What's new

What is 'Civilizational Continuity'?

Do increasing numbers of people speaking English better than their native tongues (which are themselves evolving) constitute 'continuity'?
- Do increasing numbers of people wearing 'Western clothing' the majority of the time constitute 'continuity'?
of course not a great country take pride in their national history and native tongue not some freaks want to copy the west waiting for any good comment from western people
for some people this mean the world if some western thinks they are good this kind lives and die without pride and they wont be western or national
 
Just because Turks are now living in Anatolia, they can't claim the heritage of Hectors and Helens, do they?
A Pushtun living in Pakistani Punjab hasn't inherited IVC.

Most Turkish people in Turkey are people who have lived there since, well, before the time of Hector and Helen. They're just speaking and practising a Turkik culture and language.
I'm not actually 100 % sure about this though, maybe some Turkish members can clarify.

As for Pashtuns claiming IVC, I say why not? The IVC did extend to include almost all of KPK and beyond. IVC heritage can be claimed by vitually all Pakistanis without objection.
 
BLOOD.

FAITH.

SOIL.

Take away even one of the above, and the thread of continuity is broken.

And whether temporarily or permanently depends on

TIME.
 
BLOOD.

FAITH.

SOIL.

Take away even one of the above, and the thread of continuity is broken.

IMHO, spiritual inheritance through the link between Teacher and disciple is more powerful than a mere biological relation.
 
Spiritual Inheritance alludes to evangelism and conversion when not backed by blood and inheritance by birth.

I would like to add LANGUAGE to that list but India proves that wrong.
 
Spiritual Inheritance alludes to evangelism and conversion when not backed by blood and inheritance by birth.

Evangelism and conversion is the Abrahamic pattern. The model I have in mind is the spread of Buddhism to Tibet and other places. The seeker of wisdom is drawn to the Master.
 
So we need to find human remains from the IVC and analyze which groups of people have the most genetic commonality?
Is merely 'worshipping a deity/deities' enough or do we have to dig deeper into the particulars of the faith and its rituals?
So people must be residents on the lands that an ancient civilization resided on...

The model I have in mind is the spread of Buddhism to Tibet and other places. The seeker of wisdom is drawn to the Master.
ESP? Proselytization has to be done one way or another I would assume.
 
It depends on your definition of "Civilization". In general, all civilizations in human history have borrowed/lent many things to/from each others.
 
Evangelism and conversion is the Abrahamic pattern. The model I have in mind is the spread of Buddhism to Tibet and other places. The seeker of wisdom is drawn to the Master.

There is no Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic when it comes to human nature.

The days of the prophets are long gone. And I am considerably and justifiably wary and chary of all self styled gurus, god men, neo-prophets, masters, enlightened ones, halo sprouters, etc.

I have my faith. You have yours. The world would be a much more comfortable place if we leave it like that instead of trying to prove the superiority, purity, etc. of one over the other.

I have no time for evangelism or guru-ism in any form. Or for the spread or ebb of faiths.

I do not see it as a race. I see it as a disease.
 
So we need to find human remains from the IVC and analyze which groups of people have the most genetic commonality?

That's not how its done. Anthropology and eugenics are not paleontology. There is a beautiful paper in NATURE by Prof. Lalji Singh (amongst other luminaries). There are definite genetic cues that show that we have been a single people for a very very long time.

Civilizations that are really old - Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Chinese - they ebb and flow. They spread and seed externally. In turn they are seeded into over time as well.

But the basic stock of the largest median mass remains the same over millenia. The others are merely statistical outliers, where time and popu.lation form the dynamic denominator.

Is merely 'worshipping a deity/deities' enough or do we have to dig deeper into the particulars of the faith and its rituals?

I thought you wanted a serious discussion. Why bring in deity worship? Is that all your mind turns to when we talk civilizations? Faith is faith. Be it deity, or nature, or inanimate objects, or books, or formless conceptual higher powers, or otherwise. We could do so much more if we stick to conceptuals.

So people must be residents on the lands that an ancient civilization resided on...

For a long enough period of time. Parsis have been here for 1300 years. The Indo Aryans maybe 5-8000. The Dravidians/IVC much more. The civilization remains constant on the land it is linked to. Outsiders get absorbed. Export seeds do not form metastatic or satellite moieties in turn. Unless there is en masse genocide and replacement in large enough numbers. Then the civilization is exterminated. And replaced by a new one.
 
That's not how its done. Anthropology and eugenics are not paleontology. There is a beautiful paper in NATURE by Prof. Lalji Singh (amongst other luminaries). There are definite genetic cues that show that we have been a single people for a very very long time.
Perhaps, but then research also suggests that human migration started out of Africa, and all humans are linked to those 'common ancestors', so we are in essence talking about sub-groups within the larger group here, and human migration and evolution on its own is not 'civilization'.
Civilizations that are really old - Egyptian, Persian, Indian, Chinese - they ebb and flow. They spread and seed externally. In turn they are seeded into over time as well.
I don't believe what you described is necessarily applicable to just a 'civilization' - humans have migrated, spread and seeded throughout history. At times that migration, spreading and seeding might coincide with some 'civilization of the time', but the process itself is not tied into 'civilization' and does not, on its own, indicate the dispersion, expansion or dilution of any civilization - it merely points to the nature of humans to 'spread and seed' - I mean, all this points to is our ability to procreate does it not?
But the basic stock of the largest median mass remains the same over millenia. The others are merely statistical outliers, where time and popu.lation form the dynamic denominator.
Sure, but that is pointing the obvious is it not? All humans originated from a common ancestral source did they not?
I thought you wanted a serious discussion. Why bring in deity worship? Is that all your mind turns to when we talk civilizations? Faith is faith. Be it deity, or nature, or inanimate objects, or books, or formless conceptual higher powers, or otherwise. We could do so much more if we stick to conceptuals.
No need for knee jerk peevishness - Faith, as in religion, does involve worshiping a deity/deities, whether they be God, Allah, the Sun, Rain, Nature, Zeus, or Hanuman, and that was the context in which I used the term.

So if we can return to the question, what sort of 'common faith metric' are we looking at here, and how can this metric be defined t be exclusive to one set of people vs another, to imply civilizational continuity for the former set of people?
For a long enough period of time. Parsis have been here for 1300 years. The Indo Aryans maybe 5-8000. The Dravidians/IVC much more. The civilization remains constant on the land it is linked to. Outsiders get absorbed. Export seeds do not form metastatic or satellite moieties in turn. Unless there is en masse genocide and replacement in large enough numbers. Then the civilization is exterminated. And replaced by a new one.
How would Parsis be part of the same civilization as, say, those practicing the Vedic faith or its offshoots? Does that not remove one of your major metrics for civilizational continuity?

And while you have offered your opinion on 'long enough', is your definition of 'long enough' not one merely pulled out of a hat by you? Is it not subjective? Why not exclude any group of people resident for less than 5000 years, or 10,000 years?
 
Although this thread is already 25 comments along, I would like to join the conversation. It is on a fascinating subject, it is also being conducted by all involved in a lofty, elevated tone free of rancour.
 
But people should have the freedom to critique these 'values, principles and guidelines of early Islamic society'.

If they start saying that their values require them to silence people who disagree with them, then we need to deal with them with the utmost ruthlessness.
None of that is relevant to the argument you made in favor of what comprises civilizational continuity - I was merely pointing out that your argument can also be used to justify 'Caliphate' across the Muslim world.
 
Some general questions on this issue of 'civilizational continuity':

-What constitutes 'civilizational continuity'?

- Do increasing numbers of people speaking English better than their native tongues (which are themselves evolving) constitute 'continuity'?
- Do increasing numbers of people wearing 'Western clothing' the majority of the time constitute 'continuity'?
- Do increasing numbers of people leaning towards 'agnosticism, atheism' constitute continuity?

The phrase is bandied about a lot, but what does it actually refer to?

Before even considering the issues relating to civilisational continuity proposed by Agnostic Muslim, it seems useful to point out that there are two overlapping sets to be considered, civilisation, of course, the idea that has been placed before us, but culture as well. Many of the arguments made during the course of the discussion apply strongly to culture, even where they apply weakly to civilisation per se.

So do we conduct two discussions in one? No, but we would do well to keep this idea of cultural issues overlapping with but not identical with civilisational issues in the back of our minds as we write what we do write.
 
Back
Top Bottom