Will Brehm  0:00
Ijaaz Jackaria, welcome to FreshEd.

Ijaaz Jackaria  1:15
Thanks for having me, Will.

Will Brehm  1:16
Congratulations on your Flux episode. Just loved the whole Southern epistemology focus, sort of interstellar focus. I want to jump in today by sort of unpacking some of what you did in this episode. You know, throughout your episode, you used some of the sounds of interstellar space that were actually captured by Voyager 1. Can you tell, for the audience members who might not know what Voyager 1 is, can you tell me, what is Voyager One, and why was it so important to you?

Ijaaz Jackaria  1:46
So, just diving straight in with the science, hardcore stuff that I love talking about. So, the Voyager One was a space probe launched in, I believe, 1977 from, I mean, the US, of course. One of the leading scientists working on it was Carl Sagan. At the time, the mission was supposed to be lasting around a decade, but it’s still functioning now. And as the latest news I was checking, I think by next year, it’s gonna run out of fuel and stuff. So, the mission itself was to probe the outer space, I mean the whole solar system, and as of now, it has passed on Neptune. I mean, the last planet on the solar system, and it’s still sending data, which is still being analyzed by the NASA.

Will Brehm  2:28
And it’s actually out of our solar system now’ it’s Interstellar. Is that right?

Ijaaz Jackaria  2:32
Exactly right.

Will Brehm  2:33
And so, the sound you used was recorded by Voyager 1, you know, some of the sounds you hear in your episode, is that, right?

Ijaaz Jackaria  2:41
I mean, one thing to understand here, strictly speaking, I think, for the scientific like audience, technically, sound doesn’t travel in space. So, when we think about sounds of interstellar -so the way, I mean, I think it’s amazing- that NASA is doing it. So, they’ve captured plasma rays and charged particles, and they sonify that data for analysis. And so, that’s where the sound about this space come from. It’s kind of like a synthetic sound generated from the data that they have. In my episode, the reason I choose that, I mean one, it is the mission of the Voyager 1 itself, which is this pushing our boundaries of knowledge, like trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, which really captured my personal interest in physics. I mean, way back when I was in high school, I was watching those documentaries, particularly like Cosmos, which Sagan, like, initially started off, but then taken over by Neil deGrasse Tyson. And so that really, kind of like captured that fascination with the mysteries that’s out there. The other thing also, which is a very personal connection. I feel it’s about Carl Sagan, because Carl Sagan worked on that and space probe, the Voyager 1. Sagan is also an alumni of the University of Chicago. So, we are part of that same intellectual tradition. And at University of Chicago, we value this kind of pushing the boundaries of knowledge, like pushing further discoveries, which is something I’m trying to mirror in my episode.

Will Brehm  4:00
And of course, Carl Sagan’s voice is heard across your whole episode. And so, it’s, you know, the connection to Voyager, the connection to the University of Chicago where you are, the connection to some of your ideas and interests, and his voice, it’s really quite a beautiful sort of soundscape that we hear across the episode. Beyond sort of the personal connections that you might have and feel with Carl Sagan, what are some of the ideas that he was sort of exploring that are of interest to you in this episode?

Ijaaz Jackaria  4:31
So, particularly in the context of the episode, what we were trying to really highlight is the pale blue dot itself. So, for the context, the pale blue dot was captured by the Voyager Space 1, I think, as it was passing Neptune like billions of kilometers away. And from Sagan’s point of view, at least, my interpretation of it on a very surface level of reading to understand what the Pale Blue Dot is I think it’s very tempting to have this nihilistic understanding of our reality, our existence on earth in this vast expanse of the universe. So, it’s very tempting to be like, okay, nothing matters, and all the you know, glories and what Sagan really hammers on. But at the same time, it’s a very humanistic approach of thinking what makes us human. We are alone in this universe. I mean, as of now, we don’t have evidence of outer space, extraterritorial life, and so this idea of nurturing the earth where we come from and even amid our differences in ideologies. But for me, personally, when I read about Sagan, when I watched his documentaries, and then hear him speak, I didn’t get the impression of that nihilism coming out. For me, it was a little bit different, and that, I think ties with my Sufi intellectual background. So, when I look at the cosmos, literally, every single time I star gaze, just this ability, this faculty that we humans have. We have this ability to absorb infinity, the vastness of the cosmos. And I think that’s amazing. That’s beautiful there. It’s not as if nothing matters, but everything matters. It’s kind of like we turning this feeling upside down.

Will Brehm  6:02
Yeah. I love that about your episode. That wonder, that infinity. It’s quite beautiful in many ways. You know, in the episode, we actually are with you stargazing at one point, and it’s on the, you know, some beaches in Mauritius, where you’re from, and we hear the sounds of the ocean, and you outside. How do you make sense of Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot, sort of speech, which we hear over and over again, which you’re not taking this nihilistic reading really, this sort of wonder and infinity, sort of, you know, beautiful approach. How do you see that connection to you standing in Mauritius on a beach at night, looking up at the stars.

Ijaaz Jackaria  6:43
So, it’s kind of like, definitely an intentional parallel I wanted to draw. So, first is this pale blue dot, this small pixel in the vast universe, versus me in Mauritius, literally, a small pixel on Google Map, which is barely visible with respect to everything, what’s happening on Earth, in our world. And it’s very -I mean, as a Mauritian, as a Mauritian scholar, when I think about our contribution, and it’s very tempting to say, well, we don’t matter. We don’t have a voice. We are not in the big things that’s happening there. And I think that ties with exactly what de Sousa Santos is talking about, this cartography, about the center. I mean, everything in our respect, from Mauritian perspective, in my upbringing and education, seems to be happening in the Global North, which is like American, the British, and I mean, to some extent, the French as well. But it feels like nothing is coming out of the Mauritian Southern perspective. And which is not true. Just like we are trying to bring this upside down the view. And despite being small, it is also everything. We have this capacity of contemplating and contributing. And that’s why, like the episode is trying to do, giving a voice to the Mauritian perspective, my perspective particularly.

Will Brehm  7:54
And that’s what I guess, is so fascinating about your overall podcast, is that you’re sort of making an epistemological intervention. And I think in the episode you define epistemology, which is one of those big, complicated philosophical words that a lot of students’ sort of struggle over. So, you know, can you talk to me a little bit about, you know, what is the point about epistemology that you were trying to make in this episode?

Ijaaz Jackaria  8:18
So, epistemology itself, from the very philosophical understanding of it is a study of knowledge. And just like we were talking about Carl Sagan, this idea of pushing the boundaries of knowledge, the reason I chose to center my episode on epistemology, but particularly epistemicide. So, epistemicide is the killing of knowledge. It is the eradication of knowledge, and it is seen as a barrier toward this expansion of knowledge, which is, well, not attributing only to University of Chicago, but this intellectual tradition I was mentioning. And so, epistemology itself, the role that it has throughout my episode is about this understanding of other forms of knowledge, not just the one in the Global North, not just the dominant ones, but actually there are other ways of understanding the world in the words of de Sousa Santos. And I think I am proposing that alternative epistemology, that epistemology of the South in the context of Sufi metaphysics, broadly speaking.

Will Brehm  9:11
Part of that epistemological refocusing, let’s say, reprivileging or deprivileging. You know, one of the ways in which you do that in the episode is through unpacking stereotypical understandings of what Islam is. What is that stereotypical understanding of Islam? And how are you trying to recenter the epistemology around how we understand what Islam is in your episode?

Ijaaz Jackaria  9:37
So, first kind of commenting on this idea of recenter -technically, I mean, thinking from a spatial perspective, we live on the earth, which is a globe. So, technically, any point on the surface of the globe can be a center. There is not really an objective center. I mean, you could always argue, okay, the midpoint between the poles is at the center, but that’s just like a construct. So, the idea is, I mean, while we are talking about epistemologies of the South, the goal, in the words of de Sousa Santos but also what my episode is trying to do is not having a center. Is about having alternative modes which co-exist and interact with other modes of knowledge. So, that’s the goal there. With the Islamic epistemology, or the stereotypes that are being understood from outside Islam. First, I should comment that Islamic epistemology is not a monolith. It’s not one thing. Even though people from the outside think more what they see in the news probably. So, this very conservative religion, very textualistic, and, you know, every cultural element that comes with it. But from an intellectual perspective, when we study Islam, broadly speaking, in the theology and the mysticism, in the sciences, etc., there is very much a varied epistemology, even very often competing, depending on the creed and depending on across time as well, it has evolved. What I am presenting in the episode is a very niche one, definitely not mainstream, for sure. It’s the -well, one is the Sufi epistemology; mysticism broadly. But even Sufism is, I’m not gonna say fragmented, but there are different creeds, different epistemologies. The one I’m talking about is medieval Andalusian mysticism, that of the school of Ibn Arabi. And that’s how really, I can kind of like expand on that part, but just so the audience knows there are other epistemologies of other Sufi creeds across time, across space.

Will Brehm  11:24
So, you give such a nuanced understanding of specific epistemologies, and in this case, you were just articulating one particular way of thinking within Sufism. And you keep making these connections to sort of people that wouldn’t necessarily be considered a Sufi scholar, like Carl Sagan, right? You sort of are bringing these different voices together. So, is the point to, you know, say that there is similarities between some of these ideas that are coming from vastly different places. Are there differences? How do you see the, say, ideas of Carl Sagan coming together with a particular understanding of Sufism?

Ijaaz Jackaria  12:06
I think that was more of a personal take. I mean, I doubt any scholar will try to make a connection with Carl Sagan and Ibn Arabi, for example. I mean, they are centuries apart, very different backgrounds and viewpoints, and altogether paradigm, if we can say. But I think no, it was more a personal choice. I mean, not a choice, really. It just happened in my own upbringing. I was fascinated by both scholars, and it so happened -I mean, I’m not gonna say the word connection, but in my own view, when I was looking at Ibn Arabi, that very particular Andalusian epistemology, there is this idea of the three books, we call it in tradition, the idea of the cosmos, the Scripture, and the human self. So, God discloses himself in those three modes of creation, if you want. So, scripture, cosmos, the whole macrocosm, and the human being, the microcosm; that’s the Andalusian. I mean, not exclusive of the Andalusian Sufi epistemology, but that’s how I studied it when I was reading. And so, when I bring in Carl Sagan, it’s this connection there where scripture and the cosmos -because Carl Sagan is a scientist. He is an astronomer, and he kind of like gives a modern take of what the cosmos is. And so now in the 21st century, as I read both of these texts, for me, it aligns. Not to say they are similar, for sure, but it’s just kind of combined in one coherent whole/form.

Will Brehm  13:27
I loved it. I think there’s such value in bringing different ways of thinking across time together to sort of create something new. And I think that’s kind of what you ended up doing in the podcast. I guess I’d like to ask you to reflect a little bit on your own education. You went to the University of Chicago. You studied in the United Kingdom. You’re talking a lot about Southern epistemology, and really working with that idea in the podcast episode. Were some of these, you know, knowledges -Southern epistemologies- were they present in your, you know, Western education?

Ijaaz Jackaria  14:03
I would say yes and no, or at least in part. I think that’s not like saying anything. I mean, first thing, yeah, I did get the chance to study in the US and in the UK, which we both consider as the West. But once again, deconstructing that the West is not a monolith, because American education is very different from British education. But in my experience, I learned about this idea of the epistemologies of the South at the University of Edinburgh when I was doing my master’s in education, even though, again, not mainstream, but it’s gaining traction in social studies, broadly speaking. And even my dissertation, to some extent, did approach unconventional ways of thinking along those lines. When I was at U Chicago as an undergrad, I didn’t formally intellectually study it, but the way the curriculum was designed, they were very inclusive and welcoming of other traditions. Even though it was problematic in some ways. So, my degree was philosophy, and traditionally, Western philosophy, Western historical tradition, my dissertation, or end of year paper I was doing for my undergrad, I did talk about Ibn Abari. And so, like the curriculum allowed for it, they were very welcoming of different voices. But when it comes to academia, the structures of Western academia, we have to fit a certain standard, or even, like historical legacy, like just a very simple thing. Writing a paper, you always have to bring in other scholars and other scholars within the Western academia. And just kind of this vicious circle which kind of bounds itself. And so, we are trapped within the Western epistemology, however we want to call it. And so, what ended up happening in my own case, as I was excited with Ibn Arabi, I wanted to present it, you know, in this Western academia, but I ended up using languages that was from the Western academic tradition, which is not faithful to Ibn Arabi, because Ibn Arabi was a medieval thinker, and he has his own set of vocabularies, his own set of views. And so, deconstructing it was something foreign to Ibn Arabi. To talk about Ibn Arabi in a foreign language which is not representative of him. And so, I think we kind of like get stuck in this dilemma. And this is, I think, a critique of Western academia, broadly speaking. As much as we want to welcome epistemology of the South, there are structures in place that have, barriers to it, like barriers of language, barriers of epistemology itself. And I know de Sousa Santos invites us to kind of like rethink about that, be more inclusive in many ways.

Will Brehm  16:17
Do you think your podcast episode as a whole, was a demonstration of Southern epistemologies?

Ijaaz Jackaria  16:24
That was the aim, at least. It’s more of an application of this sort of epistemologies within my own context, and how we can open the door, at least for the conversation to go. I mean, there is a long way till it becomes mainstream. Probably the aim is not to make it mainstream, but it’s this idea, at least we’re opening up the conversation and at least seeing what those barriers are, diagnosing the problem before we come to the solution and eventually address it in the long run.

Will Brehm  16:50
You title your episode “In the Realm of the In Between”, and sometimes there was even some sounds that reminded me of the television show, Stranger Things, which also has sort of this in between worldness to it. I’d be keen to hear, you know, how do you understand this realm of the in between?

Ijaaz Jackaria  17:08
I mean, initially it wasn’t titled “The Realm of the In Between”, but it fit so nicely as I was kind of developing the story. I got inspired with the Arabic term of it, which then we translated “As the world of the In Between”. So, in Arabic, we call it the “barzakh”. Barzakh in Arabic means a lot of things, but broadly speaking, it’s kind of this boundary -boundary between two things. One way to understand the barzakh is in Islamic belief, theology, broadly speaking, is the realm of the in between, between, like the living and like judgment, day and resurrection. So, there is a stage between death and resurrection, and we call that a barzakh. There is also in broader mysticism and theological thought, like dreams can be understood as a barzakh, like it’s between this wakefulness and unconsciousness. And so barzakh, broadly speaking, applies to any boundary in any particular case. And the other thing that I think brings in this idea of the barzakh, I mean, I used -maybe just jumping ahead a little bit- the philosophy of Derrida throughout, without explicitly mentioning it, but using it as a framework to kind of present my whole episode, this idea of deconstruction, etc. But I think this idea of in betweenness is very much related to Derrida as well. I mean, Derrida has spoken about a lot of things, he is very complex and complicated. So, in the few minutes we have here, it’s very hard to unpack the flow of Derrida, but one thing that he did, and who is inspirational. So, first he had a critique of Hegelian dialectics, so of binary opposition, and what I call dichotomies here, like physics, metaphysics, science, religion. And so, this idea of the barzakh is to challenge those dichotomies where there is not a clear-cut sign or demarcation between any two dichotomies, or any two binary positions. And it opened this realm of a kind of like in between realm and re-questioning and opening up possibilities of reinterpretation. And that’s where the barzakh came in, coupled with Derrida’s looming specter in the background of the episode,

Will Brehm  19:04
I think your episode sort of is in the realm of the in between. You know, by deconstructing you’re sort of working between these polar opposites, between these dichotomies, not trying to sort of see things black and white. And it’s quite a journey to go on and listen to. And so, I’d be actually pretty keen to hear, how did you put this together? I’d love to sort of look behind the scenes, because my understanding is you’ve never made a podcast before. Is that right?

Ijaaz Jackaria  19:33
Defintely. This was my very first attempt.

Will Brehm  19:35
So, how did you do it, Ijaaz? How did you manage to create this story with sound, with sort of drawing on lots of theory, lots of cosmology, lots of big ideas that you sort of wove together. How on earth did you do it?

Ijaaz Jackaria  19:50
I mean, I think it started off as a very experimental endeavor. So, first, just to do FreshEd Flux, I wanted to try something new honestly stepping out of my comfort zone. So, I am more of a traditional scholar. I read a lot of books, I write, you know, papers -the traditional scholar and student. And then I came to know about, you know, FreshEd re-listening to it as part of my master’s program in education, which was very super helpful. I was like, Okay, let me try to contribute to that conversation in discourse that’s happening. And so, once I was on Flux, trying to get this story going -again, it was experimental in many ways, but at the same time, this flexibility, this polymorphic element within like podcasting that we can do is amazing. It transcends the boundaries of just written paper, like what you could do in written text. Now we’ve got this additional dimension of putting in sounds and stories -we are not restricted. And I think the barriers that I spoke about, where we are not restricted in the podcast, especially for Flux. And so, I kind of like played around those lines, pushing the boundaries of trying to do something new, something novel, but at the same time transmitting a message, something that I’m deeply passionate about, and giving a voice to that. All these like multiple abstract ideas in a coherent narrative whole.

Will Brehm  21:01
In your episode, there’s a lot of different sound layers, and we talked about the Voyager interstellar sound that you bring together and your narration. And there’s this sort of serious tone, but then there’s this moment where you sort of play around with the difference between the notion of haram and halal in Islam, and all of a sudden, the episode takes on this, like, comedic, quite funny tone. How did you put that together?

Ijaaz Jackaria  21:26
I think the shortest answer is; it just happened its own. But I know it was kind of like the longer thing. I mean, when I was listening to the episode, up until that stage in the episode, it was very serious, and from an aesthetic point of view, I was like, Okay, it’s just gonna get boring. The audience is just not gonna, you know, go along with it throughout this whole 30 minutes. And I was trying novel ways of conveying messages without being explicit and without just telling the audience, but actually showing them and evocating some kind of feeling. And so, I was just trying to play around with the music and this little rap beat that comes somewhere in between the episode, in a way, it’s deconstructing, like, again, Derrida comes in in that specter. It’s kind of like flips this understanding of, well, it is haram, it is haram, and it is haram. And that’s literally how it sounded like as a Muslim growing up. We have this idea that everything is haram, and that our education is heavily also. And I was trying to deconstruct that with this rap beat that is a comedic turn to the episode.

Will Brehm  22:23
It really worked, because I remember the first time I heard, and I sort of did laugh out loud when I was listening. You know, you’ve been working on this for the better part of 18 months. What was the hardest part for you?

Ijaaz Jackaria  22:35
I think, to put it short, the hardest part was to make complex ideas simple, which is the whole point of FreshEd Flux. I mean, because when I started off, I had all these abstract ideas. I mean, even within the intellectual circle, speaking of epistemology, it’s a tough subject. And then coupling that with Derrida, coupling that with Sufism, there’s more like complex topics, even for intellectual. And even at the background, diving more into Derrida, even in my mind, we are very tempted as intellectuals to just stay in that realm of let things be complex and we understand each other but there was no point in naming them. And I mean Derrida calls that as a form of violence, to reduce this idea of complexity. But then I was like, let me try something, because this is something I’m super interested in. It has a lot of take and stakes in the academic world. And it is important that people who are not aware of those intricacies, but actually get to understand it. And so, that’s some of the journey of actually, kind of like rethinking what we already know of the complexities. And yes, there is an element of reducing it, but at the same time it’s an opening. So, the whole idea of the episode is not trying to feed, you know, the knowledge to the listeners, but to invite them to understand and kind of like read more and take it, you know, how they can identify with it. That was the idea.

Will Brehm  23:51
We end up doing another season of Flux in the future. What advice would you give to a student who’s thinking of applying?

Ijaaz Jackaria  23:59
I think I would say, don’t be scared to just be radically creative to put it simply. Because very often, I was scared, like, initially, to put something so personal and at the same time so understudied and the -I was afraid of just like, is it even going to be received? Why? You know, is even gonna be meaningful? And so now, having done it for a year and a half, definitely the advice I would give is like, be radically creative. Don’t be scared about presenting your voice and ideas, even though these -it doesn’t have to mainstream by any means.

Will Brehm  24:33
And so, Ijaaz, you finished your master’s degree. What’s next for you? Where are you off to into your future?

Ijaaz Jackaria  24:41
I think I would say I am currently in this realm of the in between right now. I’m in this barzakh in the sense that I have a leg in academia. I mean, with Flux, I’m still doing the research, I’m still reading, and I’m still in this sphere of academia. But on the other hand, I have another leg -I mean, I’m already working. I’m an ed tech consultant for a company in Dubai. And right now, I am this half scholar, half practitioner, and looking at the future. I mean, I had the intention of pursuing a PhD. Unfortunately, I didn’t get into the programs I wanted to get in. And so now I’m kind of rethinking what the future holds. But I am considering continuing along this line of a half scholar and half practitioner, and just like I’m doing here with, you know, opening up the stage, giving voice to the unheard, epistemicide and everything, and I think I do want to implement that in my work with high school students. Giving them this platform, this space, to actually contribute to knowledge. Because there is a lot of potential, I think, which remains untapped in my work. So, that’s, I think, the next step.

Will Brehm  25:41
Well, Ijaaz, it was an absolute pleasure to work with you for 18 months. I’ve learned so much from you in that time. I’ve laughed, I’ve learned, I’ve enjoyed the time together. The whole FreshEd Flux team, I think I can speak for them, that they also enjoyed this whole process, and we just are amazed at the final product that you produced. So, Ijaaz Jackaria, thank you so much for joining FreshEd and congratulations on your FreshEd Flux episode.

Ijaaz Jackaria  26:10
Thank you. Thank you so much, Will.

Want to help translate this show? Please contact info@freshedpodcast.com

Related Author Project

Prioritisation of indicators in SDG4: Voluntary national reviews as a tool of soft governance

Mentioned

Voyager 1

Carl Sagan – Pale Blue Dot

Carl Sagan 

Neil deGrasse Tyson 

Epistemology

Epistemologies of the South: Justice against epistemicide

What is Sufism 

Origins of Andalusian Mysticism

Ibn Al Arabi’s Barzakh

Deconstruction in a nutshell – Jacques Derrida

Interview with Jacques Derrida on dialectics

Have any useful resources related to this show? Please send them to info@freshedpodcast.com