “intelligent” humans are foolishly taking them serious. Their fun reaches the zenith when they see the rest of the “intelligent” humans are taking those fools serious.

UFO proponent: I should have expected that you are not serious. Bye, bye.

 

Share

Bigger Than Mushroom

Share

Bigger Than Mushroom

Edip Yuksel, Matine’s Father
www.19.org

Matine drinking coconut juice with straw

WHEN I WAS BORN…

02.02.1999

Matine asked his mom out of the blue:

–          Was I born a girl or a boy?

PS: Matine is a boy

 

MUSHROOM

03.27.1999

While putting his skates on, Matine:

–          Am I bigger than you?

–          You are silly!

–          I am bigger than my shoes. I am bigger than shoe horn. I am bigger than mushroom!

 

DIVINE RETRIBUTION

04.06.1999

–          If Yassir and Emily do wrong, God will give them a ticket.

 

COUNTING DIGITS

07.16.1999

While waiting in the car with Matine in the parking lot of Fry’s grocery store, Matine got impatient.

–          Matine, count until 20 and your mom will be coming out of the grocery store.

After counting to ten you stopped. I knew that you knew how to count until 20 or perhaps more. Wondering the reason behind this pause, I asked:

–          Why don’t you continue counting?

–          I finished my fingers.

I did not remind you your toes, since I didn’t want to go through the hassle of dealing with your shoes and socks.

 

FRIENDS

09.10.1999

–          Which one is more important, Matine: having friends or having cloths?

–          Having friends is more important; because you can buy clothes but you cannot buy friends.

 

THE PRINCE OF EGYPT

10.01.1999

Your mother was frustrated with your behavior; she finally warned you:

–          I’ll kick you out in the back yard if you don’t listen to me!

You immediately related this warning with your then favorite Disney movie, MOSES.

–          If you kick me out you will be Hebrew. (Meaning that she would lose her son!)

 

I WILL BUY YOU…

12.13.1999

–          I will go to college and make 115 dollars.

–          Will you buy me a car with that money, Matine?

–          Yeah, I will buy you a Corvette!

 

MY DAD IS SMARTER

May 2000

–          Marilyn vos Savant is the recorded smartest person on earth.

–          Is she smarter than you?

–          You bet!

–          Daddy, I think you are smarter than her.

–          Why do you think so?

–          She cannot make bow arrows; she cannot fix cars; she cannot fight. She is not as brave as you are.

 

PARADOX

20 September 2004

While driving Matine from school to home, we were talking about Heaven and how God would grant any wish of a person there. He challenged my statement with a question:

–          How can God grant the wishes of two people to become the best soccer player in heaven?


Share

Is Watermelon an Animal?

Share

Is Watermelon an Animal?

or

Could God Turn Himself Into Jelly?

 Edip Yuksel, Yahya’s Father
www.19.org

My first son, Yahya, was born in 1st of July, 1990, as a divine gift in the anniversary of my rejection of the sectarian teachings and acceptance of the Quran as the only source of my religion. The following excerpts from our journal start with a number indicating Yahya’s age. The fractions of the year provide the exact date of the event from his birthday. The journal contains observations and reports of Yahya’s parents regarding the development of their son. The evolving mind of a well cared child is the most curious and amusing experience; especially if he or she is your own child. I recommend every parent to observe and listen to their children carefully and note them down in a journal. Besides, I recommend a special photo album with subtitles. I wish I had such things left from my parents. Don’t deprive your children from their sweetest moments.  I don’t need to tell you the difference between a journal and a videotape. Each has its own merit.

2.312 Bottle-neck

I wish I could keep a daily record about you. You are the salt and pepper of our home. You are its honey and jelly. We are getting along with you very well. We hope it will last forever.

Several days ago you were playing with a transparent plastic bottle that held your marbles in it. You were trying to drop a little plastic ball into it from the air. After a couple of misses, finally you exclaimed, “BASKET!”, and applauded yourself. Then, you wanted to take the ball out of the bottle.

The neck of the bottle was too narrow to allow your hand out together with the ball. You tried to force it with no success. You dropped the ball back to the bottom of the bottle. You gave force another try, again with no result. You did not try a third time. You held the bottle and turned it upside down. The ball fell out! You learned another lesson: your mind is more useful than your muscles.

2.580 The Healing Stick

Last week you made my week with an amusing conversation. These days you enjoy playing with sticks. Like the Prophet Moses carrying a staff, you carry a chopstick with you all the time.

You noticed that the tuning button of the old radio was missing. Instead of taking the button and inserting it back where it belonged, you poked that chopstick here and there into the radio while declaring, “I’ll fix it!” It was an enchanting scene. In the end, you showed the wisdom of using your hands by grabbing the button and putting it in its socket. You erupted with joy screaming, “I did it, I did it!” Somehow, you were giving the credit to your chopstick. Your mom and I congratulated you for this accomplishment. You were mesmerized by your chopstick!

Several minutes later you noticed the redness in my eyes due to the soap I had used in the shower. First, you informed me with a mixture of Turkish, English and Persian, “Baba your eyes kirmiz.”  Soon you remembered your magical stick and pointed it at my eyes saying, “I will fix it.” I immediately put my eyeglasses on for protection. We were laughing hysterically until moments later you inserted that chopstick into my ear. You lost the possession of that stick for a while.

Your baba.

3.002 A New World

At this time you are not only able to make sentences, you make jokes too, without of course, even knowing that you are saying something funny.

When you are tired and want me to hug you, you say: “I hug you”

If we hurt your feelings we apologize immediately, you say:    “No, you forgive me”

When your mom or I tell you, “Yahya, forgive me,” you respond by saying, “No, you forgive me.”

Yesterday, while waiting in the bus station in front of Baskin Robins, you kept asking for “dondurma” . When I showed you the bus on the horizon, at first  you ignored it. When you could no longer deny the existence of the bus as it came closer, you made up a lie for the sake of the ice-cream: “it’s going wrong way, baba.” I was happy to learn that you discovered the only lie that could have credibility. I am sorry that I could not afford missing that bus. But you had your ice-cream at home.

You are buzzing and humming the song “Oooh New World” from your favorite movie, Aladdin. It is with you that we discover every day another new world.

3.016 Don’t Cry

My friend Altan and his wife Ebru have come fromTurkeyon their honeymoon. They will be our guests for several weeks. You have become pals with Ebru in a very short time.

Your mother was outside. Altan and Ebru were by the door on their way to the market. When you noticed them going out you did not hesitate a moment to leave me to join them. First, you wanted to inform me that I was condemned to stay at home alone by pointing at me with your index finger, “You are now one. You are one!” You did not forget to add a piece of advice: “Read your book. I’m going out. Don’t cry.” You repeated it several times, extending the last syllabus of the word “cry.” Altan’s majestic belly is shaking  with laughter.

3.043 I don’t say it anymore

You are talking and talking and talking.

You are excited about discovering the power of words. You are learning taboo words too. From whoever and however you have learned it, now you started saying “SHIT” accompanied by a morose facial expression. Your mother warned you not to say it and told you that it was a bad word.

Later I overheard you telling something to your mom with a great excitement: “I don’t say bad words . . . anymore . . . I don’t say SHIIIIT!”

3.2  Little commander’s tongue

Several days ago while crossing the street, you insolently gave advice to a lady who was smoking. She was perplexed when she heard a command, “don’t smoke!” But she started laughing when she noticed how small the mouth of the commander was!

You continue this defiant attitude. Today, you stuck your tongue out to the girls on the bus whereas you are usually cordial and kind to strangers.

3.246 Bad guys

You still categorize the strangers in two ways: good guys and bad guys.

Under the influence of the morally black and white TV you look for this contrast everywhere. Now you are watching a documentary on PBS about a medical team trying to save some endangered African elephants through artificial insemination. The medical team is chasing elephants and shooting them with a sedative knocking them to the ground. You have a hard time understanding this task and repeatedly ask me, “who are these?” When I tell you that they are doctors, you wonder, “are they bad doctors?” When I tell you that everyone on the screen is “good guy” you cannot understand. You still ask, “where are the bad doctors?” I did not tell you that they were in hospitals.

3.246 First spelling exercise

Your verbal communication skills are improving rapidly. When you want me to sit on the floor you use and illustrative analogy: “daddy, sit like a pretzel.” You can now ask, “what are you talking about?” You do not miss the article “the” in your question, “you don’t like the sun?” (you are asking about the sun inTucson!) To show off that you can spell your name, you put your favorite alphabet segments before your name. You say,  “XYW Yahya” or “RST Yahya.”

3.268 I don’t know

Two days ago, for first time, I questioned you about God. I asked you who made me, and who made you. Then I pointed at the mountains and the sky and asked you who made all of those. After you glanced at your surroundings you gave your answer with confidence: “giraffe.” I told you that the mountains and the sky are very big and too high. You modified your answer by qualifying the giraffe: “big giraffe, tall giraffe!” I could tell from your sparkling eyes that you were almost sure that you got the right answer.

Despite the cost of spoiling your excitement and happiness, I continued asking. I reminded you that the sun was much higher, and besides, too hot to touch. I again repeated my question: “Yahya, who do you think made them?” You shrugged your shoulders, lifted your lower lip and said “I don’t know.” Now you had enough knowledge to acknowledge your ignorance, a good step towards wisdom.

3.819 Objection! Hearsay

Recently you started talking about God, mostly exploiting the concept in order to please or amuse us. However, sometimes you make excellent comments regarding God.

Your mother and I have been encouraging you to join us while we pray. One day you wanted to pray with your shoes on. Your mother told you to take them off. But you blatantly rejected this. Then, your mom appealed to God.

“God says you cannot pray with your shoes on.”

You were not moved by this holy decree. You insisted on keeping your shoes on by supporting your action through reason.

“I did not hear God saying that.”

Your mother could not continue. I was amused and delighted. You joined us with your shoes on. By this statement you both questioned authority (your mother) and also demanded a kind of empirical evidence to be convinced. You acted like an able lawyer objecting to hearsay or a scientist rejecting paranormal claims. I hope you will never cease questioning assumptions, including those of your parents.

3.901 Ghosts

One night, after I put you in your bed, you told me that you are scared of ghosts. “Here comes trouble,” I said to myself. You seemed partially serious, partially acting. First, I denied the existence of ghosts. It did not work. Then, I told you that your daddy is so strong all ghosts were scared of coming close to our home. In order to give you visual assurance, I showed you my muscles like a body builder. But soon I realized the problematic nature of this assurance. It could require me to sleep in your bedroom, forever. Finally, I had to bring God in.

“Don’t worry! God will take care of you. He is great. He will kick out all the ghosts from your room.”

You said “No (meaning that you did not buy my argument), God is great.” While shaking your head horizontally, you continued, “He cannot fit my room.”

I did not try to fit God into your room. Your simple reasoning was a linguistic lesson. Our language is ambiguous and open to misunderstanding and abuse. You were right; God could not be that “big” if he was so close to us!

3.923 Deductive Reasoning

“God created everything. He created you and me. He created your mom. He made all the houses, all the mountains, and all the stars. All the toys, all the trees and all the cars. He created this fruit and that food. God created everything and He is very Good.”

After listening to this theological indoctrination, you asked a simple question in a very serious tone:

“Why God created bad guys?”

In fact, this question is one of the most difficult philosophical arguments which theologians have been wrestling with for centuries.

“I don’t know,” I replied helplessly, “when you grow up you will find out yourself.”

Your thinking process was clear. I had underestimated you. I never have told you that it was God who created bad guys. Apparently, you used the following deductive reasoning with three premises and two conclusions.

P-1. God created everything.
P-2. Bad guys are something.
C-1. Then God created bad guys.
P-3. But God is a good guy.
C-2. Then He shouldn’t have created bad guys!?

Your question was an expression of confusion generated by the contradiction between your two conclusions, i.e., C-1 and C-2. Ironically, your daddy has a belief system inflicted with this contradiction.Why do I have that belief system? Well, to avoid living with a much bigger contradiction; it is a matter of a logical deal I have negotiated for myself. Sure, there is more to it; but this is not the right place.

3.945 When you grow up…

I am asking you what you want to be when you grow up. “Cooking an” (that is, a cook) was your immediate answer. Later, you gave up and switched to your favorite cartoon character. You would become a “Ninja Turtle!”

3.978 You Rascal

Well, today we had a big fight. It started when you pulled the hand brake while I was driving. As a punishment, I stopped talking to you. You retaliated by not coming out of the car (a 1993 red Honda Civic) on a hot, really hot afternoon.  I warned you to get out. I told you that you would be broiled in the car like a hotdog. When you started yelling and hitting me, I was left with the last choice. I spanked your buttocks several times. You tried to scare me by saying: “I will tell everybody that you are bad daddy!” We ended our fight with a repeated exchange of apologies with the sweetest statement: “I love you.”

***

Within the last two weeks you have made many amusing and interesting comments. Here are the ones I could not forget:

“Why Scruffy (our little dog) is not going to school?”

“My daddy is going toBostonto get some horses” (instead of saying courses)

“We don’t eat pork; why then God created pork?”

“Why watermelon is not a vegetable?”

And a couple of morbid ones:

“Why you do not eat dinner while you are dead?”

“Why don’t we go to God without dying?”

Finally, my favorite one:

“Remember, you are (to me!) sometimes crazy!”

Well, you are more generous than your mom. To her, I am sometimes sane!

4.189 My Sweet Yahya

(by Apameh)

My sweet Yahya hello. You are sleeping soundly now and I thought I would write to you. I cannot believe it’s been over 2 years since I’ve written in this book. Edip has been keeping up pretty well. You are a joy, a gem in our lives. God has endowed you with such beauty of mind and body. Inshallah,  He will guide you to be the best that you can be, above all things, a good Muslim, a believer in God alone. You pray with us and you’re so adorable. Most of the time, you’re too playful during the Salaat.  Inshallah, this will change with time. You still go to preschool and have started swimming lessons atFt.LowellPark. You love it and are thrilled by it. Life is good, alhamdulillah.  You are raised in a loving and positive, healthy atmosphere. We try to educate you as much as possible. You’re very expressive and loving. You are a good friend to your father and me.

I’m pregnant with Matine and inshallah he’ll join us in 2 months. I’m so excited to see your reaction towards him and his presence in our lives. From what I see in you, I can bet that you’ll be a wonderfully loving big brother. You do very well with children older than yourself and don’t seem very interested in playing with younger children. You communicate well and are learning your alphabet and numbers now.

We are still inTucsonand Edip is going to theUniversityofArizonaas a graduate student. Inshallah, he’ll apply to law school. I’m still working atElDoradoHospitaland they’re very good to me.

We hope to be able to provide you and Matine with a good future, inshallah. I try to instill in you an appreciation for everything that God has given you. Inshallah you’ll always hold this in your heart. I love you with all my heart.

Love always, Api.

4.320 Hard-working family

On my way home from school I picked you up from La Petite, the day care center. After getting out of the bus, on our way home, you wanted me to carry you. I told you that I had worked hard and I was tired. You said “Mommy works hard too!” I acknowledged that fact and was happy that you appreciated her hard work. Nevertheless, when you continued I learned that you used her as a pretext to  justify your denied demand:

“You are working hard, Mommy is working hard, and I am playing hard.”

4.391 Eagle and dudul

Last night you were asking me the meaning of words such as “release”, “order” and “condemn”. You told me that you heard them from Disney’s Aladdin. I am very glad that you are learning big words.

But you still call “quarters” “eagle moneys.”

Your brother Metin (Matine)  is one week old and he is continuously sucking your mommy’s breast. You tell people that your baby brother has “come out” from your mother’s “dudul,” your own word.

4.400 I am strong, but

I was getting ready to go to work as an intern in Pretrial services at Pima County Jail. You wanted to come with me. I told you that they don’t allow children. Criminals or bad guys could hurt you. You needed to grow up and become stronger.

“I am strong,” you protested. “Okay, I said, if you can move this stove one foot to left then you can come with me.” The stove was so heavy even I have a hard time moving it. You started pushing it from here and there without any sign of hope. Then, you discovered the reason of your failure to move the stove:

“Edip,  you see there is a teapot on the stove. If you take that away then I can move the stove!”

4.545 Write it down

Your room is filled with toys, books, and clothes. The life span of a toy is about one or two days; they end up in one of the boxes in your room waiting hoplessly for your attention. Again you started asking money to buy a plastic toy from the wending machine. This time I refused to give you money.

— “You want a lot of things Yahya. You ask too much for money.”

Your answer was a drama.

— “It is not fair. You are rich. You are a winner; I’m a loser!”

***

While driving to the hospital where your mom is working as a dietitian:

— “This guy is an idiot; he passes through a red light!

— “Why Edip? What makes people stupid?”

— “Perhaps he drank alcohol.

— “Yes, he drank alcohol and ate pork.”

— “I like it Yahya.”

— “Then write it in my book (diary)!

4.778  Love

(by Apameh)

My sweet Yahya,

You are now a little over 4 1/2 years of age. You are very expressive and talkative. You love Matine but at times act jealous which is a very normal emotion. You love dede  and your gramma Ferideh and they love you more than life itself. They are here now and you love having them here. You are a very family-loving person. You care about good clothes and jewels. Dede promised to bring some fromIran. You are very smart and you like going to La Petite and playing with your friends. Your teachers say you are attentive. You are also taking piano lessons and like Yanni’s music. You enjoy Masjid  and the kids there. You pray at times and sometimes play around and don’t want to join the prayer. I love you, my son. Inshallah, you’ll grow to be a loving and respectful and God-loving person.

Love, Api.

4.939 Your mom is cranky

It was several weeks ago. I want to write it before I forget it.

You were checking the mailbox. I saw it as a great moment that deserved to be frozen. Standing on your toes, with one hand holding the door of the mailbox,  you stretched your neck in order to see the mail. I rushed in to get the camera. While running back I fell and dropped it. Fortunately, there was no significant damage. I took your picture, but to my dismay, I later learned that the camera did not contain any film.

Evening. I’m talking to your mother and telling her how I rushed to take your picture: “I fell bad,” I whined, expecting a word of comfort. Your mother did not show any sign of concern. But when I added, “the camera fell with me too,” her eyes opened wide: “did you break it?!”

***

The same evening we are all together having dinner at the kitchen table. The lettuce in the salad tasted bitter. In a half-serious tone I asked:

— “Apameh, I fear the lettuce might be poisonous. What you think?”

— “Well,” she said, shrugging her shoulder, “then, eat it!”

4.947 Retaliation

Eight o’clockin the morning. You wake up and come to my office saying “good morning.” I kiss you and tell you not to watch TV now. I remind you that you watch TV too much. You rebutted my criticism with a great challenge, indeed, an unforgettable lesson:

— “You stick with the computer, I stick with TV!”

4.969 God vs. Satan

— “Edip, you say there is only one God. But what about Satan?”

— “Satan is not God. God can destroy him in one second.”

I was expecting a challenging question from you, such as “why then God does not destroy Satan?” I was relieved when you took another path:

— “But Satan has strong muscle. He is exercising.”

4.980 What I like about you

I made a list of your close relatives, all from your mother’s side, and asked you what you like about them the most. Here are your answers:

REZA (uncle):   I like him when he gets me stuff [gifts].

FERIDEH (grandma):   I like her when she makes me noodle.

DEDEH (grandpa):  I like him when he waters my plants.

NASIM (cousin):  I like her when we go toDisneyland.

NAGHMEH (aunt):   I like her when Jevad marries her.

JEVAD:    I like him when he plays with me and Armin.

HENGAMEH (aunt):  I like her when she takes me to Nasim’s school.

ALI (Hengameh’s husb.)  I like him when he plays with me and Nasim.

MATINE (brother):  I like him when he plays with me.

APAMEH:   I like her when she gets me stuff.

MYSELF:   I like myself when I am proud and listen to you.

Well, some of your answers were revealing and some were amazingly banal. The things you liked the most were basically playing, playing, getting gifts and eating noodles. However, what you liked about me was categorically different.

EDIP:    When you go to the heaven and I see you there!

What a euphemistic expression for wanting someone to die! Egad!

 

5.005

“Edip, why did God want us to sleep? Why did God make the world?”

5.010

Early morning you came to me and said, “I hope I will have a wife when I grow up.” But after a short pause you expressed your reluctance: “Why do girls always fight?”

5.035

“Edip, is watermelon an animal?”

?!

5.052 What are testicles for?

We were taking a shower together. Abruptly, you pointed to your testicles and asked me:

— “Edip, what is this for?”

— “I know, but I will not tell you.”

— You insisted, “Please daddy, tell me what is this for?”

— “It is a secret!” I whispered.

This naturally increased your curiosity:

— “Please tell me; if you tell me I’ll tell my children too.”

Finally, I explained to you with your surprisingly prophetic excuse to learn the function of your testicles:

— “If you don’t have them you won’t be able to have children to teach the boys the function of their testicles.”

5.090 Separation

This morning at7:30you took a bus by yourself. The school bus of course. You will return on the same bus ateleven o’clock.

With your huge but almost empty backpack hanging on your shoulders and a name-tag on your shirt, you are a traveler today. Now you have joined the big boys and girls in the neighborhood. Your mother and I feel highly emotional watching you take the bus alone, without us.

I pray for your success. May God protect you against troubles that afflict your generation. Don’t forget the Ten Commandments and remember that we gave each other promises to meet in Heaven!

5.128 I worry about you

(by Apameh)

My sweet Yahya. Good morning. You are in school now. You started kindergarten onAugust 2, 1995. Your teacher is Mrs. Powers atLuluWalkerSchoolonRoller Coaster Rd.,Tucson,AZ.You ride the bus with all the children and like to be the first in line, of course. You all have a slight fight about it. You’re learning your ABCs. I sometimes worry about your future because you’re very outgoing and social. You don’t like to spend too much time reading and writing. I hope that you’ll become more focused as you grow older.

You are challenging and require a lot of time from us to entertain you. I don’t allow much TV-watching because you get easily influenced by violent and bad behavior. Also you would rather befriend a rowdy child than a calm one. You get bored easily. On the positive side, you love your family, and you are very hospitable, but at times you may offend people by your remarks and that tends to be embarrassing for me. I’m stuck with you because I feel you desperately need discipline. I’m trying my best to raise you in a good, healthy environment and give you all that you need and more. But I never spoil you. You sometimes steal coins from us and that saddens me so I try to instill honesty and respect in you. But it’s difficult trying to mold you. It seems to me when you want to get something, you do not care how you get it, but you must have it.

I was never like that, nor was your dad. I dearly worry about you. You love Matine but you’re jealous also and try to hurt him sometimes. I know it’s natural but I pray that you get better with him. You’ve been sharing the same room sinceJuly 1st 1995and you’re doing very well. You’re quite understanding about not disturbing him during his nap times.

My sweet Yahya, my first born, I love you. I hope someday you won’t be distant from me because I have been disciplinary toward you. I pray that my hard work will pay off by seeing you become an outstanding individual, respectful, God-loving, honest, successful and loving toward all humanity—rich or poor.

Edip will be starting law school tomorrow and I pray in four years we will be able to have a more prosperous life so we can inshallah give you two boys a good future. We must always remember the best success in this life is striving to make it to Heaven, but we are also responsible to apply ourselves in this world and to do our best. Yahyajon,  I say good-bye for now and I give you all my heart.

Your “Api” always.

Maman

5.197 The mischievous

“I cannot handle two parents. I wish I had only a father or a mother.”

This statement was uttered by you after having a bad morning with your mother. You borrowed your friend’s toy and despite your mother’s order you did not want to return it. You claimed that you lost it. I believed you, but your mother did not. Later, you “found” that toy (a little car) in your pocket!

5.216 The bad word

Just after going to bed, you came back in your pajamas. Pointing at your head in a very serious manner, you said “Daddy, my brain is telling me to say a bad word.” I felt pity for you. You seemed so stressed. You were hysterically pointing at your head, as if your brain was pregnant with a bad word and now it was having labor contractions.

— “Well, say it!” I said.

— “But God will not like it.”

— “That’s okay. Say it just for once, then repent.”

You wanted to be really sure that I was not testing you. The moment you realized that I was serious in my permission you spit out the bad word:

— ” SHUT UP!”

You were relieved for delivering the bad word. I was relieved too, for not hearing worse.

5.493 All kinds of moods

— “Yahya, when I’m in good mood and you are in good mood too we get along very well.” (An empty statement, you can just reverse it: when we get along we are in good mood!)

— “What about when you are in good mood, but I am in bad mood?”

— “That’s okay.”

— “What about when you are in bad mood but I am in good mod?”

— “That’s okay too.”

— “What about when you are half in bad mood, but I am in whole good mood?”

I did not tell you that the answer, for this one should have been obvious to you from the previous answers. Realizing that you have discovered the endless combinations of moods, I grinned and changed the subject.

5.504 God controls everything

— “Does God control everything?”

— “Yes”

— “Those palm trees?”

— “Yes”

— “What about the car?”

— “He controls every car”

— “What about your eyeglasses, your T-shirt?”

— “He controls everything”

— “What about your ears, your puffy ears?”

;—)

**

We went to the mall for fun. You asked for a penny to throw into the pool around the fountain. You secretly made a wish before throwing it. Upon asking about your wish, you said: “I wished that everybody worship one God, not Jesus!”

5.613 The impossible transformation?

Climbing on the steps of the Memorial Wall halfway in the park, you sat and confessed,

— “My mind has evil thoughts. I’m scared of height.”

— “It is not an evil thought. The feeling of fear of heights is from God—to protect us from our adventures. Otherwise, you would climb higher and higher and higher until you fall.

— “Like Yurtle the Turtle?

— “Yeah”

— “Daddy, are you also scared of height?”

— “Of course, all normal people are.”

— “Is God scared from height?”

— “No, He is the highest. He is the greatest. By the way, Yahya, God does not look like anything you see or know.”

— “Could God turn himself into jelly?”

Certainly, you were confusing God with a jinni.

 

 

6.430 Boys vs. girls

It is around7 a.m.and you are getting ready for school. You put your cloths on all by yourself: A turtleneck shirt and tight khaki pants. Meanwhile, your brother had another big labor. His diapers were saturated and his pants and shirt were wet, with crawling coli bacteria.

You were standing in the bathroom over the toilet bowl. While you were unzipping your pants, I overheard you saying, “I like peeing with my pants down.” Then you told me that girls cannot use urinals on the wall. To make you feel good about your male-exclusive talent, I joked that men will always beat girls in the long distance peeing competition.

Later you told me that there are more girls in the world than boys. All your teachers, including the principal, you said, were girls. Now I know how girls felt 100 years ago. Was this another sign of the end of the world;-?

6.476 Deserving my new middle name

Last night we went together to the theater. “The Mighty Ducks” was a Disney movie about a high school hockey team and their ambition and determination. I enjoyed your occasional comments and predictions during the show.

This morning, I demanded some comments from you regarding your mother. You made a cute wish: “I wish my middle name was Mighty Duck.” Laughingly, I approved it and uttered it in its new context, with your full name: Yahya Mighty Duck Yuksel. When you asked me about my middle name, I could not help but say, Lame Duck, Edip Lame Duck Yuksel. Your mother’s eyes opened wide and she affirmed it wholeheartedly.

A moment later, your nit-picking mother noticed that the gallon of milk I bought last night had an expiration date of December 24. Knowing that you and Matine cannot finish the “whole” gallon in two days, she accused me of being oblivious: “you really are a Lame Duck!”

6.646 Fake Indians and Criminal Law

After you watched Costner’s The Bodyguard film, you said “when I grow up I will not be a bodyguard; but I will be an architect, an artist like dayi [uncle Reza]. Well, not exactly like him. I do not want to make waterfalls and candle-holders.”

Tonight we went to a Powwow by the university. You met Kyle, your best friend from day care since you were two years old. You made an unexpected remark to Judy Freeman, Kyle’s mom, by asking her whether she was pregnant. In front of her friends she had to acknowledge her weight-gain.

We saw many Indians dressed in their colorful traditional attire.Turkeyfeathers were everywhere. You doubted whether they were real Indians. You questioned their use of plastic materials or eyeglasses. This observation of yours was very impressive.

Your best comments of the night were on criminal law. When you suggested capital punishment for every petty crime, as if you memorized the Law of Hamurabbi,  I tried to inform you about the reasons for observing proportion between crimes and penalties. After a 5-minute explanation you appeared to understand the relationship. You came up with a novel idea, a compromise between your initial position and my objection:

“Then, if someone kills two people, he should be put on electrical chair and also should be shot.”

6.778 Comprehension of small brains

— “Remember God all the time, Yahya.”

— “Even kids? Kids have smaller brains.”

***

— “Can you go on street alone?” asked your mom, intending it to be a rhetorical question and expecting a “NO” for it.

— “Yeah”

— “No, you are a child. Can you take your brother from the baby-sitter?”

You were consistant in surprising your mother. You did not chang your tone: —  “Yeah.”

Your mother gave up from rhetorical questions and started preaching you about your incapability:

— “No, you cannot. You are a child. Don’t you comprehend?”

I had to interject a naughty comment in order to reduce the unnecessary tension:

— “Can he comprehend that he doesn’t comprehend in the first place?”

6.879 Out of town looking for what?

After a happy day and a delicious kabab, you and your brother Matine were having tea followed by ice-cream! Your mom and I were watching our sons having fun.

Your mother, relaxing in the recliner, made a comment out of the blues, “one day when your dad and I get old you will take care of us, inshallah.” You disagreed, “No, we will not take care of you. Other people will take care of you.”

Your mother, who happens to be more serious than I, wondered with disappointment. She asked: “why?” Your answer came very naturally: “we’ll be out of town,” you quipped, “we will be looking for girls to marry with!”

I love your comments, especially when you speak your mind without using the auto-censor program that we adults employ! But, with your cute disposition, handsome look, good mind and the trend inAmerica, I doubt that you will be out of town for girls. You might well be hiding yourself from harassing girls in the neighborhood.

6.945 Legal authority

While driving to theCollegeofLaw, you wanted to go to McDonald’s. I protested. I reminded you of the healthy and delicious food at home. You were determined and finally you threatened me:

— “If you don’t buy Big Mac for me I’ll sue you!”

That was serious! How and when did you learn to threaten someone with a law suit? Perhaps it is a contagious epidemic in this society. “OK,” I said, “what will be your legal argument? What will you tell the judge?”

— “Your honor, my dad broke his promise. We are Muslim, a different kind,  and we are supposed to keep our word.”

Well, I told you that we would have a mock trial when we arrived at theLawSchool. I asked a colleague of mine in the lobby to be the judge. There were several other law students curiously listening to the trial. The law student listened to your claim and upon my suggestion he asked you: “Why do you think that breaking promises is bad?”

I was expecting your religious argument and was anxiously waiting to hear your “different kind” Muslim remark again. However, you surprised everyone:

— “Breaking promises is bad because Bill Clinton said so!”

We all laughed at your choice of authority. Bill Clinton is a president who became notorious for breaking his promises. It was such an irony. But what was more interesting was your switch of authority. You appealed to the president of theUSAinstead of God. You had sensed a secular ambiance in theLawSchool; it was not like Masjid.

When my friends questioned you about a higher authority that will sanctify promises, then you brought God in and started talking about the Quran.

The same day you launched another philosophical challenge for religious people who believe in an Omnipotent and Omniscient God:

— “If God knows everything, why then he makes angels record our words and works?”

6.915 Time

— “We’ll stay at Masjid for half an hour.”

— “It’s too long, daddy!”

— “What about 30 minutes?”

— “That’s better.”

6.986 How to hire a good lawyer?

After picking you up from your school’s recreational center, we went to a law firm to submit my resume for a summer clerkship position. An interview date was scheduled. On our way home, I wanted to hear your opinion.

— “Assume Yahya, that you own a law firm, Yuksel & Bashar Etc., and you need to hire a lawyer. Five lawyers apply for the position. Which one would you pick?

Without hesitation you declared your pick.

— “The weakest and skinniest one.”

Surprised, I wondered: — “Why?”

— “Because it is easier to beat him,” you replied in a serious tone.

You had misunderstood my question. You thought that you, as a law firm boss, were going to pick someone to fight. I took my time and clarified the issue. Your criteria for picking a lawyer among the five applicants were inspiring. Here are the list of factors that you would consider. You would hire the one who was: smart; not-shy;  a boy, since according to you they are smarter than girls; had good grades; had gold stars from kindergarten; not lazy; and finally, one who ate breakfast to keep him going.

Upon my inquiry, you stated that the dress or the suit of the applicant was not important; it was irrelevant. I liked that one the most. Wearing a tie and jacket on a hot desert day over 100¡ F is a ridiculous tradition. As you have discovered, it had no relevancy to serving justice or the legal profession. I wish we could bury formalism to theMuseumofPrimitive Obsessions.

7.000 Birthday Invitation

Dear Friend,

On First of July, our first son

YAHYA

will be 7 years old. In other numbers, Yahya will be exactly (365×7)+2 =2557 days old  which is the 375th prime number and is many heart-beats. Yahya knows that the number of heart-beats of the longest living human being cannot amount to a fraction of molecules contained in a single eye-lash. Yahya knows what is odd and what  is even, what is prime and what is the Avogadro number. He is not a master in chess but he is a master in Connect-four. He thanks God for making his gray jelly so marvelous. He bets that you have the same thing inside your skull.

For the reasons you might guess, we will be celebrating YahyaÕs birthday on Sunday, 29th of June, instead of 1st of July.

So, we invite you to Skate Country, 2700 N. Stone (at Glenn), at4 PM, June 29. Children will skate for two hours while watching their parents falling down like pears and apples. Children will have ice-cream, pizza, soda and all sorts of junk food.

After we are all exhausted, we invite you to our home at …….. , exactly at7 PM, for dinner. YahyaÕs mother is a nutritionist; so bring your salt and butter in your pockets.

Edip Yuksel, Father

Apameh Bashar, Mother (joining in substance, dissenting in style;-).

7.008 It is just another body part!

You have mastered the bicycle, as you did rollerblading. I was very proud of you when you were skating with everyone while I was trying not to fall down at the corner. When I was your age, I dreamed of owning a motorcycle though I had no chance of even having a bicycle; it was an unattainable luxury for me.

Today you had a bicycle race with the neighbor’s kid in the park. You were so competitive; you started to cry when you lost one of the races.

On the way back home it started sprinkling. At one point, Matine resisted moving forward. I lifted your brother, but he kicked his feet and hit my private parts. I cried, “Ouch! Matine hit me in the balls.” With a naughty smile you commented: “I liked it the way you said, Edip!” I wondered, “Why?” You explained, “It’s first time I hear you using that word.” I expressed my regret of using such a word. You comforted me: “It is OK, it is just another body part!”

7.506 Dear Mom, can I have my iluoise back?

This morning you shared with me your letter to your mom on your computer screen:

“Dear Mom

I’m so sore [sorry] that I pot [put] sothing [something = GUM!] in yor hare [hair]. Can you forgiv [forgive] me?Can I have my iluoise [allowance] back?”

7.712 The use of the scotch tape

— “Why is this scotch (poster) tape on the toilet sink, Yahya?

—— “I used it. I wanted to take my mustache off!”

7.767 Inter-faith Study Group and Your Paper Airplane

This evening we had scripture study atCasasAdobeChurchat Ina and Oracle. As a member of the interfaith group, once a month we study the Old Testament, New Testament and The Quran for about one and a half hours.  It is a small group comprised of Jews, Christians and Muslims. The previous meetings were at Masjid.

To provide some experience for you, I decided to take you with me. I was hoping that there would be children to meet. When we arrived to the gate of the church, you asked a host who was welcoming the guests: “Is this a church? It looks like more to a palace” It was a fancy building compared to our Masjid which is a dull rectangular structure. Unfortunately, the palace did not have any princes or princesses. You got very upset for having to spend hours with boring adults. The mansion immediately turned into a prison for you.

You did not sit on the chair. Instead, you interrupted us and asked me to make a paper airplane for you. I took my time and made a fancy one, the one that looks like a Stealth. While we were reading verses from the Old, New and Final Testaments, your airplane circled in the air and dived in the middle of the room. When it followed the same route again, I showed you the door. You went to the baby-sitter room and found some entertainment for yourself until we finished reading and talking about “boring” issues.

Obviously, our interfaith group was not inter-age. You were justifiably out of context.

 

Share

There is No Time For A Frozen Brain: Trimming Mysteries by a Wittgensteinian Slab

Share

There is No Time For A Frozen Brain: Trimming Mysteries by a Wittgensteinian Slab

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

“Why do they put the word ‘dictionary’ in the dictionary? Ya gotta know what it is if you’re using the dumb thing, dontcha? Besides, it’s written right on the cover what it is and if you don’t know what it’s used for you aint gonna look it up are ya? Heck, cant’cha just look on the cover if you don’t know how to spell it or do they think we’re so dumb that we’re gonna look it up for the spelling? Think of all the trillions of dictionarys in the world and multiply that by the amount of ink and paper it takes to put dictionary in a dictionary. That’s probably a whole damned rain forest and an ink spill the size of the one from the Exon Valdes! I say we all boycott the dictionary companys till they start taking that needless word out!” (stevech@netcom15.netcom.com)

“Only stupit and ignorrant people write on bathroom walls” (A graphitty on a bathroom wall in the Univ. of Arizona).   

?Can yu corect sentence this    

2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, (33 or 37?)   

“‘What is TIME?’. . . This question is an utterance of unclarity, of mental discomfort, and it is comparable with the question ‘Why?’ as children often ask it. (Wittgenstein, The Blue Book, p. 26)   

Do you know chess? What do you understand from the word chess? Every name andconcept have a use. What is the use of chess? How queer that knowing how to play chessshould take such a short TIME, and a game so much longer! The meaning of words andpropositions are based on their use in our language-gameMetaphysics is a tumor in the brain and you cannot feel my pain and the tumor in the brain does not cause pain, but myknowledge about the existence of that tumor is what causes the pain. Can I describe ordefine for you my pain, my experience of how I feel? What is the intention of a philosopherwho yells at his student: slub! Is the word ‘slub‘ a picture of the object ? It was a dull picture in Tarctatus where I sometimes talked in a private language, but after my investigation it became a useful-mutual game. Now I can use it in anyway I wish. You can ask anotherquestion: Do both students and teacher see the ‘red‘ slub in the same colour? First, what does ‘same‘ mean? Second, what is the meaning of meaning? Third, what does ‘third’mean? Do I have any reliable criteria to check my memory? Isn’t it amazing that I can thinkon my thoughts on thinking! Nevertheless, ‘I can know what someone else is thinking, not what I am thinking.’ You can believe or imagine that the sun will rise tomorrow, but you can not justify it. Mathematical problems cause ticklish sensations. Here I shew you: will pi ever exhibit the numbers in the order of 123456789 past the decimal? What is the rule in theorder of the letters of order? Can you think of something which does not have a contrast, besides YESTERDAY? Yes, I will shew you: TOMORROW!

 

The above scrambled semi-silly statements contain the most frequently used words (underlined) in Philosophical Investigation. Wittgenstein repeats them over and over. He tries to expose or understand the relation between words and objects and their use, that is, circumstances. He makes many arguments to emphasize the importance of the use of propositions in regard of their meaning. For instance, Wittgenstein, probably would try to explain the reason of putting ‘dictionary’ in ‘dictionary’ by the obsession of the editors with verbal definition which “takes us from one verbal expression to another, in a sense gets us no further.” (The Blue Book, 1) He would probably suggest a change in the title of the dictionary, from ‘dictionary’ to ‘this is a dictionary’. He would later shew the apparent ambiguity with this ostensive definition in regard of identifying the reference of ‘this.’ He could list his questions, such as, what is ‘this’? What is a dictionary? The cover, or the color of the cover, or the letters, or the book? He would then tell us the importance of the ‘use’ in language-game. The ‘use’ of the word is what saves us from ambiguity of words.

Here, I will not speculate on whether Wittgenstein would join ‘steve’ against those dictionaries containing needless words, nor will I evaluate the bathroom graffiti according to his theory of truth-functions. I will not even try to correct the distorted sentence and evaluate on his assertion that the use of sentence is more important than its grammar. I will not try to understand when and how one understands the principle of the series and knows which number is the continuation of the series. Here, I’ll try to understand and criticize the concept of TIME, in a Wittgensteinian philosophy.

What is ‘time’? (not ‘what time is it?’)

How can we talk about tomorrow, in other words, future? If future does not exist now, then, how can we name and talk about something that does not exist? Can we have the feeling of future, or the knowledge of future? How can I describe my experience of life by words? If every meaningful word needs a contrast, then what is the contrast of time? Does timelessness exist, or can we imagine it? What do we mean when we say “I don’t have time for…”? What is the truth value of propositions about future? To answer all of the above questions we need to answer the fundamental question: What is “time”? Is “time” a substance? Philosophers, such as, Archie J. Bahm, O.K. Bousma, and Ludwig Wittgenstein point to the flaw in the question. If a question is wrong, then the answer will be wrong too. Here are the reaction of three philosophers who consider language (in fact, lack of knowledge of language) as the main source of pseudo-philosophical puzzlement:

Part of the problem of interpreting the nature of time, or of any category, consists of referring to it as “it” (i.e., as “something”) when such reference takes the grammatical form of a noun, which in Indo-European languages tends to connote substantiality. The hypothesis proposed here needs a language structured in a way that reflects the structure of existence it proposes rather than a “subject-predicate” language based on a “substance-attribute” metaphysics, which it is criticizing. (Bahm, 46)

So we can understand this case of a man who does not know what time is, as like that of man who does not know what aether is. He is like one who breathes deeply to take one big breath of time, hoping to get wind of it in this way. And he would like to know how out of so much time and a trowel to make a star. There, now I think I know what it is that this man who does not know what time is, does not know. He also did not get the drift (Bouwsma, 127).

“But it is the use of the substantive ‘time’ which mystifies us. If we look into the grammar of that word, we shall feel that it is no less astounding that man should have conceived of a deity of time than it would be to conceive of a deity of negation or disjunction.” (Wittgenstein, The Blue Book, 6).

Wittgenstein criticizes his favorite philosopher Saint Augustine’s conception of time. St. Augustine, in the 11th book of his Confession, tries to answer the question “What is time?” He says when no one asks him, he knows; yet when someone asks him, he no longer knows. In order to solve the arising problem from the question “What was God doing before creation?”, Augustine needs to define the “time.” He ends up denying the absolute existence of time by a tricky analysis. Wittgenstein summarizes Augustine’s analysis in one statement: “How is it possible that one should measure time? For the past can’t be measured, as it is gone by; and the future can’t be measured for it has no extension.” (Wittgenstein, The Blue Book, p. 26).

Past and Future; Do They Really Exist?

Ronald Suter, a Wittgenstanian philosopher, rejects Augustine’s analysis by changing the meaning of time:

Augistine’s original conclusion that the past and the future do not exist rests on both a faulty theory of meaning and on a particular picture of time that leads him to seek after some sort of entity that can be called ‘past’ or ‘future.’ Not finding a physical entity, he postulates a mental one.

“Of course Augustine is right that in a sense neither the past nor the future do exist. For example, the hundreth president of the United States does not now exist any more than George Washington does. Yet there can be facts about the future as well as about the past, and it is in this sense that both the future and past exist.” (Suter, 166).

Suter avoids the problem by reducing “past” and “future” to “events.” Then, he reduces events to facts, or to memories, or expectations. In other words, in Suter’s language-game, ‘future’ suddenly transforms to future events, and simultaneously future events transform to expectations. Yet, for all those speculations he does not provide any argument. Ironically, the example he had chosen does not even fully justify our expectations of future events. In his sense, the existence of future is probabilistic. Besides, its existence depends on our pessimism or optimism; it can change from individual to individual. To a radical anti-government activist, Suter ‘s expectation of the hundreth president (future) is only a wishful thinking. Thus, the existence of future will depend on the number of votes. But, how many votes?

Wittgenstein also diagnoses the source of philosophical puzzlement about time in language. He likens the question “where does the past go to?” to “where does the flame of a candle go when it’s blown out?” or “Where does the light go to?” (Wittgenstein, The Brown Book, 108). It is ironic that Wittgenstein, who is well aware of deceptive nature of analogies, resorts to another analogy in order to discredit an analogy. His analogy is far from demystifying the puzzle of time, since the flame of a candle shines and dies in time. The flame of a candle does not exist when it is blown out. It is exactly Augistine’s point: past (flame) does not have existence in the present (when it is blown out). The puzzlement is not in “where does past (or flame) go?” rather it is a consequence of the fact that “past (flame) does not exist now (when it is blown out)!

Present, where are you?

After rejecting the existence of both past and future, Augustine, with Zeno’s magnifier, focuses on the “present.” After a crafty analysis he surprises us with the news that the present has evaporated. According to Augustine, the “present” is a moment that cannot be divided into smaller parts. It is the temporal equivalent of geometrical point which by definition does not have any dimension. Or, it is the equivalent of the ancient concept of atom which is not divisible. By trimming “present” from all temporal extensions, step by step, he shrinks it to such a small point where it becomes impossible to be noticed or caught. Present is so small and lucid the speed of our thought and words are unable to measure it.

The challenge of trying to realize the existence of present by reflecting on it, is like trying to see your shadow with the aid of flash light. Or, it is like trying to see a single letter of a commercial message on the outside of a train speeding 100 miles per hour towards west while you are standing in a station and looking exactly across your nose, without moving your eyes to east (past) or west (future). Or it is like trying to see your dreams while you are awake. The suggested methods for searching for your shadow or for spotting the letters on the moving train, or for trying to observe your dreams, yes, those methods themselves can create an obstacle for observing their existence. Similarly, we may not be able to catch the present when we try to catch it. Is it possible, that we feel it only if we don’t try to feel it?

Wittgenstein was interested with how one judges what time it is without external evidences, such as the position of sun, the amount of light, etc. He gives some examples of thinking process needed for this task. (Wittgenstein, Investigation, #608). He forgets to mention the importance of number of breath, heart beat, and pulses as internal evidences for estimating the short time intervals. Later, he acknowledges the difficulty with metacognition of this process, and comes up with a good rhetorical question:

The idea of the intangibility of that mental state in estimating the time is of the greatest importance. Why is it intangible? Isn’t it because we refuse to count what is tangible about our state as part of the specific state which we are postulating? (Wittgenstein, Investigations, #608).

False Analogy?

According to Wittgenstein the source of this problem is a false analogy, that is, likening time to a river, and trying to measure the length of time as length in space is measured: “The problem may seem simple, but its extreme difficulty is due to the fascination which the analogy between two similar structures in our language can exert on us.” (Wittgenstein, The Blue Book, p 26). J.N. Findlay, Professor of Philosophy in Boston University, restates this point:

“We are likewise puzzled by the measurement of time, and, since measurement in space demands that the measured parts should all be there together, we find it strange that we should be able to measure lengths of time whose stages are never given together. In all these cases language deceives us by its false analogies, and we think we are dealing with something deep and queer, when we are merely dealing with a different sort of case. . . When all this is seen, puzzles regarding the measurement of time will disappear ? as I, too, consistently thought when in 1936 I wrote an early Wittgensteinian article entitled ‘Time: a Treatment of Some Puzzles.” (Findlay, 71, 135).

Wittgenstein is right regarding many problems caused by our language or analogies. For instance, the grammar in expressions like “my hands, my body, my brain” can give us a false sense of a non-material and mysterious substance, “me”, independent of “my” physical extension. However, I think, his criticism of Augustine is a typical exaggeration of the “mystifying use of our language.”

Augustine might have chosen a wrong analysis and ended up in a wrong conclusion, however, his bewilderment is not due to the grammar of the language. The mystery of time is not caused by its usage as a noun or as an object in our daily language. Time, at least is a psychological feeling. Like pain. We generally know what causes pain. However, we are not sure about the cause of sensation of time. Furthermore, our thinking is not “muddled” by the questions “what is negation, or what is disjunction, or what is pain?” but we are challenged by the question “what is time?” The mystifying nature of “time,” regardless of our language, is a universal problem for all thinkers.

Town and Life (not life in town!)

Can we claim that the minds of biologists are muddled when they try to find an answer for the question “what is life?” The queer nature of “life” is not the result of the grammar of our language, but from our shortcoming. We have not yet fully understood the nature of life. The mystery of life lays in our inability to distinguish its “necessary and sufficient” qualities. The ambiguity in the meaning of “life” is not the same with the ambiguity in the meaning of “town.” We can clarify the meaning of town by arbitrary spatial, or numerical criteria. State legislators, the residents of town, or dictionary editors can reduce the ambiguity surrounding the meaning of town without going out and making research on towns. Their decision could create a new and clearer convention on the meaning of “town.”

However, the same thing cannot be done for the definition of “life.” The word “life” refers to something more substantial than the word “town.” Biologists cannot define life without studying nature. Let’s assume that biologists and dictionarists sat down around a table and invented several words to represent and distinguish the diverse characteristics of living creatures, from virus to plants, from amoebae to humans. Even if they do so, we may still need another word to represent the mysterious quality that draws the line between life and non life for all things, with its implicated whys and hows. In short, the word “town” refers to a conventional (man-made) category, but the word “life” refers to an objective (natural) category. It is we who define the meaning of town and city, chair and couch, book and booklet, etc.; but it is life (what ever it is) itself that defines the meaning of the word associated to it. Besides, even a well defined “life” won’t cease to puzzle us with its inherent questions starting with “why”? We cannot eradicate the scientific and philosophic challenge for a more precise understanding of life by declaring the problem as grammatical, since “one cannot control the reality by quibbling over the use of a word.” (Harrison, 225).

The concept of time is like Pandora’s Box. It is related with many other difficult concepts. W. H. Newton-Smith, in his book The Structure of Time, expresses this philosophical difficulty under the title “The Intractability of Time.” I enjoyed that passage so much so that I will quote all of it:

“In answer to a question of the form ‘what is X?’ it is sometimes appropriate to point to examples or instances of X. In other cases it is appropriate to offer a definition or verbal equivalent of ‘X’. But all verbal explanations, from the Oxford Dictionary’s explanation of time as ‘duration, continued existence’ to Aristotle’s explanation of time as ‘the number of motion with respect to earlier and later’ strike us as distinctly unsatisfactory. For even granting their truth their circularity offends. This is perhaps the crux of our difficulties. For time is not just an abstract beast but also it is a most promiscuous beast who regularly couples with equally elusive partners. Prima facie there are links between the concept of time and a host of other concepts including the following: motion, space, causality, change, entropy, human action, consciousness. Each of these concepts is in need of philosophical treatment and each requires reference to time in its elucidation. Thus, enlightening as it may be to explore the links between the concept of time and these other concepts, we are unlikely to arrive at some unique, non-circular, meaning-preserving analysis of the concept of time in terms of some other concept or complex of concepts. Time is just too basic to our entire conceptual framework to be captured in this way.” (Newton-Smith, 3-4)

Newton-Smith, therefore, concludes that the philosophy alone is not capable of investigating the structure of time. He asserts that an entirely a priori investigation is inadequate, and inappropriate for understanding the time, since it is an empirical matter. I do strongly agree with him that any serious philosophical study of time must include discussions of the theories of Quantum Mechanics, Special and General Relativity, etc. In this short paper we cannot have such a comprehensive investigation. Here we are dealing with Wittgensteinian philosophers who try to imprison the investigation of time within the limit of language alone.

Pain and Time

What is pain? If we expect to find a substance called “pain,” then, surely we are confused by our language. It is a mental state, a subjective feeling. Though it might be impossible to invent a device called pain-meter, yet the CAT scan picture of brain activity may help us in identifying the existence and density of pain. Here we don’t really measure the density of pain, but the density of brain activity perceived as pain. We can define pain as an undesirable mental perception caused by external disturbances. Pain is a by-product or an event which has cause and consequence.

What about time? Is it also an event, or a mental state which has cause and consequence? Or, is it an enigmatic dimension where (when?) events happens. Can we observe time like we observe pain? Can we locate time as we can locate pain? Is time omnipresent? Do we observe the traces (changes) left behind by time, or do we observe the traces (changes) left behind by previous changes and call them time? Of course, these are not grammatical questions; but philosophical questions. It needs a philosophical argument if we want to reduce time to our perception of internal and external changes.

Measuring the time

As for the measurement of time… If there is a possibility of the existence of temporal vacua, then we can measure time in terms of changes in state of an object relative to other objects. We can do this, merely by reducing time into “change.” However, if time is a necessary component of the world, if it is a substance, then we have big problem regarding its identity and measure. We measure distance with distance (meter, inch, mile, etc.) , weight with weight (kilogram, ounce, ton, etc.) , volume with volume (liter, cup, centimeter cube). However, we cannot measure time with time, unless we reduce it to “change” or something else that we could comprehend.

Again what is time?

In order to answer this question, first, we should distinguish the change or motion of external things in space (conventional measure of time) from our mental perception of internal and external changes. It is the later one which creates the sense of time. We use the motion of heavenly bodies or clock in order for convenience and convention. Again, it is not the motion of bodies, or time-space interaction that is puzzling us, but it is the our mental state, our perception of time that is puzzling us.

“All (some) propositions about time or about the temporal aspects of things are such that they would be false in any world devoid of conscious beings. The thesis that this is so might be referred to as the thesis of the total (partial) mind-dependence of time.” (Newton-Smith, 12).

We all have a feeling of “time” that we cannot reduce to a mere change. Since it is our perception of change. It is the by-product of interaction of neurons in our brain. We can still feel the flow of time in a dark room with our ear and eyes closed. It is a neurophysiological or a neuropsycological event. In general, we have a good experience how to relate those neural interaction with interactions taking place in external world. In small discrepancies we rely on external changes. For instance, while sleeping, our perception of neuronal activity (time) slows down, probably because of slow interaction of dendrites, or because the center of metacognition (if there is such a center) is in resting mode. But, when we wake up we prefer to accept the movement of the sun as the criterion for time. This is entirely for practical purposes. We need to synchronize our internal movements with external movements in our daily life.

If everything stood still, then there could not have been time. If you have problem in accepting this, it is because you cannot freeze your mind (neural activity) while thinking on a totally still universe. Obviously, everything cannot stand still if you are still alive and thinking.

Since the speed of light is constant, anything moving in speed of light cannot have internal movements. This will cause the perception of timelessness. In fact, there cannot be “perception” of timelessness at all, since perception is a function of life, a neurobiological process. It is just timelessness. Unperceived timelessness, but predicted. Therefore, we cannot imagine timelessness in speed of light. P.C.W. Davies, a mathematician in King’s College, London, supports the same conclusion: “For this reason it is sometimes said that a light beam experiences no time at all to travel any distance, however large.” (Davies, 39).

According to this understanding we can only go back in time if we can reverse the movements of all atoms (including the atoms in our brain) exactly in the same order. In other words, if we could repeat the exact spatial relation and coordination of all atoms in a particular point in history we could have a temporal jump or reverse the direction of time.

Indeed, by opening back the files of our memory we can repeat the same neural activity in a certain degree and remember previous changes, that is time. Since, we can only refer to previous internal neural changes, we cannot have a real sense of time travel. During this recollection we may feel younger. But, if we could manage to reverse the changes occurred in our entire cellular structure, then, we could become younger. If we could reverse the change that occurred in and on things surrounding us, then we could manage to go back and live the past with those bodies regressed with us. The impossibility of this case keeps the time-travel as a mere fantasy.

I believe that there is no absolute reality of time. Time, independent of human mind is just succession of events or changes. In human mind, however, it is the perception of both internal and external events or changes. Like our feelings and thoughts, time is a product of our brain. It may be just a by-product. I agree with Kant’s description of time in terms of subjective condition of our intuition:

“. . . we regard time as merely the subjective condition under which all our intuitions take place. . . Time is therefore merely a subjective condition of our (human) intuition, (which is always sensuous, that is, so far as we are affected by objects), and in itself, independently of the mind or subject, is nothing. . . we deny to time all claim to absolute reality. . “. (Kant, 252-253)

In short, the puzzle of time is not caused by our language, but by our natural mental-state. The question “what is time” is more puzzling than the question “what is pain” or “what is love,” since time is a continuous feeling. It is a background noise. We feel it all the time. How interesting that I am compelled to use “time” to describe “time.” Unfortunately, when we don’t feel the flow of time, as in state of unconsciousness or in deep sleep, we cannot taste and savor that feeling. This is the fate of Homo-Sapiens who cannot think with a frozen brain.

PS: Written in 1999 for a grad level philosophy course taught by Professor Ralph Shane who introduced me to Wittgenstein.

Works Cited

Bahm, Archie J. Metaphysics: An Introduction, World Books, Albuquerque, 1974.

Bouwsma, O.K. Philosophical Essays, The Mystery of Time, University of Nebrasca Press, Lincoln, 1965.

Davies, P.C. W. Davies, Space and Time in The Modern Universe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977.

Findlay, J.N. Wittgenstein: a Critique, Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston, 1984.

Harrison, Jonathan. Dr. Who and the Philosophers, Puzzles, Paradoxes, and  Problems, Edited by Peter A. French and Curtis Brown, St. MartinÕs Press, New York, 1987. 222-230.

Kant, Immanual. Of Time.  Puzzles, Paradoxes, and Problems, Edited by Peter A. French and Curtis Brown, St. MartinÕs Press, New York, 1987. 251-254.

Newton-Smith, W. H. The Structure of Time, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1980.

Suter, Ronald. Interpreting Wittgenstein: A Cloud of Philosophy, a Drop of Grammar, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1989.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. The Blue and Brown Books, Herper Torchbooks, New York, 1993.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations, translated by G.E.M. Anscombe, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1968. . .

 

Share

Descartes vs. Berkeley: On the Two Corners of the Triangle

Share

Descartes vs. Berkeley

On the Two Corners of the Triangle

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

Mind, body and God! This is a Bermuda Triangle which philosophers have been struggling with for centuries. They have demonstrated positions ranging on all possible combinations and permutations: All three exist… Only mind exists… Mind and body exist, while God is created by our mind… Body is the essence and mind is a function of the body… Only universal spirit, that is God, exists… Mind is the first… No, body is the first… Neither, God is the first… So on so forth… Here we will demonstrate, compare and contrast the opinions of Descartes and Berkeley on the interaction and relation between the two corners of the triangle: Mind and God.

Descartes

Descartes, by employing his unique method of extreme doubt tried to find a fundamental truth, knowledge that he could be certain about. As a result he was sure that he, as a doubting thinker, must exist. This simple claim was a revolutionary armor against extreme skepticism. Here, he does not try to prove to others that he (Descartes, as a mind) exists. But he forces the extreme skeptics to acknowledge their own existence as an unavoidable consequence of their very doubt.

Ironically, we see this extremely cautious Descartes embracing the other two questioned concept that is God and body. He uses the rock-solid knowledge about his mental existence as a proof for the existence of God, and then uses the existence of God as a proof for the existence of physical world, or body.

He suggests two reasons for the existence of God.

1. Though, he proves the existence of self, yet, he cannot accept this doubting finite self to be the guarantor of its own existence. Therefore, his existence needs a Creator. This Creator should be a Conserver too, since the continuity of created beings needs the continuity of the initiating power.

2. He claims that having the idea of “Infinite Perfect Being” requires the independent existence of that idea. To him, having the idea of infinity without witnessing such a thing implies the existence of God. Since finite self cannot generate the idea of infinite being, the idea must come from somewhere, from Infinite Being himself.

Then, he introduces God as a reliable warrant for our ideas about the external world or body. “If God is perfect, which he is, then our ideas must be clear and distinct. God won’t deceive us while we are trying our best.” Descartes thought that God created material substance with geometric properties. Thus, in Cartesian doctrine, the sequence of proving the existence of three independently existing being (substances) is: mind, God and body, respectively. To Descartes, the existence of body can be proven only by accepting the existence of an Infinite and Perfect Being. Only God can eliminate the probability of sensory illusions or evil demons. In Descartes’ own words:

“From this it is quite clear that, notwithstanding the supreme goodness of God, the nature of man, inasmuch as it is composed of mind and body, cannot be otherwise than sometimes a source of deception.” (A History of Wester Filosophy, W. T. Jones, H.B.J, 1980, Vol: 3, p. 185).

Furthermore, for Descartes, God is the only solution for the problem of interaction between the two substances (mind and body) which do not have overlapping properties.

The problems:

1. If Descartes had stayed loyal to his method which enables him to reach absolute certainty he could not have gone beyond proving his self-existence. He uses reasoning to prove the existence of God, which in turn, knocks-out the evil demons. However, the evil demons won’t let this to happen if Descartes had granted them the credit which they deserve by his own definition. The evil demons may have had worked on Descartes’ mind which led him to think of the existence of an Infinite and Perfect Being.

In other words, in order to have a clear and distinct idea he needs the existence of the Perfect Being. However, the idea of this “need” by itself is questionable. He rests the clarity of his ideas on God, but before that, he rests God on those ideas. He “proves” the existence of God with suspected ideas. This is a circular argument.

2. Gaunilon’s objection based on the example of perfect island (Lost Island) indicates another problem with Descartes’ proof of God’s existence which is based on the existence of the idea of Infinite Perfect Being in our mind. We can entertain the idea of many things which do not exist in reality. Greek gods and goddesses are good examples.

However, a counter argument can be suggested: Those fictitious ideas exist in parts. For instance Pan, the Greek god who is pictured as half man half goat, in fact, exists in parts. Man and goat exist separately. Similarly, the parts that create the all perfect island exist in reality. Perfection also exists as an independent concept of quality. The composition of parts (the all perfect island) may not exist, however, its each individual part or concept must exist. We cannot think of non-existing parts nor concepts. Our mind can only arrange them in different combinations.

God is not consisted of parts like the “Lost Island”. God is the equivalent of the concept of “Infinite Being”, which is one substance. If we can think of the existence of that indivisible substance, then it must exist as a whole. Therefore, the “Lost Island” is not analogous to “God”.

3. Hobbes objects to Descartes by saying that we don’t have the concept of infinity, or perfection, or God. We cannot comprehend their implied meanings. They are meaningless words.

However, this objection is also can be countered by the following argument: Your inability to comprehend infinity or perfection does not necessarily mean that such a concept does not exist. When you say that you are not able to comprehend the meaning of infinity, in fact, by this very statement you acknowledge that you understand the implication of the word (its meaning), and also understand that you are not able to comprehend it with your three-pound brain. In other words, you can understand the “infinity” as the antonym of finite, not as the extremely extended finite. As a matter of fact, many of us do not comprehend many things but accept their existence, such as TV, computer etc. The concept of “infinity” is not like “ojofuffo”. You know the meaning of infinity but you cannot comprehend it. But, you neither know the meaning of “ojofuffo”, nor you can comprehend it. Whenever you assign a meaning to “ojofuffo”, you relate it to an already existing concept, and it comes into the universe of existence.

4. Descartes, by claiming that mind and body owe God their existence, disqualifies both from being substances, since by definition, substances are independent for their existence. Hence, when mind and body are fired from being substances they become integrated with God. Obviously, this leads to pantheism which contradicts the Judeo-Christian concept of sin and the responsibility of human beings.

Berkeley

Berkeley, like Descartes, tries to avoid skepticism. He wants to attain certainty. Thus, he adopts Descartes’ “cogito.” Berkeley argues that sensible properties are the property of the mind, not objects. He does not accept two different notions of properties as Descartes suggested. According to Descartes every substance has two kinds of properties. Primary: the essence of existence, such as the geometric shape of objects, velocity, position. Secondary: sensory properties, such as colors. When Berkeley examined his perception of things he came to the conclusion that whatever information he has all are secondary properties, which are functions of his mind. Thus, Berkeley rejects the existence of primary qualities, in other words, the existence of physical world as a substance. To him, mind is the only substance, and ideas are attributes of mind which develops through personal experience. He cleverly, reduces the matter to mere noise.

“Now, why may we not as well argue that figure and extension are not patterns or resemblances of qualities existing in Matter; because to the same eye at different stations, or eyes of a different texture at the same station, they appear various, and cannot therefore be the images of anything settled and determinate without the mind?” (Ibid, Vol: 3, p. 282).

Instead of the word “matter” he suggests “sensible things,” which he defines as collection of sensible qualities which are immediately perceived. There is no such a thing mind-independent objects.

However, Berkeley is compelled to make an exception in his mind-independency principle. He needs God as the cause of orderly and regular but “visibly inactive” ideas he has. He thinks that “matter” as an empty word cannot be the cause of ideas. By eliminating “matter” from the triangle he departs from Cartesian doctrine. This difference saves Berkeley from the problem regarding the interaction between mind and body.

Both, Descartes and Berkeley, insert the concept of God into their argument by introducing God as the CAUSE of our ideas. But, they differ dramatically. According to Descartes, God is the only possible cause of the IDEA OF GOD. Matter is the cause of other ideas. God, in this case, is a controller against complete deception.  But, according to Berkeley’s original doctrine, God is the only possible cause of ALL IDEAS.

“If we attentively consider the constant regularity, order, and concatenation of natural things, the surprising magnificence, beauty and perfection of . . . I say if we consider all these things, and at the same time attend to the meaning and import of the attributes One, Eternal, Infinitely Wise, Good, and Perfect, we shall clearly perceive that they belong to the aforesaid Spirit, ‘who works all in all’ and “by whom all things consist.” (Ibid, Vol:3, p. 291).

Though Berkeley claims that “being is to be perceived”, he does not claim that sensible things vanishes when he does not perceive them. He asserts that the collections of sensible things are always in God’s mind so they do not cease to exist when he does not perceive them. God has the correct information of sensible things. To him, God as a Divine Mind is the source of our ideas and of perpetual existence of sensible things.

Problems:

1. I would like to ask Berkeley the following question: When you close your eyes you don’t see. Do you close an idea when you close your eyelids, or do you eliminate a material medium? His answer would be: “My eyes are sensible properties; they are tactile perceptions in my mind. I don’t have material eyes. Closing my eyes is a mental decision which has its unique mental consequences.” Obviously, this is a good answer.

Now, let’s modify my question: How do you explain if “I” close your eyes with my hands while you are not aware of it? Am I interfering your mind or closing your material eyes? Berkeley would deny my existence by saying that his mind randomly shuts down some of his sensory perceptions. But, if I show him that “I” can predict these random mental events he will probably claim that the prediction is a marvelous product of his own mental activity.

It seems that it is impossible to prove to Berkeley that I exist. But I will be entitled the right to reject his doctrine, since I have no doubt that I exist. Ironically, my conviction about my existence is based on the same formula: cogito!

2. Berkeley, while trying to avoid the materialistic relativism (which he calls skepticism), he ends up with perceptual relativism. Therefore, his denial of external world does not provide him with certainty. According to his doctrine, all sensible qualities depend on personal perspective. Thus, the idea of God as casual notion is the result of Berkeley’s personal perception, which does not warrant the independent existence of the perceived (God).

However, Berkeley never claims that he perceives God. On the contrary, he acknowledges that he has no idea of God or any other spirit. It is incredible, then, to understand why he denies the existence of physical world despite his numerous perceptions about it, and accepts the existence of God even without any ideas having about him? His defense, by creating “notions” besides his key word “ideas” is not satisfactory.

3. Berkeley’s argument on the relation between heat and pleasure-pain is not “very ingenious” as claimed by W. T. Jones (J. 283, lll). He argues that any “material substance” which contains heat cannot perceive its own heat, since it is senseless. Heat can only be perceived by us. Thus, he tries to isolate this and all other sensory properties from the “matter”, which ultimately reduces it to an empty concept. Here is the problem with his argument: First, contrary to his assertion, matter can perceive the heat. For instance, water shows its perception by freezing and boiling activities. Metal expands or shrink. However, there is a difference between our expression of perception: while water reacts to heat by boiling we react by screaming. Second, Berkeley cannot prove that water is senseless, that is, not aware of its perception of fire.

Berkeley seems senseless towards the countless “perceiving” objects around him. Thus, he creates the notion of Divine Spirit in order to cover his insensitivity.

Share

Popper’s Theory of Epistemology

Share

Popper’s theory of epistemology: 

a perpetual falsifiable journey towards truth

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

Though Popper did not believe in the possibility of attaining the ultimate truth, he was not a skeptic. To him, we can expand our understanding and grow our knowledge. He suggested an idiosyncratic criterion to distinguish scientific knowledge from other source of knowledge: FALSIFIABILITY. A scientific hypothesis must provide a logical possibility to be refuted by a probable true observation statement. Therefore, according to Popper, falsifiability is a required characteristic for a scientific theory. Science evolves by shedding its falsified theories. Popper’s falsification model is similar to the notion of “natural selection”. The best theory survives.

 

He suggested two qualities as a virtue of good scientific theory:

    1. A good (useful, not necessarily true!) theory is a great challenger. It is intrinsically open to all kind of examinations. The broader the range of the claim the better is the theory, since wide-ranging claims are highly falsifiable. The life-span of the theory against the attack of falsificationists is not relevant for determining its quality.
    2. A good theory is clear and precise. It does not hide behind vague expressions, or it does not act as a double-dealer. Indeed, the less a theory shows this quality the less information it provides.

Falsificationism encourages all kind of speculative theories, as long as they are stated clearly and precisely. The inadequate or the unfitting ones will be tossed away by examinations. A scientific theory can never be said that it is true, but it can be said that it is closer to the truth than its predecessors.  Confirmation is not considered as a valid method, any observational statement whether be singular or general, cannot be true, but may be better than previous ones. Falsificationists do not accept general or singular “laws”. Here is a dramatic example: According to Popper, the statement, “Planets rotate around the sun” still should be considered ” a surviving theory” waiting to be falsified.

Let’s evaluate the following examples according to Popper’s theory of epistemology:

  • Whoever smokes over 17 cigarettes per day, will die within 7 days. (A good theory).
  • All the philosophy instructors in UA are male. (A good theory, but not better than the previous example)
  • Most of the philosophy instructors in UA are crazy. (A bad theory, “most” and “crazy are vague, thus, difficult to falsify it)
  • Speed of light is about 300,000 km/sec. (A good theory)
  • Speed of light is 299,000 km/sec. (A good theory, better than the previous one)
  • The existence of ghosts is a probability bouncing between one out of googoplex to hundred percent. (A bad theory; vague and non-falsifiable)
  • If you have faith in me without any doubt in your heart, you won’t have any problem. (A bad theory; vague and non-falsifiable).
  • English is better than French. (A bad theory; vague and non-falsifiable)

AND

  • Popper’s theory of falsification is better than Inductivism. (A bad theory; vague and non-falsifiable!).

 

PS: This paper was written in 1992-1993 while studying philosophy at the University of Arizona

Share

Existentialism Versus Coexistentialism

Share

Existentialism Versus Coexistentialism

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

 

(Quotations are from Paul Moser’s book, Contemporary Approaches to Philosophy, which reprints from Existentialism and Human Emotions, trans. Bernard Frechtman, pp. 12-40. New York: Philosophical Library, 1957.)

Jean-Paul Sartre version of atheistic existentialism which can be summarized with his own words as “existence precedes essence” may appeal many.  Here when we refer to existentialism we will be referring to this version. Sartre explains this starting point clearly:

What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that, first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and only afterwards, defines himself. If man, as the existentialist conceives him, is indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human nature, since there is no God to conceive it. Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence (327).

Sartre’s Atheistic Existentialism is a reaction against atheistic or religious absolutism. Atheistic Existentialism as an answer for the basic problems of morality has serious flaws and shortcomings which we can list under seven titles:

  1. It is built on two presuppositions, or “IF”s. IF there is no God, AND IF we have free will . . .
  2. The combination of the two “IF” statements are a very difficult position to defend. Non existence of God, does not necessarily bring the freedom for man. Indeed, defending free will becomes more difficult without the master paradox-solver, i.e., God.
  3. “Being condemned to be free” is a paradoxical statement.
  4. The principle, “Existence precedes essence” is self-contradictory or meaningless.
  5. If we have genetic and statistical information about the material conditions we can usually predict the behavior of an individual. The same prediction can be made for a certain population. Thus, even if we have freedom it is restricted.
  6. Moral values are not created by free individuals, but by mutual and complicated interaction among interdependent individuals.
  7. Atheistic Existentialism promotes arrogance which may deprive individuals from enormous useful experiences of previous generations.

I will briefly discuss the first five points and then focus on number six followed by a closing argument on number seven.

1. Presuppositions

Sartre assumes that God does not exist: “. . . if God does not exist, we find no values or commands to turn to which legitimize our conduct. So, in the bright realm of values, we, have no excuse behind us, nor justification before us. We are alone, with no excuses” (330). Sartre also takes the freedom of man for granted and establishes his philosophy on it. He expresses this assumption with a picturesque statement: “. . . man is condemned to be free. Condemned, because he did not create himself, yet, in other respects is free; because, once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does” (330).

Atheistic existentialism can be questioned without arguing existentialism at all. One can dismiss it by arguing the probability of God’s existence, and/or the impossibility of having free will in a deterministic material universe. Atheistic existentialism, therefore, is built on two controversial foundations. Nevertheless, still there will be some who are already convinced that they can hurl God into the realm of nonexistence with their free will. In sum, Sartre’s philosophy appeals to those atheists who believe in free will. (Did Sartre ever provide substantial arguments for free will in his books? Do you know Marga? If he did, then I have to change the title of this section to “preconditions”)

2. The difficult combination

It is easy to accept “free will” after believing the existence of immaterial mind or the Master Paradox Solver, that is, God. Without believing in God or in metaphysical self, our brain, the candidate for “free will” miracle, comes across great difficulties in accepting of its free will. Recent finding of quantum mechanics that challenges our deterministic commonsense is open to speculations and is far away to put period for the debate on free will.

Even if we are convinced that we have free will, still it does not mean that we are entirely free. Sartre appears to believe that every individual is absolutely free to create himself by creating his history and choosing his future.

3. The paradox of “being condemned to be free”

Our three-pound brain stumbles on Sartre’s elegant assertion that is “man is condemned to be free.” Our brain will wonder: “How can I have free will? Did I decide that I will have free will with my free will? Or am I condemned (in other words, determined) to have free will without ‘my’ free will? If I did not create myself, and if there is no the Master Paradox Solver Creator, then, I could not possibly have chosen whether to have free will or not having it. If I am born with free will, then, can I reject this forcibly imposed freedom  by my free will? If I can’t, then I don’t have free will in absolute sense. If I can then every moment I insist in rejecting to have free will I will be using my free will. Therefore, I don’t think I have free will at all, because I am condemned to be free as long as I live.”

4. Existence without essence?!

“Existence precedes essence” means that the original seed of existence does not have any essence. How can it be? We assume that Sartre is using the conventional language. Essence means “the true nature or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.” If a newborn human baby does not have any essence then it is no different from a newborn monkey or snake or frog. If it is different than the new born must have an essence that will lead him/her to invent the probable combination of his/her future stages. Why a toad “is condemned every moment to invent” frog, but not man? Similarly, why a baby is condemned every moment to invent man, but not frog?

Atheistic Existentialists should provide answer for another simple question. How can a being without any essence will be able to invent his/her future? Isn’t “to be able to invent certain things” is a great essence by itself? Furthermore, when does a “man” start inventing his/her future freely? In the first month, or first year, or teenage years, or later?

5. Genetic, social, economic, environmental conditions limit freedom

The above and similar questions suggest that, “Nothing can come out of nothing.” An “existence” deprived of essence is equal to non-existence. Sartre could not have possibly become “Sartre the philosopher” if he was born as a retarded child.

He could not have probably become the same man if he was born in Rwanda as the ninth son of illiterate parents struggling for survival. Why western men have more freedom to get patents for more than the 90% of all inventions?

6. The source of moral values

Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a plane where there are only men. Dostoyevsky said, “If God didn’t exist, everything would be possible.” That is the very starting point of existentialism. Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. He can’t start making excuses for himself (330).

I don’t agree with Sartre’s reasoning that if God does not exist there cannot be a priori values to abide by. I believe that there are certain a priori or universal values that transcends individual’s wishes and free will.

When he says “We are alone” does he mean as individuals, or as communities? It appears that he believes that the source of values is individuals and the average of the sum creates the values of mankind. Therefore, he claims that each of us contributes to the shape of mankind: “Therefore, I am responsible for myself and for everyone else. I am creating a certain image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man” (328).

But, the reality is the other way around. Moral values are not made up by individuals and their moral values do not create human values by jumbling and mixing with each other. Powerful individuals can create autocratic laws which I consider them to be different from the notion of “moral values.” Certain value, whether they are articulated by individuals such as secular philosophers and democratic rule makers, or are demanded by human societies, basically comes from one thing: human interaction and cooperation.

This is the main point that I disagree with Sartre: It is not independent individuals that make up values. Values are the essential rules that emerge or are discovered throughout human experience and forced on individuals. Individuals who prefer to live together with others adopt or discover those natural rules voluntarily or involuntarily, intentionally or unintentionally. Some individuals willingly adopt those values and assume them as a trade, as a compromise between their freedom and well-being of others. Some may feel obligation to do so for the sake of being accepted by the society.

For instance, the badness of “unjustified” killing, lying, stealing or the goodness of helping others, honesty, and trustworthiness are universal. They are essential values in every human society. The very nature of human society requires or creates those values. It is a contradiction to decide to co-operate and decide to cheat each other or kill each other. Interdependent lives of individuals label this contradiction as immoral.

Can you imagine an island inhabited by a community of free psychopath serial killers who don’t consider killing immoral? (In my aquarium I cannot have more than one fighting fish!) Can you imagine a community of thieves who continue stealing from each other? (Prisoner thieves punish stealing in their wards!) Can you imagine a community of professional liars who continuously lie to each other? (Congress members consider lying to each other immoral!) Therefore, universal moral values are logical consequence of human societies and in this regard are a priori principles.

Besides, even if an individual prefers to live alone in an island, still he will be forced to adopt certain values in order to survive. For instance, he cannot burn all the trees or cannot kill the limited number of animals for entertainment. He knows that he has to adopt certain values in order to be happy.

Therefore, intelligent individuals are not absolutely free; they know or discover the universal moral principles in order to avoid punishment and increase reward. An atheistic moral philosophy will be more realistic if it is based on the happiness of individuals; not on the limitless freedom of individuals.

Here, I would like to congratulate Sartre in his great question regarding the origin of religious moral principles: “If a voice addresses me, it is always for me to decide that this is the angel’s voice; if I consider that such an act is a good one, it is I who will choose to say that it is good rather than bad” (329). If you accept divine revelation as the source of moral values, and if you establish its authenticity by saying that “because it advocates goodness” then you have a circular reasoning. You are the ultimate decision maker on what is good and what is evil. However, the theist can respond Sartre in a different way: “I believe in divine revelation, not because I think it advocates what I consider to be good, but because it has a unique objective aspect which I think is distinguishable from human artifacts. As for moral values, the Supreme Creator blessed us with enough intelligence to distinguish badness from goodness. The divine revelation is only a reminder. It may also guide us to discover some complicated facts regarding goodness or badness in the interaction of things. Believing in God creates extra motivation to be in harmony with nature.”

Sartre challenges Christian doctrine and the Kantian ethics regarding the dilemma of the young boy who cannot make his mind whether to remain with his dependent mother, or help the country. “Which does the greater good, the vague act of fighting in a group, or the concrete one of helping a particular human being to go on living? Who can decide a priori? Nobody” (331). Ironically, Sartre is accepting an a priori “greater good”: helping others. He does not question this value by suggesting a third option: choosing himself by betraying both his mother and country.

7. Re-inventing the wheel by promoting the rule of “no rule, no consultation”  

Sartre, regarding the young boy who found himself in a moral dilemma says: “Therefore, in coming to see me he knew the answer I was going to give him, and I had only one answer to give: “You’re free, choose, that is, invent” (332). Sartre, by abstaining from giving advice reminds me of Ariston, the Greek intuitionist, who rejected the usefulness of moral rules. Ariston rejected moral rules for several reasons. After reading the following summary you may ask: was Sartre a re-incarnated Ariston?

According to Ariston, rules are not limited and not exact. For instance, the rule “don’t tell lie” is not practical since it does not provide the exceptional cases. Detailing all the exceptional cases without any exception is not possible. Therefore, in order to act virtuously in all situations, understanding is necessary. A moral person knows the principles of morality and creates his own rules on particular occasions with understanding, and rules become limitless and exact. (Compare to Sartre’s challenge regarding the dilemma of young boy, in page 331.)

Ariston asserted that if you are not virtuous rules are useless, since they don’t give you the insight for “why” to do. If you are virtuous, again rules are futile, since the virtuous person is equipped with the formulation of final good, or the principles of philosophy which enables him how to act in particular situations. (Compare to Sartre’s hypothetical answer to that young boy in page 332.)

I would like to quote myself here. I had written a paper on Ariston’s anti-rule position. It seems that it is appropriate to quote two paragraphs from my criticism of Ariston as a response to Atheistic Existentialism:

Rediscovering rules is not reasonable. The principles of philosophy are universal. In fact, some rules have become universal throughout thousands-year long human experience, such as respecting parents, taking care of children, not stealing, etc. However, some rules can slightly vary according to the elements of societies. Therefore, a virtuous person who “prefers” to live in a certain society cannot find the appropriate rules without violating them or without learning them. It is very painful and time consuming to learn the rules by violating them one by one. Also it is not virtuous to expect the society to tolerate and bear with the wiseacre virtuous re-discoverers.

Violation of some rules may have some fatal consequences on society and on individuals as well. For instance, having unlimited sexual intercourse with multiple partners without protection can create many unwanted children and spread sexual diseases. A young pupil who wants to be virtuous should not be advised to find the appropriate rules based on his immature philosophy. Until he learns the nature he may destroy himself and others. Obviously, our reasoning commands us to find the appropriate rules through the best method. A method that eventually leads a person to eliminate some of the unreasonable and unnatural rules knowingly should be preferred to the one that jeopardizes the well-being of society and individuals. The former method is less risky and less regretful. Indeed, the collective reasoning of generations can be perfected in optimum way by natural selection, not by a default wholesale rejection of their moral rules.

The paradox of dignity!

Atheistic Existentialism ignores God and universal moral principles in order to provide humans with freedom and dignity. Sartre is certain that “this theory is the only one which gives man dignity, the only one which does not reduce him to an object” (335). Ironically, according the same theory, those who reject this theory also have the same amount of dignity and subjectivity. Some of those humans believe in certain universal moral principles and/or the existence of God with their free will. In other words, they have discovered or created God to invent themselves. They can claim that “we chose God, because we can never choose evil. We always choose the good, and nothing can be good for us without being good for all” (328).

 

PS: This paper was written in 1992 for Phil 111 taught by Prof. Marga Reimer at the University of Arizona

Share

The Kangaroo Debate: Can Statements about God be Meaningful?

Share

The Kangaroo Debate: Can Statements About God Be Meaningful?

Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

Hindus believe that he is incarnated in many human beings. Christians pontificate that he has multiple personalities, one of them being sacrificed for humanity. Jews assert that he is Jehovah. Muslims claim that he is Allah. Many question his gender. Millions die for him, millions fight for him, millions cry for him. Clergymen use his name as a trademark for their business, and the very same name motivates many devotees to give away their belongings as charity. Many joyfully sing songs for his love, and others outrageously declare dialectic or scientific wars against him. Some even wrote epitaphs for him.

Volume upon volume of books are published for and against him. Big lies are attributed to him while scientific hoaxes are arranged to deny him. He is in the courts, He is on the money, He is in the schools, He is in the mind of saints and in the mouth of hypocrites. Yes, He is everywhere. And yet, philosophers continuously question his existence. In fact, world religions, with numerous versions of odd gods, have not helped philosophers prove his existence. On the contrary, they have created further intellectual problems and logical obstacles for questioning minds who try to reach him.

Here I will not try to convince you about the existence of this most controversial concept, nor I will try to expose the mass corruption and intellectual bankruptcy  of organized religions. But I will argue that the claims about God are meaningful and it is logically possible that a metaphysical First Cause exists. While the agnostic position “I do not know whether God exist” is sound, the atheistic position “God cannot exist” is absurd and its absurdity is self-evident. (By the way, I don’t believe that the existence of God is self-evident for every person). Eric Raunic, the president of Arizona Student Atheists, in his reply to Keisling confused atheism with agnosticism and likened God to an invisible kangaroo. “You must believe in the invisible, incorporeal kangaroo that lives in your house. Not only is it self-evident that this kangaroo exists, but you will reap great rewards if you simply believe in it. These rewards are immediately intangible, yet they are there. Do you believe in my kangaroo, Mr. Keisling? I suspect not.” (“Unreasonable Reason,” Wildcat, Oct. 6, 1995)

Since modern atheism frequently employs the arguments of logical positivists, as it is the case in Mr. Raunic’s amusing kangaroo argument, I will argue that metaphysical prepositions can be as meaningful as empirical ones.

“God is Great, God is Most Merciful, God is the First Cause. . . “ Do these statements about God make any sense? According to logical positivists, these kinds of statements are meaningless if God is defined as a metaphysical reality, since there is not a sensible definition for the term “metaphysical reality.” On the other hand, metaphysicists claim that though the finite human intellect is inadequate to describe God, we can have analogical knowledge of God, and therefore metaphysical propositions can be meaningful.

According to logical positivists the metaphysical proposition “God exists” is meaningless for three reasons: 1. It is a self-contradictory statement. 2. If it is verifiable then it cannot be a metaphysical reality. 3. Metaphysics, by definition cannot be verified.

Let’s argue each of these “reasons.”

CLAIM: The statement “God exist” is self-contradictory.

If the existence of the world demands a causal conclusion that God exists, then it is a self-contradictory statement. If the existence of God is an answer to the question “why this world exists?” then the answer is merely a general description or explanation, since in this context the “why” is equivalent of “how.” Thus, presenting “God” as a non-description but also an ultimate description is a self-contradiction.

ANSWER: Not only metaphysical explanations but all scientific explanations are ultimately based on “self-contradictory” propositions.

If we ask a chain of succeeding “why” or “how” questions on any scientific event or phenomena we will end up with so-called “self-contradictory” explanations. Both in micro and macro cosmos, both in space and time . .  Our questions either will drag us to the last discovered atomic sub-particles, or to the beginning of Big Bang. In the former case our explanatory answer, for instance “quark,” cannot be explained in terms of another particle. In the later case, our questions will push us to an impasse, for instance “singularity” or nothingness. Therefore, whichever direction we go we will end up with an inexplicable explanation! If we don’t  resort to mighty “infinite regressions” in each case, then we will always will base all our scientific explanations on “inexplicable explanations.”

All our empirical statements ultimately rely on “self-contradictory” propositions. Then it is a double standard to label metaphysical statements as the only “self-contradictory” propositions.

CLAIM: If it is verifiable, then it cannot be a metaphysical reality.

According to logical positivist, if you claim that  “God exist” while defining God as a metaphysical reality then  you must mean that we cannot have any verifiable empirical evidence for the truth of this proposition. But if you claim that we have some empirical evidence, then your so-called “metaphysical reality” becomes a physical reality. Religious experiences cannot be evidence for the existence of a “metaphysical reality,” but only of a “psychological reality.”

ANSWER: A reality can be metaphysical (independent of physics or nature) and also verifiable.

Religious experiences do not prove that God exists. However, it is not necessary for God to be a physical reality in order to communicate with people. If God is a personal metaphysical reality, then, He could communicate with human beings. Doing so does not make Him non-metaphysical reality.

There is not any formal or empirical principle that can reject the possibility of having or developing a kind of “mystical sense” that can enable some people to experience or understand metaphysical phenomena. Besides, a metaphysical reality needs not to be considered as a physical reality in order to be granted the capability of communication with our five senses.

For instance, scientists claim that magnets have magnetic fields. If you put a metallic “material,” such  as a paper clip in the magnetic field it will experience an external attraction. This is a verifiable empirical fact. If you put a non-metallic “material,” such as a rubber eraser in the magnetic field it will not experience such an attraction. This is also a verifiable empirical fact. Curiously, the magnetic field itself is not a material thing, yet it can create a material experience.

In fact, we have no idea what really “magnetic field” is. Magnetic field is a mystery. (Another example of inexplicable explanation!) Yet, we not only think that it is meaningful to claim that “magnetic field exists,” but we also think that it really exists.

If a non-material reality (magnetic field) can be verified by material experience, then why a metaphysical reality (God) cannot be verified by physical or mental experience? It is entirely two different questions whether “God” is a metaphysical reality or the proposition “God exists” is a metaphysical proposition. “God exists” can be an empirical proposition while the subject of the proposition “God” can still remain as a metaphysical reality.

CLAIM: “Metaphysics,” by definition, is not verifiable by our senses, and therefore it is meaningless or  unintelligible.

Logical positivist claims that “metaphysics” does not contain any information that relates to our senses or to some possible experiences. You cannot test them and you cannot provide any criterion to show whether they are true or false.

ANSWER: Even if “metaphysical realities” are not verifiable by our senses they can be verified by intellectual intuition.

Here I will quote Copleston’s response to Ayer on this issue:

“I still find it difficult to understand the status of the principle of verification. It is either a proposition or no proposition. If it is, it must be, on your premises, either a tautology or an empirical hypothesis. If the former, no conclusion follows as to metaphysics. If the latter, the principle itself would require verification. But the principle of verification cannot itself be verified. If, however, the principle is not a proposition, it must, on your premises, be meaningless. In any case, if the meaning of an existential proposition consists, according to the principle, in its verifiability, it is impossible, I think, to escape an infinite regress, since the verification will still itself need verification, and so on indefinitely. If this is so, then all propositions, including scientific ones, are meaningless.” (Logical Positivism–A Debate, A Modern Introduction to Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap, The Free Press, New York, 1965, pp. 756. Also see Contemporary Approaches to Philosophy, Paul Moser & Dwayne Mulder, Macmillan Publishing, New York, 1994, pp.169)

There are some propositions that are not verifiable but are considered meaningful, such as “a comet will hit the earth, and it will blot out the entire human race.”

There are times when physical realities are not verifiable by our senses but can be accepted based on intellectual intuition. Let’s assume that a logical positivist (LP) and a “non-common-sense physicist” (NP) were discussing the meaning of the proposition “unverifiable physical realities exist” in 12th century. We can retroprophesy their argument as the following:

NP: I am intellectually and intuitively convinced that contagious diseases are caused by very tiny invisible organisms (or invisible kangaroos, if you wish!).

LP: Can you describe those “organisms” for me. What are they? Who are they? Can I verify their existence?

NP: Unfortunately, my answer will be negative. I can neither explain them nor verify their existence by sense-experience. They are invisible by us. No one can experience their existence except by experiencing their evil work in their body.

LP: Then, your proposition about the “invisible mighty organisms” is a metaphysical one and meaningless.

NP: Frankly, I don’t know even whether they are physical or metaphysical realities.

LP: Well, how can you expect me to believe in something that you know nothing about them except suggesting them as general explanation of all contagious devisees? Your proposition is not even verifiable by sick people who are supposedly attacked by them. It is a non-common-sense proposition and meaningless.

NP: My proposition about a “non-common-sense reality” can have meaning intellectually and intuitively. What causes diseases? What makes them contagious? Can you find a better explanation?

LP: I don’t need to explain every thing at the cost of coming up with a meaningless, unverifiable and self-contradictory explanation.

————————————————————————–

In 21st century:

NP: Do you see my dear LP you were wrong when you were claiming that my propositions about micro organisms were meaningless in 12th century. Aren’t they cute under this microscope?

—————————————————————————————-

After resurrection:

NP: Do you see my dear LP you were wrong when you were claiming that my propositions about God were meaningless in 21st century. Isn’t God great!

PS: I would like to challenge Eric Raunig for an open debate on the empirical evidences regarding God’s existence, to be held within a month. There we will make his invisible kangaroo leap over purple paradoxes! John Keisling is also welcome to the kangaroo debate.

 

Share

The Spiritual Roots of Space Colonies

Share

The Spiritual Roots of Space Colonies

 Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

“Enjoy this trip, but remember that the parents of the first Martians playing outside in your yard expect more from you than that” is the parting shot of the preface for The High Road  (1981) written by Harrison H. Shmitt, an Apollo 17 Astronaut. After a dozen years, this striking statement becomes an extremely optimistic wish. The pace of the space program has slowed down since then. However, the dream of space colonies is fascinating more people than ever.

The idea of space colonies can be considered as a childish fantasy stimulated by our modern lunar advanture–a one second marathon in a billion year racetrack. But, many philosophers and astronomers have taken this idea very seriously.  Volumes of books and countless of articles have already projected this dream in its very details. You can see a myriad of suggested models of colonies with their rotating spheres, cylinders, toroidal rings, and mirrors, etc.

There are some scientists who have religiously dedicated themselves to the revelations from heavens, not in Hebrew, but in the language of radio signals. Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is becoming the latest craze. The Planetary Society, which is established by Bruce Murray and Carl Sagan has already attracted 100,000 well educated members. Huge radio telescopes are scanning the 400 billion stars of our Milky Way galaxy. In just five years, the Project META has “made some 60 trillion observations at various frequencies while examining the entire accessible sky” (Carl Sagan, Parade, Sep. 19, 93)

On the other hand, another 100,000 less educated people are interested with another version of this modern passion: UFOs. There are many living “prophets” who strongly believe that extraterrestrial frontiers have invaded our planet. They are frequently excited with incredible stories ranging from governmental conspiracy to alien abduction cases.

Since we have got so dizzy with the incredible miracles of technology we are treating the oxymoronic mixture of scince-fiction almost as another branch of science. Positive and negative genetic engineering is already a controversial argument in medical ethics. Self-reproducing intelligent robots are welcomed as the next habitats of the earth. It is not anymore intellectually disturbing to many not being able to separate possibility from impossibility. Our scientific achievement has inflated the universe of possibilities to an enormous size which virtually does not have a boundary. It seems that the motto of the next generation will be “impossible is impossible.”

Our eyes are dazzled with the light of modern scientific blaze. Any argument spiced with a bunch of latest scientific jargon gets a good chance of being treated with high respect. Did science become a goddess with scientists as her gullible worshipers? Or, are we still underestimating the power of science and technology?

Before writing on the desirability and possibility of space colonies, I would like to answer briefly to a question starting with “why”: Why are we so interested with space colonies, or with extraterrestrials or UFOs? Why we are looking up to the heavens with our modern devices.

The answer is another question: “can you show us  a period in human history when we were not interested in heavens?” The desire for space colonies, or search for extraterrestrials is just the modern expression of one of the oldest human interests. We are interested with the space from the beginning of our history. Astrology, and most of the religions are the living examples of this interest.

We were interested with the heavens when we felt depressingly lonely and helpless in this “big” world. We are interested with the heavens when we loose our hope from worldly solutions. We are and will be more interested with the heavens or space when we feel the smothering density of population and pollution. Previously, we expected help from up to down. We received or we assumed that we received revelations from God or gods. Those revelations guided us in those days, or we thought that they guided us. We believed or dreamed of life after death in the heavens.

But now we are getting active. Instead of waiting for a help from the heavens, we started entertaining ideas of ascending to heavens with our space ships. And without waiting for resurrection.  These ideas may radiate the aroma of confidence, or the smell of intellectual arrogance, nevertheless, they are the product of loneliness and helplessness (if not of intellectual show off) of human nature on this tiny particle of cosmic dust. We cannot live on this earth without thinking of heavens.

PS: This article was written in 19 October 1993 by Edip Yuksel for Phil 399H thought by Prof. Henry Byerly at the University of Arizona

Share

Copernican Revolution

Share

Copernican Revolution

 Edip Yuksel
www.19.org

The water was getting hotter and hotter.

Copernic, at a crucial moment, put the candle in the center, and it started boiling.

Copernican model can be considered the last push for the birth of famous twins: Renaissance and Reformation. Or, it can be illustrated as the last uppercut which knocks down the prehistoric monster, the Ptolemaic system. Or, it can be likened to a last candle in the right place that  boiled the water of scientific and social revolutions.

Several decades before Copernic’s birth until the declaration of Copernican system (1543) a great evolution was occurring in the history of Europe. All were adding more heat to the water.

With successful voyages men was learning that the ancient maps were full of errors. Consequently, those observations was braking the sacred spell of many ancient gods of geography and astronomy, such as Ptolemy. Luther and Calvin  were leading a revolt against the hegemony of Catholic church. Calendar was needed corrections, requiring an astronomical reform. Ptolemy’s original formulation was becoming inadequate. Numerous modified  models were replacing the original sacred Ptolemaic system. However, the discontent was increasing with each modification.

Furthermore, Humanist or Neoplatonist movement was shaking the Aristotalian concepts. Seeking simpler formulas to explain natural phenomena was becoming a scientific trend. The Ptolemaic planetary theory was being perceived too complex and cumbersome. The Humanist or Neoplatonist symbolism was falling in love with light and Sun. Sun was being praised as the lamp, the mind, and the Ruler of the universe.

Discontent and frustration with the Ptolemaic system, loosing faith in ancient philosophers, practical need for a better calendar, a new scientific attitude preferring qualitative neatness and simplicity, rebellion against the oppression of church, yes, all of these psychological and social factors created a militant intelligentsia and a scientific elite that was ready to put the sun in the center. Putting the sun in the center was similar to raise the flag of revolution. It was the first concrete monument that could express all of the feelings and information accumulated throughout the centuries.

Copernican system had some artistic advantages over the Ptolemaic system. Its superiority to Ptolemaic astronomy is obvious in many accounts:

  1. It, ultimately, did not need epicycles and eccentrics.
  2. It was suggesting a simpler and “more natural” model of the motions of inferior planets. As a uniform system, it did not need extra assumptions to determine both the order and relative sizes of the orbits.
  3. It was putting an end to the chronic debate on the order of Mercury, Venus and Sun.
  4. It was illustrating a harmonious relation among the distance of planets and their apparent retrograde motion.

However, this argument could not prove that Copernican system was the true model. None of the advantages counted above could persuade his contemporary realists that his system was more likely to give a true account of how the planets actually move. Copernican system could be simpler, more elegant, and harmonious, but this did not prove that it should be the true account of planetary system. Let’s evaluate each superiority regarding its evidential power for the actuality of the system. Sure, from the perspective of Copernic’s contemporary realists.

It, ultimately, does not need epicycles and eccentrics.

Later modifications of the original model by Kepler will give this advantage. But, even this does not prove its truthfulness, as we will discuss in the following paragraph.

It suggests a simpler and “more natural” model of the motions of inferior planets.

So what? There are many complex processes and systems in the nature. A simple explanation does not mean it is the reality. The motions of inferior planets can be well synchronized naturally. There are some interesting natural phenomena which we are not able to explain. For instance, Sun is much bigger than the moon. However, proportion of their volumes is exactly compensated by their distances. Both occupy the same apparent space in the sky. The harmonious relation between their size and distance is a unique coincidence. Then, why the same harmony should not exist between the center of epicycles of inferior planets and the motion of the sun? In addition, we do not see the other side of the moon. If you are consistent with your “simple is more natural” theory, you should find an explanation for this synchrony. The reality cannot be determined by the number of assumptions we have. A theory with less assumption may be more convenient to use and more credible, but it does not prove that it is the reality.

It puts an end to the chronic debate on the order of Mercury, Venus and Sun.

Well, this also does not mean that it is the true account of the planetary system. Can you suggest any scientific or logical reason that Mercury, Venus and Sun cannot complete their journey around the ecliptic at the same time, that is 1 year? If you cannot do this, then you must admit the possibility of triple synchrony. If they are synchronized, then, your model will not show the real order, instead it will determine an order that satisfies your assumptions.

It illustrates a harmonious relation among the distance of planets and their apparent retrograde motion.

Indeed, the Copernican system provides a reasonable explanation for this case. However, we cannot be sure that this is the only possible explanation. There may be other explanations which will not require sun to be in the center. Or, this may be just a coincidence, like many others.

Moreover, a realist would raise a serious doubt about Copernican model by pointing to the lack of stellar parallax (since, there was no instrument to observe stellar parallax at that time.) This doubt could be eliminated by assuming a universe 75 times bigger than Al-Fargani’s. But, only by assuming!

Yet, Copernican system was accepted enthusiastically before it was proven. The intellectual and psychological condition of Europe was pregnant to this idea. People could not wait for the proof. Its scientific advantages and its inherent political message was enough to allure most of the scientists. It supplied a board and a frame for the colorful dreams of scientists who were frustrated with the old system and theology.

The reasons that we mentioned in the beginning and some other reasons caused a shift in paradigm. The water was hot. It needed a candle in the right place to boil. It was not important whether the candle was real or superficial. It was needed.

Fortunately, it was found later that the candle was real; it was from wax.

 

PS: This article was written in 15 November 1992 by Edip Yuksel for Phil 123, Philosophy of Science thought by Professor Richard Healay

 

Share