"We All Speak Arabic" Memorial — cultural healing for Iraq

As of this writing, it looks like the war in Iraq is winding down. So as we prepare to leave, I feel strongly that for all we have destroyed, and for all we have tried to build back up in the way of security and infrastructure, we also need to try to reconstruct some cultural interiors in Iraq—we need to restore some of the dignity of the Iraqi people and pay tribute to their once and future greatness.

Toward this end, I have conceived and designed a teaching memorial for Baghdad called: "We All Speak Arabic." This memorial would celebrate the accomplishments in mathematics achieved during the golden age of Islam—many of which were actually made in Baghdad.

The “We all speak Arabic” memorial would celebrate Islamic civilization’s significant contributions to our international system of decimal numbers and to mathematics in general. The actual forms of our numbers, zero through ten, are taken directly from Arabic script! Think about how important ones and zeros are to the digital age. So this memorial would tell the story of Islam’s achievements in mathematics during their golden age. These mathematical achievements were adopted by Europe several hundred years later and made a big difference in the development of capitalism in Italy, and in Western civilization in general. Numbers (Arabic numbers) are the world’s only universal language, and now is the perfect time to thank Arabians and restore some of their pride as a people through this memorial.

I have a beautiful design for the memorial (the attached image is only a placeholder) that combines traditional Islamic architectural motifs with sacred geometry and some high-tech elements for a stunning appearance. Inside the open air memorial there would be exhibits informing visitors about the accomplishments of great Arabic mathematicians, such as Al-Khwarizmi.

From a cultural standpoint, the developed world can now help the evolution of Islamic civilization by showing respect and gratitude. A memorial such as this would thus help to heal the animosity that is an ongoing threat to peace, reducing the anti-American resentment that is so prevalent in the Middle East. Just as the Vietnam War memorial provided cultural healing for America, this memorial could help heal the “internal wounds” and restore some much-needed dignity to the Iraqi people, and to Islam in general. This kind of project can also contribute to the reduction of violence and the recruiting of terrorists. Although food, medicine, security, and investment are all needed, we can’t ignore the “internal” cultural side of the problem either. Now that we have torn down the memorials to Saddam Hussein, we need to replace them with something positive—now that we have removed the dictator, we need to restore hope. And it is through symbolic gestures such as this memorial that hope and morale can be restored. This could also generally benefit international relations between Islam and the West, which would ultimately redound to the benefit of Americans.

Initial Steps to implementing this idea include the architectural rendering (CAD drawings and model making) for the memorial, as well as the collection of contents for the educational exhibits. Prior to actual construction, we could create a “virtual tour” of the memorial’s design, viewable on-line. This would build support and help in the organization of a diplomatic mission to Iraq to secure the cooperation of the Iraqi government and find an appropriate site for the memorial to be constructed.

The optimal outcome would be that the memorial would become a symbol of pride for Iraqis. Similar to the way the Statue of Liberty (a similar gifted memorial) has become a symbol of pride for America. Measurements of success would include international media coverage of the memorial, both in its idea phase, in its construction phase, and ongoing thereafter. Success could also be measured by opinion polls of Iraqi people in their attitudes toward America and the West, and by the state of long term relations between the U.S. and Iraq. Once we raise initial seed capital, a 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Foundation could be set up to receive the additional money needed and administer the creation of the project. If you would like to help with this project, send me an email: steve@stevemcintosh.com

 

Writing for AQAL Journal

Back in 2005, the Integral Institute inaugurated The Journal of Integral Theory and Practice (the "Journal"), which claimed to be a peer-reviewed academic-style journal. I was somewhat skeptical at first because I suspected that submissions would be required to conform to strict Wilberian orthodoxy, and that the "peers" who did the reviewing would be limited to Integral Institute insiders. However, when I attended the Integral Theory in Action conference at John F. Kennedy University in August, I found that the integral academic milieu was developing a healthy independence. Moreover, I could see that Sean Esbjörn-Hargens was working closely with the Journal to ensure its integrity and academic credibility.

Then, shortly after the conference, Australian integral theorist Mark Edwards sent me a paper he had written (which was soon to be published in the Journal) which critiqued “Appendix B” of my book, Integral Consciousness. Appendix B, entitled: “Consideration of Wilber’s Four-Quadrant Model of Evolution,” expressed my concerns about the AQAL model’s integration of human artifacts into the timeline of evolutionary development. Appendix B thus offered a critique of the quadrant model, which I hoped would spark a scholarly debate about the issues raised.

After reading Edward's critique of my critique of Wilber's model, I inquired with the Journal to see if they were interested in publishing my response to Edwards. They said they were indeed interested and (if I could move fast) they could squeeze it into the same issue in which Edwards's paper was due to appear. When I asked about the "peer-review" process, Esbjörn-Hargens explained that "JITP publishes dissenting voices. The only thing you have to tend to in this context is that you present integral theory's view on these matters correctly. As long as the theory/AQAL is represented accurately then you can go to town critiquing all you want."

So based on these assurances, I wrote the article "Problemitizing Interobjectivity: A Response to Edwards." After turning in the first draft, I received constructive feedback from Esbjörn-Hargens and doctoral student Zachary Stein, who served as the peer reviewers. Then once I had revised the paper to incorporate their comments, it was sent to Ken Wilber, who apparently reads (and vets) every paper published by the Journal. As a last hurdle prior to acceptance for publication, I was asked to join a conference call with Wilber and the other editors to discuss my paper. Given that Wilber has not always taken criticism very well, I didn't know what to expect on this phone call, having not spoken to him directly since 2003. However, I was pleasantly surprised by our conversation. While not agreeing outright with all my critiques, Ken acknowledged that I had some valid points and that the theoretical problems of interobjectivity and artifacts are "what smart people should be thinking about." The call ended on a positive note and I was not required to revise any of my critiques. I did, however, add an endnote that reflected some of the nuances of our discussion.

Pointing out the shortcomings of Ken Wilber's quadrant model is obviously not the main thrust of my work. But I was glad to make a contribution to the academic world of integral scholarship. So if you subscribe to the Journal, look for the forthcoming "Edwards and McIntosh debate," which will be published at the end of the year. Once the Journal issue is out for a while, perhaps I can get permission to reproduce it here on my website.

Overall, I'm very glad to see that integral philosophy is slowly gaining academic legitimacy. However, we still have a long way to go before this new philosophy of evolution is appropriately recognized by the more elite circles of academia. And ultimately, no matter how much scholarship we accumulate, it may be folly to expect that the cautious and conventional professionals who guard the gates of mainstream academic legitimacy will ever be willing to validate our transcendence of their way of thinking.