The following text is the introduction of the book named “Pluralist Mega-Space” (background and genesis), by Bahman Bazargani (2007) an Iranian philosopher. Translated from Persian by M. R. Mansourbeigy.
Preface
One- The consequence of organized violence in Europe, the center of the western civilized world in the first half of the twentieth century, as well as the gulags of the socialist camp, was the emergence of crisis in the values of modernity in the second half of the century. After 1968, the common long-narrations that were the basis of theoretical liberalism and socialism no longer were universal. The culture whose whole emphasis was on this assumption that man is a creature with a definite identity along with a wise, coherent, and predictable character and functions lost its dominating voice, and a decentralized space, bereft of universal values replaced it in a context of relativity of values and uncertainty about what good and bad and right or wrong is, and this question: "What kind of a creature we are and what is our human identity?" was released in a shroud of obscurity. The so called postmodern philosophers identified these new conditions. But their manifestations created a new crisis. Now, it was the philosophy itself whose identity, its existence, and more so its necessity was being questioned. The number of printed books during the recent decades with titles or contents of "What is philosophy?" in these twenty five centuries from the time of ancient Greeks up to now is unprecedented.
A strange incident has occurred that has been unprecedented. All the middle age cultures as well as the modern ones always had a tendency toward Monism (uniqueness of essence) and that uniqueness was giving an identity to philosophy itself and justifying its existence and necessity. Now that uniqueness has been multiplied by the number of lifestyles and these very ways are constantly multiplying. Quest in the most general common and timeless denominations that justified both the necessity and the existence of philosophy has replaced with the quest in numerous lifestyles, specific ways and personal visions. The most original definition of philosophy has been turned upside down and philosophy which had always been the cornerstone of commonalities and generalities has now become the wood fixture of the quarter of the private space. The personal sphere that was fixed from seventeenth century till now by the order of philosophy as the poor place of banishment of religion now has been discovered as if it was the only epiphany of philosophy.
Thus philosophy was divided into two parts, the living and the dead, or more precisely stale and active. The dynamic part of the philosophy intertwined with life and distanced itself from timelessness. Music, novel and cinema turned into a language with many listeners of philosophies of life. While classical philosophies look like archeological museums, the distinction of teachers of philosophy from archeologists has become difficult.
Philosophy that is distanced and wrecked from uniqueness as well as timelessness and immortality pursues its presence in two different stages:
A: Quest in domains and presuppositions of different sciences; presuppositions that by changing paradigms give their place to other presuppositions and are not independent from human conditions under no condition. Thus philosophy of sciences has taken a responsibility which is totally different from that of the Descartes' era. If at that time the assumption was that it is the philosophy that determines the trend of different sciences, now it is the trend of sciences that dictates the responsibilities of philosophy of science that is limited to the domain of practice of every science.
B. Quest in the domains and presuppositions of different lifestyles.
Again, here it is not philosophy that determines the trend and purpose of different lifestyles. Philosophy's servitude is the quest in domains and presuppositions that is entwined with this or that lifestyle and its purpose is not discovering of absolute and timeless truths. I do not know whether these servitudes follow any goal? Perhaps investigating the possibilities of transformation in domains and presuppositions or their possible rearrangements is useful for the increase of possibilities that would interest mankind—that no two persons have common understanding of them.
Hence, the whole of metaphysical system has been transformed. Ontology has given its place to the quest of art and literature in the lifestyles and consequently to politics and ethics; a politics and ethics whose foundation is no longer invariable and timeless. Political philosophy and moral philosophy have now been directed to the context of life, different desires and needs of human beings, and all of these are revealed in different linguistic games.
How did such a thing happen? What has happened that a part of philosophy escaped death and reached life and according to Kant lapsed from the space of general and universal "salvation" to the framework of private abject spaces? Let me quote from Alasdair MacIntyre :
”Each fundamental standpoint in moral philosophy not only has its own mode of conceptualizing and understanding the moral life, which gives expressions to the claims of some actual or possible type of social order, but each also has its own set of first principles, to which its adherents appeal to vindicate the claims of their own stand-point to universality and to rational superiority over its rivals [] had generated for each major moral philosophy its own particular difficulties and problems [] the major claimants in modern moral philosophy seemed to me then and seems to me now to fail”. 1
When humanism appeared with man in its center of attention, with a process of revelation within which man step by step relieved himself/herself from the throes of eternity, no one ever thought that a day would come that any agreement about human identity could be impossible. That “mode of conceptualizing and understanding the moral life”, which humanism carried with itself just as a snail that carries its dwelling in its carapace, now is no longer reproduced, and instead of general, bachelor and timeless man, living persons who each have a name and want to live according to a way that they like, or think they like are seated.
Now the philosophy of life is focused on the presuppositions of the lifestyles of these very living human beings and has distanced from the timelessness and generality and universality and has changed to a personal and private matter. Hence, instead of a single philosophy that ultimately would explain the purpose of man's life, the philosophies of lifestyles are seated. But the course and the trend that philosophy was directed to have also been reversed. Philosophy is no longer concerned with what the purpose of life is. It has no answer for this question or the number of answers has become equal to the number of human beings, or at least to the number of various communal groups. These questions are demystified. There is no mystery behind them because according to different postmodern philosophies it is you and I that are the ultimate referee.
If philosophy has understood this today, art has not yet reached to the door step of this demystification. Because it has not yet been able to escape from the mystified outlook of the modern heritage to the art and accept that the era of art's self sufficiency and self injunction—at least in the coming moment—has come to an end and that outlook can not remain in the passage from the post-modern flat zone to the gate of the pluralist mega-space. A century ago, when modern art's revelation began, art was ahead of philosophy. However, art triumphed in reaching beyond the reality and therefore was seeing a future that philosopher had to sit and wait a long time for opening this closed door. That pulsating epicenter which surrounded the artistic sphere still could not in exceptional cases move philosophy. Philosophy now is focused on the existence of conditions of the different lifestyles. But there are these very conditions that more than anything else are behind the shroud of obscurity. Violence, war, militarism, and terrorism that have engulfed our world are draping these conditions.
The feeling of hopelessness and despair and the ominous feeling of deadlock and destruction are one of the fundamental factors of psychology of violence in general and terrorism in particular. Beneath the layer of the façade of enthusiasm and hope for the future which is seen among the many devoted and ready to engage in suicidal act terrorists are the deeper layers of hopelessness and historical humiliation. This feeling of hopelessness and humiliation from the point of view that I see are the product of modern man's generation; people who carry the long-narratives from the age of enlightenment and beyond have become universalized in the expanding of modern world. The theory of evolution in the domain of natural science and philosophy of history and philosophy in general, and the theory of liberty in political philosophy were among these long-narratives.
Based on the theory of evolution, a series of cultures which practically manifested in various lifestyles, religions and moral values were identified as opposite to the evolution and consequently declared to be condemned to destruction and decline. But this verdict meant that those people who live with those cultures are condemned to destruction or in order to avoid destruction have to change religion or culture. According to the theory of liberty, liberty is not only the essence of human identity, but its promotion and expansion is man’s noblest mission. That is why after the French Revolution, the French took it for granted that it is their duty to export it even with force and war to the rest of the world. Since that time this mission was incorporated by all the intelligentsia throughout the world. This was the reason why they are so hated by the fundamentalists because according to the maxims of liberty, religions and cultures that in some way do not correspond with individual liberty are identified as oppressive and must be expunged from the minds of peoples who believe in them, even with force if necessary.
These human beings with such revolutionary theories that had a claim to be universal did not exist before the age of enlightenment. The people following the cultures of the pre- enlightenment were atrophied during long war years, and or the memory of those wars and calamities that followed them were engraved in those cultures, and the people who lived with those cultures accepted the balance of power and the inevitable tolerance. Coexistence and relative tolerance among the peoples who believed in religions and cultures of pre-modernity was the result of this acceptance. They accepted that they cannot eliminate each other and therefore must tolerate one another.
However, with the French revolution, a new era was dawned whose characteristic was the emergence of new generations who had deep beliefs in expansion and domination of the idea of progress, change, and liberty. The world was divided into two parts, one stagnant and drowsy and traditional on one hand, and the other progressive and revolutionary and modern and forward-looking. No wonder that from then on words like pioneer and vanguard, whether in politics or arts were used quite extensively. These generations were educated by these beliefs that the life span of some beliefs and values and in general some lifestyles is over and they have no future but decline and destruction. Thus in the modern world some saw themselves as missionaries and thought of themselves as the pioneer league of mankind, carrying a transcendental message from a superior power that they must exercise it, and others saw themselves in hopelessness, humiliation and destruction.
But whatever that has happened to philosophy, that is passing from the public to the private space not only does not correspond with the above trend, but shows a reverse trend, and for this very reason it now may play a positive role. If modernity's long-narrations occupied the public space and ending in a mega-space catapulted the philosophy into the private spaces, philosophy too for retaliation muddled the pubic space. Now no previous long-narration, at least similar to the past from the position of power can be put forward. Long-narratives have turned into petty narratives. The social space is tattered and balkanized. Every previous long-narrative now is a narrative that belongs to a specific vision toward life and the lifestyle that is identified with that vision. And this may be the very key which opens the closed lock of pinned situation of the current outlook.
None of the religions and cultures and in general the lifestyles will fade away until there would be human beings who believe in and live with them. They last, and with their lasting turn the monistic, assimilating, and truth oriented modernity into a pluralist mega-space, in which there would be enough space for all religious and cultural nuances, or in another words different lifestyles. From the existing monistic and modern assimilating point of view, this is a huge rift.
In the modernity, the world was portrayed as if the whole world and all peoples have to turn toward a single and universal truth. Theories and systems of beliefs were portrayed as beyond-humanistic organisms that human beings had to be in their service as soldiers. The consequence of this recruitment was the war between truths. In the pluralist mega-space - whose revelation somewhat is the subject my book trilogy - theories and arrangements of beliefs turn into possibilities that living and active human beings, considering the needs, wants and goals that they have in front of them, select among them some options toward the goals so that by those they could reach the easiest and simplest ways of solving and reaching their goals.
This last sentence can raise this misunderstanding as if every thing has been planned as it is in the Cartesian philosophy. As Von Hayek says, we should not fall into this trap that human beings always know what they want or where they want to go.
In sixteen century Europe, the players of the liberalism's preview not only struggled against tyranny but at the same time they also used their weapons against each other. What is now seems to be an orderly and comprehensive design or the favoring or opposing groups was not so clear and distinguished at that time.
Two- In the second chapter of the "Matrix of Beauty" (2002), some ambiguous predictions have been made about the emergence of a new epicenter of attraction. The book which is in front of you has passed those predictions by eight years. Those predictions belong to the April of 1999. During the five years that is passed from the publication of "Matrix of Beauty", my research has been focused on the new space—the pluralist mega-space. These researches have led to a trilogy. The book in front of you is the first of this trilogy and in order to understand its subject there is no need of reading the “Matrix of Beauty.”
The most basic part of the subject of my book is the new public sphere and its relation with personal spaces or communities.
In today's political philosophy some believe that whatever was once considered as sublime and therefore credible enough to act in the public sphere, now has acquired a private aspect, and contrary to what was once related to a private sphere now has opened its way in the public sphere. In another words the public and private spaces have been intertwined and it is not so easy to separate and distinguish who is who?
Some believe that from the Descartes' era on, due to the generalization of quantity oriented outlook which is present everywhere, the contemporary civilization is confronted with a serious void and that is why many offer different suggestions for its remedy or mitigation.
Yet, others believe that since values and moral criterion of human beings in the contemporary world are so diversified as to be reduced to a single system, there is no room in the public sphere for the universal values as it used to be, and suggest that what can be named as the public sphere today is a collection of minimal commonalities that human beings can agree and have an overlapping consensus upon them. Therefore in practice the maximal criteria and values of these human beings would be limited to their communal cultures, or a better way of saying it to the private spaces. This means that we might enter a mega-space which dismisses the philosophy from public sphere to private space. Inside this very last nuance, some philosophers consider the presence of philosophy, religion and etc as the necessary and indelible pillars that without their help citizens perhaps could not ever reach an agreement and consensus, while other philosophers do not ever realize the existence of philosophy and religion in the private spaces as necessary and fundamental.
From my matrix-ian point of view, what is named as public space or public sphere in political philosophy consists of two separate parts:
A - The consensus immanent in a space founded on a center of attraction.
B - The consensus attainable from conversation and reasoning
The contemporary political philosophy considers the latter as the only democratic public sphere. A consensus arising from conversation and reasoning indeed is a consensus based upon the weight of active groups in the political scene, the groups that both negotiation and conflict among them more or less constitute the balance of power in every society or in any political association. In a democratic society, all regulations, from driving and traffic regulations to penal and constitutional laws are based on agreements that take place in the public sphere. An important part of what we call agreements arising from dialogue and negotiation today, were called the laws of reason during Kant’s era. And since it was assumed that laws of reason are universal, they too were assumed to be universal, and obeying the universal laws was necessary for all rational people. Fools and irrationals also have to be forced to obey.
Now a few political philosophers could be found who would not consider the basis and pillars of the laws and regulations and formulation of public sphere not to be arising from the mutual agreements between the individuals or between the social groups. In another word, the direction of our beliefs and ancient laws has turned upside down and instead of people realizing themselves dependent on the universal laws, now there are laws and regulations and formulations that are considered to be arising from the agreements between individuals.
In this book, I do not deal with the consensus immanent in a space founded on a center of attraction.
Three- In linear causality, the whole existence is portrayed in a forward movement from the past to the future. This is a one-dimensional causality from cause to effect. According to this causality, the present is the effect of the past and itself the cause of future. Although in the 18th century Hume denied the causality, but it again flourished in 19th century because one-dimensional movement from cause to effect and from the past to the future was consistent with the internal logic of the school of evolutionism as a whole, including the historical evolutionism and the modern philosophy of sciences. Scientific theory is distinguished from mythical-religious notions and is more evolved, and it has released itself from their inherent superstitions. In the past 3-4 decades this evolutionary picture has been questioned.
Such humiliating ideas do not exist in the scheme of pluralistic causality vis-à-vis mythical-religious notions. The pluralist causality is a by-product of the pluralist mega-space. In the mega-space, one can not despise other spaces and brand them as though they are not alive for the sole reason that they belong to the past. Within the new space, you should respect all other spaces; they exist; they are alive; they are alive because they are inhabited by living people. The aggressive avant-gardism that was launched by the enlightenment, specifically by the French revolution and became vogue, nowadays is viewed as the modernity's nightmare. This nightmare haunted the modern outlook, an outlook which branded the religion and the pre-modern outlooks as though they belonged to the past.
The pluralist causality compensates us a new panorama. Now the concurrences of different factors are seated in place of the linear sequence. Instead of focusing on the linear and historical sequence of A to B to C to D, … now we have a panorama of the concurrent spaces of A, B, C, D …
Instead of one-dimensional effect of A's space on B's space, and …, now all spaces of A, B, C,… affect each other reciprocally. No space leaves the revolving scene forever. Either their population increase or decrease. The multi-dimensional causality opens the way for multi personalities instead of single modern personality as well. Modern Monism like pre-modern Monistic systems used to recommend, approve, and accentuate a single personality. In pluralist mega-space, the way opens for accepting multiple personalities. In the 2nd book of my trilogy I deal with the problem of trust and confidence between these personalities. Therefore different aspect of the personality of an individual opens new prospects for him/her. Just as we shall see in the third part of the trilogy, different communities place a new way in front of people so that they can step from the mundane, boring and modern monistic life into the field of pluralistic lifestyles. Today, the identity crisis that is often portrayed in a negative way is somehow the result of the lack of understanding the new conditions. Now the revelation of multi-dimensional causality paves the way in reaching a better understanding of the multiple identities and the possible entry into the different spaces in the life-span of a single individual.
Contrary to the monist spaces with their sole source of truth which falsify the pluralist spaces, the pluralist mega-space can not falsify the monist spaces. Therefore the point of view that was expressed above is not the only credible one; there are parallel points of views that are credible as well. There is a well known opposite point of view which escapes from the multiplicity of identities and appeal to a single space with a defined, fixed and certain identity as seen in religious fundamentalists. Indeed, it can be said that parallel to the pluralist lifestyles and spectrum of identities and the possibility of living with different lifestyles, its opposite, another words a tendency to single identity and certainty and settlement in a single and specific space also proliferates. Hence these two extremes, that is the pluralist lifestyles and monist lifestyles operate in parallel and next to each other, and while an individual in his/her lifetime may oscillate between different pluralist lifestyles, even between pluralist and monist ones, there are also individuals who stay in a single space their whole life and remain a devoted aficionado.
The linear mode of causality which by the emergence of modern age was accepted as a rational dominant mode over other mode of causalities is partly decomposed in this book and a composition of multi-dimensional and pluralistic mode of causality along with ultimate causality is used.
Four- The ultimate Aristotelian causality could not escape the gates of the middle age and enter the modern centuries. But if we take the centers of attractions which pull us toward themselves like the gravitational field of the celestial bodies, then with leaving the space A, and its field of gravity, we will enter the space B with its related field of gravity2. In this case it won't be far off if we assume the latter as the ultimate cause of our last orientation. This borrowing from Aristotle would be quite useful in justifying our aesthetic orientations which were not justifiable according to our aims and interests while we were yet in the space A and were not aware of our final destination. Of course the ultimate cause based on the above meaning is quite different with the ultimate Aristotelian cause. There is no ultimate ideal “form” as Aristotle believed it to be, rather it is simply the center of attraction of the adjacent spaces.
Normally, we take it for granted that anything that we think and say and do, originates from our security and tranquility and interests, or generally our intentions. All of these deeds occur within the established order, or in short within the power structure. Nonetheless our aesthetic orientations (or our orientations toward the centers of attraction which not a single man/woman can escape from) are not justifiable with this power structure. Some of our orientations have nothing to do with our aims and interests. They are oriented toward these centers of attractions.
The sum of our deed and discourse in power structure is calculated and based on rational commandments and is completely clear and transparent and distinct and predictable and usually is programmed, while at the same time we are oriented unconsciously toward a center of attraction which have nothing to do with the current reality and our interests and security and tranquility and in general with our lifestyles' requirements. These mysterious orientations are not justifiable with our aims and interests; they embrace all the people and include both minorities and majorities. I assume this unconscious orientation toward the adjacent space, a space whose center of attraction pulls us toward it, to be an ultimate cause. Our orientation toward it is devoid of our aims and interests. Usually we are not aware of our orientations that are devoid of our interests in the existing paradigm. This orientation is very similar to our orientation toward what is beautiful.
For instance, throughout the middle ages spiritual eternity had a deep attraction for all the people, rich or poor, elite or ordinary. According to the Middle Eastern religions it was originated from the God. At the same time, there was a long lasting pagan ordeal of Alchemists throughout the middle ages all over the world who were adamant in deciphering gold's formula and the mystery of its resistance to corruption and solution un-analogous to any other terrestrial material. That is why they took it for granted that gold is the essence of terrestrial eternity. Or in Descartes' time wisdom found immense aesthetic attraction and philosophers and scientists were as much in the center of attraction as actors and players are today. Now I suspect that beyond and above all, the west is at the threshold of entry into the center of the emerging field of attraction which is now the ultimate cause of many orientations aside from the contemporary people's profit and loss, orientations that by considering the situations of human beings in the interwoven contemporary power structure apparently does not seem to be related with their aims and interests.
My focus in the second book of trilogy is toward this consensus which is derived from the center of attraction and its dominant role on the orientation in the political philosophy and philosophy of ethics.
The ultimate causality opens the way for a totally different analysis on what has now become the prevailing causality' narrative in the modern age. Perhaps it might be hard to believe or seem something funny to us that someone like me would attribute the cause of some of our behaviors or the changes of some of our social institutions and or the changes or transformations which emerge in some laws, to the ultimate causality.
Of course we should be aware that in the pluralist mega-space different causalities are not necessarily in contradiction with each other or discredit each other. A single phenomenon which is observed by the audience from different spaces will be attributed to different causes. Which one of these is real? This question is meaningless in the pluralist mega-space. These kinds of questions assume that the pluralist mega-space is similar to monist spaces so they tend to create a unique cause for each phenomenon.
Five- The Marxian model of Hegel's triangular dialectic has much longer life time than Marxism itself. This model says: Within every situation (i.e. thesis), the negative of that situation develops (i.e. anti thesis) until this struggle ultimately ends in equilibrium and new situation (i.e. synthesis). This model dictates that inherent to all social equilibrium there are antagonistic contradictions which inevitably end up confronting each other. And at last there is a populist nuance given by Mao which expands the idea of contradiction as a universal law. Ironically enough nowadays the emphasis on cultural and religious contradictions have turned into a weapon in the hand of war mongers and militarists; it suffices to pay attention to the lectures of the neo-conservatives to see to what extent they emphasize on contradictions.
Truly, why outlooks based on contradictions are such widespread and rooted while outlooks based on the sharing and congruency and similarity are weak and sotto voce? We may assume that the interests of violent seeking as well as militarist groups are an important factor in the spread and intensification of the former and the rebate of the latter. But this factor does not justify the extent of extensiveness and preponderance of its use. Even the active opponents of militarists who advocate global peace and tranquility emphasize on contradictions. The ideas and views of those who often do not vote for militarists also are based on similar structures.
This Marxian narrative from Hegel's model in the past when the world was divided into two camps, and social groups and classes were arrayed in a hostile formation in front of each other and armed themselves to the teeth with the intention of complete outright suppression, and needed new and effective methods from the production of heroic and epic discourse, was a useful and effective method and adequately met the magnifying contradictions and decrying and hiding the many similarities and concurrences. In fact the ideologues that forged those styles of discourses had some intention to cover up the many similarities of the ordinary people's lives in both camps, and integrate them within the antagonistic systems. But in today's situation not only this model is not effective and does not yield any benefit for the compromising groups rather in some cases its use causes complication of the existing problems as well. Emphasis on the contradiction model today plays a negative role and is not an adequate and effective model in opposing the militaristic programs. Groups who oppose militarism need a nomenclature or methods and styles of discourse that is radically different from that of militarists and terrorists. This is not only necessary but once those new methods and styles of discourse appear, the methods and styles of discourses used by both militarists and terrorists would look unusual and defective and the methods and styles of discourses that emphasize on contradiction and confrontation would appear violent, aggressive and obscene.
In the third volume of my trilogy, on the inquiry of the relations of communities, I will pause on different methods and styles of discourses which instead of emphasis on contradictions, attends and accentuates on the correspondences, commonalities, common overlapping, equilibriums, even eclectics. These methods establish the basis which indicates that an important part of the programs of the existing competing groups and factions in many instances overlap.