410 Precita Ave.
San Francisco 94110
Jan. 27, 1970
Religious Humanism
Box 65
Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
Dear Sirs:
I have your appeal and am sending enclosed the minimum amount of $3. This is for the purpose of griping. I think I can afford $3 to gripe. But if the religious humanists really had something more to offer than the “Judeo-Christian ethic,” and if they are willing to accept the thesis, not the fact but the thesis, that religion can be based upon human experience, my coffers may be opened. I see no reason why there cannot be parallels between religion and science, both being based on human experience, but in different ways. But I also can believe in a humanism which includes the human race, and at this writing I see few signs of it.
For example, I wrote a paper on “Vietnamese Buddhism”; after it was rejected 33 times, and it was rejected by all and on, I stopped for two quite different reasons: I met a Vietnamese who had written a paper on the same subject, and conceded to him the monopoly on writing a paper and having it rejected. Second, I met a professor on the campus of the University of California who had lived in Southeast Asia, and he accepted it, although it has not been published.
This professor and I agree that if we can invade a country, peacefully or non-peacefully, we ought to have some curiosity about the native cults, superstitions, and ethos. I find this curiosity sadly lacking in the whole Western world, excepting amid a few anthropologists. They live in reality; the rest of us live mostly in what we call “realism,” whatever that means.
I do not accept Marxism. I do not accept dialectics. The last time I debated in public I won, most unfortunately, because I held in the universe the nyaya logic of India and the dignaga of Mahayana were equally valid to Aristotelian logic. I will not assent to any thesis that either a broad Hegelianism or a broad Aristotelianism can solve the problems of the day. The willingness to be tolerant of all aspects of these two outlooks, is to me nothing but a universal Aryanism, much more noble no doubt than Hitlerism, but still very restricted.
Many of my scientific outlooks are based on laboratory and field experience. Nearly all my religious conclusions are based on both internal and external experiences. So far the external experiences have been rejected even more than the internal ones, excepting among anthropologists and a few university instructors. You can therefore see that I am most unfortunately rather attached to my gripes. I would like to prove I am wrong. I can be proven wrong. If I am either proven wrong, or there is any interest in the themes above, I shall certainly contribute further, without demanding any acceptance thereof, or publication of anything coming from me.
Faithfully,
Samuel L. Lewis
P.S. It may interest you to know I am cooperating wholeheartedly with Dr. Oliver
Reiser of Pittsburgh U. and am trying to validate his cosmic humanism.
Fellowship of Religious Humanists
105 West North College Street
Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
February 5, 1970
Mr. Samuel L. Lewis
410 Precita Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94110
Dear Mr. Lewis:
I am just back from Florida. At the age of 72 I find it helps me carry on if I spend a month or two each winter out of this extreme cold.
My desk is piled high and my letters necessarily have to be brief at the start. Therefore I cannot undertake to purge you of your gripe. Most of the Humanists I know do not accept Marxism, although IHEU has been playing around with the Marxist Dialogue. I certainly am for co-existence as the alternative to such enterprises as we are engaged in Vietnam.
During my years as Executive Director of the American Humanist Association, I brought in a very strong factor of scientific Humanism with Dr. Herman Mueller as President for a period of four years and such persons as Professor A.J. Carlson active in the movement. Humanism has many emphases and my concern now with Religious Humanism is only because that dimension was being neglected in behalf of the social application of Humanism.
Dr. Oliver Reiser of Pittsburgh University is one of our more prophetic and imaginative Humanists. He and I, along with Dr. Leroy Bowman, were named Humanist Fellows at the October meeting of the AHA. I have known Dr. Reiser for many years and am glad that you are in touch with him.
My own wish is that the AHA could be the one inclusive Humanist organization and meet the needs of the many different varieties of Humanists that we find in the modern world. That there are these various types merely indicates the breadth and richness of our general, naturalistic approach. I am sending you some literature and back copies and want to suggest that you make the acquaintance of Mr. Lloyd Morain if you have not done so. He is doing a splendid job of re-orienting the AHA, which seemed to have gone off in certain tangents.
Edwin H. Wilson
Administrative Secretary
Feb. 8, 1970
Mr. Edwin H. Wilson
Administrative Secretary
Fellowship of Religious Humanists
105 West North College St.
Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
My dear Mr. Wilson:
I have your letter of February 5. It has placed me in an absolute quandary. I have been all over the world and mingled with all kinds of people at all levels on all subjects, but I have committed two absolutely unforgivable sins, for which there is no forgiveness.
These sins are these:
a. Knowing a certain person since he was a boy!
b. Having studied with the late Professor Cassius Keyser of Columbia, the friend and mentor of the late Count Alfred Korzybski, the friend and mentor of the very controversial Dr. S. I. Hayakawa and Mr. Lloyd Morain.
The latter two have never forgiven me for this, have denied me the floor even when my personality was attacked, and one of them has precluded me from speaking on anything except communes, and the other from speaking an anything whatsoever.
It is for that reason I have not joined the Humanist Society here. It is for that reason I am not active in the semantic movement here. These men will offer a thousand excuses; let them. You can take it from there.
I have worked for years toward the solution of certain subjects and have been greeted everywhere by scientists I have contacted. I am even now arranging for a gathering on Vietnam wherein Vietnamese will be the speakers. I later hope to have an arrangement where the speakers will be Arabs who are citizens of Israel.
Do you think I could even broach the above top bananas on these matters? Try again. There are some sins which are unforgivable, as above, and I mean as above, and I mean as above.
Faithfully,
Samuel L. Lewis
Fellowship of Religious Humanists
105 West North College Street
Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
February 12, 1970
Mr. Samuel L. Lewis
410 Precita Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94110
Dear Mr. Lewis:
The hostilities, hurts, and grudges you express are something that I cannot be drawn into constructively at this distance.
My own experience has been that it is simply dead weight; to carry around a grudge and that forgiveness is good for one’s should. In the Humanist work I have always followed the notion of not closing doors and very, very frequently have found that I could work on creative and positive projects with people who had hurt me, or at least that I had imagined had hurt me.
An absolutistic attitude toward other people, or a perfectionist attitude, either one, are always a source of unhappiness. We live in a world of imperfect people and each of us is probably quite imperfect.
Personally, I have worked with Lloyd Morain intimately for six years and we had great differences and we did a lot of good work together. I backed him for election to the presidency of the AHA again because I know he is committed and devoted to it. Therefore, if there is any fault between you, I am of the opinion that there is fault on both sides and shall leave it there. A good Humanist does not react as you seem to have reacted to individual of the caliber of Hayakawa and Morain.
That, at least, is how I see it from here and I am sorry that as an old codger of 72, I cannot talk with you personally and pass on such experience as I have had in interpersonal relations.
Sincerely,
Edwin H. Wilson
Administrative Secretary
410 Precita Ave.,
San Francisco, Calif.
February 15, 1970
Edward H. Wilson
Administrative Secretary,
Fellowship of Religious Humanists,
181 West North College St.,
Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
Dear Mr. Wilson:
It is a beautiful spring day here and one has been making the most of it. One also encloses a copy of a letter to Art Hoppe, a local columnists, humorist and commentator. It tells a little of what I am doing. It also gives a little of one’s background.
I am becoming very popular not only because of my real or pretended merits but also when I mention certain prominent or would-be prominent persons who would never permit me to speak. It did not matter whether I was acquainted with the subject-matter or not. They simply would not let me speak. Nor do I know any way to “forgive” them until they let me speak when I may have information, or knowledge.
It was quite a shock to be called out by top scientists for not speaking. They said I had the knowledge so after that I have always asked for the floor and whatever remarks or questions I had were at least considered. This has never happened with “humanists.” Oh, occasionally when they want it I am permitted to say something but I do not recall when they let me have the floor to offer knowledge or information. Yes, they let me have the floor when my personality was attacked; but why should they permit the personality to be attacked? What has this to do with humanism or science or knowledge?
All I have ever asked was to be permitted to speak when I had some knowledge or thought I had. Now you can go on from there. But the young are delighted; they just eat it up. They have not been permitted either, lots of them have been precluded from speaking and then been personally attacked. I don’t think this kind of “Humanism” is going to catch on. I have been under the impression that Religious “Humanism” has a moral background. The only way it can be proved is when its leaders open the floors to humanity, that is all, nothing but that!
Faithfully,
Samuel L. Lewis