A Spiritual Interpretation of Physical Quantities, Units and Measurement: Part 4

When we measure physical quantities like length, we do so for a bigger purpose. For instance, when we measure the length of a pen, we do so to find out whether it can fit snugly into our hands when we write. When we measure the length of cells, we use it as an indicator for disease; if cells are found to grow beyond a certain natural length, we may consider it to be diseased or cancerous. Therefore, measurements are not an ends in itself. It is a means to an end, and this end is what we universally know and understand as Justice. When we say Justice, we mean it as the condition where things are in its proper place. For example, we measure the length of cells, so that we can find out whether that cell is within a certain proper length, and subsequently act accordingly; if they are within the normal range then we can advice the patient to maintain his health; if they are not within the normal range then we can prescribe some medicine or treatment to remedy the situation.

Likewise, when we measure spiritual qualities within ourselves, we do so for the purpose of creating Justice within ourselves. This means that there is always a proper way of thinking and acting and behaving; beyond this proper range of thinking and acting and behaving, we would consider this situation or circumstance as an absence of justice. In other words, this person is being unjust to himself.

Authoritative scholars of philosophy and psychology in the Islamic World have argued that the ways in which a human being thinks, acts and behaves are mediated by three things found in the human soul; desire, anger and intellect. The intellect guides the thinking and reflective processes that occur in a human being. Since the intellect is also capable of imagining wrong things as well as thinking in a false way or arriving at erroneous conclusions, in order for us to be just to the intellect and put things in the proper places in our own minds, we need the knowledge of the proper places of things. This knowledge is known as Wisdom. Wisdom is therefore required to do justice to our intellect. For example, one can have knowledge of financial mathematics, but if one uses this knowledge to cheat people, then one does not have wisdom pertaining to how to use that knowledge properly.

As for Desire, it is required for the survival of our biological selves; we desire food, sex and other things that we can also find in animal species. If our desires are not limited within a proper limit, they would be detrimental and unjust to the human being. For instance, if one does not measure and regulate his own desire to eat unhealthy food, he would expose himself to the risk of getting a heart attack and all other obesity-related diseases; this is injustice to his own soul. Therefore, to do justice to one’s desire, one needs Temperance. Temperance, also known to others as Moderation, is therefore another virtue required when we are talking about justice in the context of Desire.

Finally, our ways of thinking, acting and behaving are also mediated by Anger. With anger, we can either stand up to defend our loved ones and our own self-worth, or we can also use Anger to destroy our loved ones too. Anger therefore needs to be regulated and placed within its own proper limits, and doing the condition in which Anger is properly placed and regulated is known as Courage.

In conclusion, we realize that measurements are not an ends in themselves; it is a means to establish a condition known as justice. Just like how we measure the length of cells so that we can know whether they are cancerous or not and then act accordingly, our measurement of our own spiritual qualities serve to establish justice within our own souls. We need to measure and subsequently regulate our faculties of Anger, Desire and Intellect, so as to bring out Courage, Temperance and Wisdom, with the final objective of establishing Justice within ourselves. This is what is known as the Cardinal Virtues, and this is what proper education should address.

A Spiritual Interpretation of Physical Quantities, Units and Measurement: Part 3

The allegory of the SI unit

We now know that from our previous discussions, we have different units of measuring a thing. For example, when we are measuring length, we have different units used like the centimetre, metre and kilometre. But at least in this respect we are simply adding a prefix to the word 'metre' to indicate the scale at which we are measuring, so in some ways we are consistent in our measurements.

Yet, do we actually notice that for the measurement of length itself, there exists other systems of measurement like yards, feet and inches; systems of measurements other than the metre? Yet why is that we prefer to use the metre instead of the yard or the inch?

The reason for this is that the preference or the inclination to use the metre over other systems of measurement is an arbitrary or random decision made by a community of scientists to impose a certain type of standard scientific language to enable better communication of scientific ideas across different nations. These units that are to be used in this new scientific language is thus known as the SI units.

In other words, we could have used yards or feets or inches to perform our measurements, but we have somewhat chosen to use the metre just because it is preferred to be used as a standard, without any rational basis for it. So if we ask the question "why metre as the standard?, we don't really have a proper answer for that except "because society thinks it is." This actually translates to "Actually I don't really know why." And reflecting on this make us realize that our choice for preferring the metre over the other systems of measurements, being a preference that is arbitrary or random, is not really a free choice, because it is choice that is not made with full knowledge or understanding of why metre should be preferred over yards, feets or inches. Therefore, without knowledge, we cannot make a free choice. And a random choice or a choice made out of ignorance is not a free choice.

Let us contemplate our own lives over this matter. Imagine we are at a supermarket and we want to purchase some washing detergent. We are then presented with different brands. If we just select one out of the many brands arbitrarily without knowing why we select that one instead of others, we might just end up being short-changed at the end of our transaction. Because once we return home, only then would we realize that the brand we have chosen for ourselves is actually more expensive in terms of price or inferior in terms of quality. If we had known, we would not have chosen to purchase this particular brand!

Like our arbitrary preference for metre over yards, feet and inches as the standard for measuring length decided and imposed by the scientific community, most of our choices and preferences of certain spiritual matters over others, certain system of spiritual measures over others like our measure of what is good and bad, is actually decided and imposed by society without knowledge as to why this system of measure is preferred over others. This phenomenon we face is what is known to us as moral relativism. And as we have argued before this, moral relativism is therefore not exercise of free choice, because in order for a choice to be exercised freely, we must have knowledge that would compel us to prefer one over the other.

There are some who go to the extreme to justify relativism by saying that knowledge is actually not possible because every system of measurement is right and true on its own. If such were the case, then how did they arrive at this conclusion that 'every system of measurement is right and true on its own'? Is it by knowledge or by arbitrary considerations? We then realize that relativism is an absurd belief.

Eventually we have to accept that we need a type of knowledge whose source transcends ourselves, and because it transcends us, we must necessarily accept it as our guide to preferring one thing over the other. It is only with this knowledge that we can make choices that are truly free.

A Spiritual Interpretation of Physical Quantities, Units and Measurement: Part 2

The wisdom behind different units of measurements for the same and for different quantities, and the different instruments used to measure them


We use different scales and units of measurements to measure different quantities, and as such we also use different instruments in measuring these different quantities. For example, the length of a book is measured in centimetres or metres, and the instrument used to measure it is the metre rule. The thickness of a few pieces of paper is measured in micrometers, and we use a micrometer screw gauge to measure this. We do not measure the length of a book using a micrometer screw gauge because the anvils and spindels would not fit the entire length of a book; we say that the length of the book is beyond the limits of the micrometer screw gauge. Likewise, it seems absurd for us to measure the thickness of pieces of paper using a metre rule too. Similarly, when we measure length, we use either a micrometer screw gauge or a metre rule, depending on the scale of the measurement. We do not use a beam balance or a stopwatch to measure length; that would be the most absurd thing to do; an instrument that is totally out of context.

By contemplating on this, we realise that in order for us to measure and evaluate a thing, we need to use the correct scale and the correct instrument, or else we would find our measurements absurd to perform. We can apply the same rule when we measure the intellectual and spiritual worth of a person and his works; we need to use the correct scale and correct instrument to determine the rank and place of this particular person.

Unfortunately, today we see a lot of people with limited abilities and experiences trying to measure and evaluate something that is beyond their minds and knowledge to comprehend. Under this absurd notion of humanism, intellectual 'freedom' and critical inquiry, they measure the intellectual worth of  people beyond their limited capabilities and find them unsatisfactory to their standards. Their minds operate within a micrometer scale and their knowledge of things are like micrometer screw gauges, yet they are measuring things beyond this 'scale'. Even more absurd would be those who measure things using instruments that are totally out of context. Some of the ridiculous examples we would find would be attempts by some to measure religion and spirituality using the instruments of anthropology and sociology, when the former is concerned about how to prepare for the Hereafter and the latter concerns itself about this worldly existence. Another example would be the discussion of happiness from a neurological perspective, when happiness is meant to be discussed within the context of ethics and morality. The former deals with molecules and particles in the brain, while the latter deals with Man's ultimate purpose in life!

We need to understand, that everything has a scale of measurement, and as such must be measured using the correct instruments. It would be unjust for the intellectual ability of a moron to be evaluated and tested against post-graduate university standards. Likewise, when we approach honourable men of knowledge, it would be unjust to evaluate them with our 'micrometer scale' minds; we need to increase the 'scale' of our own minds first before we evaluate their intellectual worth, using the correct instruments of measure. Men of knowledge require our utmost respect; this is justice.

A Spiritual Interpretation of Physical Quantities, Units and Measurement: Clarification

Allow me to post a caveat on some people who dismiss my writings as coming from an unqualified person, and that what I am writing about are simply 'unbeneficial philosophical speculation' that is not classified under the category of Fardhu Ain knowledge. These people are not in any position to evaluate my qualifications in the first place, and when asked to show proof for such accusations, they offer none.

My clarification of the matter is that if they had read carefully what I have written in the first place, they would not have hurled such accusations. What I have written are rational proofs for the existence of God, and a rational demonstration of Al-Qadar, the concept of adab and the concept of freedom in Islam; all these are fundamental components of the worldview of Islam and thus can be classified as Fardhu Ain knowledge. It may seem like a philosophical speculation because there is no traditional proof (dalil naqli) from the Qur'an or the Sunnah furnished throughout my writings, but readers must understand that I am writing with the view that these things can be taught in our national schools. And with such a context in mind, educators in secular national schools cannot be overtly religious about these things, but they can offer rational proofs which guide students to contemplate on such matters further. Therefore I am writing from the view of a Muslim science educator trying to teach spiritual matters without being obviously religious about it. The essence of my writings are fardhu ain, yet the form may not seem apparently fardhu ain-ish. I derive this from the wisdom of our predecessors like Imam Al-Ghazali and Ibn Sina, who used the sciences of their day as an instrument to discuss spiritual and metaphysical issues. For instance, Imam Al-Ghazali packaged his work on Tasawwuf as if it is a branch of Alchemy in Kimiyat As-Sa'adah (Alchemy of Happiness). Ibn Sina, popularly known as a skilled doctor, published his book on Metaphysics in the form of a book on Medicine; it was thus known as As-Syifa' (The Medicine).

If it is apparent to others that what I have written is wrong, I would like to apologize and would suggest a proper discourse on it, without having to commit personal attacks and sophistry. Knowledge without practice is useless and unbeneficial, and this is how to my mind and in my role as an educator to address the problem of the loss of adab. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can parrot that the solution is to 'instill adab', yet when asked the question 'how to', they stumble, because they have not understood the concept properly in the first place, nor have they attempted to practise them in their professions and in their personal lives.

It is my desire to clarify that there is a difference between unaided philosophical speculation and aided philosophical speculation. In the first, a conclusion on spiritual and metaphysical proofs are arrived at solely using the faculty of imagination of the soul (Mutakhayyilah). In the second, a conclusion of spiritual and metaphysical proofs are arrived at using the same faculty, but with guidance from Revelation and from those who are in close contact with the spiritual realm. There is a third category of people though; those who reject both methods and claim that metaphysical and spiritual truths are not things that can be discussed rationally; these are the Literalists.

My teacher once told me, that Revelation is like the light from the Sun, and reason is like our eyes. If we close our eyes, we would not be able to benefit from the light of the Sun. Likewise, if we reject a rational approach, we would not be able to benefit from Revelation too. Which is why in most books on Kalam, our scholars usually start by reminding their readers of the importance in using our intellect. As mentioned by Imam Al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni (teacher of the eminent Imam Al-Ghazali) in his Kitab Al-Irshad Ila Qawati Al-Adilla Fi Usul Al-I'tiqad (A Guide to Conclusive Proofs for the Principles of Belief):

Reasoning that confers proper understanding [in religion] is obligatory and perceiving its obligatoriness is part of the law itself and the aggregate of rules concerning these legal obligations come either from proofs derived from tradition or from premises behind the legal cases.

Wallahu 'Alam

A Spiritual Interpretation of Physical Quantities, Units and Measurement: Part 1

The very first chapter in our Cambridge Ordinary Level syllabus for Physics is Physical Quantities, Units and Measurement, where students are required to show understanding that physical quantities consists of a numerical magnitude and unit, that different quantities have different units of measurement, that even when measuring the same quantity, different units of measurements and instruments are used, and lastly, to recall the SI units of different quantities; a unified system of measures established by consensus of the scientific community.

From these learning objectives, we can derive several major themes that we can discuss further in a spiritual context, and they are:

1) The wisdom behind measurements
2) The wisdom behind different units of measurements for the same and for different quantities, and the different instruments used to measure them.
3) The allegory of the SI unit
4) Between physical quantities and spiritual qualities

The wisdom behind measurements

If we look deeper into what 'measure' actually mean, do we notice that when we say that something it measurable, we also mean that the object of our analysis and contemplation is something that has a numerical limit? This is because measuring an infinite object is an absurd thing to do. Suppose we want to measure the length of an infinite line. Whether we add 10 cm to it, or subtract 100 km from it, it is still an infinite line; it does not make any difference whether we add or subtract numerical values to this limitless line. Therefore it follows that when something is measurable, we mean that it is something that is limited in some ways.

We impose limits on our own inventions and gadgets, so that they become beneficial to us. When we design a pen, we impose some limits to the physical dimension of the pen so that it can fit in between our fingers. Suppose we do not set a limit in our design; we transgress the limits that the pen should fall within such that the pen's dimensions are now in km instead of cm, we would have an absurd pen that is no longer useful and beneficial to us. In fact, we do not call this thing a pen anymore, although it may look like one.

When we observe some physical phenomena around us, do we notice that everything is bound by a certain limit? This demonstrates two things; that the things around us have a certain Designer, and that any object in nature is bound by a certain proper limit such that if these limits are transgressed, it no longer becomes true. In fact, it becomes absurd for the thing to exist.

The proof of my first point is that our intellect simply cannot conceive that the pen in our hands existed by itself; imagining that the ink, the plastic and metal components self-assembling is an absurd idea that only exists in Harry Potter stories. Similarly, it is absurd to think of the world as a self-assembly of parts. Those who speak of such things are denying their own human nature to reason properly; they are lying to their own selves.

On my second point, limits are either natural or artificial. Natural limits are limits that reflect harmony and wisdom, attempting to mimic the limits imposed by the Designer of this world. Artificial limits, on the other hand, are limits that we imagine in our minds, without reference to the Designer of this world, often causing chaos and imbalance. Why I am saying this is because if we look at the composition of blood, there is some form of natural limits. However, we can also imagine blood having a different set of limits, yet if we put this artificial blood in operation, it does not seem to work as harmoniously as natural blood!

In Arabic, natural limits is called Qadar. We use the same word in the Malay Language as well; 'kadar lemak' refers to natural limits of cholesterol such that if it is trangressed, it would result in a host of medical problems like blocked arteries and so on. In reference to our own actions towards ourselves and towards others, there are also natural limits such that if it is transgressed, it no longer becomes a true; we do not consider it as a good or moral-ethical act.

We know that a student is defined as a person who is learning. Suppose we have a student who is rude and insolent to his teacher; that would mean that he has transgressed the natural limits of a student, and because of his insolence  proper learning can no longer take place. And because proper learning cannot take place, the very idea of him being a student becomes an absurd idea. We would then have an absurd student, or a person who is no longer a student, although outwardly he may still be dressed like one. Similarly, the essence of a human being is his spirit. If this human being does not act in accordance to the nature of his spirit designed by his designer, or that he has transgressed the natural limits of his spirit, behaving more like an animal, then we would not have a human being, although outwardly he may look like one.

Contemplating on the wisdom behind measurements brings us to one definitive conclusion; that absolute freedom is absurd. Even the 'free' sparrow knows that if it did not limit its altitude of flight, it would die of a lack of oxygen, or would be blown violently by the winds of the higher altitudes. Freedom only makes sense if we limit our choices to what is good and beneficial to us; what is within our limits to live a harmonious life as proper human beings. Imagine what 'freedom in eating' would do to our weight and health; recently we have encountered in the news of a girl from the United States who died of overconsumption of coca-cola. She was practising her freedom to consume coca-cola freely, yet is this truly a free choice as what we have discussed earlier? It is a choice for absurdity, because it is a choice that is not made within some natural limits, and therefore not a free choice.

Enchanting the disenchanted contents of our science education

When we try to think about the purpose of education, what do we usually think about? To answer this question we would attempt to recall the various vision and mission statements of our various educational institutions. Once we strip them off their jargons, it seems apparent to us that they are trying to describe education as a means of meeting the needs of the state; the nurturing of a good citizen. After which, we can ask the question, what is a 'state'? If we try to think deeply about this, states and nations are merely objects that have conceptual existence; they are mere concepts that exist in the mind. Concepts that we create in our minds to make meaning of a group of individuals working together to achieve some shared needs like security, food and water. Therefore, in essence, the purpose of education, in reality, really and actually is all about fulfilling the needs of the individual, not the state.

Then we may ask the question, what is an individual? Well of course, when we talk about an individual, we are talking about a human being. So what exactly is a human being? The question of the 'whatness' or the essence or nature of a human being demands that we speak about the difference between human beings and non-human beings, so what is this essential difference between human beings and non-human beings? We share attributes that can be found in living things like nutrition, growth and reproduction, but it would not be enough to define a human being as a living thing, because a hibiscus plant is a living thing but a human being is not a hibiscus plant. We share some attributes that can be found in animals; the ability to move, of touching, smelling, tasting, seeing and hearing, as well as the ability to combine, sort, represent, record, retain and recollect information gathered by outward senses to the mind. Yet we do not call a human being an animal; a dog is an animal but we do not call a human being a dog.

Then it may be argued, that the dividing line between human beings and non-human beings is our ability to reason inductively. That is also not definitive enough, because we also observe some reasoning abilities in animals. For instance, if we feed our guinea pigs at 6 a.m in the morning consistently, we notice that at 6 a.m in the morning they would come out of their cages for feeding; this demonstrates inductive reasoning in animals. Yet a human being is not a guinea pig.

So what exactly is a human being? What is it that we refer to when we say 'I'? It is obvious that when we say 'I' we are not simply referring to our physical selves, because if we lose some parts of our physical bodies our identity still remains intact. In fact, at every instant of time the cells of our biological bodies die and are replaced by new ones, yet our consciousness of ourselves do not die and change in response to the replacement of our cells. We have to admit, at this juncture, that what forms our identity is not that which is physical in nature; it is meta-physical or beyond physical; it is spiritual.

Therefore a human being is both physical and spiritual. Yet, the contents of our education only meets the physical needs of our selves; it ignores the spiritual dimension which actually forms the essence of our selves. Today, we experience modern secular education. By secular, I am referring to what Prof Al-Attas mentions, as that which pertains to this physical world and time. Because we are exposed to contents of education that is secular in nature, we are also undergoing a process of being secularized, and by secularization Prof Al-Attas means as the 'disenchantment of nature, desacralization of politics and the deconsecration of values'. It is not my intention to introduce heavy terms in this discussion, but allow me to at least clarify what 'disenchantment of nature' means. By 'disenchantment' we mean the removing of spiritual meanings from our understanding of nature, from our scientific endeavours. As such, natural phenomena is interpreted in plainly physical-technical terms, statements, facts and theories that we call modern science. It is no wonder that science seems very unnatural or 'alien' to our students, making them disinterested in the subject matter, simply because it does not address their essential needs.

We need to realize that the purpose of education is to meet our needs as a human being, and because the essence of our own selves are spiritual in nature, it also follows that our education cannot ignore this spiritual dimension. We need to enchant the disenchanted.

But how do we enchant the disenchanted properly? Enchanting the disenchanted is not an arbitrary process that we imagine in our minds, like how the misguided ancients imagine of spirits in the trees. Our ability to imagine hence cannot determine spiritual meanings in nature, because we are capable of imagining false things too. Guidance in this matter cannot come from the physical word, or our own fantasies abstracted from the physical world, but from the true spirit world, and this guidance we call Revelation. As such, Revelation would guide our understanding of spiritual meanings in objects in nature.

And this is what we as educators should do; enchanting the disenchanted should be something we can practise in our lessons. Unlike some charlatans who are strictly academic about these things and cannot practise them in their own personal lives, I believe that these things can be practised and implemented given the right contemplation and guidance from Revelation and referring to those in authority of understanding Revelation. The classroom is our world, and we decide what to do with the disenchanted contents of our education.

With this, I would introduce several issues discussed in Physics where we can attempt to enchant the disenchanted later on, God willing. Let's make the enchantment of the disenchanted a reality.

Takrif Bangsa Melayu Harus Ada Penilaian Lebih Lanjut

Saya merujuk kepada artikel BH yang bertajuk “Asal Usul Bangsa Melayu” (17 Januari 2012). Di dalam artikel yang ringkas itu, penulis telah membuat beberapa statement yang bagi saya memerlukan penjelasan dan penilaian yang lebih lanjut.

Menurut Ibnu Sina dalam karya tersohornya mengenai ilmu logik yakni Isharat Wa Tanbihat, beliau telah menggariskan beberapa syarat dan panduan dalam membuat suatu pentakrifan yang sah. Takrif ‘takrif’ ialah sesuatu frasa yang melambangkan esensi sesuatu benda. Justeru, takrif Melayu yang sah adalah takrif yang melambangkan esensi orang Melayu ataupun the “the essence of the Malay race”, yang harus memuatkan semua sifat-sifat yang dikongsi secara bersama oleh bangsa Melayu (genus) dan juga sifat-sifat yang membezakan bangsa Melayu dari bangsa-bangsa yang lain (differentia).

Namun, dalam artikel itu, penulis telah mengemukakan beberapa takrif orang Melayu yang alternatif, yakni takrif dari segi antropologi, etnologi dan budaya, tanpa membuat penilaian terhadap mana takrif yang lebih sah daripada takrif-takrif yang ada, seakan-akan memberitakan kepada kita bahawa esensi itu tiada wujud dan yang wujud hanya pendapat-pendapat yang berbeza dan saling bercanggahan antara satu sama lain. Ternyata bahawa statement seperti ini bukan statement yang saintifik kerana ia seakan-akan menafikan kemungkinan kita untuk mencapai ilmu mengenai hakikat bangsa Melayu (sophistry); statement yang sarat dengan pegangan puak-puak Sufasta’iyah (Sophists). Dalam erti kata lain, penulis seakan-akan ingin memberitakan bahawa tiada takrif yang benar, dan ini sesuatu perkara yang bercanggah dengan logik, kerana jika kebenaran itu dinafikan maka kebenaran mengenai kebenaran yang dinafikan itu juga harus turut dinafikan.

Ada juga statement lain yang bersifat paradoks yang dikemukakan, seperti “Ini menunjukkan orang Melayu tidak berasal dari mana-mana, tetapi berasal dan berkembang di Nusantara”. Bukankah Nusantara itu sebagai suatu kawasan turut dirangkumi dalam istilah ‘mana-mana’?

Jika pentakrifan dari sudut antropologi, etnologi dan budaya itu benar, maka apakah buktinya? Kalau sekadar memuatkan pendapat-pendapat dan kepercayaan individu-individu tertentu , yang dikira sebagai “di kalangan bijak pandai dan pakar kaji masyarakat” tanpa mengemukakan kriteria yang objektif yang boleh diterima bersama untuk menggolongkan seseorang itu sebagai bijak pandai dan pakar kaji masyarakat, belum boleh diterima sebagai bukti. Tambahan pula, ada pendapat-pendapat yang dikongsi boleh digolongkan sebagai falasi (fallacy) bila dinilai dari segi logik. Contohnya, takrif bangsa Melayu dari segi lahiriah itu agak kontroversial, kerana sifat lahiriah itu secara jelas bukan esensi.

Statement “dari sudut mana pun ditakrifkan, mereka mempunyai sejarah panjang” itu juga harus dipersoalkan, kerana jelasnya pentakrifan itu akan menjejas pensejarahannya. Jika pentakrifan bangsa Melayu dari antropologi itu dianggap sah, maka harus dikenalpasti bilakah orang Negrito, Melayu Proto dan Melayu Deutro itu dianggap sebagai bangsa Melayu, dan dengan demikian periode ‘sebelum Melayu’ itu tidak boleh digolongkan sebagai sejarah bangsa Melayu.

Secara tuntasnya, penulis harus memberikan hujah dan bukti yang bukan sahaja dapat meyakinkan pembaca untuk menerima pentakrifannya, bahkan turut juga memberikan hujah dan bukti untuk menolak takrif-takrif yang lain, kalau ingin dianggap hujahnya sebagai ilmiah dan saintifik.