Integral in Iran

Sizdeh Bedar - Iranians in the Park

Yesterday (Sunday in the USA) was Sizdeh Bedar (or "Nature Day") the holiday that ends the two-week Norouz (lit.New Day) New Year season of celebration. It's a day when Iranians— families, couples, and friends of all ages—go to the park. Even in parks in American or European cities you may well have noticed a lot of Iranian  picnics!

Not only on Sizdeh Bedar... Persians often socialize by going into nature, and particularly to the sometimes very beautiful city parks of Iran—particularly in cities with beautiful parks, like Isfahan or Shiraz. (BTW, Walking in the park is among the very few socially acceptable ways under the strict rules of the Islamic Republic for couples to spend time together in public.)

The pictures here capture the peaceful languor of a free day I was able to spend in the remarkably beautiful city of Isfahan, along the Zayandeh Rud, where our delegation relaxed, mingling with hundreds of Iranian families and friends and many young couples.

It reminded me of a perfect day for hiking back home in beautiful Marin County—except the mood. Persians seemed so much more relaxed than Californians! Not so mindful of time. Open. Receptive.  What a disconnect from the TV screens in the Terminal at JFK before we boarded our flight, with their bold banner headlines, "WAR WITH IRAN?"

Believe it or not, while the UN voted sanctions and while the whole British sailor detention crisis has unfolded, most Iranians have been cooling out at home, ever since March 20th, enjoying their Norouz break. Today's their first back-to-work day.

Khatami’s Dialog of Civilizations

Early in my consideration about going to Iran (I had been told our group would be meeting with former president Mohammed Khatami [official site]) I read many of Khatami's writings. They played a big role in my becoming so intrigued. Especially worth considering is his speech to the U.N. when he proposed  a "Dialog Among Civilizations" (as as an alternative vision of world politics to Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations.")  Largely due to his efforts, The UN declared 2001 as the "year of dialog among civilizations. (After the 911 attacks, the UN extended that declaration for another five years. Due to American hostility to all Iranian government behaviors, however, all of this was barely covered by our press.)

I was struck by the key points Khatami made when making his original U.N. proposal:

1. Khatami began by speaking to Persia's unique cultural and historical role in the Eurasian world, especially praising the humane qualities of Islamic civilization and its global invitation to humanity.
2. He made a pitch for a new (not Eurocentric) model for an emerging world culture: "World culture cannot and ought not to ignore characteristics and peculiarities of any particular local culture with the aim of imposing its own upon them."
3. This preservation of cultural uniqueness was the specific context out of which he articulated his idea, " In order for an emerging world culture to assume a unified identity, in form and substance, and avoid the chaos caused by various cultural discords, it must engage all the concerned parties in dialogues aimed at exchanging knowledge, experience and raising understanding in diverse areas of culture and civilization." Otherwise, he warned that many people would experience "cultural homelessness."
4. Since "it is impossible to bar the transfer of cultural ideas among civilizations" we have a choice of
   
   1. Doing this randomly, without premeditation, and reaping the chaotic results.
   2. Engaging conscious and deliberate dialog among "philosophers, scholars, artists, thinkers, and theologians" aiming at "meta-historical discourse." Interesting!
5. Then he became really interesting IMO:
   
   • First, he claimed that his proposal reflects a new "paradigm" for civilizational dialog.
   • Then he went on to request a sacred conversation: "At times, we encounter a difficult situation where we interact with a language which sounds the same as the one we use, however, the universe to which these two languages belong are very different. One of the most arduous passages in the road of dialogue among cultures arises when a party to the dialogue attempts to communicate with another by employing a basically secularist language - I'm here referring to a broad and general concept of secularism which means the rejection of any intuitive spiritual experience and any belief in the unseen - in an essentially sacred and spiritual discourse."
   • He then argued that Islamic and other non-Western cultures have good reasons to resist absorption into modernism as it has been so far shaped by Western civilizations: "It now appears that the Cartesian-Faustian narrative of Western civilization should give way and begin to listen to other narratives proposed by other human cultures. Today, the unstoppable destruction of nature stemming from the ill-founded preconceptions of recent centuries threatens human livelihood."
   • But he offered this as an opportunity for learning for all participants: "We could know ourselves by taking a step away from ourselves and embarking on a journey away from self and homeland and eventually attaining a more profound appreciation of our true identity."
   • Finally, he invoked the importance of mystical knowledge in forging deeper understanding among cultures, citing "the unified mystical meaning and content across cultures and the linguistic parallelism among mystics, despite vast cultural, historical and geographical distances."
   • I began to get a sense why the UN General Assembly decided his dialog initiative merited a 6 years international endorsement!
6. As Khatami began to summarize his idea, he offered a plug for what he called "the fundamental principle of dialog" which  "rejects any imposition, and builds upon the premises that all parties to dialogue stand on essentially equal footing." (Sounds like a kinder, gentler version of Ahmadinejad's main message!)
7. Finally, he called for the removal of the blindfold over the eyes of Themis, the Greek goddess we see blindfolded and holding the scale of justice on our courthouses. "Let us ask her to set aside the lofty scale that currently weighs political and economic might as the sole measure. Instead, she should call all parties to an open discussion in various domains of thought, culture and civilization."
8. "Dialog is not easy" he concluded, but is a necessary ordeal, "Should the spirit of dialogue prevail, humanity, culture and civilization should prevail."

His message appealed not only to the UN delegates, but also to Iranian voters, who twice elected him (by landslide margins) as their president. Even though voters later became disillusioned by Khatami's inability to resist or restrain hardline policies  against activists, dissident newspapers, and even reformist candidates, the spirit he articulated still resonates widely among Iranians.    

Criticizing Khatami, Part One

Khatami continues to be an important voice for a positive reconciliation of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) with the larger Western and non-Western world. He exerts  influence not just within Iran, but also throughout the Middle East and the world.

Nevertheless, no discussion of the nobility of Khatami's ideals should ignore disagreements with his thinking, including the  contempt in which he is held by some.

First, let's surface a respectful nuanced view:

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen ably argues in his new (2006) book, Identity and Violence, against thinking in terms of clashes or dialogs among civilizations. He points out that  people are much more complex than this reductive categorization according to their religious and national backgrounds, as seems implied by a "Dialog of Civilizations":

Despite our diverse diversities, the world is suddenly seen not as a collection of people, but as a federation of religions and civilizations.... It is, of course, not surprising at all that the champions of Islamic fundamentalism would like to suppress all other identities of Muslims... But it is extremely odd that those who want to overcome the tensions and conflicts linked with Islamic fundamentalism also seem unable to see Muslim people in any form other than their being just Islamic, which is combined with attempts to redefine Islam, rather than seeing the many-dimensional nature of diverse human beings who happen to be Muslim.

Sen's book argues eloquently against playing along with unitary identities (which underlie all discussions of "the Islamic world" "American culture" or "Western civilization.") He especially condemns such conceptions as our "war on terrorism." His points are valid and undeniable. Especially as people evolve, the old unitary identities are inadequate. Reinforcing them is not only inaccurate, it even stifles growth beyond them. "We have reason to expect, from world leaders" he states dryly "rather greater clarity of thought than we are currently getting."

But even Sen acknowledges the force of cultural narratives, including those of both Shia and Sunni Islam, as well as those of the modern West. His excellent book hasn't convinced me to renounce all discussions about reconciling conflicting cultural narratives. Quite the contrary, the exception, in this case, proves the rule.

So I remain interested in the "Dialog..." but there are other objections beyond these...

Criticizing Khatami, Part Two

Amaryta Sen's nuanced criticism is nothing compared to the indignant denunciations of Khatami one hears from Iranian-Americans in places like this, this, or this. Here's an amalgam quote:

Khatami is the worst of the worst, because he puts a smiling face on the evil regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran! He legitimizes them all by seeming so enlightened and reasonable.

But when he was in power, he was powerless, the abuses of the Islamic regime went on undiminished. Hypnotized by his smiling charm, people of all nations strangely and disappointingly decide to forget about what's really going on in Iran.

Khatami enables the IRI’s sins. He distracts people from their role in supporting worldwide terrorism through organizations such as Hizbollah, the Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Amal, etc. They forget about the daily human rights violations in Iran, the condition of Iranian women, the condition of the IRI’s political prisoners, public execution by stoning, public execution by hanging, public flogging, Iranian POWs still held by Iraq, and many other important issues that show the true face of the oppressive IRI government to the world.

Many educated modernist Iranian-in-exile feel this way. They and their friends and loved ones have suffered injustices that power their emotion. So I've asked my Iranian friends, "should I distrust Khatami and the reformers? Are they just enablers of oppression?" And most quickly disagree. Pressed, most even admit to the sincerity of conservatives.

So I remain excited about the potentials of the kind of dialog Khatami described, and watchful, and interested in the many perspectives that swirl around this whole idea...

Sam and Terry hash it out, Part 1: Imam Khomeini and states & stages

Sam: What's this hooey about Khomeini having a spiritual awakening? Hey, the spiritually-realized people that really interest me do not sign death-warrants for political opponents and issues fatwas calling for the murder of Salman Rushdie!

Terry: Got it. I can relate. But let’s not think about this matter too simply, using either-or binary logic. I’m really interested in understanding our relationship with Iranians and Iran, seeing them with 20-20 vision, not in caricature. They're a culture where references to religion permeate daily life and rule the state, and he's their George Washington.

Sam: What’s so simplistic about saying that the kind of spiritual realization that really interests me is known and measured by its fruits. “Spiritual realization” is the slipperiest of claims. Any kook can claim any realization!

Terry: Absolutely! But maybe what you’re saying here implies that we need more than the two poles of a single distinction, perhaps the four poles of a couple of key distinctions, and their gradations, to talk meaningfully about spiritual realization, and to understand, accurately, the way these different kinds of realization play into the characters of the devout of our different world religions. The fact that it's hard to validate independently doesn't make it wise to ignore the whole matter of spiritual development.

Sam: (rolling his eyes) Okay, so what are “the” four?

Terry: They're two kinds of growth of awareness, with every gradation between the high and low poles, so it's a complex continuum. But the four categories worth noticing are the high and low end of two independent axes of growth:

1. The valid dimensions of the first distinction acknowledge maturity or at least some training in dwelling in higher, and sometimes nonordinary trained “spiritual” states.  Claims of radical  validity tend to arise from experiences of the highest states, and they have tended, historically, to be stated as claims of exclusive and  absolute truth (which of course exceed their sphere of validity.)
2. The valid dimensions of the second acknowledge the growing ability to think, feel, choose, and embody more complex perspectives and relationships to self, others, systems, and experience itself. This requires the ability to inspect one's own whole way of seeing. Such metaperspectival self-awareness is the process through which we naturally grow into higher orders of consciousness, stage by stage. They make it possible for us to function at higher and higher efficiencies, which is part of the genius of modernity. But they can also enable a velocity (increasingly common in our time) that overheats the human nervous system, frays the social web, and stresses the health of everyone.  

Sam: Okay, so human consciousness can mature into something very high and profound,  and you assert that this happens in two completely different ways, and that each has potential pitfalls.  Why is that so earth-shaking?

Terry:  It just helps get us past confused thinking. To answer your question requires unpacking a little Integral theory. This idea is sometimes called "States and Stages" for short. To get his usual limpid and kosmic summary of this important insight, see Download intspirexcstatesstages.pdf excerpt from Ken Wilber's rough draft when he was first introducing this key idea (you'll find it fully elaborated in a more mature form in his book, Integral Spirituality.

If you want to contemplate all the amazing implications of this core insight, go on to consider this excerpt on the Wilber-Combs Lattice: Download IntSpirExcW-CLattice.pdf which spells it out more fully.

But note, these excerpts don't do full justice to the scholarship that underpins them. For readers unfamiliar with Wilber, I suggest reading A Brief History of Everything before Integral Spirituality. Integral Psychology, too.  If you're intimidated by the very idea of reading Wilber, you can pre-order The Integral Vision, Ken's most accessible book, full of easy graphics. It won't come out until August, so you can combine  easy reading with a few months of procrastination!

Sam: So now I’ve got to become a student of Wilber to understand what you’re saying?

Terry: No. I'm a Wilber fan (and associate) and I recommend reading Ken; it is often a clarifying psychoactive experience. But it's entirely optional. Like so many others, I enjoy his elegant and lucid prose, but it's not for everybody. I’ll summarize the essential points about states and stages right here in this post:

What these ideas essentially mean is that even if we think simplistically in terms of "low" and "high" development in each of these two categories, there are four categories of possible development in peoples’ relationship to the Atman project, the ancient human project of self-cultivation, in the interest of devotional flowering, insight, and awakening into what is sometimes called enlightenment.

Wilber implicitly called these into being when he recently added a new dimension to his lifelong cartography of human development. He had previously pointed to "lines" of development which are something like different kinds of intelligence, but which include all our possible streams of unfolding human potential, from cognition to morals to kinesthetic intelligence to musical abilities. As he continued to sharpen his model, he pointed to a crucial understanding: two (distinct! although often interconnected) kinds of development make necessary and insufficient contributions to what Westerners think of as enlightenment, or higher consciousness.

In the first kind of growth, which I'll call growth into higher Orders of Consciousness (Wilber calls them "structure stages") we progress as I wrote above:

[We grow in] the ability to think, feel, choose, and embody more complex perspectives and relationships to self, others, systems, and experience itself. This requires the ability to inspect one's own whole way of seeing, thereby inherently adding a whole new level of awareness and complexity. Such metaperspectival self-awareness is the process through which we naturally grow into higher orders of consciousness, stage by stage.

This has been mapped by Piaget, Kohlberg, Lovinger, Graves, Spiral Dynamics, and Susanne's Cook-Greuter (from who's wonderful diagrams, the image at right was taken), Wade, Kegan, and dozens more. These are what I'm here calling “Orders of Consciousness” ( Wilber calls them “structure-stages” ).

The second type of growth, which I call "Stages of Enlightenment" (Wilber calls them "state-stages")  proceeds through stages of maturity in the deepening of one’s intuitive, felt relationship with consciousness and existence, with light and shadow, with love and gratitude, with radiance and happiness, with compassion and service, with truth and beauty, with Isness itself, with Who You Are, and profound intuitive freedom from the implications of experience itself.

These unfold through a different series of stages. In the course of many decades of devotion to mystical development, spiritual aspirants first learn to break the fixity of their attention in gross waking states so that  their awareness opens up to subtle dimensions (often associated with dreaming and mystical states.) Beyond that, after many years, such aspirants eventually recognize the radical, perfectly still causal ground of awareness. Ultimately such practitioners sometimes realize radical non-duality, in which radical consciousness becomes so stable that it persists, undiminished, even in the midst of all the extremes of gross and subtle experiences, and ultimately so that the distinction between the experiencer and the experienced dissolves. (Gross to Subtle to Causal to Non-Dual)

In their purest expression such high states are exquisitely rich and beautiful and necessary and confer incredible vision, inspiration, and depth. Because they must be embodied through discipline over time, they are closely related with, and usually conflated with trained spiritual states (including the ability to enter into nonordinary states at will, to dwell in them, to live in them as the implicit ground of ordinary states, and to dissolve all distinction between experience, experiencer and totality. I call these "Phases of Enlightenment.”

Sam: So you’re saying that someone's values or cognition can be structured based on a relatively simple “Order of Consciousness” but they can still be highly developed in terms of "Phases of Enlightenment” then?

Terry: Yes, the great Zen Roshi Yasutani, the master to the masters of most of those who brought Zen to America, was a fierce supporter of the Japanese militarism that engendered WWII. Even so, everyone testifies to his realization. Evidently this happens more than we tend to think. Many smart Westerners are woefully undeveloped in terms of "Phases of Enlightenment” yet highly developed in terms of “Orders of Consciousness.” Enlightenment takes decades.

Sam: So what’s this got to do with Ayatollah Khomeini?

Terry: The Imam is one of the most important spiritual influences on the nation of Iran—on a whole bunch of people we need to live in peace with, basically. And I have the strong sense, through my direct trained intuitive experience, that he’s not a fraud. I am proposing that we grant serious credence to the proposition that he’s the real deal. We’ll get nowhere unless we get off the disrespect. Luckily there’s a basis for serious respect, IMHO.

But that doesn't mean that everything Imam Khomeini ever said should be regarded as having spiritual authority to guide behavioral choices today. Westerners have good reasons why it's not okay with them for anyone influential, in the name of whatever spiritual principle, enlightenment, or religious cause, to advocate terrorist attacks on civilians far from their own borders, the murder of authors writing books on the other side of the world, or the jailing and execution of those who disagree with them. (And, some Iranians would be quick to point out, all such restraints would need to apply universally, to all people and nations and leaders, including ours, which we tend to forget is an equally valid and necessary point.) 

Westerners tend to value high Orders of Consciousness and treat high States of Enlightenment with suspicion. In Iran, it's vice-versa, at least within their spiritual lineages. Individuals of each culture reflect these biases. Each has room for development. A common vision depends on all parties respecting both high Orders of Consciousness and high Stages of Enlightenment.

It's obvious to Americans that high Orders of Consciousness offer important perspectives, even if people are not in high Phases of Enlightenment. The inverse stands out much more obviously to Muslims.

An Integral approach must be capable of valuing both emphases simultaneously, and "meeting all people where we find them." Which essentially means that everybody's a student and everybody's a teacher. A common humility & nobility arises from that. That's why this insight reveals such an important opportunity.

Sam and Terry hash it out, Part 2: So What About Gandhi?

Sam: I get the creeps from the very idea of legitimizing people who engage in brutal suppressive behavior by asserting that they operate based on a supposedly "high" spiritual state. Isn't that the road to Charlie Manson? But even if, for a moment, we set objections to that dangerous line of thought aside, we still can't get away from the enormous difference between a nonviolent leader like Gandhi and one like Khomeini who endorsed so much killing.  Aren't those crucial differences key to any meaningful role for spirituality in worldly human affairs?

Terry: Yes, yes, and yes. But. Both spirituality and cross-cultural dialog require a highly nuanced and multidimensional frame of reference, or discussions quickly become superficial and meaningless. Soon you're lost in arguments about what defines "true" spirituality, and lots of key distinctions get lost in the shuffle.

So you have an impulse to idealize Gandhi and demonize Khomeini. Fine. What about Gandhi's passivity (and even support for) Germany and Hitler during WWII? You need a bigger frame to capture this complex reality. You'll never understand the phenomena you're examining if you insist on making simplistic binary distinctions anytime they relate to something you want to validate as "good" or reject as "evil."   

Spirituality is partially defined by the life conditions in which it arises. If it arises in a culture in which men must be fierce warriors to thrive, it will engage and embody strong red energies. If it arises in an information economy, it will tend to be more abstract and elevated. In an integrated world culture, every band of every spectrum of qualities is necessary and valuable. 

It's my conviction that when anyone contemplates the highest implications of their highest awareness (in both senses) they become aligned to goodness. Individual errors compound cultural errors to create violence, repression, imperialism, and terrorism. Individual virtue aligns with cultural virtue to generate wisdom and compassion. The enlightenment that guides my heart must be informed by both higher orders of consciousness and higher stages of spiritual enlightenment.

Instead of turning me into a harsh critic of everything that falls short, however, this inspires me to be an avid appreciator of anything that makes a legitimate offering. It makes me a discriminating bridge-builder, a supporter and friend to all. So my respect for the Imam is sincere and serious, even in the face of, and notwithstanding (or acquiescing to) all his rigidities and excesses. He was a great man, despite the brutality he authorized and the way his legacy restricts certain opportunities for flexibility and enlightened evolution in the nation he founded.

Sam: So if we become respectful of the guy whose choices held our embassy employees hostage for 444 days, will the Iranians get respectful in relationship to us?

Terry: Possibly, but only over time and through a profound process. I’ll very briefly try to point out some of its essential elements. But please understand, we’re talking about a whole conversation between radically different cultural perspectives. I can offer some very broad, hopefully useful, orienting generalizations.

Maybe what we can realistically hope for is that by beginning with humility and respect for lessons we need to learn from Iran, we can evoke a reciprocal gesture. Maybe, by going further, we can, together, establish the bare beginnings of a trustable conversation, grounded in mutual practice, evoking each of our devotion and responsibility to our highest, most sacred values. Doing that, we are each operating at our best. And that means kinder, gentler, serious, and responsible behavior.

Maybe the West can make an offering to holders of the Islamic tradition by learning to ground ourselves, humbly, in our humanity, our bodies, and planet, and learning to attune ourselves and our ways of relating to the people of other nations, with the rhythms of human relationship and survival. Maybe they can even help us learn to do that.  And maybe they'll engage that discipline too.

Maybe, in return, Islamic leaders can begin to see themselves as a valuable part of the larger human family, but not special and unique, to be promoted and preserved in competition with and at the expense of all others. Maybe they can learn to hold their own religious and cultural heritage while appreciating the immense importance and dignity of modernity, standing free of any need to prove themselves or obtain acknowledgment. And maybe we can even help them learn how to do that, and maybe in the process we'll exemplify it too.

And maybe countless additional shifts—both more and less fundamental—can take place also.

But we need to start where we are, by investing in mutual listening, which can deepen until it eventually disarms righteous fanaticism and treachery. Maybe we can deepen our listening into enough respect for one another to allow a sincere, authentic exchange. Such an exchange between two people can only occur when authentic and sincere hearts and whole human beings participate. It requires giving, receiving, and being given to, and receiving from the other.  Such an exchange doesn't appear from nothing; it has to build naturally from somewhere. It seems to me that we can start with the mature religious practitioners in Iran. I think we might be pleasantly surprised if we proceed by assuming that Iranians, even including some conservative clerics, are open to this possibility.

Sam: But we have no guarantees, You're essentially suggesting an untested hypothesis, a pilot program, aren't you? Isn't the implication a new kind of civilian diplomacy initiative based essentially on your hifalutin' Integral theories?

Terry: Depends on your standards of proof. This is grounded in ancient wisdom and informed by the most advanced synthesis of ancient, modern, and post-modern knowledge I know of. True, what I am writing here is theoretical, by its vary nature—it's a piece of writing.

However, the theories I'm citing have a lot of evidence to support them. They even have provisional confirmation from many sources. I even received more provisional confirmation in Iran. I think this approach seems promising—at least worth a sincere attempt. After all, it's not like we're considering this in the midst of a world awash in cooperation, or even rich with workable options for regenerating it!

Someday I hope that such a conversation can be conducted by legitimate official representatives, acting on behalf of large numbers of people. Our current "realpolitik" (or diplomatic warfare) does not profit us, or the planet, as we struggle with issues that require global cooperation to forestall terrible consequences for us all. The real work relates to distrust, which can be slowly and carefully disclosed and deconstructed, even if it never disappears completely. Learning can take place in all participants simultaneously. Healthy changes are available to be enacted by everyone.

I'm interested in a new kind of civilian diplomacy with Iranians, one that begins by  bringing together people of authentic spiritual development for sincere dialog. This begins with meditating and/or praying together, and thereby entering into at least intuitions of higher stages of enlightenment. I believe this can set the stage for the kinds of conversation that have a hope of successfully negotiating what I believe we need—an elegant soft landing for our overheated world.

I hope most for a soft landing—for the American empire (particularly as that affects American people, including me) and also for the Iranian people. For the West, for the Islamic world, and for the whole world. Any possibility of a soft landing is worth investigating thoroughly.

Our opportunities to keep evolving are going to be served when people of illumination and good faith (from both sides of our most serious divisions) willingly move, together, towards mutual trust. It guarantees nothing, but it is a step towards a healthy soft landing for planet Earth (and all people, sentient beings, and living systems .)

Sam: Okay, there's at least theoretical value in what you propose. But I'll come back to struggle with you over this. You're thinking big, and idealistically. Such idealism must be challenged, even simply to refine it. Inevitably it will be tested by reality, which is always more creative and cussed than idealists expect. Which is why skepticism is idealism's best friend!

Terry: So true. Which is why I'm grateful to struggle to account for your objections. Thank you! 

Message to Americans from Tehran University: Part One

  At Tehran University our delegation was able to meet with about two dozen students and faculty members at the  Institute for European and North American Studies. During our discussions we were asked several times to bring back "messages to the American people." This post is the first of several that offer those messages, pretty much verbatim:

" Americans seem unable to understand Iranian reasoning. Two things especially seem to escape you:

1. Attempts to intimidate us will invariably produce resistance. We experience arrogance as a cultural remnant of an obsolete Western imperialism. It offends our sense of national pride. We will never back down when we are being treated that way.
2. Fair treatment will enable Iran to be a rational player and actor in world politics.

Don't forget that Iranians are proud of our rich cultural heritage. Few Americans know anything about the richness of Persian culture. Many of us think that we gave Islam as much as Islam gave Iran. When I look around me I see that. I certainly don't see an "axis of evil." And I won't respond if I'm not called by my right name."

Message to Americans from Tehran University: Part Two

"I was raised near Sacramento, California, and I grew up saying the pledge of allegiance with my classes. I was proud to be an American. But when the revolution took place, I was so disappointed to see such a negative distorted picture of Iran projected to Americans through the media. I went to Iran.

"I volunteered and I served in the war with Iraq. Later I read American newspaper accounts. They described "human wave assaults." I was there. That stuff is nonsense. It just wasn't what I saw. I was at Helabja shortly after the chemical attacks. I saw all the bodies. I stopped there with my fellow soldiers and we took care of the survivors.

"Journalists from the West were there. But they didn't report about it in the American media until years later, when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Nobody was interested when Iranians were the victims.

"You people think you have a free press, but you won't face the fact that your countrymen have no idea what's really going on in the world. You're just as brainwashed as you think we are."   

Message to Americans from Tehran University: Part Three

"This life will break your heart. It is hard enough, even when there is kindness.

"I lost my son to cancer. He had a brain tumor. I searched for a cure. I went on the Internet. I searched and searched.

"When he was sick, a woman from Washington, D.C. found out that I was looking for help. She wrote to me asking for my son's picture. She wanted to pray for him at a candlelight prayer vigil for victims of cancer.

"That's the kind of relationship I want to have with the people of America. Let's join with each other's pain and joy.  My son died. Nothing helped. But a woman named Catherine from Washington D.C. tried to join with me. I'll never forget her.

"This violent discourse is really dangerous and destructive. We have enough problems already. Why do people want to create more wasted lives and tragedy?"

Messages to Americans from Tehran University: Part Four

•   "You think we're scary? Look in the mirror!
• "Iran has borders with 14 countries, and we haven't invaded one single other country since 1750. Iran is not a warmonger. We're a lot more stable than your ally Pakistan, and much less of a threat to peace.
• "Since 1974 Iran's policy has been a nuclear-free Middle East. U.S. opposition is what turned nuclear power into a matter of national pride. And even now, we're willing to be monitored. We're just demanding fair and equal treatment, like any other nation on earth.
• "America projected that it would earn $13.2 billion from sales of weapons in 2006, but it went to $$29.1 billion. Who do you sell to? Jordan, Bahrain, UAE, Oman, Iraq. Our neighbors. It seems to me that the USA wants to create tensions and mobilize public opinion to sell weapons.
• "America accounts for 50% of the world's arms sales. And it's public knowledge that all those companies have expensive lobbyists in Washington who help drive policy. Look at the connections. Lockheed-Martin, Haliburton, Cheney. There are manipulators behind the scenes. And your president has the nerve to call us an "axis of evil"?
• "The success of your war industry threatens to kill my children. Do you know what my son asked me last week? He was listening to a news broadcast about recent statements by America at the U.N. and whether it was a prelude to war. He's 8 years old. He asked me, "Daddy, are they going to kill all of us?"

At Tehran University

We listened to a lot of "messages" like those I just reported. But we also spoke. I had a chance to have conversations with all of the people I have quoted here. I described the outlines of Integral awareness. Dozens of copies of the Integrally-informed documents I brought with me in Persian are now circulating among students and faculty there.

They made their points of pride. They also expressed their openness in many ways.

• "You have a distorted picture of us, but we might have a distorted picture of America too. It's hard to see anything clearly in the middle of a media war."
• "Have you heard of "standpoint theory"? Essentially it explores the implications of the fact that you have to stand in a position to understand it fully."
• "Did you know that Khomeini was profoundly affected by mysticism, by Ibn Arabi and others. He lived by ideas like "Life and humanity is measured by how much you can sacrifice for others."
• "The Imam used to quote the famous aphorism, "The more  you are, the more you are not." Do you know why he said nothing to acknowledge the ten thousand people who greeted him when his flight arrived from Paris? Because he knew it wasn't for him.
• "Let me offer a quote from our great poet, Sa'di to close: "We all belong to the same humanity. If you hurt another person, it's like cutting off a part of your own body."
• And we responded, "Let us offer a quote from your great poet Molavi, who we call Rumi, as our parting gift: "Let the beauty we love be what we do."

 

What's Political News in Iran

While we've been hearing about the Virginia Tech massacres and Alberto Gonzalez's memory-impaired testimony, what's been the news about America in Iran? It's very different stuff. They heard about the shooting of course. Here's an excerpt from Iran Daily:

       "In Italy, the Leftist Il Manifesto newspaper said the shooting was “as American as apple pie“. More than 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds in the United States annually and there are more guns in private hands than in any other country. But a powerful gun lobby and support for gun ownership have largely thwarted attempts to tighten controls.
       "France’s Le Monde newspaper said such episodes frequently disfigure the “American dream“. “The...slaughter forces American society to once again examine itself, its violence, the obsession with guns of part of its population, the troubles of its youth, subjected to the double tyranny of abundance and competition, it wrote."

A few examples of news there we don't notice here:

• Some uptight people in Iran just don't have a sense of humor. Last Wednesday, Sen. John McCain humorously sang "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann."  It got a lot of airplay over there. See one version, with the real Beach Boys backing up  here.
• Other people there are more worked up about news reports that the former head of Israel's Defense Ministry saying that the Mossad should act quickly to assassinate  Ahmadinejad.
• Then there are those who don't like what happened the week before in the USA. It wasn't huge news here, but when Democrats decided to delete language from the Iraq funding bill specifically requiring Congressional authorization before any military action against Iran, it was big news over there. But the slant was more focused on AIPAC (the American-Israeli Political Action Committee) and its "untouchable" influence over Democrats—like this article. Or this one.

This stuff is barely a blip in our consciousness, but it's looming large in theirs. Any wonder it plays differently when their hothead President (for no particular reason, it seems to us) talks so aggressively and defiantly, always denouncing us?

Did you know that Scott Ritter (the UN arms inspector whistle-blower known for trying to debunk the claims of Iraq WMDs during the run-up to the invasion) has been sounding an alarm for over 2 years that the Bushies and the people of the US are "sleepwalking" into a war with Iran?