ISLAMABAD, June 22: A lively discussion on “Literature and Science” took place at a literary meeting organized by the Halqa- i-Arbab-i-Zauq at the Pakistan Academy of Letters here on Saturday evening.

In his introductory paper on the subject, Salahuddin Darwesh, who teaches at a local college, talked of what he called, the Marxian terminology of “objectification” in the creative process. He said this meant the interaction of external and internal experiences, thoughts, ideas and obsessions of the writer, which are reflected in literary pieces. Based on a particular experience, a piece of writing was in favour of a certain class and against the interests of the other. Indeed, there was a scientific discipline in the words expressed. Literature did not come out of nowhere. It unearthed the layers of understanding. Words derived their meaning from the social fabric. As opposed to this, the scientific process did not arise out of a particular social system.

Darwesh thought that when scientific knowledge took the form of technology, it on the one hand, involved itself with the sociological aspects of human society and, on the other, took a step forward in unravelling the social problems and the universe. He thought that technology was the ultimate aim of the human intellect, and quoted Iqbal: Fitrat ko khirad kay roo baroo kar, taskheer-i-muqam-i-rango boo kar, meaning that intellect should unravel the universe.

Historically speaking, he said, science and technology rather than cultural values played an important role in human life. He thought that it is easy to criticize the American and European societies but it is a fact that their scientific knowledge and technology have benefited the entire world. He spoke of those societies where 98 per cent of the curriculum makes the study of European and American scientific knowledge compulsory, but where the rulers and the elite were not interested in the development of technology.

He thought that the writer (through his writings, based on objectification, which in brief, also comprised his literary “materiality”) apparently appears to be innocent and harmless, when he denies the social role of a writer. Nonetheless, he was acting as spokesman of some ideology, class interest or party line, when he tried to negate the social role of the wordsmith. Although, the speaker thought, science and technology are involved in anti-human crimes very seriously in some cases, and protects their interests, the writer at times is equally seriously involved in similar crimes. However, the scientist does not take the shelter under the garb of “cultural values”, nor he tries to hide his deeds. In contrast, the writer clothes himself into “cultural necessity” and flaunts the so-called “spiritual” experiences.

The conclusion the speaker drew was that the place and object of the writer and the scientist were the same in society; and they both were supposed to portray the greatness of humankind.

Dr Sarwar Kamran, who presided over the meeting, said that very serious questions have been raised. He quoted George Bernard Shaw praising the book Alice in Wonderland, which was written by a mathematician, Lewis Carroll. He said that G.B.Shaw wanted to see the next book by this writer. The next book that he gave to Shaw was on geometry! (Perhaps meaning that it depended the way one wrote the book.) He thought literature, religion and philosophy relate to each other very closely.

Summarizing the evolution of knowledge, he spoke of the way scientists and philosophers right from Plato onwards changed the thinking of the people. Newton’s three laws dominated our idea of the world for a long time, and Darwin gave the idiom of “evolution” for all things. Einstein’s theory of relativity made everything relative. Atom has given us a new sense of death.

He said the spirit of creativity spurred both the scientist and the writer to work. Sometimes an invention came without specific effort by the scientist in that direction, was another matter.

Referring to a participant’s view that the subject of the paper was outdated in the present context where physicists spoke of metaphysics and scientists of soul, and where even computers were writing poetry, Dr Kamran said that subjects such as these never become trite, and questions should continue to be raised on these matters.

Akhtar Usman thought that there was very close connection between literature and science seemed fiction before it became science. He thought trouble arose because we sometimes “half see” great writers like Iqbal (For example we tend to forget the Iqbal of Persian and confine him to the shikwas only).

He spoke of poets like Ghalib who wrote on scientific subjects. He quoted John Locke saying that the poet made addition to the world of things. He also said that much depended upon the greatness of a literary masterpiece.

A number of other participants, including Col Sharafat Ali, Ikram Jamali, Riffat Iqbal and Muddasir Afridi also took part in the discussion.—Mufti Jamiluddin Ahmad