|
Progress
and Science
The
Following is a chapter from Dr. Abdul Wahab El-Messiri's
autobiography entitled "My Journey in the Seeds, Roots, and
Fruits" translated
from Arabic.
I
recall, in my youth, a conversation with my school colleague and my
long time friend, Dr. Attiyyah Hamid, regarding my dreams for Egypt,
among which I mentioned the agricultural mechanization. He surprised
me, as he was more agriculture savvy than myself (he lived in the
rural Abi al-Matameer while my experience was limited to Damanhour),
by dismissing the idea as a disaster. For if the agricultural
mechanization was introduced, unemployment rates shall soar among
millions of agricultural workers. His comeback was a complete
surprise to me; for newspapers and magazines did not waver in
addressing 'mechanization' as the perfect solution for all problems.
Dr. Hamid’s reply, in fact, put forward the problematic of
'nature' (matter/machine) and 'Man'; as Man is the ultimate end and
shall not be instrumentalized. This dialogue was impressed in my
mind and did not leave ever since.
…[this is to] put forward the problematic of 'nature' (matter/machine) and 'Man'; as Man is the ultimate end and shall not be instrumentalized. This dialogue was impressed in my mind and did not leave ever since. |
|
I
arrived to the United States at a time the New Criticism school was
predominant in most of the English Literature departments. This
school emphasizes reading and analyzing texts; as it avoids
historical and social interpretations. A literary text -according to
the theorists of this school--is a self-sufficient structure that
resembles a flower vase and can be comprehended from within without
the need to grasp its context, its historical background, the
author's autobiography or intents. Thus, the critical process, as
introduced by the critics of this school, takes the form of internal
'text de-codification' through what is termed as "close
reading". Such reading focuses on the text's internal
relationships (i.e., its associations and interactions) as it
excludes its historical, social, cultural and psychological aspects.
New critics used to believe that within each great creative work,
there is a perception of the paradox that characterizes the human
existence experience (some of them considered the crucifixion and
resurrection of Jesus Christ as the greatest Paradox; for that life
is born from his death and triumph is born from his downfall).
Moreover, they distinguish between the human phenomenon from natural
phenomenon through the paradox that can be conveyed by poetry
diction; as it is capable of addressing a certain motif and its
antithesis, together. This is in contrast to the abstract scientific
diction that can only treat abstract scientific rules, one motif or
its antithesis. Therefore, poetry and metaphor became intimately
attached to the very human existence; as human emotions can only be
expressed through such themes.
I
did not embrace the New Criticism thinkers’ vision regarding the
literary text; however, I was profoundly influenced by some of its
critical and philosophical premises, such as its discernment between
the scientific, (natural and materialist) phenomenon and the human
phenomenon, its misgiving in regard to science as deemed
insufficient paradigm to express the human experience. I always
endeavored to view the literary text as an entity comprising
numerous complex elements, one of which is paradox; but it is not
necessarily the most significant. The shape of the text and
structure resemble but (do not reflect) the construction with a
historical moment. I, hence, availed myself from the 'close reading'
methodology without subscribing to its underlying 'anti-historical'
paradigm.
The shape of the text and structure resemble but (do not reflect) the construction with a historical moment. |
|
I
recall that in 1965, a friend of mine a French Professor of physics
and a member of the New Left, invited me to accompany him and visit
the atomic bomb inventor, Robert Oppenheimer, in his home in
Princeton, New Jersey. Oppenheimer was the chief of the San Alamos
team that 'succeeded' in utilizing nuclear energy to perform the
first nuclear explosion. The great scientist served us tea and after
we chatted about everything, the New Left and American capitalism, I
asked him: “What were your feelings after you realized that your
project has “succeeded” and that the time for the first
explosion became near?” He replied very briefly: “I vomited”,
i.e., he realized the savagery of the scientific paradigm which
directs his behavior during his work on the atomic bomb and that it
is a paradigm detached from Man, Man’s values and ultimate ends. I
was amazed by his reply that reminded me of what Francois Rabelais;
“If science is not connected to consciousness, it shall lead to
self-destruction”, and reminded me of the Friday sermon cleric in
Al-Habashi mosque in Damanhour as he who used to seek refuge in God
from science that does not avail. Oppenheimer’s reply to my
question supported my sense of distinction between the human and the
natural, that of the insufficiency of science in acquainting with
Man and Man’s system of values and aesthetics and of the dangers
involved in the separation between scientific experimentation and
human purposes (it should be acknowledged that Oppenheimer spent the
rest of his life fighting the use of atomic bomb).
“If science is not connected to consciousness, it shall lead to self-destruction”. |
|
I
started to experience deep doubts in regard to some premises that
were turned to obscurant secular absolutes such as belief in
science, progress and technology. I learned from Kevin Reilly’s
book The West and the World, that science has a varying
history and that the purposes of the Byzantine and Islamic science
differ, for instance, from those of modern science. I started to
find out, as an example, that the materialist thought which emerged
in the eighteenth century and received some substantial credibility
from various 'scientific' discoveries in the nineteenth century was
based on erroneous scientific hypotheses such as simple causality
law which was born in the hotbed of Newton’s (mechanical
materialist) outlook of the universe. Newton’s world is a
tightened closed one that is characterized by its mechanical
determinism. The Newton’s reasoning about the universe is
predicated on the mechanisms of the particle’s physical
(configuration) existence and the motion laws. Consequently, the
materialist scientific outlook emerged and argued for laws that
govern physical phenomena. Such laws are deduced from the induction
based on experimentation and observation; its first pillar is the
doctrine of causality and determinism and that no contemplation is
possible outside research laboratory and experiment results.
The
above outlook remained completely in control until the end of the
nineteenth century. Henceforth, substantial criticism had been aimed
at that closed system with all its hypotheses of determinism,
objectivity, absolutism of space and time, and the possibility of
pure objective observation of reality and hard causality. The latter
most denotes that “cause” A renders “effect” B as simple as
“heat” causes steel “expansion”. The Quantum theory,
Heisenberg’s indeterminate doctrine, and the relativity theory all
together weakened these hypotheses. Consider, for instance, the
principle of confusion, i.e., the inability to differentiate between
the individual (unique) particles that are micro-physically examined
due to the removal of its uniqueness. So if we have two particles in
the same place and we desired to follow the path of certain
particle, the issue shall be confused; i.e., we will be unable to
differentiate one from another.
I,
lately, read in the Time magazine, about a scientific experiment
performed on photons and showed that when they are subject to
certain experiment, they react and alter their behavior. This is an
entirely new matter; however, can we generalize such pattern for the
whole universe? For one of the problems encountered by social
sciences is the behavior alteration Man shows when one realizes that
he/she is the subject to an experiment; so shall natural science
encounter the same problem?
The
Relativity theory demolished the borders between subject and object;
it gave the observer a great deal of importance for his/her speed or
stillness would alter the results of measurement. The standards used
to measure durations and distances eventually rely on the monitor's
point of view and the signal framework which adds a subjective
attribute to the measurement process (in the classic physics,
measurement results are independent of the observer's speed). As a
result, it is not possible any more for physics to attain its
(claims of) objectivity; i.e., Man is no more able to see nature
itself as one can only behold the "observed" nature.
A
non-materialist existence of atomic energy appeared as the single
undulatory existence (waves). The examination of light phenomenon
proved that photons behave in certain experimental circumstances as
composed of light particles and beams; however, in other
experimental circumstances, photons behave as composed of waves.
(One physicist sarcastically said: "On Saturday, Monday and
Wednesday, we define light as particles and beams; then it turns to
waves for the rest of the week".) This is known as the
"principle of dualism"; it is also a valid principle in
the case of atoms that sometimes behave as waves and other times as
particles. No single experiment could prove that photons are both
particles and waves, in the same time; for each experiment only
reveals one physical state, either particles or waves.
No single experiment could prove that [light] photons are both particles and waves, in the same time; for each experiment only reveals one physical state, either particles or waves. |
|
The
logic of science used to only offer two values: truth or falsehood,
i.e., issues are either 'true' or 'false'. Nevertheless, now it is
possible to have a trilateral logic that has a median value of
'indetermination'; accordingly, issues are deemed either true, or
false, or indeterminate (i.e., undefined). It also can be said that
"physical" reality, as Fu'ad Kamil accurately stated it in
his article titled: The Crisis of Modern Science,
"accepts two possible and equally sound explanations (outcomes)
but they can never be combined both in one picture because the law
of indetermination makes it impossible perform any determinative
experiment so as to determine which explanation is the truth and
which is falsehood." It seems that this logic represents the
final picture of the Quantum physics all the way to the present
moment.
Finally,
if we ask: What is matter? The answer cannot be obtained via
physical experiments alone; rather it needs a philosophical analysis
of physics. As nature does not dictate one particular situation on
us; truth is not limited to one particular diction.
As nature does not dictate one particular situation on us; truth is not limited to one particular diction. |
|
Perhaps,
discovering black holes in the universe has great significance on
both scientific and symbolic levels. For, inside these holes, the
laws of physics and biology as well as time and space all and light
(the constant element in nature) is, in turn, devoured. We can see
the black holes' effects on their surroundings but we do not fathom
their (fathomless) secrets; as they exist and play an essential role
such that we cannot understand some phenomena without them. Yet they
are not subject to human control and we do not fathom their secrets
completely. Lately, the chaos theory emerged and unleashed a new
strike against the solid closed materialist (outlook of the) world.
In
addition, I realized that much of the so called 'scientific laws'
are, in reality, a priori philosophical categories embraced by
scientists but have none or a flimsy relationship with the realm of
scientific experimentation. If, for instance, a scientist says that
the world appeared by chance; such statement only asserts his/her
'belief' in that fact or his failure to understand the universe true
origin. Similarly, when another scientist addresses the 'automobile
material', the scientist, in fact, names something that he/she does
not understand its. In both cases, both scientists came from
obscurant philosophical premises that precede the experimentation
process itself.
'scientific laws' are, in reality, a priori philosophical categories embraced by scientists but have none or a flimsy relationship with the realm of scientific experimentation. |
|
A
physicist and friend of mine told me that in order to embark upon a
“grand unification theory” requires the absorption of and
accounting for all the knowledge, facts, information or their bases.
This is though deemed impossible at present; human knowledge was
doubled during the periods: early history-1750, 1750-1900, and
1900-1950. During 1950-1990, it was doubled once every decade and
after that once every five years. So I asked him: “What if we
store all human knowledge in a super computer?” He replied: “The
difficulty of retrieving and/or utilizing all that knowledge still
has to be encountered”. Another scientist told me that a class of
problems is known as 'theoretically tractable' and that solving them
shall require that the current generation of computers to work for
thousands of years to that end; perhaps that is all the time left
for mankind on earth!
The
limitations of the human mind, on the one hand, and the accumulation
of information and scientific facts, on the other hand, had rendered
the cooperative team work an inevitable necessity for scientific
research while the scientific discovery could not be but
individualistic. This is the 'Catch-22 dilemma': no single
individual can absorb all science outcomes for they are so
voluminous and cumulative; however, one individual is supposed to
arrive at one or more scientific theory (such as the relativity
theory) which explains or reasons about the outcomes of various
sciences. Consequently, it now turns to be impossible to formulate a
general theorem based on the materialist/natural donnče
available to us, as it was in the past. For we do not know some of
it although is known to others and some of that still awaits
solutions.
[I]t now turns to be impossible to formulate a general theorem based on the materialist/natural donnče available to us, as it was in the past. |
|
Our
world had immensely expanded on the macro level (heavenly bodies,
stars, cosmos, etc.) and on the micro level (particle, atom, etc).
The realm of knowledge has an unprecedented expansion. If we also
consider the issue of narrow specialization (i.e., the true
scientist/scholar is the one who knows his domain completely), we
will gradually encounter the specialized scientist who knows so much
regarding his narrow specialized domain and ignores so much
regarding anything else. One scholar attempted to epitomize the case
as he said that specialization is to know more about your narrow
domain, then your knowledge expands more and your domain gets
narrower until you know everything about nothing!
The
Egyptian writer, Muhammad Sid Ahmed, published an article in Al-Ahram
daily, on a parallel noteworthy observation: “...the most crucial
accomplishment of Man by the end of the second millennia is…
Man’s ability to be liberated from the limits of his own size
within the universe, … the ability to transcend his natural
capacity so as to explore the mysteries of the extremely tiny and
extremely immense... that is Man’s ability to intervene and
reformulate nature laws .. For the first time, the 'cultural'
intervenes not in reformulating the 'natural'.. but in the realms of
the very tiny and very immense that Man became able to pioneer as he
does not rely in this endeavor on the five senses (sight, hearing,
smell, taste and feeling)... for they are substituted by
mathematical equations (formulas) based on assumptions that may hit
or miss... Thus, Man became reliant on ambiguous tools which convey
more than one explanation and are vulnerable to
confusion...Therefore, what promises to accomplish miracles so as to
upgrade human destiny may convey, within its folds, the menace of
misinterpretation or may crash into unknown and becomes a source of
an unparalleled chaos, 'self-destruction' and forms of massive
suicide of the entire mankind that, in turn, were never tested
before”. For such warning to be issued by some serious thinker
like Muhammad Sid Ahmed, the matter shall be taken quite earnestly.
Modern
science has gradually demolished the notion of 'expanding science
domain and diminishing the unknown' (a naive idea that induced an
optimistic scientist from the nineteenth century to predict that
within thirty years Man will know everything; thus, there shall be
no need for God, morals or religion). After a century of scientific
experiments, Man discovered that with every exploration and control
of something, a thousand new unknown and uncontrollable things
emerge; i.e., the more knowledge man acquires, more ignorance is
encountered. Along this situation is our experience with the atom;
that particular thing which moves without any (known) law and is
difficult to monitor. Nonetheless, at every attempt to monitor atom,
we discover new issues that puzzle us. The next step on our agenda
is to split the atom; once that is accomplished, it is assumed that
we will reach an earthly paradise. Now we are in a dilemma in regard
to how get rid of the nuclear waste, however. We ended up concluding
that it could annihilate us as well as our planet, together. And we
still hold to the "fire ball", i.e., nuclear waste and
arms that are capable of annihilating the world several times.
After a century of scientific experiments, Man discovered that with every exploration and control of something, a thousand new unknown and uncontrollable things emerge; i.e., the more knowledge man acquires, more ignorance is encountered |
|
If
controlling nature is science's greatest illusion, the actual
reality is to the contrary, however. This issue surpass the atomic
realm to some technological 'discoveries' which we use in our daily
life. So it has been reported that genetically modified food could
diminish the human immune system (as proven in some scientific
experiments); thus, the term 'Frankenstein food'. A British
scientist was dismissed from his job because he went on asserting
this premise; some of his students demonstrated in order to support
his assertions. Such does not differ much from what happened to one
of my friends in the U.S. as he performed some tests on microwave
ovens and found them gravely harmful to human health. But before he
could reach the final conclusion of his research, his budget was
withdrawn under financial austerity claims. Likewise, we do not know
the effects of computer and microfilm screens on human body and
eyes.
One
scientist put forward several questions in regard to simple matters
that reveal the limitations of human knowledge: Why humans are the
only mammals that use their right limbs more often than left limbs?
Why do indoor plant conditions change due to change in psyche and
mood of their owners? Why do schools of migrating birds take the
shape of an arrow head when they are flying? How can small animals
(such as birds and fishes) manage to travel thousands of miles
towards a certain destination that they have never hit before,
generation by generation, and to reach there exactly without a map
or compass? How can some lost domestic animals, which are not
trained to migrate, travel alone thousands of miles and find their
owners? The answer to the above questions depends on the premise
that our world encompasses thousands of laws and elements that were
not imagined by the discoverer of the thermodynamic laws that
combined the laws of material existence and motion in one framework
in a primary attempt to put forward a single comprehensive
explication of the universe.
Why humans are the only mammals that use their right limbs more often than left limbs? Why do indoor plant conditions change due to change in psyche and mood of their owners?... |
|
Lack
of control has become an essential characteristic of our age. The
more mechanization and scientific manipulation (of the world) the
less control we shall attain over such world. This is revealed
through numerous aspects such as environmental crises, failing to
get rid of waste and the increasing spread of 'psychological
ailments'. Lack of control comically appears perhaps in the two
following simple examples: In the U.S. my first name magically
turned from Abdelwahab to Abdelwaha because the Computer (software)
was not able to find enough space for the last letter of my first
name. One employee suggested to me that I change my last name to
"Elm" and that should be it; it is an Anglo-Saxon and
short name! The Computer can handle it sufficiently. Finally I had a
problem with the Newsweek magazine; as they suddenly stopped my
subscription. After I complained to them they sent to me a letter
welcoming my desire to subscribe; so I wrote to them that their
letter was not a proper reply to complaint. So they sent to me
another stock (ready made) letter saying that they were sorry for my
subscription has expired. I answered with a third letter to notify
them of the problem and complaint; then I eventually received an
answer to my complaint stating that some mistake took place, they
will fix it and send the magazine issues to me. They also requested
that I ignore stock letters that I will henceforth receive, as the
Computer was expected to shower me with more unstoppable stock
letters! This was, in fact, the ultimate lack of control; yet in a
trivial matter such as billing or communications let alone serious
matters such as cloning, atomic energy or food genetic modification.
Finally,
there is the problem of scientific experimentation. Several
scientists (who achieved some important discoveries in the genetic
engineering field) stand against experimentation in this field
fearing its devastating consequences considering the de facto
separation between the experimental (empirical) tendency and the
human, moral and rational tendency. Thus, experimentation itself
turned to be the ultimate end--regardless of its fatal consequences
for the mankind. One scholar expressed these concerns as, "In
the past, scientific experiment mistakes, such as a (devastating)
blast or the like, used to happen within the nature's cycle not as a
challenge to nature's laws; therefore, the nature's cycle was able
to fix the damage. Hence, if a certain area was polluted, it has to
be deserted for number of years so that natural factors may repair
the man made damage. The radioactive pollution may last for several
thousand years; it remains, however, within the temporal and natural
cycle. As for genetic engineering experiments, it is so different
from the old traditional breeding in the sense that it completely
disregards the biological limits for it is always possible to add
genes from virus, bacteria or animals to the plant genetic code
(genome). These experiments could bring about new creatures that the
nature's cycle cannot deal with; such creatures are beyond the
domain of natural evolution". The term 'genetic pollution' was
lately coined to denote the transfer of alien genes that had been
introduced to some plant (for the purpose of making it more
productive or more climate resistant) to another plant (e.g.,
harmful herb/grass) that could make its eradication a formidable,
difficult or impossible matter.
I
had described the fears of the Western man from the value and the
purpose-free experimentation through my description of some
metaphorical and mythological images that engrossed the Western
imagination. Among these images is the myth of Prometheus who stole
the fire from deities and gave it to Man (for the purpose of
enlightenment, of course; i.e., the greatest secular myth). Then
followed the Faust's myth who sold his soul to Satan in return of
full knowledge that enables him of full control of reality and time
(or so he thought). With the inception of the eighteenth century,
the Frankenstein myth emerged; such an ugly being that was bred by
an enlightened scientist in order to utilize it in his service,
personal and human. But, after a little while, the 'creature' killed
the 'creator' and broke loose; wreaking havoc and committing
genocide. Thus, the outcome of human science is human genocide; the
conclusion of human science is inhumane. For, Frankenstein is a
natural mechanical man that moves within the mechanical natural
laws. Afterward, more myths appeared, such as that of Dr. Jekyl and
Mr. Hyde, which indicate Man's fear for one's concrete human
identity vis-ŕ-vis the abstract mind which moves within the domain
of scientific laws and inhumane mathematical formulas. Therefore,
after Prometheus stole the fireball from the deities, with extreme
confidence, so as to enlighten Man's world and path, he became
perplexed as for what he shall do with it afterwards. And instead of
utilizing fire, it started to burn his fingers: the ozone layer
holes, pollution, family deterioration, the eradication of tropical
forests, and the heating effects of increasing carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. So it became apparent that Man's path was not
enlightened; on the contrary, all that progress shall lead to the
detriment, annihilation and elimination of Man.
The
cost of progress had proven to be exorbitant as it failed to cure
most of the Man's spiritual and psychological ailments; instead, it
exacerbated them. Progress, as it was put forward to us, is the
application of the Western paradigm in development and consumption.
This paradigm is predicated on invading and exploiting nature;
(consider that 20% of the world population, mainly in the West,
consume 80% of the world natural resources). Now, what if both China
and India 'progress' according to Western premises/standards? Does
that not mean another billion automobiles roaming in the roads,
burning oxygen, releasing their immense exhaust and polluting the
earth atmosphere? What if Brazil, in turn, progresses and proceeds
with the eradication of the tropical forests (in order to establish
factories, commercial farms and highways and to accomplish the
'prospective progress' a la Western mode, for that is her
national right)? Shall that not lead to exhaust one third of the
world's oxygen? If the Western notion of progress is founded on the
premise of limitless natural resources, practice proved the
contrary, however. Some minerals are depleting from the earth, some
animals and plants are considered extinct species every year. The
waste-processing problem is worsening as the volume of waste
increases scarily. (It is expected that within few years if progress
maintains the same rates, mankind shall need six more planets like
our Earth to extract enough raw materials and two similar planets to
dispose the waste of the savage consumption related to progress).
Besides, there is the nuclear waste that we did not figure out a
definite way to dispose of, yet. The progress that was presumed to
realize Man's pursuit of happiness had turned to a threat against
the very existence of Man on this planet.
If the Western notion of progress is founded on the premise of limitless natural resources, practice proved the contrary, however. |
|
There
is a question that I put forward to myself and others: Is the human
nervous system capable of absorbing all these feelings, thoughts and
information that are relayed to Man every day from one's social
environment with an increasingly savage and fast tempo? It is a
question that we need to stop and wonder for a little while in order
to put it forward. Is it coincidental that, in the last decade, the
brain stroke syndrome hits more people every year in the Arab
countries and entire world than ever? Shall Man be able to maintain
strong imagination, meditation and historical memory? Or will
computers, under the illusion of control, will render the
imagination as obsolete, meditation as impossible and historical
memory as an out-of-date matters, respectively; as the experience
accumulation is not an important issue? Shall this Man be
similar to that of the technological Utopia: in control of
everything and under control, as well?
We
may inquire regarding progress itself: Does it necessarily realize
happiness? An let us inquire with Malcolm X, who said that in order
for the state to deal with individuals it has to turn them into
numbers and figures lodged in the books, for the state is able to
send a human being to the space but does not know how to deal with
Men. Actually, the scientific revolution succeeded in developing
arms in an unprecedented manner throughout the mankind history;
however, if one compares the amount of fundraising which medical
researches get compared to the amount directed to the development of
arms and military technology, for example, the picture will be
clear; Man's inability of fighting influenza is evidence of
science's inhumane orientation and of the limits imposed by our very
human existence.
I
had indicated in the introduction of my book, The Earthly
Paradise, that the essence of Western civilization is to believe
in the notion of deterministic, lasting and fast
"progress" until scientific progress had turned to be an
objective by itself. The logic of lasting progress and under any
price is the prevailing logic in the west and the entire world.
Nevertheless, it seems that the environmental crisis had been
worsening in the industrialized societies; for the first time in the
history of Western progress, a qualitative (modifying) factor is
introduced as intellectuals, as well as laymen, began to address the
real expenses of progress and environmental pollution. Is producing
a commodity by itself a measure of progress? Or shall progress and
decline be measured by standards outside the realm of 'stuff' and
quantity; for it is not possible to infer these measures except the
human phenomenon and historical environment? If it is a commonplace
in the West to address the pollution of environment (external
nature), the pollution (corruption) of Man shall be inevitably
addressed soon! As for the consumerist societies that believe in
their ability to satisfy all Man's desires and by defining them
quantitatively--disregarding Man's spiritual needs. Such societies,
I affirm, ignore the duality of Man and breed misery for mankind.
Such was my discourse at the time, though I used to consider myself
then not only secularist but also materialist. It seems, however,
that since the beginning I was a partial secularist; i.e., a
believer in the separation between the state and the church and not
in the separation between the entire human reality and moral values
and absolutes (as in the case of the comprehensive secularist
thinkers who call for the application of natural law on Man and
nature; hence, it is a form of the materialist existential monism,
as I shall delineate later). As a result, I demand now to revisit
the "progress cost" files, to compare revenue to its cost,
and to consider the materialist progress in view of the 'human
decay'.
The issue is that my acceptance of scientific knowledge had become provisional, critical and within limits. |
|
All
the above induced me to have some reservations and penetrations to
some premises that are deemed absolute, by some people, premises
such as technological progress and scientific (empirical)
experimentation. That shall not be construed as I totally reject
scientific knowledge (as some fanatic fundamentalists do), but I do
not completely accept it as the only possible knowledge (as some
fanatic secularists do), if I shall use the terms coined by my
friend, Fahmy Huweidy, the Egyptian thinker and thinker. The issue
is that my acceptance of scientific knowledge had become
provisional, critical and within limits.
Dr.
Abdel-Wahab M. Elmessiri is
a Professor Emeritus of English Literature, Ain Shams University,
Cairo-Egypt.
Dr.
Mazen El-Naggar
Researcher and academic with interest in history and social studies.
|
