Charlatanism is a very common problem today. It seems to find good company, and not a little support where profiteering is the first and only significant loyalty, in this world where deception, punishment, and entrapment are designed as primary operating systems.
I was just pointing to the main cause for the purge of traditional wisdom, and much of the philosophy-theological work of antiquity as being the ascension to power of exclusivist Abrahamic religion.
I'm not persuaded that monotheism is quite the monolith you suggest. The villain is Christianity. It is about power and I think it primarily emanates from Europe. For example, the Maori language (te reo) was systematically squeezed to death not by religious zealots but by British imperialists.
In a sense Muslims did defend Classical Greece from one of their own. Averroes defended reason from the irrationalism of Al-Ghazali. But the Renaissance owed the preservation of Greek thought to the Arabs, especially Averroes. Have a look at The School of Athens and you will see him there.
It is a detail from that fresco which appears on the front cover of Penguin’s version of The Timaeus.
Not monotheism per se; the ancient Egyptian varieties (except Atenism) the Greco-Roman varieties, various Indo-European, Sinitic, African, etc; but the Abrahamic varieties of Semitic monotheism are quite monolithic. To be fair, the version of Zoroastrianism which emerged in the Sassanian empire was also pretty intolerant
I don't know. I don't know why Yahweh worship rather than Bel or Marduk appealed to the southern Arabs either. Nor do I deny that many Europeans and others found Abrahamic religions palatable and suitable to their spiritual inclinations. What I do know however is that the destruction of classical European civilization, the elimination or demonization of northern and western European religious heritage and native spirituality, the ravaging and desecration of northern India, and other places were, are consequences of distinctly Abrahamic political religious absolutism and zeal for world domination and homogenisation.
The answer to my question about SE Asia and the rise of Islam relates to the position of the relevant places on the trade routes between the Arabian Peninsula, the Persian Gulf and China. Long before the Portuguese found their way into the Indian Ocean, Arab traders sailed down to the Strait of Malacca and onto China until the Chinese basically stopped them. The two sets of traders then met in the entrepots of Java etc.
In marked contrast to the Portuguese, the Arabs had trade on their minds NOT conquest. Accordingly, they exercised no political power. What they did carry with them was a highly developed sense of ethics and fairness. The locals were impressed and adopted the basis to this self-fulfilling ethical purity. Notice they were influenced by those from the West (Arabs) and not from the East (Chinese).
I don’t doubt that prior to the 21st century Muslims behaved badly and insisted that everybody adopt Islam. But it is less prevalent than you might think. Much of the conversions in West Asia moving into Central Asia were by consent. It was probably helped on its way by the existence of the non-Muslim tax (Jizya). But that is less of an influence than might first appear because Muslims are obliged to be charitable (Zakat).
The most vicious imposition of Islam was in the immediate aftermath of the death of Muhammad when the Arab tribes reverted back to their traditions and were crushed for their trouble. I have no sympathy at all for monotheism. But Muslims have shown a tolerance wholly lacking in many Christians. The Moorish hold over Andalusia was typified by tolerance which came to an end when the zealous Castilians took over which was about the time the Europeans began their rapacious intrusion first into the Indian Ocean and then into the Americas. Whilst not all Mughals were tolerant their courts, on occasion, would welcome those from other religious traditions (e.g Hindus) to debate the philosophies.
It is not a coincidence that the Indian Rebellion (or Mutiny if you prefer) was undertaken by Indian and Muslim sepoys. According to William Dalrymple it was because the British brought an especially virulent Anglicism to India which irritated the locals.
I completely agree with you about the snuffing out of local traditions in Europe. But there is an authoritarian streak in Christianity, thanks to St Paul or those who forged in his cursed name, that is absent from Islam.
That statue is hideously ugly. What is it supposed to represent?
I am intrigued by your linkage of bastardized Platonism to the latter day practitioners of unadulterated avarice. I might say that Plato deserves it but that might be contrarian, to use your word. You tacitly accept that Plato gives some intellectual spine to otherwise uncouth monotheism.
I have a friend I might have described as young a year or two ago but I suspect that may no longer be true. She is a devout Muslim and a refugee from Afghanistan who works in the health business. She is highly intelligent, serious minded and extremely well informed, particularly about Islam.
Recently she sent me an Instagram reel (which I cannot copy). I shall therefore transcribe part of it:
"And somehow ... the same Allah who existed before galaxies, before light, before reality itself still hears the du'a [prayer] you whisper quietly at night. He is Al-Mutali (The Most High), yet He is closer to you than your own jugular vein." [I am not sure why Allah is allocated gender because Palwasha - her name - tells me the word is gender neutral as it should be.]
What was written there resonated with what you write, much of which goes over my head as you probably realize. It seemed to me that your theory about transcendence and immanence had a similar effect to what was written in the reel. You probably don't like my suggestion but I am not sure that what you think is vastly different to what Palawasha believes. In any event, I sent her one of your essays to ponder. I told her about your idea of the universal (or world) soul which she found intriguing.
I might add that I think you don't give Moorish culture enough credit for keeping alive the Classical Greek tradition. Averroes is represented in The School of Athens for a reason.
I don't doubt the sincerity or the profundity of that lady's understanding and faith. However I recognise that historically, and presently the Abrahamic religions, and it might actually be due to the particularities of Semitic language and culture, have destroyed far more of the richness of human cultures than the pittance they 'preserved'. Moorish culture kept it alive? Why was it under threat? Because Abrahamic religion doesn't do mutual respect and coexistence too well, whatever the attitude of certain enlightened individuals or even societies within it's global empire (s). It's Yahweh/Allah or the highway much more often than not.
Charlatanism is a very common problem today. It seems to find good company, and not a little support where profiteering is the first and only significant loyalty, in this world where deception, punishment, and entrapment are designed as primary operating systems.
Very true 🙏
I'm unclear if your questions are rhetorical or you expect an answer which I can give.
I was just pointing to the main cause for the purge of traditional wisdom, and much of the philosophy-theological work of antiquity as being the ascension to power of exclusivist Abrahamic religion.
I'm not persuaded that monotheism is quite the monolith you suggest. The villain is Christianity. It is about power and I think it primarily emanates from Europe. For example, the Maori language (te reo) was systematically squeezed to death not by religious zealots but by British imperialists.
In a sense Muslims did defend Classical Greece from one of their own. Averroes defended reason from the irrationalism of Al-Ghazali. But the Renaissance owed the preservation of Greek thought to the Arabs, especially Averroes. Have a look at The School of Athens and you will see him there.
It is a detail from that fresco which appears on the front cover of Penguin’s version of The Timaeus.
Not monotheism per se; the ancient Egyptian varieties (except Atenism) the Greco-Roman varieties, various Indo-European, Sinitic, African, etc; but the Abrahamic varieties of Semitic monotheism are quite monolithic. To be fair, the version of Zoroastrianism which emerged in the Sassanian empire was also pretty intolerant
I can't remonstrate on my phone. I'll answer tomorrow but in the meantime here is a question: why did Islam take hold in Java and Malaya?
I don't know. I don't know why Yahweh worship rather than Bel or Marduk appealed to the southern Arabs either. Nor do I deny that many Europeans and others found Abrahamic religions palatable and suitable to their spiritual inclinations. What I do know however is that the destruction of classical European civilization, the elimination or demonization of northern and western European religious heritage and native spirituality, the ravaging and desecration of northern India, and other places were, are consequences of distinctly Abrahamic political religious absolutism and zeal for world domination and homogenisation.
The answer to my question about SE Asia and the rise of Islam relates to the position of the relevant places on the trade routes between the Arabian Peninsula, the Persian Gulf and China. Long before the Portuguese found their way into the Indian Ocean, Arab traders sailed down to the Strait of Malacca and onto China until the Chinese basically stopped them. The two sets of traders then met in the entrepots of Java etc.
In marked contrast to the Portuguese, the Arabs had trade on their minds NOT conquest. Accordingly, they exercised no political power. What they did carry with them was a highly developed sense of ethics and fairness. The locals were impressed and adopted the basis to this self-fulfilling ethical purity. Notice they were influenced by those from the West (Arabs) and not from the East (Chinese).
I don’t doubt that prior to the 21st century Muslims behaved badly and insisted that everybody adopt Islam. But it is less prevalent than you might think. Much of the conversions in West Asia moving into Central Asia were by consent. It was probably helped on its way by the existence of the non-Muslim tax (Jizya). But that is less of an influence than might first appear because Muslims are obliged to be charitable (Zakat).
The most vicious imposition of Islam was in the immediate aftermath of the death of Muhammad when the Arab tribes reverted back to their traditions and were crushed for their trouble. I have no sympathy at all for monotheism. But Muslims have shown a tolerance wholly lacking in many Christians. The Moorish hold over Andalusia was typified by tolerance which came to an end when the zealous Castilians took over which was about the time the Europeans began their rapacious intrusion first into the Indian Ocean and then into the Americas. Whilst not all Mughals were tolerant their courts, on occasion, would welcome those from other religious traditions (e.g Hindus) to debate the philosophies.
It is not a coincidence that the Indian Rebellion (or Mutiny if you prefer) was undertaken by Indian and Muslim sepoys. According to William Dalrymple it was because the British brought an especially virulent Anglicism to India which irritated the locals.
I completely agree with you about the snuffing out of local traditions in Europe. But there is an authoritarian streak in Christianity, thanks to St Paul or those who forged in his cursed name, that is absent from Islam.
That statue is hideously ugly. What is it supposed to represent?
I am intrigued by your linkage of bastardized Platonism to the latter day practitioners of unadulterated avarice. I might say that Plato deserves it but that might be contrarian, to use your word. You tacitly accept that Plato gives some intellectual spine to otherwise uncouth monotheism.
I have a friend I might have described as young a year or two ago but I suspect that may no longer be true. She is a devout Muslim and a refugee from Afghanistan who works in the health business. She is highly intelligent, serious minded and extremely well informed, particularly about Islam.
Recently she sent me an Instagram reel (which I cannot copy). I shall therefore transcribe part of it:
"And somehow ... the same Allah who existed before galaxies, before light, before reality itself still hears the du'a [prayer] you whisper quietly at night. He is Al-Mutali (The Most High), yet He is closer to you than your own jugular vein." [I am not sure why Allah is allocated gender because Palwasha - her name - tells me the word is gender neutral as it should be.]
What was written there resonated with what you write, much of which goes over my head as you probably realize. It seemed to me that your theory about transcendence and immanence had a similar effect to what was written in the reel. You probably don't like my suggestion but I am not sure that what you think is vastly different to what Palawasha believes. In any event, I sent her one of your essays to ponder. I told her about your idea of the universal (or world) soul which she found intriguing.
I might add that I think you don't give Moorish culture enough credit for keeping alive the Classical Greek tradition. Averroes is represented in The School of Athens for a reason.
I don't doubt the sincerity or the profundity of that lady's understanding and faith. However I recognise that historically, and presently the Abrahamic religions, and it might actually be due to the particularities of Semitic language and culture, have destroyed far more of the richness of human cultures than the pittance they 'preserved'. Moorish culture kept it alive? Why was it under threat? Because Abrahamic religion doesn't do mutual respect and coexistence too well, whatever the attitude of certain enlightened individuals or even societies within it's global empire (s). It's Yahweh/Allah or the highway much more often than not.