Alternative Sociology: Probing into the Sociological Thought of Allama Muhammad Taqi Jafari

Alternative Sociology: Probing into the Sociological Thought of Allama Muhammad Taqi Jafari0%

Alternative Sociology: Probing into the Sociological Thought of Allama Muhammad Taqi Jafari Author:
Publisher: Academy of Iranian Studies
Category: Islamic Philosophy
ISBN: 978-0-9552298-9-3

Alternative Sociology: Probing into the Sociological Thought of Allama Muhammad Taqi Jafari

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought

Author: Seyed Javad Miri
Publisher: Academy of Iranian Studies
Category: ISBN: 978-0-9552298-9-3
visits: 8336
Download: 3522

Comments:

Alternative Sociology: Probing into the Sociological Thought of Allama Muhammad Taqi Jafari
search inside book
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 13 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 8336 / Download: 3522
Size Size Size
Alternative Sociology: Probing into the Sociological Thought of Allama Muhammad Taqi Jafari

Alternative Sociology: Probing into the Sociological Thought of Allama Muhammad Taqi Jafari

Author:
Publisher: Academy of Iranian Studies
ISBN: 978-0-9552298-9-3
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought

Alternative Sociology: Probing into the Sociological Thought of Allama Muhammad Taqi Jafari

When one speaks of sociology, places such as the US, UK, Germany, and France come to mind. To western or even eastern students of social sciences, the very idea that outside Europe and America one could come across sociological debates or theoretical debates on socio-cultural issues comes as a surprise, to say the least. In this work, the author presents the work of Allama M.T. Jafari, an Iranian, contemporary social thinker who worked within the parameters of Primordial School of Social Theory. This work is an attempt to enrich the existing literature on comparative sociology and social philosophy.

Author(s): Seyed Javad Miri

Publisher(s): London Academy of Iranian Studies Press

Table of Contents

Foreword 4

Prologue 6

Introduction 11

Chapter 1: Relocating Scientific Rationality in Humanities 17

Science in Retrospection 17

Schools of Sociology 18

Positivistic Sociology 20

Theoretical Sociology 21

Disciplinary Turns and Intelligible Approach 21

Chapter 2: Human Sciences and Being 25

Normativity versus Descriptivity 25

Geisteswissenschaften and the Intelligible Model 27

Human Being and the Myth of Creation 28

The Scientific Inquiry and The Concept of Human Being 31

Chapter 3: The Perils of Reductionism  34

Compartmentalization of Mind 34

The Perils of Reductionism 36

Unidimensionality and Human Personality 38

Rationalization and the Question of Religare 39

Lebenswelt and Kommunkationstechnik 40

Modern Disciplinary Rationality 42

Lebensphilosophie and Human Predicament 45

Chapter 4: Sociology and Three Kinds of Relationships 50

Natural Relationship 50

Psychological Relationship 50

a) Inherently deterministic association of psychological nature 51

b) Extrinsically deterministic affiliation of psychological nature 51

c) Psychological relationship based on freedom and will 51

Contractual Relationship 51

a) Deterministic Contract 52

b) Voluntarily Contract 52

Primary Movement 53

Second Movement 55

Third Movement 55

The ‘Social’ as Demiurge 55

Chapter 5: Human Sciences, Values and Understanding 58

Values and Understanding in Human Sciences 58

Types of Interventions in Human Sciences 60

The Unstudied Type of Interference 60

The Intentional Type of Interference 61

Epilogue 64

Science, Secularity, and Deficiency 64

Sociological Gharbzadegi 68

Integrated Wholeness - Integrated Method 70

Identity, Crisis, and Wholeness 71

Sources 73

Notes 76

Foreword

In The Heart of Man: Its Genesis for Good and Evil, in Religious Perspectives (1964. p 93), Erich Fromm argues that ‘’our conscious mind represents mainly our own society and culture, while our unconscious represents the universal man in each of us.’’ If we could conclude the project of Allama Jafari in one sentence that would be what Erich Fromm stated about the role of unconscious and its relation to the universal in each of us. In other words, Allama Jafari was working on the poetry of awakening the ‘universal being’ in the heart of human self in a dialectical fashion that the unconscious would turn conscious and the universal would get fused with the conscious heart in a dynamic mode.

In 2010, I wrote a book on Allama Jafari entitled Reflections on the Social Thought of Allama M. T. Jafari: Rediscovering the Sociological Relevance of the Primordial School of Social Theory, which was published by University Press of America.

There I attempted to reconstruct the theoretical significance of Allama Jafari within the broad parameters of social theory by arguing that he belongs to a school of thought which has been undertheorized in the Iranian context as well as not known in the global context of social theory.

While thinking over the repercussions of such bold assertions in regard to a thinker who, is not even recognized within Iran as a relevant social philosopher (let alone a social thinker or social theorist and sociologist), I came across an unpublished manuscript by Allama Jafari entitled Sociology and Human Being dated 1976.1

In these unpublished lectures, he precisely takes issue with sociology as a field of knowledge and mentions the works of Western sociologists and even quotes Durkheim and other classical sociologists at length. Reading this work I realized that we are faced with a thinker who is a many-sided theoretician that is indispensable for all who are interested in alternative sociological imaginations. In other words, the sociological works of Allama Jafari represents a novel fashion in doing sociology based on primordial school of social theory. To put it differently, we who studied disciplinary sociology and grew within the parameters of discursive rationalized imagination have come to believe that reflections over the destiny of humanity is tantamount to the principles of disciplinary rationality.

However, as Syed Farid Alatas has demonstrated cogently the alternative sociology is desirably possible when the students of social sciences get in touch with their respective traditions which enable them to build new concepts for explaining ‘other’ historical experiences and social realities. (2006) One creative mode of relating to alternative traditions is to build upon the works of thinkers who belong to an intellectual tradition in an intellectual fashion and not long for a tradition in a fetishistic manner.

In other words, Allama Jafari is rooted in the soil of perennial tradition of religio perennis but that has not stopped him to establish constructive dialog with other traditions such as European, Russian, Chinese, Indian, and many other schools of thought.

In this work, I have attempted to demonstrate the contours of an alternative approach to sociological problematiques within the work of Allama Jafari which is aimed at reviving the ‘’universal’’ within the parameters of human sciences. In other words, the revival of alternative discourses is only possible when one’s classics are different than the disciplinary canonical paradigm but this does not mean to exclude other streams of thought such as disciplinary discourses embodied in the pantheon of sociological temple.

Last but not least, I would like to emphasize that any attempt to identify the thread that runs through Allama Jafari’s writings will soon uncover an unequivocally humaneistic2 worldview. From the 194os on to the end of his life in 1998, this was Allama Jafari’s guiding principle.

Prologue

Rudolf J. Siebert3

Professor of Religion and Society

Department of Comparative Religion

Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA

Seyed Javad Miri’s book “Alternative Sociology Probing into the Sociological Thought of Allama M. T. Jafari’’ deals fundamentally with the modern antagonism between the religious and the secular, the sacred and the profane, religious revelation and profane enlightenment, faith and autonomous reason.

Erich Fromm and the critical theorists of the Frankfurt School defined religion as non-authoritarian, non-dogmatic humanistic X-experience, as movement toward Universality and Wholeness, as longing for the totally Other than the horror and terror of nature and history, for perfect justice, for unconditional love, and as the hope, that the murderer shall not triumph over the innocent victim, at least not ultimately.

They defined enlightenment with Sigmund Freud as the attempt to put Ego, where Id is, and as making the Unconscious conscious, as the effort, to free people from their fears, and to make them masters of their fate.

Seyed Javad Miri and his great teacher Allama M. T. Jafari stand on the humanistic, scientific side, being at the same time open toward the religious side. Both humanistic scholars have contributed much in theory and praxis to the prevention of alternative Future I - the entirely administered society, and of alternative Future II - the fully militarized society, and to the arrival of a possible alternative Future III - a free and just society, in which not only personal autonomy and universal, i.e., anamnestic, present, and proleptic solidarity, but also religion and enlightenment would be reconciled.

Seyed Javad Miri, reflects in his new book on the life work of Allama Jafari including mysticism, philosophy, jurisprudence, art, literature natural and social sciences and poetry.

He introduces Allama Jafari’s work and its great Iranian wisdom, which reached a climax in Cyrus, and was different from Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome, their mythos, logos, and ethos, the seedbed societies of the Western civilization, into the globalizing modern Occident: Europe and America. Doing so, he identifies the limits of the present day secular natural and social sciences in understanding and comprehending reality.

To be sure, he is well educated in and takes most seriously Western secular psychology, social psychology, sociology, anthropology, and philosophy as “tools” to understand and comprehend “human being”. But he is also fully aware, that secular sociology fragments and compartmentalizes the human being, and thus doubles up the extreme division of labor and its alienating effects in modern civil society.

The secular methodology loses the totality of man, as once projected by Plato and the Neo-Platonists, and most recently by Allama M. T. Jafari: the unified tripartite framework of “human being” - body, psyche, and soul. Persia (Iran) and Europe are not only different; they also have much in common. However, Seyed Javad Miri is correct in his observation, that positivistic sociology is unable to account for human “wholeness” or “integratedness,” not to speak of bringing it about.

Seyed Javad Miri is aware that the dominance of positivistic sociology has damaged the study of human society. Since August Comte, the inventor of the names “positivism” and “sociology”, positivism means the anti-metaphysical metaphysics of “what is the case.”

As positivistic sociology describes, categorizes, mathematizes and puts into statistical form, what is the case in modern civil society, it fails to see and is blinded against what ought not to be, and what in terms at least the Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - is against God and his will, and should therefore be changed.

The Mosaic Decalogue, which all three Abrahamic religions have in common, and which could be summed up in the Golden Rule, which all living world religions share, is revolutionary. Without stealing, murdering, and lying, no modern ruling class could possibly establish bloody retaliation and revenge among individuals as well as among nations.

Seyed Javad Miri is fully conscious of the fact that in the secular positivistic sociology instrumental or functional rationality dominates mimetic or communicative rationality. Secular modernity once promised more than instrumental rationality. But as it was immensely successful in terms of the functional natural sciences and technology, it neglected communicative rationality: It sold and lost its soul, including psyche and body.

Modern people travel in the technologically most advanced cars and airplanes, while their families fall apart at home, and the inner cities turn into wastelands, and the neighborhoods are without neighbors, and the wars, which are so costly in terms of human lives and property, take no end.

The life world, which includes family, neighborhood, friends, lovers, aesthetic and religious associations, and which is sometimes still characterized by communicative rationality, and which is still sometimes steered over the medium of religious or secular ethics and morality, suffers inner colonization from the economic subsystem of the total system of human condition and human action system, characterized by functional rationality and steered over the medium of money, and by the political subsystem, which is also characterized by instrumental rationality, and is steered over the medium of power.

Sometimes spontaneous social movements like “Occupy: Wall Street” turn against such inner colonization of the life-world, and try to stop and to break it more or less successfully.

Seyed Javad Miri understands the “humanities” as a methodology of thought, which does not separate physicality from spirit or from metaphysics, or from religion, as the positivistic social sciences have done since the end of German idealism, and its last great metaphysicians and their transcendental or dialectical logic, the first new one after Aristotle, of which Marx became the heir, turning it upside down and secularizing it, and which Lenin transformed into the likewise profane ABC of revolution and liberation. Of course, secular liberation is not against the theology of the three Abrahamic religions.

Theology is rather the necessary source and precondition of liberation, as Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm have made clear enough. A theology, which while it aims at religious redemption, remains, nevertheless, still open for the secular happiness of the people as the goal of politics, alone can help historical materialism to solve its metaphysical and religious problems in terms of an anamnestic solidarity with all those victims, who became martyrs of freedom, without ever experiencing alternative Future III - the realm of freedom on the basis of natural and economic necessity, and without ever having had their day in court as they fought against the arrival of alternative Future I - the totally administered society, and of alternative Future II - the entirely militarized society.

It is not without good reasons, that there exist today Jewish, Christian and Islamic liberation theologies on all continents, which are of greatest actuality.

Seyed Javad Miri observes rightly, that there are individualistic and collectivistic schools present in modern sociology. The division of these schools reflects the antagonism of individual and collective in bourgeois society. So far positivistic sociology has not been able to reconcile this discrepancy.

Liberalism, the philosophy of civil society, is atomistic even still when it is socially modified by the principle of subsidiarity as it is the case in the Roosevelt or New Deal liberalism, which is practiced today in America by the Obama Administration. What is missing in modern liberal capitalist society is universal solidarity.

The unresolved antagonism between the individual and the collective as well as the discrepancy between the rich and the poor classes, the bourgeoisie and the “precariat,” drives civil society beyond itself into alternative Future I, II or III.4

Seyed Javad Miri is right, when he identifies, what Max Weber called “rationalization” as “falsely assumed progress.” The sociologies who follow Weber, e.g. structural functionalism, overlook the dialectic of enlightenment. Enlightenment does indeed mean rationalization. However in the real historical process this rationalization often turns against itself. More rationalization of a corporation often means also more irrationality. Enlightenment also means integration.

But often integration leads to more disintegration historical materialism. It is accepted in most forms of sociology, on the Right and on the Left. It cannot be denied, that projection takes place in religion, like in any other domain of human life, e.g. between lovers. However, all projections need a screen against which the projection takes place. That is also true for religion.

The existential theologian Paul Tillich, the friend of Max Horkheimer, the founder of the critical theory of society of the Frankfurt School, and the teacher and friend of Theodor W. Adorno, and the friend of Fromm argued correctly, that from the fact, that anthropological projection takes place in religion it cannot be concluded, that there is no more place for theology any longer: Also religious projection needs a screen, which has elicited it throughout many world religions for centuries: the totally Other than the phenomenal world with all its injustices.

Seyed Javad Miri would like to reconcile humanistically humano-centered: and theo-centered world views. If it is true, that on one hand the humano-centered secularization process of the past four centuries in the Western civilization, which today is even globalized, cannot really be stopped, and on the other hand, that the world religions have greatly contributed to the humanization of the human species at least in the past 6000 years, then the question arises, how the progressive elements in these religions can be rescued through their inversion or translation into the secular discourse of the expert cultures, i.e. sociology, anthropology, psychology, political economics, philosophy, etc., and through it into the communicative action of the life world, and through social movements even into the behavior in the economic and political subsystems of modern and post-modern action systems.

Such inversion of semantic materials and potentials of religion into the discourse of the expert cultures could lead to a reconciliation of humano-centered and theo-centered world views on the secular side.

Seyed Javad Miri differentiates between a first and second nature of man, between instincts and social survival. Here the problem is how to relate adequately the first nature of instincts and the second nature, which individuals receive through cultural socialization.

The massive, explosive breakthrough of the libidinous aspects- porno industry - and the aggressive aspects - war industry - of the Id, the will to life in individuals and collectives, in the modern Western culture, leads us to speak with Freud of the “discontents of civilization”, if not of a failed civilization.

The solution may lay with what the mystics suggested, and what Marx took up: the idea of the humanization of nature and the naturalization of man. So far the bourgeois drive to control and exploit selfishly and absolutely the external as well as the internal nature in the interest of capitalism and of private property and profit, has prevented such reconciliation between the first and the second nature and has promoted their further alienation.

There are ecological catastrophes going on in the ecology of nature and of man. Reconciliation between man and nature could take place in alternative Future III-a classless and free society. If man’s killer instinct, as it is expressed in one retaliation or thievery war after the other, and in the always growing and always more sophisticated weapon industry cannot be sublimated and humanized, the survival of humanity on this planet mat very well be threatened.

What Seyed Javad Miri calls the humanistic and naturalistic approaches to the study of society could be combined in the effort to achieve alternative Future III - a free society, in which not only the antagonism between the sacred and the profane, and the discrepancy between the personal autonomy and the universal solidarity, but also the contradiction between nature and man could be reconciled.

Those sociological approaches can, of course, not be value-free in Max Weber’s sense. To be sure, already the intentional or unintentional interference of the sociologist into his or her own object of study renders a value - free sociology impossible. In any case, the humanistic and naturalistic sociological approaches could not be satisfied with the mere positivistic study of what is the case, but would also have to point out its potential and what ought to be in a positive or negative way, and initiate the consequent, necessary practical changes. Seyed Javad Miri’s new book, inspired by the great work of his teacher Allama M. T. Jafari, is doing precisely that in the most excellent way, as he is building a strong bridge between the great Iranian culture and the West.

Introduction

How could local thinkers be globally presented? Is there any specific mechanism to carry out such a task? Of course, I do not mean that thinkers such as Allama Jafari are not globally significant but the matter of the fact is that in despite of the global significance of his thought the paradigm of Allama Jafari is not known globally.5 The question of ‘’relevance’’ in the global context could be approached in two different but interrelated sense, i.e. substantially and formally.6

Here the question of relevancy is not related to the substantial dimension of Allama Jafari as this aspect could be intellectually appraised and critically assessed by anybody who knows the Persian language and is well-versed in human sciences and philosophy. On the contrary, the question is of formal significance as it seems the disciplinary rationality by being the dominant mode of reflexivity it does inhibit the presence of other forms of wisdom which struggle against reductionism of soft or hard kinds.

In other words, to present the body of Allama Jafari’s thought is not only a matter of translation or interpretation of parts or all aspects of his writings into globally significant languages such as English, French, German, Spanish, Russian, Chinese or Japanese and so on and so forth. Because the act of translation may at its best convey the epistemological dimensions of Allama Jafari’s thought and concerns but it cannot transmit the pre- epistemological concerns of his traditions across the cultures which are of crucial importance in re-presenting a scholar of his caliber in a global stage.

Generally speaking, the frame of Allama Jafari’s discourse is consisted of seven broad streams of philosophy, jurisprudence, mysticism, art, literature, natural and social sciences, and poetry.

In other words, to understand the landscape of Allama Jafari’s body of thought one need to take into consideration these complex dimensions within the Irano-Islamic context in a multicultural fashion. In addition, the incessant dialog of Allama Jafari with other global traditions such as European, Russian, Indian and Chinese philosophies and literary discourse should not be disregarded as the totality of what he has left behind is inseparable from all these various streams. Anyhow, to know all these intricate issues will not enable us to fathom the very spirit of Allama Jafari and the traditions which have come to be materialized in the body of his thought as the ethos is very different than logos and both seem to be not very close to pathos and mythos.

One could argue that the question of translation is impossible if we do not adopt a hermeneutic approach to the world of Allama Jafari which is a conceptualized text embedded in a textualized ‘’conceptic universe’’ of complex structures. In addition, one could ask about the prospected concept where the body of Allama Jafari’s thought is supposed to be transmitted in a meaningful fashion.

If we have chosen the English as the medium of dialog then we have tacitly accepted the rules of engagement which are operating in the context of modern worlds. In other words, the four dimensions of ethos, logos, pathos and mythos within the modern world should be taken into consideration and contrasted before we can think of a conceptual re-presentation of Allama Jafari’s intellectual system in a global context which is not based on the background assumptions of religio perennis.

There are many concepts which we use very carelessly across intellectual traditions without realizing the pre-conceptual textures of these concepts which may be similar lexically but different pre-conceptually. One of those crucial concepts which has been incessantly employed by Allama Jafari is the concept of ‘’human being’’ and, as a matter of fact, constitutes the very ground of pre-epistemological concern of his thought.

When the translation is based on the ‘’lexical accuracy’’ without realizing the ‘’pre- conceptual truthfulness’’ the result will be a transmission of words without worlds which lie at the heart of any systematic discourse that is aimed at restoration of humanity as a universal reality.

Why do we speak? What happens when we are unable to talk? It seems we speak because we need to establish relationships and when we are unable to talk the process of relating gets disrupted. The disruption of relation does not only affect the flow of words but distorts the constitution of worlds in the minds of those who are engaged in the dialog.

When you are incapable of getting your message across the ‘’other’’ then the world between you and the ‘’other’’ becomes completely other in a conflicting sense which may lead to a totally incomprehensible state of incommunicado - where communication with the ‘other’ (who is now turned into an out-sider) is not possible.

To translate a text in a lexical sense without taking into consideration all those fundamental aspects would lead to incommunicado which is the opposite of communication where a sense of communion may be achievable. In other words, if a sense of unity between the text and the reader is established then we may hope to reach to some kind of relationship where the message of Allama Jafari along with the universe of his thought reach across at a global stage.

To put it differently, what we need to do is the recreation of ingenious creativity which has grown in the soil of tradition and embedded in the textures of Allama Jafari’s thought. However, a thinker is not only confined by his words and the words cannot express the worlds of a scholar in an integrated fashion. In other words, the appropriate question is how to bridge between the world of theory and the context of praxis? To work out the broken bridge when the world of the author has broken into myriad pieces and only kept intact in the body of words is not an easy task.

This is where the question of multiple readings and interpretations set in. In other words, at the global stage, what kind of Allama Jafari or what type of tradition we would like to present and re-present? Where does our allegiance lie? To what direction does our heart aim? Are we trying to exegete Allama Jafari or the task is to recreate a tradition in a new global context where the audience could establish a meaningful relationship with the message?

What is the message of religio perennis tradition? If you are looking at human existence from the heights of the wings of Gabriel then the message is to realize the potentials of intellect in the bosom of human self. But the wings of Gabriel have lost its mythos within the global context where religio perennis is not the dominant modality of relevance as well as relatedness.

In other words, what should be done in a context where Gabriel is not present in the textures of cogito? Maybe a detour on history of civilization would be appropriate in order to understand the complexities of ideas and the nature of social theories at metatheoretical levels.

Through late 14th century Old French magique, the word ‘’magic’’ derives via Latin magicus from the Greek adjective magikos used in reference to the ‘’magical’’ arts of the Magicians i.e. the Zoroastrian astrologer priests. This is the etymological background of the term which goes back to the land of Iran. In the modern context, magic has been conceptualized in contrast to science and by certain scholars as an extension of religion.

In other words, this concept in current English refers to the art of manipulating aspects of reality either by supernatural means or through knowledge of occult laws unknown to science. It is in contrast to science, in that science does not accept anything not subject to either direct or indirect observation, and subject to logical analysis, whereas practitioners of magic claim it is an inexplicable force beyond logic.

Magic has been practiced in all cultures, and utilizes ways of understanding, experiencing and influencing the world somewhat akin to those offered by religion, though it is sometimes regarded as more focused on achieving results than religious worship.

This is what is claimed by modern historians who view the scientific rationality as the criterion of reasonability. In other words, the land of magic is Iran. Magus resided in Iran. Iran is the locus of incantation or enchantment. The world has been disenchanted in the Occident. Orient is where the sun rises. The enchantment of the world comes from Iran.

How could one distinguish between styles of thought? In the contemporary context, one could make a distinction between paradigms which fall within either the parameters of ‘disenchantment paradigm’ or ‘enchantment paradigm’. What does these terms mean within the context of sociology? By disenchantment, we refer to Entzauberung which is a term in the social sciences that describes the cultural rationalization and devaluation of Das Heilige apparent in modern society.

The concept was originally coined by Max Weber to describe the character of modernized, bureaucratic, secularized Western society, where scientific understanding is more highly valued than intellectual knowledge, and where processes are oriented toward rational goals rather than eschatological significance. (Bell, 1997) The disciplinary sociological imagination is the map whereby we can trace the disenchantment of the world which has confined us to the walls of the ‘Iron Cage’.

But the term ‘enchantment’ which is used less in the context of disciplinary sociology refers to an existential approach that enlivens the sense of ‘wonder’ or wunder in the contemporary world. The word enchantment is related to incantation and magic and both are etymologically related to the ideas of Iran (the land of incantation) and Magus (practitioners of wonder). Allama Jafari belongs to a tradition which could be classified as the seer of enchantment. As Max Weber lays out the contours of the disenchanted world of ‘’Iron Cage’’, the work of Allama Jafari could be seen as the roadmap towards how to redeem humanity from the ‘’Dungeon of Necrophilia’’.

As the ancient Greeks did not understand the paradigm of illuminated magus in Iran by ascribing to them acts of hocus pocus the modern scholars have not comprehended the enchanting character of intelligibility which is aimed at reviving the Das Heilige by making the ‘’Iron Cage’’ a passé. In other words, to re-present the world of Allama Jafari in the context of modern mind is a challenging task as the boundaries of modern imagination is based on the textures of disenchantment rather than enchantment.

To put it otherwise, Verzauberung in the world of Allama Jafari is a mental construction which is reflected in his work solely. This mental construction which is based on the poetical union between realms of body, mind and spirit is not accessible to everyone who has no access to the world beyond the confines of disenchanted cage.

In other words, the act of translation needs to go beyond lexical transmission of concepts by opening novel avenues. Of course, I should add that by Iran, I do not refer to the political reality on the contemporary world map but to the idea that does not distinguish between the path of intellect and the course of incantation where word (Logos) and world (Kosmos) merge into a united reality in the heart of human self. In brief, disciplinary rationality could be concluded as an attempt to reduce the self into an index of the ‘social’ while the primordial intelligibility is aimed at elevation of the self as a mirror of the ‘cosmos’ without disregarding the ‘social’ per se.

What does ‘transplantation’ as a concept mean? What does philosophic transplantation mean? Is it possible to transplant an idea? By transplantation I refer to the act of removing something from one location and introducing it in another location. To put it otherwise, in the very texture of transplantation there are two momentous episodes of ‘’removal’’ and ‘‘introduction’’.

The first one refers to the spatial dimension while the second episode refers to the mental aspect. In order to be able to transplant an idea within the mental location of the

‘’other’’ the totality of the stranger should be recognized and this recognition cannot be realized if the cognition is not involved in a comprehensibly intersubjective fashion. Although it is a hard task but the transplantation of ideas has repeatedly happened in the course of human history. For instance, Locke’s ideas were transplanted to America by Madison and Jefferson.

To put it differently, the doctrines of the Socinians represent a rational reaction to a medieval theology based on submission to the Church’s authority. Though they retained Scripture as something supra rationem, the Socinians analyzed it rationally and believed that nothing should be accepted contra rationem.

Their social and political thought underwent a significant evolutionary process from a very utopian pacifistic trend condemning participation in war and holding public and judicial office to a moderate and realistic stance based on mutual love, support of the secular power of the state, active participation in social and political life, and the defense of social equality. They spoke out against the enserfment of peasants, and were the first Christians to postulate the separation of Church and state.

The spirit of absolute religious freedom expressed in their practice and writings, determined, more or less immediately, all the subsequent revolutions in favor of religious liberty. The precursor ideas of the Socinians on religious freedom later were expanded, perfected, and popularized by Locke and Pierre Bayle. Locke’s ideas were transplanted to America by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who implemented them in American legislation.

The rationality of the Socinians set the trend for the philosophical ideas of the Enlightenment and determined the future development of many modern intellectual endeavors. (Hillar, 1994. pp 22-57)

In other words, the transplantation of Allama Jafari’s episteme is possible provided one is conscious about the differences between disciplinary and primordial epistemes or textures of disenchantment paradigm and enchantment framework. To put it otherwise, if we attempt to reconstruct the image of Allama Jafari as a scientist then we are playing in a ground which is constructed by architects of disenchantment and additionally is not what Allama Jafari intended to achieve.

Said differently, we need to resuscitate the imago magus as Allama Jafari is a contemporary magus which in the context of Islam is equivalent to ‘’Hakim’’. Last but not least, it should be emphasized that there is no specific mechanism in globalizing local thinkers as what is needed is a recreation of magical poetry or magikos poiesis embedded in the universe of religio perennis which targets the inner tapestry of human soul as its subject-matter in re-presenting perennial ideals.

Said differently, we cannot solely rely on translation of ideas based on lexical accuracy without realizing the poetry of intellection which is the fundamental principle of coherency in the body of background assumptions underlying Allama Jafari’s universe.

Apart from the question of incommensurability which may exist when the coherency principle is based on rationality vis-à-vis intelligibility there is the issue of dialectics of temporality and spatiality in Allama Jafari. In other words, if we assume that each thinker formulates her/his thought in accordance to a context and the text is defined in regard to an audience then what is left for future?

Futurologists argue that humanity will enjoy increasing political and economic liberty, as well as increasing freedom from ignorance and superstition. Humanity will enjoy increasing prosperity and steady progress within the limits defined by the laws of physics. Effective immortality may result from technology allowing the human mind to sustain its brain or perhaps reincarnate itself as an intelligent artifact.

Human civilization will experience neither salvation nor extermination by nature, machines, aliens, or gods. Humanity will spread throughout the Solar System and into the Milky Way, and be enriched by contact with other intelligent species and artifacts. Eventually humanity's descendants will so improve their genes and minds that Homo sapiens will exist primarily as a revered memory.

Religion will decline due to the ongoing loss of faith. In other words, world religions such as Christianity will be hollowed out and diluted into a bland mysticism. Islam will follow along the same track but about 150 years behind. Being already more mystical, Hinduism and especially Buddhism will linger as phenomena more ethnocultural than religious, much like Judaism and Shintoism already are.

The interesting issues in these predictions are the concepts of ‘’liberty’’, ‘’immortality’’, ‘‘humanity’’, ‘‘human being’’, ‘‘sapience’’ and ‘’religion’’ which in the eyes of futurologists would lose their essential connotations. Now the question in relation to religio perennis, enchantment paradigm and the universe of Allama Jafari is what could be offered to a world that has lost its soul? In other words, if the future of homo sapiens is ominous as predicted by futurologists then is there any chance the flapping of Gabriel’s wings

will not fall on deaf ears of reincarnated intelligent post-human artifacts? To answer this question, we need to write another long treatise but the short answer is:

… that man can have nothing but what he does … and his deeds will be seen. Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best recompense … and to your Lord is the End (Return of everything). (Koran, Chapter 53. Verses 39-42)