All posts by Archivist

On the Marxist Cosmogony and Native American Cosmology. Ver. 29/04/87

August 14, 2015 Archivist

29/04/87

On the Marxist Cosmogony and Native American Cosmology

—Marxist Cosmology as an expression of the European Culture in contrast to Native Cosmology in Native American Culture —.

1. Bourgeoisie Intelligentsia today live through their petty commotions without much reference to Cosmic contexts. This is a contrast to the “primitive people” who are very much aware of Cosmos in which they Place their existences and to which they refer significances of their daily actions.

Our Age, for those of us who are educated in the Western Science, is what some writers called “The Age Without God”. Or we might say our culture is “The Culture of Alienation”. Titles like “The Politcis At God’s Funeral” capture the prevalent sense. [M. Harrington Penguin 1985.]

To be sure, the modern intellectuals know Cosmology, Astrophysics, Space Technology, etc. They get daily bombardments from media of words such as “Big Bang”, “Supernova”, etc., regardless if they understand them or not. Books on Cosmology are abundant in most any bookshop, competing with Harlequin Romances, Biographies of movie actresses, How-to-get-rich, or -to-be-slim, books, etc. The loss of the “Cosmic Sense” is not a question of “knowledge”. Nor that means loss of subconscious interests in the Cosmos. modern men are just as “superstitious” in this respect, but their “ideological posture” is “rationalist”. That is, they try hard to pretend bing “rational”. And their notion of “rational” inhibits references to Cosmic senses in business, political, and intellectual contexts.

Horoscope columns in our newspapers and popular magazines are apparently very popular. People do entertain “cosmic consciousness” etc. when they are drinking in parties. There is no shortage of “religious fanatics” in the U.S. who would justify nuking the “Atheist State of USSR”. It is just that they know paying mortgages is the “reality”. The real reference to their “meaning of life” is Money, not God, Buddha, nor Cosmos. One can argues, in a pedantic style, whether or not the Money Economy is “Rational”. But, that would not make even a slightest impression on the sense of Reality and Rationality the people have and live by.

People have, thus, two distinct “world” so to speak. One is “Real World” which is operationally comprehended as that which concerns “Cash”, and “Physical Body Existence”. If we articulate this world further, it would come to some thing similar to “Materialist View” of the world. Natural Scientists, Businessmen, Marxists and Pragmatists talks about this sense of “Reality”. Even the majority Psychologists today appears to be “materialist” of this kind they are called “Behaviorist”, and they tend to deny existence of “Mind”, “Consciousness”, etc., let alone “Cosmic Consciousness”, “God” —.

But, the “Material World” is not complete, as much as the very same people who believe in it do make references to something outside of it. For example, “Future” is not “Real” to the materialists, yet they can hardly avoid references to Future. The Capitalists make their living in reference to future profits, which are not (yet) Reality. Marxists are examples of “materialists” along with the Capitalists, and do refer to Future (History). One difference between the Marxists and the Capitalists is what they each project (predict, prophecy) for unknown Future. If the both cut off references to Future, they would find themselves indistinguishable, except somehow fighting against each other. And even there, it would be hard to avoid references to implicit Future such as “Survival of the Fittest”. (Since whoever think and talk about “survival” must be living now, it does not make sense to talk of survival unless Furture is implied.)

[Natural Scientists often claim or pretend that they are solely concerned with “facts”. But they do make references to Future, which is not a “fact”. They call their references to the Future “Predictions”, and try to distinguish them from “Prophecies”. But, in claiming the superior reliability of their predictions, the scientist are saying essentially “I am the Truth. Follow etc.”. In this respect, Scientists are not different from Prophets and false Prophets in religious societies.

Of course, the scientists could avoid the troubles of claiming “Truth” as to their predictions by narrating more than one “possible outcome” (options), leaving choices among them to the dominant political Power of the society. But even then, the references to the Futures (pl.) are unavoidable.

That is, science is not about “facts” but about “predictions” which are non-facts. Its political power rests on the “trust” (authority) a culture place on it. If there is a “trust”, communication can be economized. Science is, in this sense, an efficient language (rhetorical) system for securing agreements in a social scale. Religions used to do that, but in the modern society, religions no longer effective in securing social scale agreements.]

[We also note that a gathering of “facts” does not constitute a “Theory”. As much as Sciences value Theories, they are not “factual”. they have to do with “How one thinks” (or “how one talks”).

To be sure, the Behaviorists are right in that scientists do formulate Theories so as to be rewarded. The theory which is rewarded by social recognition becomes a part of the “established knowledge”. A body of such knowledge is called “Science”. What or Who decides which “theories” to be rewarded is by and large a mystery — called “Paradigm” etc. and the process of competitions for the rewards are very much like those in the politics (power struggle) and the market (consumer taste).]

“Legitimacy” and/or “Righteousness” are the essential to any political movement and in social scale agreements. Materialists, Marxists, and Rationalists, and even “Behaviorists”, as social bodies in the quest of a power or an intellectual hegemony, can hardly afford to give up “Legitimacy”, and “Righteousness”. And in this sense, they are not different from Religious Institutions. And in making up “legitimacy” and/or “righteousness”, certain “cosmic sense” or “cosmic assumptions”, do play important roles Different cultures have different senses or assumptions — though we do have to decipher what they are, for more often than not, the fundamental assumptions are implicit about what the Universe is like.

I use a term “Culture” to designate such functions/performances of a social groups in giving the sense of “legitimacy/righteousness” to some and not to others. It is as if a society having a “collective mind”. What is referred as “Mind” in individual cases is complex and often a bundle of contradictions. But it is convenient to have the metaphor of “Mind” in a social scale to talk about how different “cultures” function and perform.

[The term “Ideology” may be used instead of “Culture”. But, I prefer “Culture” to include “feelings” and in viewing that cultures can contain contradictions more readily than “ideology”. I am avoiding “intellectual rationalizations”. For that for itself is a characteristic of a “culture”. Another term “Ethos” comes close to the sense, but it is “apolitical” term. “Culture” contains the both “Ideology” and “Ethos”.]

2. Marxism came when Europe was undergoing the Bourgeoisie Revolution. Whatever, ideologues said in rhetorical expressions, there were two things which changed the “old culture” in Europe. One was emergence of Mass Production Industry. The other is the massive displacement of population from rural to City Living. People are literally uprooted from their Communal Life, in a manner not too unlike “refugees” in the late 20th century.

The Death of God was death of the community. And in its place Science came to play the role of the “culture”. And the Mass Production dethroned The Mother Earth from the position of The Provider.

What happened in Europe since the 16th century is extaordinary. “Culture” usually develops slowly in time relative to the practices of its society. Actually, “Culture” and “Practice” are in a Feedback Loop, mutually enforcing each other. Culture stimulates developments of new practices in a certain direction, and inhibits developments in other directions and in turn Culture itself develops. But, the “scientific” culture in the modern Europe emerged as a rebellion against the old culture.

Freudian metaphor of “Killing Father to marry Mother” is an apt depiction of the way European Science came to the power. Interestingly, Freud himself was a participant of the “science” — that is to say Freud was analyzing the “mind” of Europe of that particular historical period, and he himself was an example of what he analyzed —.

The “Father” was the religious Part of the old culture. And we can understand expressions like “Death of God” (that which was paternalistic authority). That is clear enough. But did we also kill the Mother (that which generates “understanding” or the “sensual sense of knowing”)? Or are we looking for the Mother? One thing we know is that we lost the Mother, at least temporally.

[In metaphors, it is tempting to image “culture” to be the Mother, making “science” to be “unculture”, There are certain aspects of “science” which do suggest some “barbaric”, or “philistine” nature. Freud maintained a distinction between “culture” and “civilization”, and did not use term “culture” to Europe. One could be sympathetic to Freud and say that Technological society of ours does not have a “culture”.

If so, the “scientific revolution” in Europe killed both the old Science (Religion) and Culture.]

Just as Freud was a Product of the historical time, Marx was also a product of the society undertaking destruction of the old community, calling it “Ancient Regime”. Marx did notice the function of religions — he was sympathetic to the lower class who needed religions to soothe the pain, hence called religions “opium” for the poor. However, he apparently did not think of religions to be important subject and did not analyze the “psychology” deeper, but rather classified it as “irrational”. (In Freudian language, Marx hated the Father aspect of Religion, but had lingering affinity with the Mother aspect of Religion.) He was a believer of the rising “Science” then, Just as the Capitalists and the Bourgeois then were. He thought that enlarging of production power would solve most, if not all, social problems. Building of Industries was a common goal for Marxists, Bourgeoisie and the Capitalist. In a sense, Marx was right in believing industries. If Stalin did not push Industrialization, where USSR would be today? Of course not too many people would condone the Dehumanization that was paid as the price. But, the price of European Industrialization was no less dire. the tragedies of people in European colonies were a part of the costs. If north Americans condone what happened to the Natives on the land, there is not much position for them to condemn Stalin. The strategy, and ideology, of eliminating “unproductive population” was the same for both cases. Japan copied the same strategy. China is now copying the same.

3. Now that we have “over-production”, we are coming to reflect upon the history as such. We would say today, producing tens of millions of cars and TV sets would not make us “happier”. Rather, we would worry about environmental pollutions and destruction of the Nature. We care about degradation of “human quality” of our life, such as that indicated by “Crime Rate”, “Alcoholism”, “Alienation”. Perhaps we care because we have more than enough “material things”. Our “consumer market” is geared more towards “psychological” needs than “physiological” needs.

[Digital Hi-Fi electronics and personal Computers, for example, are not for hungry people. Yet they are the “high growth” industries now, along with “Fast Food Industry”. Farmers who produce foods are in trouble. Steel Mills are in trouble. Making more things is not what the market demands. And we have a “Non-Market” industry called “Military-Industrial-Scientific-Complex”, which does not contribute to production of consumer goods, but is a very profitable institution. Of course, the poor half of the World Population lives in nations which cannot buy products from the Industrialized nations. Some millions die of starvation every year in those nations. But, it is not because we cannot produce enough food, but because we believe in Money as the Sacred Regulator of economy.

We cannot give foodstuffs to those starving people, even if we let our over produced food to rot. Because, in our money intelligence, to give something for no return is not a “rational” thing to do. In historical sense, we have barely escaped from “Appropriation Economy” — the Economy that is based on “taking away” by force —. Or rather, we have not finished that phase. We invented “Exchange Economy” to overcome the horrors and atrocities of the Appropriation Economy. We still have residues of the Fear from the past. We can intellectually see that the economy is evovling from Appropriation to Exchange, and Exchange to Gift. But the historical apprehension about “Appropriation Economy” prevents us to go into “Gift Economy” which do deny “equal exchange”.

To be sure, we can look at the troubles in and with the economy of “the third World” countries, and Welfare cases within the developed countries, and say it is not “equal”. That is, we are not really in the “Exchange Economy”, but rather still in the Appropriation Economy. But, we cannot deal with the problems of inequality on the basis of the exchange economics. the reason is that the Exchange Rationality is powerful and able to provide legitimacy for social scale action, precisely because it conceals inequality. Lenin noticed this and said “Equality is not equal”, meaning that one has to go to “Gift” level beyond superficial equality in exchange. However, Lenin was a “scientific” European intellectual, and could not use the term “Gift”. Such was the Culture of his time. We are now able to talk of “Gift”, only because we came to a crisis of Exchange Rationality.]

4. What is “Culture”, in the Native sense? What do the Native Americans mean when they say “Whiteman destroyed our Culture”? My guess is as follows;

{{{Dear Professor Colorado please help me here!!!}}}

“Culture” is what makes a community functional in providing a certain set of symbols and expected actions associated with them so that the member can communicate and get things done.

The expected actions may be rituals, code of ethics, set of obligations. They may be called “customs”. It informs an efficient way of organizing co-operation.

The kinds of expectation are also defined in the Culture. The members have the right to expect certain things and identify with the set-up. The Natives expect to be given foods when they somehow fall short of foods. They expect that they be cared by others when they get sick. They expect to be treated with respect as to their dignity. They may not be conscious of those, but the surprise, shock, which they experience when they are denied, tells that they have taken the expectations granted. And if they are betrayed too often, the community breaks down and that is break down of a Culture.

There are also a set of expectations about how to express “displeasures”, “disapprovals”, “warning”, etc. People knows a certain gesture would trigger a certain reaction in other members of the same Culture. For example, in Native Culture, issuing command is unacceptably rude. Even powerful chiefs make “suggestions”. Members carry out the chief’s wish out of respect, but they are not “slaves” to a commander. Europeans who came from slave society (Slave Culture) cannot understand this. Europeans often wondered how Native community keep a social order without “command”.

[Native God does not give “commandments”, but merely give “advices”. Incidentally, Buddhism does not issue commandments either. Judeo-Christianity is a religion of a Slave Culture, and very peculiar in that. This cultural background makes problems as to understanding of Science as “command” or as “advice”.]

Above narration of the set of “expectations” sounds very much like Social Welfare that European Culture come to practice recently. The Natives had it for a long time. Besides, there is very important difference. The Natives had the mutual helps as a part of their Culture. One does not “beg”, let alone feel loss of dignity in receiving the Gifts. One expects to be loved and it is given as a matter of “natural occurrence”. It is analogous to the expectation of Love from mother. It is given absolutely free. One would hesitate to call it “Right”. But, one would be justified in the Native Culture to be extremely upset, if the expected Love is not granted. and, one would not refuse to give Love to the others, unless there is grave reason for not to do so.

The European Social Welfare is not based on such cultural principle, but from “charity”, “appeasement”, “economic necessity for pump priming” etc. It has a logical stigma, even in the best of understanding, from a thinking that if the economy is functioning perfect Welfare would not be needed. That is Welfare is an anomaly, disease, emergency, not normal. It should not ideally be there.

Such is the European Culture. And this has a great deal to do with the European Comogony is that of “isolated bodies in vast emptiness”.

For the Native Community, the Community is the Welfare. There Welfare is the normal state of affair. It is sure family, not market for economy. Native culture is a Culture of Community. And it Cosmology is “Sensual”, — as if they are still inside the Womb of the Cosmos —.

The Native Cosmology is not only an expression of Native Culture, but the preserver of the Culture.

(Part I. 01/01/87.)

[We shall use for the part II.,

Douglas Sturm.

“Cosmogony and Ethics in the Marxian Tradition: Premise and Destiny of Nature and History.”

in R.W. Lovin and F.E. Reynold (ed) Cosmogony And Ethical Order U. of Chicago Press 1985.

among other references. We like to locate and identify the wellspring of Social Change (revolution) in the Culture. Cosmology is an expression of the way a society or a community thinks, which I referred as “Culture”. People have implicit cosmology to make sense of what they do. And it is founding metaphysics that facilitate communication, and hence the basis of the actions. That give us clues as to what are options for the Native Community.]

Colonization, Indigenous Science

9 December 1988 Personal Correspondence on Education, Media, etc. (PDF)

August 8, 2015 Archivist

Dec. 9, ’88

Dear Louella

This meeting was a bit scattered. Maybe we are trying to figure out nature of our group. Judgment as to what to do is a tricky business. I would not rush, but on the other hand people may not wait for emergence of some integrating sense in the group. I do not know how to assess that. But as usual, I write up what come to my mind.

I guess we were discussing how better to do the communication needed between the Developed and the Developing countries/peoples, Emergency situations are exceptional (hopefully). When poverty, deprivation, malnutrition are not “News Worthy”, how do we get people in well-to-do countries to know? Or Perhaps, you had International Development Education in your mind. It appears that other occasional bursts we do not know much and care less.

Of course, the people in our group are exceptional. Our group was almost like Who’s Who of International Development. I am an outsider to that. I have never done anything worth talking about for International Development. But outsiders have one natural advantage. I know something about the reason why ordinary people do not know and cannot afford to care. And the “outsider” point of view also helps in looking at the World View (Common Sense, Prejudice) of a Culture that Education and Media create, maintain and enforce.

I mentioned “Education” along with media. Because “education” is a propaganda, brainwashing. And Media do educate, at least in the sense they select and define what is expected to be known for the majority of people, and thereby they guide and influence the Accepted Perception of the World, if not manufacture the operational “Reality”. Media confer Value Status for a certain knowledge and deny to others, Just as schools and universities do. You note that “News” do have “Commodity Value”. Knowing comes with Value sensation. There is no such thing as “Value Free Knowledge”, including that in Science. Intellectual Snobism is just a minor case among others, but it sticks out because it is a “Caricature” of what we always do.

When I came to the U.S., I used to pick up New York Times from waste baskets at street corners to see what Media(um) is saying. It had very obvious bias/prejudice/ideological slant, both implicit and explicit. American intellectuals apparently did not see that, I was very much puzzled by the curious phenomenon that so intelligent people can so easily be misled by so obvious propaganda. As I told you before, I used to go to meetings of “Foreign Policy Forum” etc. There I find myself completely off base from everybody, say on issues of Korea, Quimoi-Matsu Island, Vietnam, Rearmament of Japan, etc. What Americans had as the Reality was completely different from the common sense view of Asia and Asians that ordinary Japanese held. I was lucky not being called “Pinko” and thrown out of the group.

By a chance, I met the head of Peace Corps and asked what the U.S. was doing to help education of brick layers, carpenters, bicycle repairmen in India besides educating Ph.D. engineers, top managers, elite bureaucrats. He was very much surprised by my question, which was just a natural question that anybody from poor countries would ask. His answer was, more or less, that Leaders of Nation were most important and implied that poor people did not matter much. Later, I found out that the head of Peace Corps was a brother-in-law to the President Kennedy and very intelligent man, besides being a “liberal”.

When I entered Canada some 20 years ago, I used to see glaring bias, prejudice, ideological slant in Globe and Mail just as I saw them in New York Times. To be honest, I used to see “glaring bias” even in the Herald under Cleo and Doug just as well. I also found out that Canadians in general did not know who Herbert E. Norman was. He was very famous in Japan as a great Canadian Historian, Diplomat, because his books were the standard texts in graduate schools in History. In Canada, the only guy whom I could find and talk about Norman was Chester Ronning. Ronning was delighted to talk about him — in fact he got quite drunk and we were laughing till 4 o’clock in morning —. Perhaps, McCarthy Committee in the U.S. did not like him was enough reason for Canadians to forget him.

Later, an American scholar by a name of Dower published a book on Norman and in the introduction to the book he accused of the ideological bias of scholars. I happened to be acquainted with the Big Name scholar mentioned in the book at Princeton, and knew how the bias worked, As far as I know, response of Canadian academic was minimal. It appears that Canadian academics did not wish to stand up against the American “authority” on the subject.

Interestingly, now that I think of it, I do not see “misinformation” as clearly as I saw years before. I guess I am “culturally assimilated” to “know” things like the top 10% of Canadians. I mean not that I know as much as the elites know, but in the selection of “what counts as knowing” and at the limit by which I stop asking questions. Nonetheless, to my ears and eyes, CBC, Globe and Mail, etc. are still biased media. I suppose that keep me outsider, in the sense I do not share the same Myth with the intellectual elites of this country. You can take as evidence that I am not quite “educated” enough in canadian Culture.

Recently I have come to see that Noam Chomsky et al talking about the Ideological bias of American Intellectuals. When Chomsky was on air, CBC host Peter Gzowsky was very much upset and could not refrain from interrupting so much that he ruined the interview. Gzowsky later recognized how unprofessional that was and did the second interview. But that tells me how deep and emotional a certain “prejudice” is. Just as Japanese and German intellectuals did not “see” nor “hear” what were going on around them during W.W.II., American Intellectuals did not see what the U.S. was doing in the world then. Canadian intellecturals are not too far different (if my academic colleagues are a fair sample of them).

I am sympathetic to laborers who come home totally exhausted and have no mind to think or even “feel” anything. “Entertained” by media may be the best that they can. If they are ignorant, I do not blame them. They are kept ignorant and deceived. In alienated works, they may become numb and cannot think of anything “deep”.

But I think it inexcusable that Intellectuals being “blind” to the deceptions that are going around, if they did not create the deceptions for themselves. As much as they contemptuously talk of the incapacity or apathy of lower class people to engage in anything requiring “heavy” discourse, I would expect intellectuals to be more capable. Yet, the intellectuals don’t do “home works” either. “Heavy Thinking” is avoided just the same. They are just as ignorant, unfeeling, apathetic, powerless, gutless, incapable of thinking, 615 the ones whom they look down with contempt. If Chomsky was right, the “liberal intellectuals” are the one who perpetuating the deception. I do not exempt what so called “scientists” and Educators” from this.

For example, it is only recently that people have come to pay some attentions to “unfortunate unemployed” and Natives issues. International Development Aid is important. Protests against Apartheid have to be kept up. Concerns about Human Right issues in other countries must be voiced. But I feel funny about the phenomenon that somehow the problems internal to our own country are avoided. Is it because the internal problems negate our “righteous superiority” and make us feel “inferior” or “guilty”? Is it because they demand “heavier” thinking than the problems at far away places? Or the “heavy thinking” not only too much for their mental capacity, but also threatening to the system of injustice that is good to their privileged economic and social positions?

If so, we may be using “poor starving people in Ethiopia” to make us feel superior in the name of “humanitarian aid”. I grant that it is better than nothing. But there remains the question of hypocrisy of charity. We create and maintain the very system that victimize them and then turn around to say we are so good people that we help them. The degree of deception by our Media is far less than that by our own self-deception. If our Media are sensationalistic and superficial, it is perhaps because we are sensationalistic and superficial.

In my graduate school days, I used to live in a Quaker Weekend Project House in the middle of Philadelphia slum. I was invited as a foreign student to the discussion sessions that the weekend volunteers were having. There I learned quite a lot. A Black Lady, a welfare mother, who lived in the house in front of ours, came to know me well enough to tell me that “Your people come here for weekend and need not stay. We have no hope getting out here”. That made me thinking for a long time.

The lady knew I was from Japan and some of her “boy friends” were GIs who defeated Japan only some 10 years before. I was an enemy to them. They must have sensed the irony that I got paid to be a Ph.D. physicist in one of most expensive universities — I was told that my “education” cost the U.S. tax payers several million dollars —, while they had to suffer humiliating poverty without any hope of ever getting out of it.

The location was reputedly a “dangerous” place in the city. Drunkenness, Violence, etc. were just ordinary scene there. But our daughter was born there, and we have never felt any danger. They used to give our daughter a Nickel, which they could not afford do to their own kids too often. The guys and women who loved our daughter were drunk and fighting or prostituting in the alley behind our house the night before. But they were essentially graceful people (unlike some academics that I came to know later). That made me question who is keeping them poor and makes them violent.

One time, they organized a protest march against city administration. It was like a festival. I saw beautiful shine in their faces. The Drunkards and prostitutes whom I knew walked in dignity and grace. I do not question if the March was “effective”. Even if it was an ephemeral flare like that of the girl who sold matches in Anderson’s story, I think the moment of human dignity is worth having.

Such was an image internal to the most developed and wealthiest nation in the world then, seen by eyes of a guy from a recipient country of its international aid. Needless to say the image was quite different from what I used to see in Hollywood movies. (I was a Marilyn Monroe fan.)

I do think Canada is a beautiful country. Canadians, in general, are well off indeed. They are lucky enough to be generous. But then, I also see internal problems. Not that I could do anything much to help, but wonder if “Internal CIDA” may not be a bad idea. But then, the “internal Development Project” requires “heavy discourse”. How to do that is another question. If event the intelligent People with good hearts in our group feel it “too much”, then there is not much chance. I wonder about this. You are an excellent organizer and probably know how and when to do things. Any idea?

You were talking about inviting some students from the Third World countries to our meetings. That is a splendid idea. I would very much like to try that. And perhaps, when an opportunity arises, we invite Native Americans and listen to what they have to say. However, judgment as to when is somewhat tricky. I am reading books like one by Edward Said [Orientalism], who is an Egyptian Arab, and find the problem of “Different Cultures” very difficult. To an extent, one has to prepare to face a bewildering world, say, like that form reading the World of Algerians through Camus. Viewed from North American “Etiquette”, that is not a suitable topic for a dinner conversation. I do not know how to do it without becoming “Anti-Social”. To get to know people “ought” to be pleasurable and be fun to do. Humans have natural sensuality to enjoy knowing others and have a sense of belonging/relating. But I am very clumsy at the sort of things. You are always smooth and graceful, tell me the secret!

yours

Sam k.

Indigenous Science

28 December 1988 Personal Correspondence on Rocks, Physics, etc.

August 8, 2015 Archivist

Dec. 28, ’88

Dear Pam and Woody

Happy New Year. This year will be a year of Take Off for you (so my fortune cookie says). I wish great success for your Science. That makes you very busy, But I have a favor to ask for you. If it is possible for you (or one of you) to come down to Lethbridge and give a talk on Native Science, say in March, could you kindly do that for me? I have a course called Integrated Studies 2009 “Current Issues in Wars and Peace”. It is given Tuesday/Thursday 1:40-3:00. The Theme of the course is “Paradoxes Of Progress” and I intend to touch on Colonialism/Imperialism. [I shall send you the course outline.] I would like to have a lecture, story or discussion led by you. If possible, let me know.

Yours

Sam K.

To Pam: Please look at the picture book enclosed. Also there is a one story about “Stone Book”, which might be of interest to you. The style of painting may be called “Super-realist” — “Super” meaning “superposition” of two “manifolds” (spacetime-s) —. I am tempted to try painting like that. It might be possible to do talking and thinking in the same manner. I tried one time a poem in two voices (“Dodos did not make it”). Writing in the Super-realistic stylism may be a fun. Of course, it is a taboo in English (called “mixed metaphors” etc.) and readers would be confused. Worse, Psychiatrists would say you are schizophrenic. Zeno’s Paradox is a mixing of “Being” and “Becoming”, which is illogical in European Languages. [*1]

But in Eastern Philosophy (Yoga), it was well known technique to go into “schizophrenic” state (controlled in some sense by a company of a master/assistance, and considered to be dangerous) to remove the “dictate” of rationalization and to get in touch with the repressed part of mind.

The advantage (and trouble) of Quantum Language is also coming from “Mixed Metaphors” — say in “Particle/Object” metaphor and “Wave/Field” metaphor —. People have troubles in talking individual and Social matters in the same breath. Environment and Human Will are in two disconnected worlds in our usual way of thinking. Even most Biologists do not see the same dichotomy in Evolution Theory. Blackfoot language does mix “Being” and “Becoming” in one word, but I do not know if People are taking any advantage. I get an impression that people who come to university are thinking in English.

I am reading about an article in a book about D. Bohm’s Implicate Order. It has to do with Double Field (Manifold, Universe) that undergoing what Physics calls “Deformation under Stress”. It is a General Relativistic idea that the Universe is made of the “Stress” of Space-Time, but this article tries a Space-Time including “Becoming” manifold.

The Double Space-Time is just like “Rock” is formed under great Cosmic Forces. The “Rock” stores that dynamics liek Trees store their life stories as Tree Rings. What we sense and recognize as “Existence”, “Mass”, “Spin-Rotation”, etc., are manifestations of the “Stress”, which comes from “Becoming” part and relates to Implicate Order. (The word “Stress” in ordinary usage connotes something undesirable, but that has little to do with what Physics calls by the same word. You might understand the “Stress” as something like the explosive “Anxiety” that young lovers experience. You note that for them that is the “Meaning of Life”. They are wrong only in seein it as individualistic/narcissistic sense. But they are not too far off the mark.)

Chinese, Japanese knew of “Vein” which is used as a metaphor for “Reason”. They talked of “splitting Rock by the Reason” etc. What Relativity tries to do is to find “Vein” in Space-Time, or the “Stress Dynamics” that generate the Space and Time, as well as Matters within.

[see also Paul Davies. The Cosmic Blueprint Simon & Shuster 1988.]

When Newtonian Physics made Space-Time to be nothing, it ironically turned out that Space-Time had to be harder than Steel — because it transmit Light wave, and, since the harder the Medum is the faster the wave propagates, Space-Time that transmits Light Wave had to be very hard —. Now, since Relativity, Space-Time became somewhat Soft and Movable (Feminized). It also connotes that Physics changed from that of objects in Motion to Fields in Interaction.

The ways of thinking Social phenomena that give rise to policies, ideologies, prejudices at this time are by and large still Newtonian. People tend to think and talk in the metaphor of “Objects in Motion”, though some changes in the ways of thinking do show up sometimes. That is why it is interesting to hear you explaining how Native Science works in Human-Social phenomena/situations.

At any rate, I am doing what so called “Finsler Geometry” now, and trying to see what it tells me about Rock and Dream. What is interesting about Finsler Geometry is that it has “double Space-time” (or “Double Manifold” : one is static “Being Part”, like the Geometry that Einstein et al have explored, and another dynamic Becoming Part which is not about “objects”.) I think it is closer to what Faraday was dreaming some 150 years ago. I might come to share the Dream, though it may take a few years for me to get to the stage. And by some luck, it might be what you told me about “Rock”.

Indigenous Science, Migrations

19 December 1988 Personal Correspondence on Rocks, Migrations, and Power (PDF)

August 8, 2015 Archivist

Dec. 19, ’88.

Dear Pam

There is a picture of “Rock Face” that you might look at. It has remarkable resemblance to the one that you gave me a photo of. It is in a book (page 260) Space Ship In Prehistory, by Peter Kolosiw [Citadel Press 1982. ISBN 0-8065-0731-1.] The book belongs to E. Milton, and I did not have a chance to make a copy. But you might find the book in Calgary. There is a mention of “Birdman” which is very much like “Raven” of Haida/North West Coast Totem. (see also the “Eyes” (copy8)). The book is talking about the possibility that people came to the Earth from other planet. That may or may not be the point that you are interested. But the resemblance in two Rock Faces might be of your interest.

The Rock Face was found in Easter Island. And it is said to be the face of God “Make-Make”. That sent me to look for more clues in Easter Island. Sure enough, there were others. Teh enclosed are som of pictures. Aku-Aku by Thor Heyerdale [Allen&Unwin 1960] has photo of Rock Drawings (copy 1) and sketch of Birdman (copy 2). Round Eyes are there too. Photos from Easter Island by Alfred Metreaux [Oxford U press 1959 (3)] and Modernization of Easter Island by J. Doiuglas Porteous [U. of Victoria Press 1981 (4)] are probably the same Rock Drawings as (1). Other artifacts are also similar to Haida/North West Coast ones.

In addition, there is a Stone Text in A. Metreaux’s book (copy 5). Another book: The Mystery Of Easter Island by Jean-Michel Schwartz [Avon Books 1973] talks of Written Text (6). A more detailed analysis of written Texts is given in a book The Eighth Land by Thomas S. Barthel [U. of Hawaii press 1978].

A story mentioned in Schwartz’s book tells of :Sparks of Spirit blown up went into Rocks”. The “Rock” is therefore revered as “Knowledge”. People there represent the “knowledge” by Red Rocks in a shape of Hat and put them on the gigantic Stone Statues. It also refers to “Sacred Turtle”. [I note that Hida Stories do not mention “Turtle”. It could be that in adaptation to a cold climate the name might be changed to something people there can see. I do not know the Language to check if there had been changes. On the other hand, I do not imagine Oneida see too many Turtles around in New York State. Yet “Turtle” survived. Why?]

Barthel’s book mentions “The Dream Voyage of Hau Maka” (7). A word “Hiva” frequently appearing in all these stories remidn me of “Kiva” of Hopi. “Hiva” is something like what you call “Cove” — incidentally, do you mean “Cove” is also called “Gii Laii”? —.

At any rate, it appears that people in ancient times traveled a great distance, or at least some minority did. It could have been “Space Travelers” or “Voyagers”. In Japan, there is no written story in that effect, but there are “folk beliefs” which suggest small group of “strange people” came. They can be Koreans, Polynesians, Chinese, Mongols, Eskimos, Ancient Europeans, or Space People. Unlike the large scale immigration of people that Anthropologists trace, they are characteristically of small group or an individual, like “survivors/refugees” of calamities

[My family is often suspected of such an origin. My ancestors were “strange” to villagers. They were poor uneducated peasants, but they apparently had innate ability to read and write, did art, craft works, mathematical part of land survey, etc., but not quite competent at “domestic economy”, nor were strong physically, of course, in Japan, people are all “mixed up”, whatever were their origins. So we cannot trace nothing much. Only the “strange” characters somehow emerge in family line.]

Such “Mixing” from “strange people” has a significant implication. It runs counter to the present Paradigm of Native American Movements in that “Race/Tribe” is not simple pure “red-or-white” object (not to be judged “black and whit”). A “Peopel” or a “Culture” is made up of different origins in Diversity (Genetic Pool). At this phase of history, I think it is important to stress the uniqueness of Native People/Culture, so that “Equality” and “Liberty” are restored. In a sense that is more to do with “Human Right”.

But, I mentioned the “Power” issue — not “Right” issues — that Native People Culture has to go into. and beyond that, there is an issue of “Fraternity”. You know very well that there are deprived and repressed people within what is referred as “The Whites”. Even in native society, some persons are “more equal than others”. “Welfare” that you are concerned has to do with the “Fraternity” part — i.e. how to live in a community —. The “community” is a collective living organism of many different kinds of people. How to “live” in that sense is difficult indeed. Certainly, economic inequality, political repression/discrimination, and hostile prejudice have to be removed. But that is not enough.

A “Community” shares a common understanding in a balance of diversity. The common understanding is the “Culture”. A “Culture” is not artifacts that museums display. A “Culture” is not what it “looks like”, such as color of skin, blood type, sexual relation/lineage, way of dress/foods/routines, norm of acceptable behavior, etc. It has more to do with “mental”, “inner” world of people. One way to get glimpse of it is through Language of the Community. But to “speak” a Language means to think/feel/experience. And there, comes a sense of “Universe” which is intimate and sensual. Perhaps we are trying to become “intimate” with a Culture. But as we know well, it is not easy to go beyond romanticizing.

Yours

Sam K.

Indigenous Science

10 December 1988 Personal Correspondence on Paradigm Shift, Peace Research, etc.

August 7, 2015 Archivist

Dec. 10, ’88

Dear Norm

Your letter and the Fibonacci Factor arrived. I thank you for them. But I am not going to “Edit” your writing. I am no “editor” anyway. So instead, I would rather talk about a general problem.

The problem has to do with the puzzling phenomena of “Popularity”. I got a book honoring David Bohm. The book is deceiving in that Bohm is not as “Popular” among professional scientists as the contributing authors in the book suggest by their generous praises. When he was invited by a student group at King’s College, University of London, to give a talk, no professor of the university showed up to listen. When Bohm came to lecture at Red Dear, I did inform his old admirers at Theoretical Physics Inst. U of A. No physiscist showed up in the Red Dear meeting, except me. It was almost like Peace meeting/lecture, poorly attended and ignored by elites that operate and control the “currency” of social scale communication.

Wm. Reich’s works, Immanuel Velikowski’s works, etc. had some following but academically did not “catch on” in the “currrency” of that sub-culture. Thomas Kuhn’s work on “Paradigm Shift” had to wait 10 years in an obscurity — first published in Unity of Science but little attention was paid then, including by those who were associated with the Unity of Science movement in late 1950’s. —. Only after Kuhn dissociated with Unity of Science and re-published essentially the same essay as a separate book, it came into the “currency”. Academics eagerly came on to the bandwagon, probably because, once isolated from the “radical” idea of Unity of Science, it became safe to adapt the catch phrase “Paradigm Shift” into academic vocabulary.

How come Marx got to be so popular that Marx himself had to say am not a Marxist? Whereas Fourier is now forgotten. Why Newton won and Leibniz lost? Both Faraday and Maxwell had “Vortex Cosmology” which was the foundation of Electromagnetic Field Theory, yet hardly any Physicist knows that today. It seems that a Prophet to gain the popular currency, he or she had to be falsified. I guess your Peace Research did not grow exactly as you envisioned. The unpopularity of CPREA, say relative to other recent comers such as Educators For Peace etc., has been well known to us for a long time.

That brings another question; namely “Why anyone would do it?” Van Gogh painted what he wanted. While he was alive, he was nobody. He had a “Lust For Life” and driven insane by that. He could not help himself. Flaubert wrote Madame Bovery, but that is the only one book that he wrote. He did not care to become a professional “Writer”, nor did he do anything else. He was not Popular in the town where he lived as an obscure man. Of course, that one work was enough. But, it appears that those who had a Gift was more like unwilling Victims than Hero. Certainly they did not seek Success. They did what they were driven to do.

We are stricken by the beauty of the “different” World, say, in reading Fabl’s Diary on Insects. He was not writing for a recognition of his scientific works. It meant to be private Love letters to Lady Nature. Since she did not write, he had to record her part as well.

That is quite different story from authors in our “Professionalized” Age, where one is either a “Knowledge Producer” or a “Knowledge Consmer”. If you are Knowledge Producer, then you have to assert your knowledge, advertise it and sell it in the Fashion Market. There can be a great Success in it and certainly the sense of Power is enormous. If one is a Knowledge Consumer, then one is to buy the “Latest”, Just as one buys new car, Hi-Fi computer, or dresses to show off to those who are slower in wit to catch on.

Keynes was the first man to introduce Mathematics into Economics and made Economics a “Science”. Before Keynes, Economics was Just a matter of “Opinions”. His Science changed our way of living since then. Yet in his old age he came to tell his students that “The Economic Utility of Economics is to employ Economists”. Indeed his Science created thousands of Jobs for economists. Before that time “economists” are “Moral Philosophers” and, other than generating “hot air” or interesting odd conversation in typical snobbish British tea parties, they had no practical utility and hence no employment After Keynes, Governments, Business, eagerly sought for economists. The market price of economists shot up. Seeing that many students wanted to have degrees in economics, universities which used to have one or two “Economic Moral Philosophers” had to employ Economics Professors. Where there was a handful of Economists, there came thousands of Economists, employed at very high salary.

That happened within a few decades. That is remarkable achievement of an Intellectual Production. That is why Keynes was a Great Intellectual Hero. And we mean “Success” of Science by such a model.

[*1. In the case of Einstein, the division of labor was in place and there appeared “self-appointed salesmen” who did much of selling. The QM case needs some elaborations. But at any rate, increase in professional employment are quite visible. I am an old fashion guy and had no idea about “Science as Profession”, until I came to read Max Weber in my later years.]

[*2. The group that Kuhn used to associated with was moving toward “Sociology of Science” which is to talk about such phenomena. Kuhn cut that part off, and that is how he became “Famous”. One has to know when to say a certain thing, or rather not to say certain things at wrong times, if one wishes to be “current” in the popular market.]

I do not think you had any idea about Success of your “Peace Science” would be like when you started. But, the idea of “success” in that sense is well established and operating as a Cultural Standard in our society. Regardless we think of it or not, we are controlled by it. Even if we ignore it, the standard of success is held by the society and people Judge us by that. They ask “What’s in it for me?”, If you do not give out an illusion, people see no “Utility” in what you are selling and hence go away. Of course, it is peculiar characteristic of the modern Euro-American society that “Knowing” in a very peculiar sense became almost like “utility, — because of the technology of printing, perhaps — and it became sellable commodity in the market. Arts became market good, and with the advent of T.V. even “spiritualty” became Billion Dollar Industry. The Capitalism triumphed everywhere, despite all that talk by Socialists. Veblen, Schumpter were right in saying Socialism is just a stage of the Capitalism. Marx was completely off the mark in this respect.

Given that, you have a choice of either to be a “Successful Scientist” in selling your products or to be a “Hermit” (or Jesus Christ, Buddha, Medicine Man, etc.) in waiting for Disciples to find and come to you. I did find you and came, but I do not think that was your idea of success. Another choice would be like Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, Lenin, Mao, Castro, etc. They are “activists” and their writings were secondary to acting in importance.

I think about such cases because of my peculiar position relative to Native science that Pam and her group is doing. I am not a “Native”, therefore I cannot be the one who is doing. I stand aside and see what is going on. That suits me alright in that I am a “surveyor”. But it is peculiar. I get a sense as if I am an Alien from a different World. I tell them to be passionate, yet that is not my passion. A stage director pick up a script and formulate actions that actors perform. Where is my own life/lust? I ask “What’s in it for me?” Not that I want anything out of it, but what I wonder why that is my business. To be without “trust” is to be “Meaningless”. I am at the edge of Nietzschean World where a burning Passion/Lust/Will To Power meets with a Total Meaningliessness. If Love Making is a meeting of Life and Death, what I have is a very odd kind of Sex. It is a Sex that I am not in it — as if I am castrated —. I do not feel it “happy one”.

If some people had to be victims of Hiroshima/Nagasaki Bombs, not by their choice but by “accident”, and live a life in a Hell thereafter, I do not have much complain to make. Besides I now know enough about how Native Wisdom has been treated. Being just useful to the others may be one thing I can do. So I aim at that. I just have to careful so that I do not sound bitter. I should stop at being cynical. I might invent a science of how to Make Cynical Love for the benefit of all cynical people out there. After all, it ought to be my specialty to put together contradictions.

[In a sense, Peace Research, Native Science are Science of Making Love for those who have troubles. What is ironical is that the castrated one is the one who is talking. One who does not talk. Every time I write “Native Science is” I know and feel I am faking. It is not for me to say. Yet I do tell Pam what Native Science is or is not. I do it only because she can say no to that any time she decides to do so.]

I f the above sounds “bitter” already to you, then I can amend it somewhat by talking about “Beauty in Discourse”. When people talk or communicate, something beautiful happens — at least some of the times —. Even PLO and Zionist might achieve such a beauty. [In Nws today, I find out that a Jewish Ladies organization met with Arafat and had discussed the Peace Plan.] However, in general, the Joy and wonder of such a moment is too much. So people do not wish to come into “Heavy Talks”. Friendship, Loveship, and Fraternity, even in times of war, are like miracle. But people appear not to want that. “Don’t dare touch me, because something beautiful might happen and I don’t know what to do with it!” is the usual attitude. But that small probability — so small that one might say it has a “negative probability” is nonetheless there.

It also had happened in physics. When Quantum Physics was “in making”, only small number of people came together and discussed, argued, and even fought about what was about to be made. Private letters, frequent visits, discussion meetings, conference were held, involving no more than a dozen people. What was that held together? Where the Passion and the Lust came from? How did they know what they were dreaming about is of any importance?

The development of Q.M. was so different from the individualistic ones like that of Newton, Galilei, or Descartes. And remarkably, it was international. Race nor Creed did not matter. Even Japanese were allowed to join. In comparison to the “organizational Egoism” that I can observe among Peace Research, Education, Action, groups’ that was one hell of a “festival”. Unfortunately, as Q.M. got to be an established science, that “spirit” disappeared. Human Race was not quite ready to have Love Affair in a social scale any larger than a dozen people.

Incidentally, Einstein was a member of what they called themselves “Olympians”. They met regularly at cafe and discussed many things. Somehow, Einstein himself did not mention that too often. The cases of Castro, Mao, etc. can be traced to a small group of people. That is what I call the Beauty of Discourse. To be sure, groups may also corrupt. We have the phenomenon of “In Group” just as well to spoil the beauty.

But some day, I hope it will come to pass that I can talk about Native Science without pain of reminding myself that I am an outsider. For that beautiful time to come, Native have to become free and former imperialists become free. I think the situation of Natives have a parallel with “Arab-Israel conflict”. Peace Research is yet to work on the problem. So I have to do the work. I may not be around to see the result, but that is o.k. So many millions of people are killed every year. We let it keep going on. If I am one of them, I deserve the same treatment.

It is ironical that people who think I am a happy-go-lucky kind of guy and have no idea how debilitating the pain of depression is helping me to put on a brave face and keep working. I they knew, they would get depressed and we all go down together. That helps nobody. In the Science of Sun Dance, “Brave” means the degree of ability to contain one’s own inner pain. Europeans did not see anything beyond physical pains on the surface. Many Natives also lost the “science” of Sun Dance. For example Deloria’s description of Sun Dance in God Is Red only refers to physical pain. He has Europeanized to that extent. The sense of “Brave” to contain inner pain is forgotten. High incidence of Alcoholism, violence to others, and decay/death of native community indicate that. To learn such a science is a significant reward to me. Something must have told me to study Native Science, knowing my weakness.

Yours,

Sam K.

P.S. The enclosed are some of my recent writings. I send your manuscript on Fibonacci to Pam. I think she is in California now.

Indigenous Science

2 December 1988 Personal Correspondence on Scientific Literacy

August 7, 2015 Archivist

Mr. Oliver Lantz

Program Director-Science

RDI Unit, Curriculum Support Branch

Alberta Department of Education

11160 Jasper Ave. Edmonton

T5K OL2

Dec. 2, ’88

Ref” STS Education

Dear Mr. Lantz

Thanks for the Draft Article “A Descriptive Model For STS Science Education”. As a way of expressing my support for the new direction of Science Education, I offer the following response.

1. The article by Jenkins stresses an Integrative Approach in Science Education. I think this is a significant move in contrast to “Professional Science Education” which has a marked tendency towards ever increasing Specialization/Fragmentation.

Specialization/Fragmentation reminds me of a Frontal Lobotomy. It is said that by a Frontal Lobotomy, the brain loses no “Knowledge” in the descriptive sense, nor “Intelligence” in the sense measured by an IQ test. What is lost is the ability to integrate/organize/coordinate knowledge, to comprehend the relational complex of the situation/context in which a problem is located, and to perform “Problem Solving”. It has a kind of intelligence to deal with unknown, no Just “knowledge”. It is strange that we do “Frontal Lobotomy” to our students in the name of Education.

2. But the fragmentation of Science-Technology also creates a need for Integration. As much as “Science” is a “Social Enterprise” in its making and its consequences, we have need of an Infrastructure which acts as a “Frontal Lobe” in a social scale. That goes beyond the individualistic sense of Intelligence, to the social scale intelligence which may be referred to as “the level of Scientific (Technological) Literacy” of a society and is related to “Competence in Communication” that J. Habermas et al talked about.

“Scientific Literacy” is recognized as an important aim of Science Education from a nationalistic point of view. The emphasis on Science Education that emerged out of Sputnik Shock in the U.S. was an example, and I suppose Trade Competition with Germany and Japan is now added motivation to it. It is interesting to note that Germany in the 19th century, and Japan and U.S.S.R. in the early 20th century introduced Science Education with a nationalistic urgency [*1]. Traditional Japanese culture is not individualistic and the general level of Scientific (Technological) Literacy is higher in Japan than in the U.S. because of better communication. I am not a “Pragmatist” in a narrow sense and do not think of Science Education in terms of Trade Competition. But, if the intensity of the debates concerning Free Trade is an indication, Canadians are not indifferent to the issue and educators cannot ignore the implications of the level of “Scientific Literacy” in a society/nation.

3. More importantly, the concern about environmental degradation/pollution has come to recognize the importance of education in “Integrated Science/Technology/Social Consciousness”. In a sense, the overall paradigm of science/technology has begun to shift to that of “understanding of complex web of relationships” from that of “knowledge of objects/materials to exploit them”. This point is discussed by many authors, such as F. Capra [The Turning Point. Bantam 1982] etc. The last several issues of the Journal of Physics Today contain interesting articles and letters indicating that even professional scientists are coming to some realization of the “crisis”. Although the debates also show that the majority of scientists are reluctant to admit the “crisis”, the change seems unavoidable. Yet, as far as we can see in text books for Physics and Chemistry, there has not been a major revision in Science Education.

4. The shift of the Paradigm in Science has been actually in the making since early 1900s when the Newtonian View of the World was broken by new physics. In this sense, the Physics Curriculum in the Secondary Schools is behind the times. The professional technicalities in Modern Physics may not be suitable for the Secondary School Curriculum, but the essential spirit/direction in the new “Way of Thinking” may be introduced in Science Education at early stages. I think Science Educators have been less than diligent in this.

5. As a way of looking at the “Nature of Scientific/Technological Thinking”, perhaps a Multi-Cultural perspective is advantageous asw ell as educational. In particular, I think of Native American Heritage that all North Americans (ought to) share. For example, I have come to note a statement from Chief Sealth quoted by P. Ehrlich in a book The Earth. Chief Sealth was warning about environmental degradation as early as 1855. [A copy enclosed]. I think Secondary School students can (ought to) appreciate this. I imagine your office has good liaison with Native Education groups. I hope Chief Sealth’s statement is included in the STS text.

6. Jenkins stated in the report that teachers can “make or break” any curriculum, however good in a planning paper. I wholeheartedly agree. But that made me think of the need of a “Supporting Network”. I wonder how much encouragement material/resource support, etc. are given to teachers who are at the forefront of education. Perhaps, there is a need of workshops etc. to get their input, as well as providing them with support. Another thing that is obviously needed is Teacher Training in the Education Faculty. I wonder if there is a plan for a “Science Teacher progra”. I ask this, because I myself have had a great deal of problem and difficulties in offering a course called “Physics and Society”. My contact with an International Developing Group also made me aware of the problem in Science/Technology Education in the Third World. It is interesting to observe that Canada has the same problem internally. The difficulty is not just a matter of “teaching facts”, but it goes deeper into questions such as Ideology, Epistemology, World View, Language and Cultures. I hope that Faculty of Education will strengthen programs for Science Education.

Yours sincerely

S. Kounosu

Physics Department

Univ. of Lethbridge.

[*]. F.O. Ramirez and J. Boli, mentioned this factor in “The Political Construction of Mass Schooling”. Sociology Of Education. vol. 60. no.1. Jan. 1987. p.2.]

Indigenous Science

8 December 1988 Personal Correspondence on Indigenous Science, Education Philosophy, Anthropic Principle, etc.

August 7, 2015 Archivist

Dec. 8, ’88

The student’s name is Ronald. He came from Germany, currently majoring in Philosophy. If he is serious I would mention your name.

Dear

I am most interested in your teaching plan for Native Science and appreciated your generosity to share with me. I take it that you are asking me about general philosophy/strategy of Native Science Education. So I shall follow up the “strategy of discourse” that we started to discuss. As to the teaching plan, in technical sense, I am not familiar enough with your education course to comment. I think your prof in the course will help you for that.

1. There is a trap that “teachers” fall into very easily. That is inherent in the Word/Notion of “teaching”. We tend to think that we have to “put some knowledge into student’s head”. But that is the very same “missionary” attitude that victimized Natives. I call that “Intellectual Colonialism”. You might find Kipling’s poem “Whitemen’s Burden” very interesting in this regard. If you “teach” Native children, I recommend that you keep the poem with you all the time.

Having a “good and righteous intention” is not enough. I would think that “Science Education” ought to be distinct from “Religious Education” in the sense “science” is not (ought not to be) imposition of “superior intellect” but a humble help to oneself and people.

Natives, particularly Inuits, feel offensive to offer even help if not asked. They are not individualists in European sense, but respect each person’s “Sovereignty of Thoughts and Act”. If you see a danger in your friends’ plan, you ready yourself for a “rescue” operation, and preferably you help your friends in their back so that they do not know what you have done.

Because of “time scale” and “distance” involved, Inuit Way is not practical in our “modern life”. So we have to “tell” our friends about the danger that they might fall into. And results do “teach” their children. But it is preferable that we keep the Inuit code of Etiquette in our mind.

Besides, education is “Empowerment”, not subjugation of people under an Authority, however right the Authority is. We engage la “discourse” and create a learning situation in which students hopefully learn “one’s own ability to learn”. Teachers are “facilitators”, not dictators who say “I am the Right, follow me”. Interestingly Christ and Lenin were called “Teacher” in the “follow me” sense. Buddha never has spoken in such a “commanding mode language”. Native Gods Wisemen, Wisewomen did not speak like that either, as far as I know. It is a distinct characteristic of “Judeo-Christian-Islam” mentality to “command”. [You note A.J. Ayer in Language, Truth, and Logic says saying anything is “commanding”. That is the paradigm of European-Philosophy. I do acknowledge “practical efficiency” of European Way of talking, but there are questions as to such a sense of “Truth” which is distinctively Judeo-Christian-Islamic.]

Native Science Education, in my estimate, is not attempting “Teaching of Native Science.” in the Authoritarian sense of European Teaching. I think it is good that “Native Science” is mentioned and recognized, but there is a “Native Way of Education”.

We get paid “teaching”, therefore we like to assert and claim our “achievement” in teaching. If we are “practicing student teachers”, we like to get credit in “teaching”. But Education is inherently “invisible”. If your students say “I got my idea by my own power. The teacher did not help me”, then you are doing the best sense of education.

[It is idiotic and possibly “criminal”, but many of us university professors have tendency to “show off” how much we know in the name of Teaching. Some profs even make physics course as difficult as possible or adapt texts which look difficult (called “advanced”) and think that as evidence for “good teaching”. Since how much “Learning” students did in a course is not easily measurable, the deceit often goes through as “real education”. The Dean is not knowledgeable nor care enough to see through the “Show Offs” covering up bad education.

Worse yet, the very students who are victimized think that difficult equations are written on black board is “good teaching”. If a prof does not do that they think the prof is slacking off etc. They like to be “impressed” by incomprehensibility. They do not know that “making things easy” takes more intelligence and efforts. Unconsciously, perhaps, they do not like to learn anyway, therefore “good show off” is better (in terms of prestige, etc. Thus such a practice goes on.]

In that sense, we should try very hard “not to teach”, but let students find out for their own.

[In this respect, I had several of very good teachers who were delighted to have us arguing against them. One of our teacher later received Nobel Prize. We used tell him “you do not know what you are talking about” etc. In order to fight with him, we read texts, references, papers etc., ahead of class time. We were ready to show him different ways to get the same results, at least. Many of us are now Professors but we do not have students who would dare argue.

We talked about this and came to a conclusion that we are not worthy of Trust by our students. We are not great teachers like our teachers were.]

2. The irony is, however, you probably find that “Try not Teach” takes more preparation than “Teaching”. Since you are not “controlling” students’ activities, thinking and feeling, you have to be very sensitive and understand “what is going on”.

Some children may have already “internalized” Authoritarian Teaching Mode, and ask you “Mr. Teacher. What you want?” And, if you reply “I want nothing”, then the children would complain that “You don’t care”.

You have to understand them too, and have to consider “sensual” needs of humans to “belong” to a group. Not every students even in senior high is like a Native Brave who is aloof of the “collective security”. [The extreme Individualism of Native Braves is a “contradiction” to their “Communal Sharing Economy”. But let me postpone discussion of “Complementarity of the Opposites” for the time being.”]

On one hand we see that Einstein, Edison, Wright Brothers, et al were “Lone Wolf”. They did not have “Gang Mentality” — say like Nazi followers, American Lynch Mob, Bandwagon Riders, Opportunists, or what Nietzsche and Ortega called “Herd” —.

On the other hand, “Science” is a “Social Enterprise” if not a “Collective Intelligence” of a society/culture. No society will survive without a “Shared Myth” in common. “Science” is a part of the “Collective Subjectivity” which defines “Reality” as the basis/context for social scale actions.

It is not that the “Science Educator” has to know the answer to the dilemma, but the science educator is placing oneself to learn the situation. To “Learn” is to deal with problems. Deciding an “answer” is patently “unscientific”, for it means a refusal to learn.

So you go into the “mob scene” and try to make a sense of what your students are doing — inside their minds, which are enormously complex dynamics for each different ways —.

How a “teacher” prepare a lesson plan, in such a situation? We say “It is impossible”. But somehow we are “responsible”. That is to say, we ought to be “able to respond” whatever the situation there is.

The best we might do is to have a “Dream” of what might happen and prepare for it in a “non-specific” way. We are not there to stop what we consider “undesirable” by an exercise of our little “power”. [We are not going into Vietnam to teach people how to be “rational”, “intelligent”, “scientific” etc. Simply because we cannot.] We go into the mess and try to find out Native Science in the mind of children. We appreciate their intelligence, their silence, and pay due respect. Probably, that is the most that we can.

To be sure, we have added complication that our colleagues in teaching profession might not understand this. Yet “Education” is a social action. Each of us as an individual cannot do “education”. Your co-workers are essential. We need very best of communication among us. The trouble is, of course, we are not too competent in communicating. Even between a Wife and her Husband, or between the best of friends, we have troubles. We can hardly have the same Dream. We do not feel pains of others. In that, we are completely ignorant and “uneducated”.

When we come to think of “Education” as a Social action, we also become aware of problems of parents, society around, racial and ethical differences, etc. “Native Science Education” is nothing, if we are not prepared to take the pain of recognizing the problems.

Of course, we do not talk about such problems directly to our students. But, unless we have some idea as to what we are doing amidst all these problems, we cannot be a “teacher”, let alone be an educator. [Or it may be true that we can be a teacher because we are blind to the problems. Sometimes a Blind Romanticism may be a blessing, and that is how we “fall” in love. We find “love” is very painful thing soon enough. But then it is too late. We are trapped. We put the best of our brave face and pretend we are burning up in the flame of passion. No matter how good our preparation is, we are always vulnerable. We would consider ourselves lucky, if we have had a beautiful moment or two. Maybe, such is Being a Human.]

3. The above going is too pessimistic. I know humans have a natural Grace and things work out alright, despite all odd against it. But saying that may not be enough, so I add a “technical” suggestion.

If you are to do Native Science, perhaps it is helpful to consider beyond “Two in comparison/antagonism”.

To talk and think “Native Myth” tend to give an implicit meta-geometry of “One against Another”. Saying “Native Myth” implicitly implies “European Science” as its opposite. That is the basic “Formula” of Christian-Marxian Dialectics.

Hegelian Dialectics is a bit more complex (in my peculiar reading). It is not Two in Opposition, but a Complex towards Synthesis. And the “Discourse” would be helped by a better Meta-Geometry, say, of (2 x 2) Matrix at least.

The “European Science” contains a vague, implicit, but recognizable “myth, religion” which is held in a tension/contradiction. The meta-geometry of “One Against another” tends to obscure this internal tension/contradiction.

Native Science tends not show the “split” (say knowledge against spiritualty). By saying this, we are not comparing “Native Science” against “european Science” but rather seeing “Internal Structures/Relations”. (2 x2) Matrix let our “metaphors” (perceptions) wonder into subtler things. That is the merit.

Even if it is wrong, we say like “Native Science and Native Religion” in comparison to “European Science and European Religion” (heuristics). By simply saying so, it already start mind of people wondering; about “internal structures”, not just comparison of “European versus Native”. This is a remarkable “Ritual” (Technology) for our thinking/talking. It is an extension fo the technology know as “asking a right question at right time”. (Let us call it “Seeing a problem in appropriate context”.) We use help of “mental geometry” (which is a “mathematics” and hence “science”).

It inevitably leads us into thinking what “Science” is for, relative to what “Religion” (Myth, Spirituality) is for. Why the split? Does not Native side also have troubles/tension? Native Americans are also Humans, not “Gods” nor “Beasts”. Characteristics of Humans are (i) that they have (if not create) problems, and (ii) that thye have ability to learn (to deal with problems). To put the same in another way, “Science” is (i) knowing Reality, and (ii) Changing Reality (even a minimal sense of change in “perception” of Reality). [If you wish to have (2 x 2) Matrix, you could multiply Love?Power pair in combination with them.]

The “Knowing” and “Changing” is a pair of Dialectical Oppositions. They can be viewed as “Knowing Reality” as a move towards Stability (conservative) and “Changing Reality” is a move from Sensitivity. What is Sensitive cannot be Stable, which the Grand Inquisitor of Dostoevski explained to Jesus in return. But it can also be viewed a s”Complementality”. You have seen an example of this in Quantum Epistemology in your Philosophy of Science course. You note that even Love, despite its intent to “preserve” and “protect”, changes everything. “Power” forces changes and defend stability Education (of both Power Way and Love Way) changes “self”, yet it is a construction of an “identity”.

How to use this (2 x 2) matrix as a tool for synthesis is a “science”. Interestingly, Native American had this science under the name of “Sacred Hoop”, consisting of 4 elements arranged in a circle. If we think of “Science” to be “Way of Thinking” to deal with problems in living, Natives had a better Science than the Science of Christian-Marxist (1 x 1) Dialectics.

Science of Native is not “Man against Nature” (God and Devil) or “Ego against object” (Subjectivity against Reality), but rather a Complex Circular Relationships which we recently have come call “Environment” (though we tend to think it as an object still).

To grasp the “Whole” is better achieved by “Hoop” metaphor than European Linear Metaphor. That is to say, Native Science is more sophisticated than European Mechanics.

[A copy of a speech by Chief Sealth is enclosed as example.]

4. Another recent “discovery” in European Science is “Anthropic Principle”. The “discovery” is in the sense of Columbus “discovered” America. For Natives have known the principle for a long time. Anthropic Principle says that the Universe in which intelligent being could possibly exist is a Miracle — the probability of such adverse to emerge is very, very small, one billionth of billionth of billionth. It is so small that the very notion of “Probability” becomes invalid. (A French Mathematician Polson knew that too small a probability cannot be handled by the usual Probability Theory.) Only the Grace of love could have made it possible. Needless to say such a “feeling” does not fit well within European science, and therefore it creates a tension.

The reverence towards “Environment” (Universe) cannot be generated without an appreciation of the Miracle/Grace that Anthropic Principle refers.

Unfortunately European Science stands on an Ideological denial that “There Exist No Miracle/Grace”. When you teach Native Science, you are implicitly breaking the “Fundamental Truth” (Dogma, Axiom) of European Science.

5. However, Native Science is not predicated on Linear One-Directional Time. “Time” can be multi-dimensional, or “Two Ways” (flow from the Future to the Past, as well as from the Past to the Future). That is also in agreement with recent “discovery” in Physics. (If you like, call it Metaphysics. But One-Way Linear Time is one metaphysical theory among many others.)

I do not wish to “lecture” on physics here, so I stop. But it seems that Native Science Education cannot be stopped within the “European convention”, let alone within its Ideology. The European Convention for itself is breaking down.

Dreamwork, Indigenous Science

06 December 1988 Personal Correspondence on Lust and Eros (PDF)

August 7, 2015 Archivist

Dec. 6, ’88

Dear Pam

This is a note about “Lust”. It came from a title of a book about Van Gogh, the insane Dutch painter who chased the Swirling Universe, which was more like Goedel’s universe than that of Einstein. I did not know this, but another author Milan Kundera argues that the word “Passion” in Christian Culture carries a certain tinge of “Guilt”, and “Lust” is a much better word. Kundera, also argue that”Love” has little to do with “Making Love”, and “Making Love” is just a minor part of “Sleeping With” a woman or man. The latter is far deeper. I guess one can go to “Living With” from there. But Kundera drew a line there and his story “The Unbearable Lightness of Being” is about “how not live with” , or rather how incapable we are to live with. We can possibly Flirt but “Living With” is difficult. As it was in the story “Sleeping With” was already too difficult to do.

From there, I tried very hard to imagine if two or more people could have the same Dream. Jung talked of “Collective Unconscious” which is somewhat like sharing a “Collective Dream”. But we rationalistic intellectual individualists do not wish to have awareness of it. Suppose we find out that we share a common Dream, we do not know what to do with it any way. But that may be the reason why we have so much trouble. So we deny Dream.

According my dictionary “Onei” of Oneida means “Dream”. Some missionary saw Oneidas as Dream People and hence the name came? I was looking for a connection/relation of Rock and Dream. So far, nothing turned up. I am in “between Rock and Hard Place”.

Tonight, I heard Guitar Concierto “Concierto de Aranjuez” by Rodrigo. The Adagio part is very famous and you may know of it. I suppose the sad music is about the pain of having “Lust”, though different sense from that of Van Gogh. Human beings are vulnerable, ephemeral, and weak. It’s all because humans are sensual. They need someone to sleep and dream with. And at the same time, they are afraid of doing that. Because that makes people vulnerable to hurts. It is a lot easier to go on a power trip. To score woman, to achieve orgasm is easier than to live with. To dream with is almost impossible. Music convey some of that pain — the expressions in music form are permitted because we can pretend not knowing what is is and hence can deny it. Stories are harder to deny. And therefore handicapped. We have to contrive disguises, half hoping that people would see it obvious and half hoping that people cannot pin it down so that one can escape. We write about sex, but not “eros”. We are only “Flirting”.

When we cannot do any better than flirting — some authors are complaining that even the “Art of Flirting” is dying in the modern ages, between two persons, we can hardly do any better between two peoples. We flirt with “Revolutionary Ideals” etc. Stories about Europeans and Native Americans are full of such “Romances”. They do “move us” alright, but we may be mistaken in feeling that we “Loved”. Our reason of “be moved” may be “Moaning” about what we failed, missed, or lost. They are telling us what we did not do. That pains us. Yet, what could we do?

I wrote 3 letters to Department of Education about Science Education, but discarded two fo long “articles” and decided to send a short note. I am very sad that there is no chance that they would read anything beyond short “memos”. I have know “pleasure” of reading books, without any care about people escape from Reality when I am hurt, that seems the only thing I can. There is a Dream World which is like a Forest without damned humans.

My name came from an ancient Chinese poem about a love affair. My father somehow picked two letters out of the poem and I and my brother got one each. But the poem ends with a scene where the emperor utters “What am I going to do with you, my darling?” They are killed as the empire was conquered. That is the end of the poem. My father must have known the inevitable end of love affair. (At least I knew, when I took a letter from the same poem to name my daughter.)

But then, what is “Lust” or “Eros”? In conscious intellect, we are thinking of Orgasm, Rapture, but the Pain, Hurt is just as important part of the affair. If one has not tasted tears, it is the same as not having experience of orgasm/rapture. To preferone side may be natural, but it seems inevitable that the other side comes with it. Whether to know/accept that or not makes the distinction between the modern intellectuals and ancient people. Sensitivity, Empathy, Compassion, Understanding, and if I may add a Christian word “Grace”, all come from there. The Success centered mentality of modern scientists (or rather Technicians) is made by cutting off the vulnerability, in Fear or in Arrogance. Native Braves did not negate one’s vulnerability. That has nothing to do with “Winning” battles. but rather they are brave precisely because they were not afraid of knowing/accepting pains and hurts. The “Sun Dance” meant that. I think Deloria is already Europeanized and could not see the meaning of Sun Dance beyond the surface of physical pain. the “Brave” of taking Inner Pain is far greater.

Listening to the sad music, I was thinking like that. The funny thing is, the World, the Universe looks different from that view point. I heard of every instrument for each and did not miss a single note that they are making in a transparency. Goedel’s Cosmology was there. I was glad that I studied Geometry which helped me to appreciate the transparency, though that means absolute “Nothingness”.

Yours

Sam K.

Earth Sciences, Indigenous Science

Evolution of the Catfish (namazu) as an earthquake symbol in Japan (PDF)

July 24, 2015 Archivist

SmitsLudwin2006_Poster_SSA orig

The Credo Mutwa Research Library