 خیلی DANIEL مارید. میورا جتایز جو برذی، امورا جو چنگ بوزی، بیتا و اینیست، از ذلك کن که به جديد مرخور بند. از لیکن، که به اون، بلکره برذی، با های ski because با های سار از کاره و ده تور فحای است. او سرن راها گریجان آساسوسیشون را با هایست ده، بشاروه با خوشیشون به نما ولیه میورده. آن بای نگه و نگه و نگه مستر باليوزی. بای که بای در خوشت میره حیر منطق شرق آدمی، بای خوشت میره حالتت میره، I willmed first introduce a person that talks about human ag outrageous and as opposite concepts of humanity. After that, I traced the emergence of this concept first, in the writing of the Bab then later in the writing of Bahá'uLlá and finally in the writing of Abdul Bahá'uLlá پر بيرهند talked them and being are not the vital part of a form of consciousness, a form of culture, a renders of the views of the mind , And deepens so many understandings قرار لعبان و مفهرانرون. اصلاد اول از کانستانهم به ایندر برادی از شرطون قرار راون. انسان ایندر برادیه، به درهاید و ایندر در از برادید. این اگماتک and mysterious symbol has been interpreted in varieties of ways throughout history but from a dialectical point of view Sphinx, namely an entity whose body is animal but whose face is human, represents the purpose and meaning of human history, namely human history is a process in which human being would emerge from the background of nature and would emerge as consciousness, and consciousness spirit would emerge from the realm of nature. So emergence of human being out of the realm of nature as consciousness, as love, as spiritual qualities, this is the purpose and the meaning of human history. درفور history becomes a process of emancipation from the bondage of nature. Another example of expression of this same concept is the new definition that Bahá'u'lláh gave of human being. ام گوین تریید for you the statement of Bahá'u'lláh although we won't have time to really go into detail in discussing that but at first Bahá'u'lláh gives a new definition of human being and then he elaborates on that concept in different ways. باحولا says that one indeed is a man who today dedicates himself to the service of the entire human race. It is not for him to pride himself who loves his own country but rather for him who loves the whole world. دی ارس is but one country and mankind is citizens. In this statement of Bahá'u'lláh first Bahá'u'lláh defined what is to be a human being. That one indeed is a man who today dedicates himself to the service of the entire human race. دی ارس is human being is defined in terms of service but not service to the community, not just belongingness to a society or community but service to the entire human race. Somehow the category of universality, a universal orientation, a universal sentiment, a universal consciousness, a universal form of identity for Bahá'u'lláh is a defining feature of a human being. دی ارس is a human being. The emergence of human being from the realm of nature, emergence of that face representing consciousness out of the realm of body now for Bahá'u'lláh is defined in more concrete fashions as the emergence of this particular type of characteristics and qualities. What does it mean to have a human face? دی ارس is unfortunately human history has been primarily a history of dehumanization, namely humanity has understood itself and has defined others usually and predominantly as animals, as objects of nature, as instruments. If you look at varieties of forms of oppression in the history of humanity, you can see that the common factor in all these various types of injustice and oppression is the reduction of human beings to the level of nature. Take concept of patriarchy. What is patriarchy? If you analyze the concept of patriarchy, ultimately it's a philosophical point of view, which defines the words, the value of a human being in terms of its biology. The idea that a human body is masculine or feminine, particular form of biology is supposed to define, to determine the value of a person, the rationality of the person, the social position of a person, the identity of human being is reduced to the realm of body. In this type of culture and in this type of consciousness, the half of the humanity is reduced to the realm of nature and the other half is also dehumanizing itself by defining its own superiority in terms of biological characteristics. It's a dehumanization on both sides. What is racism ultimately? Racism is ultimately a form of consciousness in which it reduces the identity of a person, the words of the person, the value of a person, the social rights of a person, the opportunities of a person in terms of the color of a skin. What is slavery? Slavery is ultimately objectification of human being when a human being is perceived as an object to be owned so that what happens to a human being is not defined by the consciousness of that person, by the will of that person, rather by the will and consciousness of another. What you have is again reduction of human being to the level of objects to the realm of nature or dehumanization of human beings. What is a caste system? Caste system ultimately is a form of consciousness and social relations which reduces the entire reality of a person to the natural accident of birth. If you are born in this particular family, then everything about you, your rights, your occupation, the way society would treat you, whether you would be touchable or untouchable and so, all of them are going to be determined by this biological accident, totally meaningless accident. But not only in caste society we have this, also almost in all other forms of social orders, when we have extremes of social inequality, when we have a situation that the prospect of life of children is going to be predominantly determined by the social positions of the parents. Again you have a situation that the society looks at human beings and then assigns them to different roles or positions or opportunities simply on the basis of the identity of the parents. It has nothing to do with this person. In this case again human beings are reduced to a natural accident, a biological phenomenon. In this case who is your father? But this reduction of human beings to the level of nature has many many other forms. I just talked about a few of them which are more famous, but one very important form of that is the law of apostasy. Apostasy is a religious doctrine. It has been practiced at some time in Judaism, it has been practiced at some time in Christianity, unfortunately it is being practiced right now in some Islamic societies. The basic idea of doctrine of apostasy or Ertedad is that religion is a biological phenomenon. If you're born in a particular family that that family belongs to this religion, your religion must be that religion. Religion is not a matter of consciousness, is not a matter of choice, is not a matter of spirit, it's a matter of blood and body. Not only that, apostasy means that if you're born in a family which has a particular religion, then you grow up and you think for yourself and you decide through your rational deliberations and exercise of reason that you want to change your religion, not to believe in religion or believe in another religion. The law of apostasy argues that this means that you have to be put to death. Apostasy in my judgment is the ultimate form of dehumanization, namely what is distinctively human, namely the exercise of reason, consciousness, freedom of conscience, that is defined as the ultimate crime. What is happening in Iran right now in terms of criminalization of the pursuit of knowledge by the Bahá'ís is another form of that same doctrine. Consciousness, reason, spirit, to be a human becomes the ultimate crime. To be an animal, to be an object, to be devoid of choice and consciousness and freedom is defined as being religious, as being spiritual, as being divine. Another important major form of dehumanization of humans is nationalism. I'm talking about nationalism because nationalism is a dominant form of definition of identity in the last two centuries. To a large extent it has replaced the traditional conception of religion as the basis of identity. But it's not just nationalism but also all kinds of tribalism when you define your identity and your rights on the basis of the accident of the bears in this particular place, in this particular tribe, in this particular country. Then that means that the society is again reducing humans to the level of natural accidents. My work is in sociology and sociologists are preoccupied with the question of social inequality and what is the basis of social inequality. Sociology, however, because of its legacy, 19th century legacy unfortunately equates society with nation-state. And for that reason when it talks about inequality it looks at characteristics of inequality within the nation-state. Therefore for sociology issues like class, race, ethnicity, gender are very important as explaining the dynamics of inequality and oppression in the world. What sociology usually has been completely silent about it is what has become increasingly the most important determinant of social inequality in the world. That basis of social inequality and oppression in the world is increasingly citizenship. The idea that by a purely meaningless accident a child is born in sub-Saharan Africa means that because of this this child has to be excluded from varieties of forms of rights and entitlements. Citizenship has become a process that on the one hand is a progressive concept defining individuals not as subjects but as people endowed with rights. But citizenship because of nationalistic institutions of the world also has become the most important basis of exclusion of rights and entitlements. If a child is born in a rich part of the world that meaningless accident which has no moral significance at all predetermines you to varieties of rights and possibilities and prospects in your life. If a child is born in another part of the world which happens to be poor again because of a totally meaningless accident the entire life of this person is going to be determined. Again nationalism in the way that we have as well as varieties of pre-nationalistic forms of consciousness consciousness of belonging to a community and tradition in a particularistic fashion. All of them are reductions of the human beings to the level of nature. Right now the most important predictor of social inequality prospect of life of an individual on this planet is citizenship is not class is not ethnicity is not gender. All of them are important but all of them in the context of the concept of citizenship. Bahá'u'lláh in the middle of 19th century recognizes this and it was because of that that he said the earth is but one country and mankind its citizens. The concept that Bahá'u'lláh introduced is the most revolutionary theoretical social political economic concept that you can imagine. But neither the Bahá'is nor non-Bahá'is have understood really the implications of this new worldview, this idea. When he says that the honor, glory, pride is not for one who loves his own country but for one who loves the entire human race. He is telling us that we have to begin to enter the realm of spirit to transcend the realm of nature. Morality sense of honor as sociologist Emil Durkheim has said, the boundaries of morality is defined by the boundaries of society. The social boundary defines the boundary of morality. If you belong to this particular society then you consider these people as equal to you to some extent. You have the sense of belonging to them. Outsiders are strangers, objects, instruments, enemies. Violence against outsiders is very very easy and easily justifiable. The boundaries of morality is the boundaries of society. But society what Durkheim called society and what Bergson calls closed society, in reality is a naturalistic conception of feeling. Namely when morality is defined in terms of a sense of community which is based upon visible concrete forms of interactions, kinship relations and doing things in common with each other in visible fashions, a tribalistic form of identity. In that sense people have a sense of solidarity and there is a morality. But this morality is rooted and is an expression of natural feelings. But this kind of feeling although every kind of love is praiseworthy, if it is particularistic then it can become easily the cause of hatred and violence. Words do not happen because people are just hateful. Words happen because people have a lot of solidarity, a lot of self-sacrifice, a lot of love but particularistic love. You are willing to self sacrifice your own life for your country, for your tribe, for your race, for your religion. This is not an evil thing, this is love. Problem is that this love is not universalistic and the result of that of course is violence. To get rid of violence, to get rid of colonialism, to get rid of imperialism, it is necessary not only to love one's own country but to love also the entire human race. Love of one's country, if it is not accompanied by the love of the human race then it means objectification, instrumentalization of the others. Then colonialism is a logical necessity. When Bahá'u'lláh argued that you have to love the entire human race and not just your own country, he is categorically rejecting the basis of the doctrine and practice of colonialism in the world. In Iran, the enemies of the Bahá'i faith always criticize the Bahá'is for this statement. They say that you do not love your country. And at the same time define themselves as people who are opposing colonialism. But they don't understand, they never understood that that type of worldview that they talk about is the worldview of colonialism. You don't want to be colonized by the others but you have no objections against colonialism. You like to colonize others, you want to be imperialists. You are not against imperialism but you are against being inferior in the relation of colonialism and imperialism. It was Bahá'u'lláh who argued that all kinds of particularistic love should be expanded to become universalistic love. One must love one's own country but loving one's own country should be accompanied by loving the entire human race. In that way then colonialism becomes impossible. You cannot define the others as simply instruments or objects for realization of the particularistic interests of this group of people. This means that we are in the realm of a new morality. It's not a naturalistic morality, it's not a morality which I love this person, I sacrifice myself for this person because of natural feelings that I have out of kinship. Or other interactions which are visible and material. You have to now love the entire human race. That concept now is not a visible concept. It's not something that you are in interaction every day with the entire human reality. That concept is a spiritual concept. You have to enter the realm of spirit. You have to enter the realm of universality and in that realm then a new concept of morality, a new concept of identity can emerge. Bahá'u'lláh's statements definition of human being is a call for hovering above water for entering the realm of spirit. This idea, the birth of the human being is the truth of all religions. In the beginning of Torah God says that he wanted to create human being in his own image. If the humanity has understood the meaning of this concept then we would not have had really any major problem in the world. Problem is that the followers of Judaism, of Christianity, of Islam, which all of them accept this statement, they usually did not understand this statement. To say that human being is made in the image of God means that the truth of the human being has nothing to do with the body of human being. Because God does not have body. God is not a material entity. So the skin of color, whether a person is male or female, which place you are born, all these things become totally accidental and arbitrary and irrelevant to definition of the truth and identity of a human being. Once we understand that human beings are made in the image of God we identify the truth of human beings as a spirit, as consciousness, as love, as the spiritual powers, not as characteristic accidental meaningless characteristics of the body of nature. A social order which understands that God made human beings in his own image cannot accept slavery, cannot accept racism, cannot accept discrimination of people on the basis of varieties of issues including creed. It cannot have a world in which the destinies of the people would be determined by the meaningless accident of the births in this tribe or in this nation. The world has not understood that profound spiritual insight which is in the beginning of Torah. Jesus also invited us, called us to become born for a second time, but this time to be born from the realm of nature. So the message of Baha'u'llah is an eternal spiritual message, but we are living in an exciting age, an age in which human beings can concretely not invoke the slogans, emerge out of the realm of nature and enter the realm of spirit. That means that to be a spiritual ultimately is defined in terms of this universalistic orientation. And this is very, very important. Abdu'l-Baha has given us a new definition of spiritual. Frequently Abdu'l-Baha has said, هر امره اومومی الاهیس, whatever is universal is divine. He repeats this many, many times in the speeches in the West he has said these things in his varieties of tablets. Whatever which is universal is divine. God's love, God's creation is universal because it is divine. Son is made by God, is a divine bounty. For that reason it shines upon everybody, doesn't make discrimination between rich and the poor, black and white, male or female. Rain is universalistic and Baha'u'llah called the leaders of the world to follow the politics of God. In English usually this is translated as policy of God. But the original word is the same thing, policy and politics are one and the same. You have to follow Siasatullah, Siasat-e-Elahi, the politics of God. God's politics is universalistic, human politics also must be universalistic. In that case it becomes divine, in that sense it becomes a spiritual. This means that many people might not know that they are a spiritual but they would be in reality deeply a spiritual. If you care about human rights, if you care about peace, if you care about humanity and love humanity and act and feel in those ways you are a spiritual from a Baha'i point of view. Even if you do not engage in prayer, even if you assume that there is no God. From a Baha'i point of view this person is much, much more spiritual than a person that day and night is engaged in praise of God and worship but whose life is dedicated to discrimination and suppression and violence and hatred and enmity against others. So the birth of the human being requires a new culture, a culture in which East and West come together. But this means that both the East and the West must be reconstructed. It's not just East and the West superficially come together, both has to be redefined, both have to be reconstructed. That is why we have to go beyond both religious traditionalism of the East and Western materialistic modernity. And the link which binds them together of course is rejection of dehumanization of humans, rejection of particularism, rejection of reduction of human means to the realm of nature. In the world in which we live, people identify these two ideologies as opposites of each other. Each one justifies itself in terms of rejection of the other. The religious fundamentalist justifies itself in terms of pointing to the negative aspects of the Western modernity. It talks about colonialism for instance. History of colonialism by Western modernity. From that it concludes that therefore its own fundamentalistic Eastern traditionalistic conception of religion is the truth. The Western materialistic modernity points to the abhorring forms of violence and dehumanization which is prevalent in these forms of fundamentalistic forms of social order. And from that it concludes that the only form of moral order is a rational moral order, is an order which is based upon reason and that becomes the materialistic modernity. What is missing in both conceptions is that actually these two points of views have much in common. They appear to be opposite of each other but in fact the ultimate principle is what I'm saying. And that principle is dehumanization of humans, reduction of humans to the level of nature. In the case of materialistic modernity when you have a worldview in which ultimately pure capitalism, namely extreme forms of social inequality and nationalism and militarism become the logical expressions of modernity, you have the ultimate dehumanization of humans. You are defining society as a jungle and the law of struggle for existence becomes the regulating principle of this order. That is the ultimate reduction of humans to the level of nature but in the case of religious traditionalists they think that they are opposed to materialism. But then you have a situation that to be religious, to be a spiritual means to justify varieties of forms of hatred, of alienation, of estrangement, of defending patriarchy, of opposing freedom of conscience, of justifying varieties of forms of violence and war. When God comes on the part of a state and suppression and war by one state against others is defined as the will of God, when apostasy is defined as a spiritual, ultimate de-spiritualization of humans is defined as religious as a spiritual, We have a situation that in the name of religion the entire worldview becomes the worldview of reduction of human beings to realm of nature. The function of religion is to help us to transcend the selfishness of our base natural impulses, to help us to understand the interconnections of all reality, to help us to move towards love and unity. That is the meaning of God, that is the meaning of becoming a spiritual. But unfortunately in human history, in religious history often the concept of religion has become the most vicious tool in order to justify, to further those base impulses, the violent impulses of human beings. Therefore, emergence of the human being as a human being requires a reconstruction of what we have called religion so far and what we call rationality and modernity in terms of the modern west. I wanted to trace the emergence of this concept in the writings of the Bob and Bahá'u'lláh and Abdu'l-Bahá. I try to be very brief on each one of them although the entire Bahá'u'lláh point of view in my judgment is really ultimately the same concept. In the writings of the Bob I mentioned three separatings which are symbols of these. I'm just selecting three issues, there are so many. One is declaration of the Bob. In terms of religious history normally the beginning of a spiritual movement, the beginning of religion is defined as the point that the prophet attains prophetic consciousness. It is defined as the moment that there is a dialogue, beginning of a dialogue between the prophet and God. The prophet becomes conscious that he has a mission and he is the prophet of God and then you have the beginning of a new religious culture. In the inception of the Bahá'u'lláh spiritual movement, this is not the case. The declaration of the Bob is the moment in which the Bahá'u'lláh faith is born. This new spiritual movement is created but that moment is not the moment that the Bob becomes conscious of his prophetic consciousness. Bob in varieties of his writings gives us exact dates of when these events happen and they are not at the time that declaration of the Bob takes place. It's much before that. But those events are not the beginning of the Bahá'u'lláh faith, are not beginning of the mission of the Bob. They are not the beginning of the day of resurrection as the Bob calls it. When is the beginning of the mission of the Bob, of the Bahá'u'lláh faith, of the history of the Bahá'u'lláh faith? It is when there is a dialogue between a human being, in this case the first believer of the Bob, Mullah Hussein and the Bob. It's a dialogue between God and humanity. This is crucial. In this idea human being becomes the image of God. Human being participates in creation of religion. The word of God which defines the revelation is already presupposes this dialogue with humanity. That's why in the Bahá'í faith religion is not static. It doesn't become an arbitrary will of God for eternity. It is on the contrary an interaction between divine will and the advancement, aptitude, interest, development of human consciousness. That interaction defines what would be the content of the revelation, what would be this divine word. Even divine word is not just one-sided entity. It's ultimately a dialogue. This is the first moment that you have the identity of the Bahá'í faith and the identity of the new civilization, which is a dialogical civilization. It's a dialogical culture, not just democracy, but a democracy which is associated with feelings of unity, with love, with respect. In the Bahá'í faith we call that consultation. It's not only in the declaration of the Bab but also in the martyrdom of the Bab. You see the same creative impulse. The martyrdom of the prophet of the sacred figure is always a cosmic drama defining the theological structure of the religion. In Christianity in particular the central theological event of course is martyrdom of Jesus. But in this martyrdom usually it is the prophet, the sacred figure who is sacrificed. The Bab however changes this. The night before his martyrdom he chooses to be martyred together with one of his believers. And he asks this question, he says, I know that tomorrow I'm going to be martyred, but I prefer that one of you kill me. And who among you would be willing to do that? And of course his disciples are all frightened and abhorred doing that except one of them. Now that one already has been martyred because he has annihilated his will in the will of the Bab. In his will nothing could be seen except the will of the Bab. He was already martyred, but the physical martyrdom takes place tomorrow. That's an accidental realization of that. The moment of the martyrdom of the Bab as Mahalo testifies is the moment that the blood and the flesh of the Bab and his disciples have become indiscriminately united. You could not see in the flesh of the disciple anything but the flesh of the Bab. That's a symbolic expression of the fact that in this martyrdom we don't have now martyrdom that does not mean silence or death. It means emergence of that universal spiritual truth in new forms, in the form of a new culture, in the form of a new human race that he wants to create. The Bab doesn't die and his martyrdom is not silence. That's why in the language that the Bab uses, the word martyrdom means simultaneously witnessing, seeing the truth, the connection of all reality that this material aspect is just an illusion and we are all interconnected and witnessing in the sense of loudly proclaiming the truth. Another expression of this concept in the writings of the Bab is the centrality of word in the writings of the Bab. Previously, in the form of ordinary consciousness of the believers, the sign of the presence of God, sovereignty of God was strange natural events, we call them miracles. Strange natural events which would define the realm of reason and science is seen as the sign and evidence of the presence of God. The Bab changes this. The Bab argues that the supreme evidence of the presence of God is something which is close to God, which is expression of the truth of the humanity and that is consciousness. Therefore, the word, not a strange natural events, something spiritual, something belonging to the realm of spirit, that becomes the sign and evidence of the presence of God. The third item that I want to mention very briefly is reinterpretation of the concept of resurrection in the writings of the Bab. Concept of resurrection in traditional conceptions of religiosity usually means the end of history. The Bab changes this because to be a human being as we would see means to be historical and to be dynamic. The concept of resurrection becomes a doctrine of affirming historicity and change and dynamism, not the end of history, but the emergence of a new stage of human development. But in addition to that and in addition to many other points that we are not going to discuss, in the normal religious consciousness, usually the concept of heaven as the ultimate reward, as the ultimate spiritual destiny of human spiritual journey is defined as a situation and a place characterized by unlimited sex without love and unseizing in society. This is an insatiable consumption without work and creativity. This is a conception that people normally have of heaven. The purpose of human history, coming of religions, divine wars and so on, is that ultimately people end up in this situation. But if you pay attention, this is exactly the way an animal is. All the cows, all the animals live exactly in this way. So the concept of heaven becomes ultimate dehumanization of humans. The reduction of human beings to the realm of nature, to become perfectly an animal, that is defined the ultimate meaning and purpose of human history. The Bab changes all these things and of course spiritualization of the world, that becomes a defining feature of the day of resurrection. Resurrection is defined by recognition of the spiritual truth. And of course the Bab links this to the idea that heaven is not just for human beings. This is another innovation of the Bab. Everything has a heaven and hell. But the heaven of everything is realization, attainment of its potentialities. The hell of anything is its deprivation from realization of that, realization of potentialities of that thing. Therefore the Bab says that human being has this responsibility. That for everything, for the entire realm of nature, to make sure within its realm of capacity that things would acquire, reach their heaven. You want a theory of environmental protection, the most important, the most sublime expression of that are the writings of the Bab. Everything has a heaven and hell and it is a human responsibility. So emancipation from the nature means a form of universalistic orientation which protects the nature. On the contrary, as Abdul Baha would argue, if human beings are not emancipated from the realm of nature, act on the basis of the law of struggle for existence. That means because we have reason, because we have knowledge, because we have science that we are going to destroy both nature and the human race and that's what we are doing. So emancipation from the realm of nature is a precondition for realization, preservation of the sanctity of nature as well. The most systematic discussion, however, of the emergence of the human being as a spirit is in the writings of Bahaul. There are three principles which define the emergence of human being as a spirit. First of all, as you can guess from the discussions that we have had so far, the first condition is a spiritual definition of human being. Namely, you do not reduce human beings in definition of human beings to visible sensory expression of the reality. I'm not just this body that you can see that which is different and separate and distinct from you guys and from this ceiling and this wall and that flower and the like. The truth of me is defined by something that the spirit can penetrate, namely interaction, unity, interdependence of me with all reality. That is a spiritual process which understands connections and unity ultimately. That is not the logic of senses, that is not the logic of naturalistic everyday orientation. Bahaul's writings, earliest stages of writings of Bahaul are predominantly expression of this principle. His earliest writings are in the language of mysticism, hidden words, four values, seven values and the like, predominantly are expression of the spiritual nature of human reality. The second principle which defines is necessary for definition of human being as a human being is a historical consciousness. If we are not a natural object, if we are not an animal with particular instincts, that means that as a spirit, as consciousness, we create our environment, we determine ourselves, we change, we deliberate, we have history, not nature, we have culture, not nature. Animals all over the world are the same, cats whether it is in San Francisco or in New York or in Tehran they are all the same, they behave in very similar fashions. 200 years ago cats behaved exactly like cats behave right now. This is animals, humans are not like that, humans in different places act, think, feel, value entirely differently. And at different times they are very, very different. Why? Because we are not just a natural entity, we have a spirit, we have consciousness. That means that we make ourselves, we change the world and through that we also change ourselves, we are not anything particular, we are free, we have freedom. We are a historical being, we are dynamic, we change. The opposite of this, which becomes the logic of dehumanization, reduction of human beings to the level of nature becomes traditionalism. Traditionalism can be in the form of religious traditionalism or non-religious traditionalism. Religious traditionalism is the doctrine that God gave us the truths and laws of how to behave in the past and for eternity that should be the same. Human being becomes an object which is passively determined by the past. No longer human beings are defined as human reality in a dynamic, active fashion, creative fashion. They are just purely determined by this external event or decree in the past. But it doesn't have to be religious. The most important theoretical expression of this issue is prominent sociologist Max Weber. Max Weber made a distinction between modernity as an expression of rationality and rationalism and traditionalism, traditional society. The most important distinction that he makes is distinction between what he calls traditional authority versus legal rational authority. In the past, we had traditional authority, meaning that laws, rules were based upon tradition. Whatever had been in the past, whatever our forefathers have behaved, we have to act like that as well. Habits becomes a determining fact of life. Not consciousness, not deliberation, not science, but habits, what has been in the past. But Max Weber argues that this traditionalism, namely we discover laws out of tradition. We don't create the laws, we just discover them in the tradition, in the past. That is simultaneously naturalism, namely traditionalism means defining the rules of the behavior in terms of natural characteristics of the human beings. Primarily age and sex, the social position of a person, the rights of a person and other factors of society primarily are determined in terms of kinship relations, age sex and other naturalistic categories. So traditionalism becomes the dominant form of organizing society, ultimately reduction of human beings to the realm of nature. Opposed to that becomes modernity. Modernity becomes a legal rational authority. Law now is something which has to be enacted, legislated, created by human beings. It's not something to be found in the past, it's something that humans should deliberate, choose and make. How we live, it has to be created by human beings rather than by finding that in the realm of material nature. So it is legal rational authority because it is law enacted by human being. But the basis of the life of this law becomes reason. Therefore it becomes legal rational authority. Through rational deliberation we enact, we legislate the laws and rules and on that basis we live. For Max Weber this is the ultimate distinction between modernity and the past. Now in this sense modernity becomes a supremely progressive force because it means liberation from the bondage of nature. It means creation of a society based upon reason. It means emergence of a spirit, human beings emerge as a spirit and reason and consciousness. However already in the writing of Max Weber you see the root of the problem which plagues the materialistic modernity. Max Weber comes up with this idea that in modern times in a rational society laws is something that humans should create, values are something that should be made, decided by human beings. However there is no objective basis for making such choices. Values from the point of view of Max Weber are ultimately arbitrary. There is no rational basis for making the values. We have to decide our life on the basis of reason. However values cannot be decided in a rational fashion. Therefore ultimately the laws that we are going to create to determine our life becomes arbitrary, becomes a chaotic world. And for that reason Max Weber actually is one of the together with Nietzsche becomes one of the most important expressions of what later becomes postmodernism. Postmodernism emerges as a revolt against the inadequacies of rationalistic modernity. What was the problem with modernity? Modernity said that we have to have a world based upon reason. We have to make a society on the basis of reason. But the concept of reason defined in dominant discourses of the modernity is not an intersubjective reason, is not a dialogical reason. Consciousness becomes an isolated island, separate from others. Consciousness is defined and reduced to the realm of body. My body is visible and separate from your bodies. Consciousness and my reason also is defined exactly in the same fashion. When Descartes says that I think therefore I am, although his statement is extremely progressive and it is emancipation of human beings from particularistic communities, which is a naturalistic feeling, emancipation of human beings, emergence of human beings as consciousness. But unfortunately, this consciousness has not become an intersubjective dialogical phenomenon. The consequence of this is that reason becomes ultimately a slave to the passions and body, to our natural characteristics. Society becomes defined as a jungle in which we are a set of consciousness fighting and competing with each other. The consequence of that ultimately becomes a world in which reason becomes only an instrument for pursuit of self-interest. Pursuit of selfish interest becomes a definition of rationality. That's the way Hobbes begins his philosophy. That's the way the philosophers of the Enlightenment predominantly see their moral concept of utilitarianism and rationalism. I'm separate from you but I'm defined as a set of desires. Desire for money, desire for power. Reason becomes an efficient instrument for realization of this selfish interest. If reason, however, became this isolated phenomenon and it becomes tied to selfish interest, then what we have is another form of reduction of human beings again to the realm of nature and that's what happened. Colonialism, imperialism happens easily, justifiably in this world made on the basis of reason but the reason which is simply primarily an instrument for realization of selfish interests. A consumer society is expression of that same concept. Destruction of the environment is another logical result of the same reduction of reason to the realm of passions and desires to the realm of nature. Bahá'u'lláh has a different idea. Bahá'u'lláh argues that in addition to a spiritual definition of human being which was dominant in his earlier stages of his writing, to a historical consciousness which is the dominant theme in his second stage writings, his book of certitude and the idea that Bahá'u'llh is called progressive revelation is the idea of historicity not only at the level of society but even at the level of the word of God. Even word of God becomes dynamic and historical. But the third stage of the writings of Bahá'u'lláh he emphasizes a new concept of reason. Reason becomes an intersubjective dialogical phenomenon. Bahá'u'lláh tells us about the signs of maturation of humanity and what he means by that is the age of realization of reason. Guardian translated the word reason, aql, which normally is reason, intellect, as wisdom. And the reason of that is of course the concept of reason usually is understood as instrument for selfish desires, the concept of efficiency, an issue of making means but having nothing to do totally arbitrary with regard to ends. For Bahá'u'lláh this is not reason, reason in truth is an intersubjective universalistic phenomenon. Reason presupposes the others. My consciousness presupposes the presence of the others. Reason is the force is the expression of spirit which recognizes interrelations of all things. Therefore recognizes oneself in the others and discovers others with someone's own reality. That's reason for Bahá'u'lláh. So when he talks about maturation of humanity he says that that is the age of realization of wisdom, namely reason accompanied with moral orientation. How he defines that? He defines that in terms of the idea that he says in a number of his writings that kingship would be left there and nobody would be interested to approach it. That's one of the signs of appearance of reason among humanity but Bahá'u'lláh calls maturation of humanity. Reason therefore is defined for Bahá'u'lláh, not desire for domination, not desire for pursuit of selfish interest, not efficiency in competition and war and violence, but as desire for service. When the thirst for domination, the will to power is replaced by the will to service with love, then you have the emergence of reason. Reason for Bahá'u'lláh is not efficiency in pursuit of self-interest. Reason is the spiritual power which recognizes the interconnections and unity of all beings, the spiritual reality of all beings. In another of his tablets Bahá'u'lláh says this is not translated in English this tablet. Bahá'u'lláh says for everything there is a stage of perfection and maturation. And then he says the perfection and maturation of reason is realized in consultation. I wish we had time to explore this idea. Consultation for Bahá'u'lláh means realization, maturation, perfection of reason. Reason becomes something which is dialogical, it's not subjective, it is intersubjective. And of course social sciences now have completely shown that this is the case. How do I have consciousness? How do I think? I think through language. What is language? Language are the realm of spirit, the realm of signs of symbols. Symbols do not exist in nature. We don't think in terms of perception of things. We think in terms of symbols of reality, purely a spiritual creation. But that symbols, that words which the above made it the supreme principle of presence of God, that word is intersubjective to think presupposes the presence of others, agreement of others in terms of meaning of these symbols to be able to think to begin with presupposes the presence of others. And that becomes a worldview in which the birth of the human being means the birth of the idea of oneness of humanity. This is the new definition of reason and rationality. Universal peace and oneness of humanity becomes expression and realization of reason. Construction of the world on the basis of reason now becomes this, not a military society. Bahá'u'lláh's critique of materialism of the West takes predominantly the form of the critique of militarism. He mentions this in a number of his tablets, some of them are translated in English. Let me finish this discussion by a very brief reference to Abdul Bahá's discussion of the birth of the human being. Abdul Bahá gives us a new definition of freedom or liberty. To be a human being or the emergence of the human being of course is inseparable from the concept of freedom. Abdul Bahá, however, gives us an ingenious new concept of freedom. For Abdul Bahá, freedom means emancipation from the realm of nature, liberation from the bondage of nature. That means freedom, that means to become human. For that to happen, however, Abdul Bahá argues that we need first to get liberated from external nature. That takes place through science and technology. Our science and technology understands the laws of nature and through manipulating that because of that knowledge, then defy those laws. We are right now besides this airport. We are supposed by nature to walk on airs. We cannot fly, we don't have wings. But through knowledge, we discover the laws of nature as Abdul Bahá says. We create airplanes and we can fly. This is necessary for freedom, but for Abdul Bahá absolutely is not sufficient. A culture of militarism in which science becomes integrated with the art of destruction of human beings with war is a very rational process. And it means high degrees of science and liberation from nature, but that is not freedom. So for freedom to take place, it's necessary that not only we get emancipated from external nature, but emancipated from internal nature as well. How I get emancipated from internal nature? Abdul Bahá tell us. This is something that he insists on that frequently in his talks in the West and in varieties of his tablets. If you know the story of that time, the culture of that time and the influence of Darwinism, which was interpreted in a sociological philosophical fashion, giving rise to varieties of doctrines about society, human beings and so on in materialistic, naturalistic form, struggle for existence became the motto of this naturalistic conception of reality. So what Abdul Bahá says is that we become free not only through science, but also internally we should get liberated from the bondage of the struggle for existence. When we see ours and others as one organic unity interrelated and interdependent upon each other, when we discover that the basis of behavior and sentiments in society must be cooperation and love, then we are liberated from the realm of nature. I read for you one of the statements of Bahá'u'llah in the tablet that he wrote to Hague Conference. This is not a very good translation, but it gives you the basic meaning. Abdul Bahá says, and among the teachings of Bahá'u'llah is man's freedom, that through the ideal power, spiritual power, he should be free and emancipated from the captivity of the world of nature. For as long as man is captive to nature, he is a ferocious animal, as the struggle for existence is one of the exigences of the world of nature. This matter of the struggle for existence is the fountain head of all calamities and is the supreme affliction. So how struggle for existence appears in human society, because we don't have instincts, then how it appears? Abdul Bahá gives another ingenious answer to this question. In varieties of his tablets, including the same tablet that I don't read his exact statement, he tells us that the way struggle for existence manifests itself, appears in human relations is through prejudice. Prejudice, according to Abdul Bahá, is the equivalent of the law of struggle for existence in the realm of nature. Prejudice means particularistic love, means exclusion of others. When I have particularistic love, but not universalistic love, the others become strangers, enemies, objects, they can be dehumanized. Violence can be justified very easily, whether it is religious prejudice, ethnic prejudice, nationalistic prejudice or other forms of prejudice, we have a world in which humans, the way they think, the way they understand themselves, that way of thinking turns human society into a jungle and the battle of this group against that group, this individual against that individual, this nation against that nation and the culture of hate and militarism becomes the dominant principle of life. So to get rid of prejudices means to become human being, to get rid of prejudices means to emerge as human being. How we get rid of prejudices, Abdul Bahá again frequently mentions frequently that prejudices can be eliminated through independent investigation of truth. This is magnificent. For the Bahá'i Faith, the twin principles of independent investigation of truth and oneness of humanity defines the emergence of human being as a spirit, as consciousness. At first they might seem to be paradoxical. Independent investigation of truth means independence from others, to be different from others, to think for yourself, not to imitate others, not to follow others, to be different, to be qualitatively different, to be an individual, individuality to be emphasized, freedom to be emphasized, autonomy to be emphasized. This is independent investigation of truth, yet at the same time to become a human being, what becomes necessary is discovery of our unity with others, oneness of humanity They might appear to be opposite of each other, but that's the beauty. This paradox is the ultimate expression of truth in the Bahá'i Faith. To be a human being, to emerge as a spirit, requires us as a spirit to be different, to be autonomous, to think for ourselves as Bahá'u'llah says to look at things with our own eyes, not through eyes of others, namely not through prejudice, not through particularistic identities. We look at things independently with our own eyes. Once you have had this, you can have justice. Once you had this, then you can recognize through this independent investigation of truth, through this reason what you discover is the identity, unity of all human beings. The unity of our autonomy, individuality, at the same time our unity with others for Bahá'u'llah, for Bahá'i Faith defines the principle of a new culture, a new civilization, a culture, a civilization in which human being is going to be born, a culture in which finally that human face is going to emerge out of the realm of the body.