Dr. Shigeru “Sam” Kounosu, Japanese theoretical physicist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Lethbridge, worked with notable figures such as Robert Oppenheimer. In his candid letters and lecture drafts, Dr. Kounosu explores possible connections between physics and native science, one of the first scientists of western training to do so.

For International Discussion Group

(Draft II. Jan.22, ’90.)

What “Science” got to do with the Third World Issues?

Problem Solving, Discourse, Learning and Enoblement.

Let us try Word Association Game. What is the first thing that comes to your mind in hearing these two words; “Science” and “Third World”?

It may be “Scientific-Technological Aid to the Third World”. We see the Third World Nations are sadly lacking in Science. So send “Science” to Africa, Asia, or Latin America? But how can we send “Science”? Do we mean text books on science? Information or data? Instruments? Medical supply? New variety crop seeds?

They have something to do with Science, but that is not quite the same as “Science”. “Science” is a mental entity and cannot be packaged and shipped off. So we send scientists? That is ok as a short term measure. But, in the long run, it may become a neo-colonialist domination of these nations under intellectual supervision of our scientists. That does not “empower” people in Science, but rather make them more dependent.

Science are often said to be Objective and Materialistic. But Science used in producing material objects and appreciated by consumers is in the Minds of people who make these things. Viewed from producer’s side, Science as a “Power/Ability of Thinking” is more to do with Imaginations, Adventure, Dream than Material Objects.

Beyond that we can think of Science as “Power/Ability to Reason” (i.e. Theoretical sense of Science) which has nothing to do with material objects. Moreover, “World Citizens” are interested in development of the “Power/Ability to Understand” which is one step higher Science than the Power/Ability to Reason.

(It may be of interest to you to look back how the word/concept of “Citizen” emerged in our History. Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others talked of distinction of “Citizen” from Slaves, Subjects of Master/Rulers. Citizens have certain Powers and Sovereign Will They were talking of political issues, but we could think of meaning of “Citizenship” in Science. Are we not mere passive consumers in Science, and hence slaves?]

For emergency situations, material aid is necessary. But “Development” is aimed at eliminating the need of “Aid”. In that sense, we have to think of Third World Issues in terms of Empowerment at least, if not in terms of Mutual Understanding. And in this, the consumer sense of Science is inappropriate. The Dependency is the problem. We have to think of ways to foster Third World Science, which is not dependent on our Science (EuroAmerican Science).

“Scientific Colonialism” in our mind has to be eliminated first of all.

Well, some think of inviting students from former colonial countries into Canadian universities and make them scientists that these countries need. We are doing that to some extent.

But then we might think of “Brain Drain” from poor countries to wealthy countries like Canada and the U.S. The third world countries not only have very small number of scientists, but they “export” a large number of scientists to the “First World”. In the U.S., some 1/3 of graduate students in Science and Engineering are from foreign nations. Some do go home after receiving degrees, but the most of them do not, for a simple reason that they cannot find job in home countries.

For that matter, I can tell you that the majority of Physicists of my age or above in the U.S. wer born in midwestern states, such as North and South Dakota. They were sons of famers in the “Dust Bowl”. They became PhD. physicists and moved to Cities at eastern sea coasts and in California. They did not go back to their home states. The economics dictates where scientists go.

Some of you might ask why we do not start “Science Transfer” by doing Science Education right in the Third World nations. The First World nations could donate money for facilities, teachers, library materials, and scientific information. Although, Science (and Technological) Education is 3 to 4 times expensive per student relative to the ordinary Education, UNESCO, for example, see it imperative and would welcome that. I myself once went on a CIDA mission to an African country. I taught Mathematical Theory of System Control to 3 Master and 2 Ph D. program students in a university. I can tell you what it was like.

It does not work. The reason is a bit complicated, but I think it is important that we understand this — that is; if we care about the Third World Issues beyond the level of donating money for Emergency Relief operations.

2. We are looking at problems of long term Development, which takes different level of thinking.  Unfortunately, we do not really think about Development, but rather think of “Rescuing” operations. Pardon me to say this, but even World Citizens Centre directs its appeal to “Pity” on, if not “Guilt” for “Unfortunate Poor People”. The appeal comes with “shocking news” about extreme poverty, deprivation, oppression and tragedy. In that sense, World Citizen’s Centre is a Philanthropic Organization, which is beautiful. But in usual sense, “Philanthropy” is understood as a matter of feeling. And from that point of view, the Third World Issue has nothing to do with Science. Science is perceived as a “cold hearted” intellectual exercise that some intellectual elite, specialists do.

[Incidentally, the number of professional scientists in the world today is about a million or so, and 90% or more is in the “First World” countries.

However, this number depends on how we define who are to be called “scientists”. We shall have to discuss this problem. But, you note that if we identify “Science” to be what these professional scientists are doing, it amounts to be an activity of a very small number of specialized people. It is like 2 in 10,000 people, and the rest of people have nothing much to do with Science.

If people could not care less about science, that is entirely natural.

Of course, this is a misperception. But the existence of the misperception is related to the essence of the issue of Development. It is not enough to say it is wrong. We have to discuss and learn how the misperception is created and find ways to correct it.]

Naturally, people feel they have nothing to do with Science even in their daily life in Canada, let alone seeing its relevance to people of the Third World countries.

[Dr. Hellen Cardicott said “Science is and Intellectual Masturbation”, when she came to Lethbridge to give a lecture. Dr. Cardicott was not too far off the mark in characterizing what we today identify as “Science”. But I think it not so harmless as she characterized it.

perhaps, it is more accurate to say “the Science today is Bureaucratization of human intelligence”. It can be powerful like a huge machine for the service to the Power. But for the service to people, it is totally inoperable machine. Many individual scientists have humanitarian ideals and good intentions, just as bureaucrats as individuals do. But as long as the system is unchanged, it is almost futile to try any thing within. Individuals might do some spectacular good, but they then will be promoted out of reach of people, and the system remain intact. They may change office space arrangements — such as “open space concept” —. But the Inhumanity of the system has only increased, every time it moved to new office building. Likewise, the remoteness of Science from Humanity has only increased, every time new specialization was added to Science and research grant money increased.]

I do not deny the beauty and importance of Humanitarian concerns and Moral feeling. They are starters. Without that, nothing can be done. But, they are the Gates, through which we come to learn something more than the atrocious living condition in the Third World countries. I think of this process of “Learning On” to be the essence of “Science”. This is critically important point, in my view.

Pity, Sympathy, Concern, Empathy, Interest, Benevolence, Love, Care, are important. I think they are essential and beautiful. But a critical question is “Are we Learning?”

Putting it bluntly, are we not patronizing — no doubt without intending to be so? We think we are fortunate enough to be in some position to help these people in the Third World. That is true. But then, are we not thinking as if we are “Teachers” who know, able to think better, and to tell these people what to do. We want to Teach our superior knowledge to those who are not as knowledgeable and smart as we are. It does not often occur to us that even Teachers have to Learn.

I admit we university professors are worse. We think we are so superior in knowing things that we need not Learn for teaching — we do research just for getting salary increment and personal prestige. In teaching we have a funny notion inherited from good old days. Old fashioned teachers apparently felt that they could not show any sign of Learning in front of their students, because that means lack of “authority” in their part. This attitude came from “teaching” in Religious institutions. In my  view, one cannot do Science in such an attitude. I hope today they are extinct in science education in elementary and secondary schools. But it certainly persists in universities, where professors pretend to know everything and have nothing more to learn, particularly in science teaching. I think “Teaching” as such is the opposite of Science.

For that reason and others, I think Science ought not be taught, but ought to be Discoursed. Discourse is Learning in a group of people, by a community. It has to be Participatory and mutual.

I think when Brandt Report called for “North-South Dialogue”, it meant Discourse. But people might have taken “Dialogue” to mean just talking or negotiating. The report implied, but did not stress “Learning” sufficiently clear. Of course, people connected to World Citizen centre got the meaning right. If so, saying that “Both Development and Science is Learning” is not strange to you. Perhaps, some of you had word association among “Development, Science, Learning” instantly. But if I may say so, association of Science/Development and Discourse is not quite easy and there are “good reasons” for that.

For one thing, in ordinary word usages, “Development” means Economic Growth, such as making factories to make things for export. and Science means Knowledge — that “Dead Knowledge” printed in text books which we are forced to memorize for no rhyme nor reason. The common usages of these words represent what we actually do with these things. That we begun to disagree with the common word usages signifies that we have come to feeling the problems.

But having problems is the starting point of Science and Development. For Science and Development are Problem Solving. We cannot have one without the other — I think of analogy to Love Affairs; relations that are not somewhat problematic is not really Love Affair. They have to be somewhat imperfect. The humbleness to acknowledge imperfections and vulnerability is the sign of Science, as opposed to Religious Teaching. To say “I know”  is a characteristic of Religion. To say “I do not know’ is the distinguishing mark of Science. Religions cannot be wrong. Science has to be fallible and open to change. For this reason, if we get every thing too easy, intellectually or otherwise, we are in trouble.

Human beings who do not know come together and do Science, and they do so because they have problems. Those who have no problem would not waste time for it, though there is an intrinsic sense of pleasure in meeting with people, regardless of its excuse. The “come together” (i.e, Participation) makes the Discourse. It has to do with process of knowing, but Knowledge is not Discourse hence not Science. In this sense, A.A. meetings are doing real Science. What Scott Peck is describing as “Wonderful Experiences” in Different Drum are “Discourses” and “Science” in a verb sense.

[As to this sense of Science, I wrote a story “Raven The First Native Scientist”. My “Requiem for Chester Heavy Runner Jr.” also written for what I think “Science” out to be. I do not know whether I was correct as to Native Science or not, but that is my way of trying things out. Copies enclosed.]

In the above sense “Science” is “Human Development” in a communal/social scale. Some economists have talked about this in terms of “Infra-Structure” to Economy. Phrases like “Human Investment” has been used to talk about this in Developmental Economics. But, vocational education of individual ability for market competition was still a strong overtone to Economists’ talks. Economic cannot easily change its metaphysics of utilitarian rationality. A few economists pointed out a need of Paradigm Shift in that science, but there is little sign that a new Paradigm is emerging. [*1]

Likewise, social thinkers have started to talk of “Human Development” — needed in the First World Nations. Jane J. Mansbridge in Beyond Adversary Democracy wrote;

“A few philosophers have recently sounded the alarm against the increasingly self-interested focus of public life. They call for a return to preadversary conceptions of the common good, lllll and to relations of fellowship and community.”

[Basic Books 1980. p. 302. JC423 M353 U.L. Lib.]

That is “Development” is not just a problem in the Third World Nations, but it is a problem for the people in the First World Nations; i.e., us.

The “Human Science” has a task of constructing an alternative metaphysics which is humane, environmentally healthy and capable of providing basis for non-adversary human/social relations. That is why I talk of Love, Care, Grace, etc., though they are not considered in European Science today. However, in the 18th century, thinkers such as Rousseau, Hume, Mills, or even Hobbes did think of them to be proper subject of Science. Adam Smith was a professor of Moral Philosophy and he meant he was doing a Science. Of course, their Science established Utilitarian Rationality. That was equivalent to the establishment of Newtonian Physics. What we have to do is equivalent of constructing Relativity or Quantum Theory, alternatives to Newtonian Mechanics.

[*1. As to “Paradigm Shift” see; Drew Westen. Self and Society. Cambridge U. Press 1985.

BF698.9 C8 W47 U.L.Lib.

He talks of 4 Phases in changes of “Culture” (Collective Mind/Science of society) as well as in changes of individual mind (psyche, intelligence, self-concept). Interestingly, Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Wm. Blake’s Four Zoas, etc, also exhibit the same “4 Phases” of change.

“Human Science” has been in existence, but so far, not recognized as “Science”. These books contain interesting “clues”, here and there. That is why I make mention of them to you.]

3. The “Wonderful Experience” stories make us to ask a harder question for ourselves — that is, if we do not wish to be “Couch Potato” spectators of Science, deluding ourselves in psychological identification with our intellectual or spiritual hero/heroines, like we do with Wayne Gretzky. What is stopping us from Discoursing=Developing=Sciencing for ourselves?

To be sure, some of us may be so conceited to see no problem like common people, and may complain that there is no problem to science with. In such a case, I would recommend to put oneself in the position of program coordinator for World Citizen’s Centre. That will guarantee t o provide as many problems as one wish, in terms of relating to people or getting them interested in Third World Issues. Or we can say to Yuppies that if they need “Quality Time” for their mental health, they can do that in discoursing on the Third World problems. If they do not have time and be deprived of “Quality Time” as such, that is a problem for them to science with.

But I think most people are fortunate enough to have problems. Rather we deny the problem and resist learning. We are like Alcoholics, intoxicating in our pride of being far above these “miserable poor ignorant people” in the Third World and protecting it by an elaborate network of delusions, deceits. “Support Network” is a popular cliche nowadays. But we have it, in terms of legitimizing and maintaining our “comfortable feeling” about our affluent consumer life style. It is a Network of Narcissism. Of course, beneath our smugness is a Fear. We feel we have a lot to lose, if we do anything to change the system. We do not wish to fall off from our “respectable” position in the Network. So we compete like in a Hell, which give rise to Yuppy life style that we all suffer. In actual matter of fact, the feeling of Powerlessness, Meaninglessness, Lovelessness, bitter cynicism, nihilism are widespread among us like epidemics. We are so afraid that we cannot admit and face our problems.

Our basic mental posture is that of Defense. Whereas “Learning” (Discourse, Science) is an openness, hence vulnerability to unknowns. One does not know what troubles one gets in, when involvement get to be “intimate”. So, we avoid that. We can learn about that problem—if there is nothing else. And it so happens that that is the same Problem as that of Development. If we cannot do Human Development, we cannot do Social Development either — or rather the two are “co-comitmental” and “Discourse” deals with both.

However, to discourse on the problems of Discourse we need something a bit more than Philanthropy. World Citizen’s Centre used to call itself a “Learning Centre”, and The Learning is the Science. But it appears that Learning Centre has had difficulties. I actually do not know enough to say this, but my impression is that Learning part of the Centre has not been easy. In terms of getting people engaged in Learning, the Centre is struggling — to put it politely. AndI would like to know what the difficulty is. I suspect it has something in common with Third World Development problems.

To argue for my contention, let me cite problems in Third World Development. Even in a very narrow technological science we do find reports of problems. Here, I cite a fiction from Mother Jones magazine [Oct 89.: “Doctor Kamikaze” by Ayi Kwei Armah. p 34-38, 46., see copy.]. It is a story of a native woman who try to do “Developing work” but shifted out of the country to a high UN office. I think fiction is based on real experience and treat it as such. (the reason why it cannot be published in the form of factual report itself is an indication of the problem that we are concerned about.)

The trouble with Dr. Kamikaze was that she did not have local participation strong enough to overcome the politics that sabotage the Development project — local politicians pocketed the Aid money and the President of the nation could not do anything much about it, because he was dependent on the “old-boy support network”.

It was a problem of Human Relation. She did not learn about Human Relations in her WEstern Education. Her Scientific (technical) Rationality was not functional in the situation. The story is sympathetic to Dr. Kamikaze and talks of the corruption of local politicians. But the story did not suggest she had paid much effort in Discoursing with local peasants either, nor did she appear to have cared to learn anything much about petty politics of the nation, other than got angry at it. It does look that this high minded lady, with Ph D from European University, descended upon local situation with an air of superiority, just like foreign scientists from UN Development Agency or CIDA would have done. Local people did not obey her command, and she get angry.

Her anger is quite justified. But “Good Will” and “Desire for Betterment” were there. the President and officials around her was rather “Kind” to her. In fact they admired her attitude of “No Bull Shit”. But “Science” was lacking. Problem was there, and everybody knew the problem. But “Problem Solving” (=science) was not there. I do not mean “Political Science”, “Social Science”, “Psycho-Science” that universities teach. I mean real Science of Discourse.

[We ought to note that the inefficiency of “corrupt petty politics” is comparable to the inefficiency of Bureaucracy. Inefficiency is not a peculiarity of “backward countries”. We have it around us, if we ourselves are not part of it.

In addition it ought to be pointed out that “Careerism” exists in any agency, and the poison fo careerism is just the same as that of corrupt petty politics. Self-interests (or self-preservation0 must take the priority over anything else, even in the career in Development Agencies. Since nobody cares about you, it is entirely justified and rational for you to look after your self-interest. Even humanitarian project becomes the means to feather one’s own nest. It is legal and rational in the Utilitarian sense, but no different in principle from the corrupted petty politics.]

Another thing we ought to note is that knowing some fantasy fictions like Black Hole sounds “Scientific” and has Academic respectability. But knowing how humans interact in intimate senses does not look like “intellectual” thing to do. It may not be “rational” nor “reasonable”. It is a favorite subject the “Pop-psychology”. But, no high paid profession so far had anything to do with human relations in the intimate sense — except perhaps “psychotherapy”, but it only deal with “pathological cases” at individualistic basis, not “normal” people in normal life at communal/social basis. Therefore Universities did not see any profit in offering a “science” for it. By the same reason, “Development” is not a subject that universities deal with, other than as a part of Political Science, Economics etc, which concern only with Utilitarian values.

Moreover, the science of human relations may have to do with Morality, Justice, Peace, or even Grace. That sounds very opposite of what we think of “Science” or “knowledge”. Our “knowledge” is mainly concerned with Power and Utility — how to exploit nature and to control/manipulate people for utilitarian purposes, in a metaphor with Newtonian Mechanics , not “wishy-washy stuffs” like Love, Care, Respect, Grace.

4. Now, suppose one tries to do Human Science, including Love, Care, Respect, Grace, in addition to Power. I am thinking of doing Science in the sense “Raven The First Native Scientist” did. In our European Cultural norm, that is a strange thing to try. One will quickly find a wall of silence, indifference, contempt, rejection. It is rare in our life style that even two people engage in discourse with earnestness. We can argue and debate in a competition, if any of us want to “make a point”. But that is in “Adversary Competition”, not in “Participatory Learning” and hence not “Science” in Raven’s sense.

This is not, however, because people are ignorant nor because they are “nasty”. It comes from much deeper roots than what we can see on the surface. For one thing, whoever try to do stuffs like “Human Development” becomes an alienated “Outsider” by a mere fact of trying odd stuffs that ordinary people would not do. In a sense, one who tries is between the world of “what is of the reality” and the world of “what can be of human community”. He or she is trying to build a Bridge between the two worlds. That means, she or he does not belong to neither one.

That is, Discourse id a Bridge, sensitive, but transient, unstable. One becomes vulnerable in that sensitivity. The position is similar to Natives in city ghettos, Native Youths adapted by Non’Native families, and worst all “Half Breeds”. In their suffering, they are doing the Bridging, not in an intellectual sense, but by their body and soul. We need to appreciate this precarious position.

I would recommend for people interested in “Human Science” to read what Paula Gunn Allen talked about “Outsider” in The Sacred Hoop, or Leslie Marmon Silko’s novel Ceremony, etc.

I am trying to tell you that the being “Outsider” is common to you who attempt to Bridge two Worlds, or two Cultures and those who live in pain at the margins of society. This commonness is the precious element — Natives would say “Medicine” — that has the power of transforming the both. If there can be anything like Understanding between people, between Cultures, between the First and the Third World, this is the Medicine. That is the basis on which empowerment, ennoblement, spiritual liberation, and perhaps even grace develop.

If one is not willing to be an “Outsider”, she or he would stay in the smugness of the conventional life, or of performing bureaucratic routines. It is a voluntary servitude (Neitzsche called it “slave” life, Fromm called it “Escape from Freedom”). That one feels pain and outrage in such a life is a blessing, for the pain and outrage give one needed energy, spiritual incentive to “Science” the system as such. Human Science is not for “Power” that stands above, commands and moves society, but rather for (powerless) Love/Respect of people in “marginality” and for ennobling oneself by ennobling people involved. According to Simon de Beauvoir, Sartre after a life long struggle with “Being and Nothingness” (Cartesian Hell) finally reached to an idea of “Participation”. But Sartre did not elaborate the idea to a level of Discourse. I think what Human Science, Human Development, has to do is to go on doing what Sartre failed.

Of course, people might resent that, for they do have repressed pain and outrage and having a hard time denying them. The “Bridge Builders” are disturbing their “Peace of Mind” — as Dostoevski’s Grand Inquisitor eloquently pointed out to returned Jesus. I am not a Christian, and certainly do not advocate “Jesus Delusion” to anybody. But being an alienated “Outsider” is similar to that. One get to be one, not by choice, but by “circumstance” or “karma”. If your are born with sensitive mind, that is your misfortune. But as much as you cannot shut your sensitivity off, you might just as well to make the best use of your “brain defect”. You are Human Scientist, not because you have a superior intelligence, but because you are “victim”. At least to think like that let one to avoid patronizing attitude and get on with Discourse. If you find at the end that you are truly noble person, that is one way of ennoblement.

However, I suspect that most anybody has problems in one sense or another. We should not be deceived by the appearances that people put up in defense or in vain pride. You look into Yuppie life style to find a lot of problems. People who appear to be “successful” or “powerful” also have problems. It is not just alcoholics, nor poor people in Third World countries, that have problems. If any thing we are the ones who are handicapped by our unwillingness to acknowledge our problems, so that we lag behind in science.

At any rate, if I do talk about Science, Development, Morality, Spirituality, etc, it is not because I know anything better, but because I too am an “Outsider”, in Limbo, in Purgatory, on Bridge (Buddhist metaphor) by different reasons. It is more of cry or appeal than “knowledge claim”.

(S.K.)

Dr. Shigeru “Sam” Kounosu, Japanese theoretical physicist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Lethbridge, worked with notable figures such as Robert Oppenheimer. In his candid letters and lecture drafts, Dr. Kounosu explores possible connections between physics and native science, one of the first scientists of western training to do so.

Dec. 11, 87.

Dear Pam

You say you wish to pursue Native Math. If so, how about looking into “Native Geometry”? The book: Native Mathematics talks only of Number Systems and a little bit of Astronomy. Frankly, that is disappointing. Native Geometry is better. I explain why I think so.

Geometry includes Space Perception, How to deal with Motions, Fields, Relations, hidden, visible, and imagined. It also includes Time Dimension, future, past or side ways. It deal with Order, Disorder, and Nebulous. In short, it is a Cosmology, but relevant to practical life on the ground.

And a “Culture” always come with an implicit, but a fundamental Geometry. [Jung Thesis]. For example, ancient Greeks included “Geometry” as one of 9 Muses, along with Love Songs, Tragedy, Comedy, etc. It was a part of Wisdom of Goddess Sophia. And the Goddess of Wisdom was a representation of the “Collective Intelligence” of the ancient Greeks.

Native Culture also had a Geometry. It is just that you do not give a proper recognition to it. Most Europeans do not recognize the Geometry in their subconscious either. The only exception is Jung, but he did not go too far.

Greek Geometry was also a “Practical Art” for artisans. It was the first “Practical Philosophy” in helping people how to organize thinking and guide social scale actions. [Actions, involving more than few people and lasting for a duration beyond what individuals can manage by “reacting to immediate situation”, require a Vision which constitute a “Collective Will”. The Vision is a Geometry.] It was the first disciplined social scale exercise in Imaginations. It was also the first “Science” ever to be systematized in a Logical Structure. The Structure was built in order to have a basis for social scale communication. Naturally, it became the Mother of European Science. If I exaggerate a bit, the implicit Geometry, as the Pattern of Imagination, was the “Mind” of the Civilization.

Newton learned Euclid Geometry, through Descartes’ analytical method — which Angels taught Descartes in dream — and Projective Geometry from an Architect friend. This Architect was older than Newton, but perhaps he was the only friend Newton ever had. Incidentally, his school did not teach Geometry. Newton went to school, probably because he wanted to become a Theologian, not a scientist. Geometry was just a fun. Yet, his Mechanics was based on a Geometry and the “Language of Differential Calculus”. He wrote somewhere that, in writing Principia, he wanted to emulate Euclid. Euclid invented, aside from the Geometry, the prototype for Scientific Stylism.

From a modern view, what Newton did was simple addition of Time to Euclid Geometry. The reason Mechanics became stucked with Motions of Objects is that Euclid Geometry was Geometry of “Points and Lines”. Geometry of “Fields” has not been developed until Einstein’s time, some 250 years after. Michael Faraday had a vision of Fields, but there was no Geometry then to “Verbalize” the vision.

Einstein barely managed with the little he knew of Geometry. His patron teacher, Prof. Minkowsky, taught him Geometry, but apparently Einstein was a poor student. Minkowsky was the one who admitted Einstein into the University by bending the admission rules. A story is that Minkowsky got mad at delinquent Albert and said to him “I do not wish to see you, never ever.” [If I come to teach you Geometry, I might have to say the same thing to you. You know not everybody can be patient and nice like Mouse Woman.]

But, it turned out that Einstein revived academic interests in Geometry, which was an obscure subject that nobody really cared about in the 19th century. Minkowsky got famous, because of Einstein. Now, the market value of Geometry is down again. Nowadays, high schools hardly offer Geometry. Universities seldom offer courses in Geometry, except in a few special places like Princeton. [Harvard has never been good at Geometry.] Number Mathematics is a lot more popular. The reason, I suspect, is that Geometry is Visual and closer to Art. Intellectual snobism in Universities in general , and Mathematicians in particular, looks down on Geometry as “Unpure”. It uses “Intuitions”, “Perceptions”, “Creative Imagination”, “Images”, “Gestalt”, “Metaphors”, etc. none of which is acceptable to the “Pride of Logical Rigor” of the Mathematicians today.

Yet, the entire Physics can be looked at as “Applied Geometry”. All “verbalizations” of observed phenomena, if they are approaching the level of physics, are implicitly Geometrical. This can also be said for Economics, Social Theories, Psychology. Geometry is the bridge between Observation (Imagination included) and Verbalization. Geometry, therefore, has Hermenuetical elements — that is, if one cares to look at how Geometry use Language.

Whether you know it or not, your talk on Ghii Lii is a talk on Geometry. Your Tree Vision is a Geometry. It is different from the European one, in that it is a “Field Geometry”. Euclid Geometry was a “Geometry of Points and Lines”. You have at least Einstein’s level of Geometry already, surpassing Euclid-Descartes-Newton.

[It is my task to convince you that you started a fantastic thing. By uttering wards like “Native Science”, you opened Pandora’s Box. You probably did not mean anything. But “Bears” are around, and overheard that. Because, the word mean something, you get into all kinds of Shits, including ones from me. If you knew what you were talking about, you would not have dared to utter the word. Europeans have a nice expression for that. They say “Where angels fear to step, fools trot.”]

There is one important thing about Field Geometry which you’d better know. The kind of Mathematics that is needed in Field Geometry does not depend on Numbers — called Topology — but numbers can be used. And Differential Geometry (Geometry of Manifolds) is the standard tool today.

You might ask how anyone can do Differential Calculus without “Quantifying” by measurements. That is an Euclidian prejudice. Just because Euclid Geometry needed measured quantities such as “Distance” and showed off its “Numerical Accuracy” as if that is the “Proof” of it being Accurate Science, it does not mean that Science cannot be done by without “Accurate Number Measure”. In fact, fantastic mathematical acrobatics in formula manipulation etc. can be demonstrated without anything to do with “Accurate Numbers”. Topology is a “Fuzzy Science”, and the “fuzziness” requires a lot more sophisticated thinking than “accurate number mathematics” needs.

If you are thinking of Social-Human Science, the “Fuzzics” that is emerging from Geometry is an ideal tool. This goes against the fundamental Paradigm of European Social Science today. But, it can liberate one from the much worshiped Numbers in Social science today — or from the European Science as practiced by the majority today.

Needless to say it is difficult. Time and time again, even those who do Geometry fall back to Euclid Number Thinking. That includes Einstein himself. When one does not have numerical values, one loses confidence. Or one feels that people would not understand Geometry, therefore they sink into Silence. Since Geometry is repressed into silence, people do not learn it. The community remain ignorant. That makes communication more difficult. So one dares not talk about it. We have a Vicious Circle.

Now, I have a vested interest in Native Science, because I see there a possibility of Field Geometry. I need you to tell the Geometry. You are the poor victim. You have been receiving shits from me, because of that. On the top of it, I am now asking you to look into Native Geometry. That is a bad deal!

I know women over 30 are on “down hill” and cannot learn nothing much new. For that matter, men are no better after 20. (I learned that the only way to get you interested is to make you angry. So I am trying the trick.)

Besides, I know being a mother is a full time occupation. Add 1/3 for being a wife, however a bad wife you are. Then add another 1/3 for being a teacher, even if you are a poor one at that. And whatever else you do? You have probably 200% excuse for not doing anything beyond.

[One day, I was watching a girl with her little brother coming onto the bus I was in. She must be age 7 or 8. I saw a determined tension on her face to look after her brother who may be 5 or so. She let her brother put changes into fare box. Her attention was just like a “Mother” would have had in doing the same. The word “Responsibility” is not quite right for that. I do not know what that can be called. But I got impressed by her greatly. Somehow, she learned it from someone somewhere. I wondered if school education could do anything like it. In comparison to that, stuffs like Geometry is trivial. However, I have nothing better to offer you.]

But then, why do you utter words like Native Science? I take it that you meant it. You would not like me to patronize on your weakness. But you have no idea how to make it real, doing it in the present condition of life.

But, perhaps, there is no harm in trying, even if you cannot hack it. So I make you an offer of making inputs from that side. It is from European Science, but a little better shit than Newton-Euclid ones. Raven would not hesitate to take advantage of whatever available for the means.

However, as to Native side, I do not know anything. that should give you ample opportunity to hit me back. We can be even at that. And more importantly, I tell you that unless you speak out, you learn nothing, and I learn nothing from you. You see a lot of people who are defending their Pride with thick armor, not realizing the self-imposed armor is a prison, the “Box”. Children learn a lot quick, because they are not defensive. They say what they think, right or wrong. And they can accept things, because they are not worried about their vulnerability.

I am thinking of “Learning by and for Community”, as a new strategy replacing “Ego Knowledge”. That calls for “childishness” in learning. However, in this, I do see a difficulty.

Namely, Natives have great deal of concern about their Dignity. It has a good reason, for if they lose their Dignity, they are finished. That is why Elders talk of Tradition, or The Old Way of Doing things. But learning is a Creation. And Creation means Death of the Old. To learn something is not “addition” like putting money in banks. It require a structural change, which means dying and “borning”. Sensitivity that required for Creative thinking is inherently “Unstable” , if not Catastrophic. In that Creativity is the Arch-enemy of Constancy.

I am also aware that “Environmental Conservation”, “Peace”, “Harmony”, “Steady State Economy” etc. come with in metaphors of Constancy. But you note that what a Big Change is needed to achieve any one of these ideals. And here Hopi Philosophy is correct in saying that nothing is constant. Hopi Prophecy is for catastrophic changes. It may be more of the “Traditional” Spirit to be “radical” than fixated in an illusionary Constancy on surface.

This ought not be taken to be disrespect of Elders, nor disregard of Native Culture. I think the respect has to do with learning of the Original Meaning and Creatively Applying it to the changing situations. It takes more profound understanding of the Ancient Spirit and Creativity to live in the present difficulties than just following formalities as routines. I talked of Speaking Up, but I am not ignorant of the value of Silence. Silence can be louder than any big noise. Besides, “speaking” has to be matched with “listening”. As to how to work out these balances, we have to think about it further.

Maybe, this problem of Tradition and Radical Creation holds the key that we need. To reject someone, something in contempt is too easy. To understand something we do not like in respect requires learning of the level we try to achieve. The problem is a gift. It is interesting to note that you Ghii Lii story came out in a context of you talking of “Going back to the Source”. We all get very much impressed by your lecture. Now, it is your turn to listen to what you said, and get impressed by its profound meaning.

In a sense, the real test of “Validity” on Geometry or on any other Theories, Philosophies or Teaching, is whether or not it helps us to deal with such problems. Castaneda’s story, or D.Bohm’s Theory is “Valid” in so far as they help people in troubles. If not, it matters little if real Don Juan existed or not. I think Geometry — i.e. Vision — does help. I am not a magician, nor a guru. But can I make you interested in Native Geometry?

Yours

Sam K.

Discovering Indigenous Science: Implications for Science Education

Gloria Snively
Department of Social and Natural Sciences, University of Victoria
John Corsiglia
Consultant on First Nation’s history and culture, British Columbia

Abstract: Indigenous science relates to both the science knowledge of long-resident, usually oral culture peoples, as well as the science knowledge of all peoples who as participants in culture are affected by the worldview and relativist interests of their home communities. This article explores aspects of multicultural science and pedagogy and describes a rich and well-documented branch of indigenous science known to biologists and ecologists as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). Although TEK has been generally inaccessible, educators can now use a burgeoning science-based TEK literature that documents numerous examples of time-proven, ecologically relevant, and cost effective indigenous science. Disputes regarding the universality of the standard scientific account are of critical importance for science educators because the definition of science is a de facto “gatekeeping” device for determining what can be included in a school science curriculum and what cannot. When Western modern science (WMS) is defined as universal it does displace revelation-based knowledge (i.e., creation science); however, it also displaces pragmatic local indigenous knowledge that does not conform with formal aspects of the “standard account.” Thus, in most science classrooms around the globe, Western modern science has been taught at the expense of indigenous knowledge. However, because WMS has been implicated in many of the world’s ecological disasters, and because the traditional wisdom component of TEK is particularly rich in time-tested approaches that foster sustainability and environmental integrity, it is possible that the universalist “gatekeeper” can be seen as increasingly problematic and even counter productive. This paper describes many examples from Canada and around the world of indigenous people’s contributions to science, environmental understanding, and sustainability. The authors argue the view that Western or modern science is just one of many sciences that need to be addressed in the science classroom We conclude by presenting instructional strategies that can help all science learner negotiate border crossings between Western modern science and indigenous science.

INTRODUCTION
One of the intense philosophical debates in education literature focuses on the inclusion of multicultural science in mainstream science education, as evidenced by the number of papers submitted to this and other science education journals. For some, multicultural science is seen as important because it can function as a pedagogical stepping stone — especially for multicultural students of science (Atwater & Riley, 1993; Hodson, 1993; Stanley & Brickhouse, 1994). Certain other science educators who champion modern Western science as the last and greatest of the sciences tend to dismiss multicultural science as faddish or heretical (Good, 1995a, 1995b; Gross & Levitt, 1994; Matthews, 1994; Slezak, 1994; Wolpert, 1993).
Suspending consideration of the intrinsic importance of multicultural science Ogawa (1995) stresses that all science students must work through both individual and indigenous science understandings in the course of constructing their knowledge of modern Western science. Ogawa proposes that every culture has its own science and refers to the science in a given culture as its “indigenous science” (Ogawa, 1995, p.585). Westerners freely acknowledge the existence of indigenous art, music, literature, drama, and political and economic systems in indigenous cultures, but somehow fail to apprehend and appreciate indigenous science. Elkana writes: “Comparative studies of art, religion, ethics, and politics abound; however, there is no discipline called comparative science” (Elkana, 1981, p. 2). Thus, in many educational settings where Western modern science is taught, it is taught at the expense of indigenous science, which may precipitate charges of epistemological hegemony and cultural imperialism.
It would seem that the dispute over how science is to be taught in the classroom turns on how the concepts “science” and “universality” are to be defined. The debate rages over the nature of reality and knowledge, definitions of science, and the so-called universalist vs. relativist positions. Sometimes the debate appears to be at least as culture-centric as it is rational. Replying to a Stanley and Brickhouse (1994) suggestion to include examples of multicultural science in the curriculum, Good (1995a) challenged opponents to be specific with their “few well-chosen examples of sciences from other cultures”:

What are these few well-chosen examples that should be included in our school science curriculum? Additionally, it would be very nice to learn how these examples of neglected “science” should change our understanding of biology, chemistry, physics, and so on. Just what contributions will this neglected science make in modern science’s understanding of nature? (p. 335)

As one example of how far the universalist vs. relativist debate can be pushed, the authors have learned that Richard Dawkins is fond of saying: “there are no relativists at 30,000 feet.” No doubt that without an airplane of conventional description, a person at 30,000 feet is in serious trouble, but when universalists take off and land on vulcanized rubber tires they make use of a material and process reportedly discovered and refined by indigenous Peruvians (Weatherford, 1988, 1991). Without multicultural science contributions enabling airplanes to land and take off, there would be neither airplanes, nor for that matter, universalists at 30,000 feet.
While science educators have been fighting epistemological battles that could effectively limit or expand the scope and purview of science education, events on the ground appear to have overtaken us — working scientists have themselves been involved in wide ranging exploration and reform. Especially during the last 25 years, biologists, ecologists, botanists, geologists, climatologists, astronomers, agriculturists, pharmacologists, and related working scientists have labored to develop approaches that are improving our ability to understand and mitigate the impact of human activity upon the environment. By extending their enquiry into the timeless traditional knowledge and wisdom of long-resident, oral peoples, these scientists have in effect moved the borders of scientific inquiry and formalized a branch of biological and ecological science that has become known as the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), which can be thought of as either the knowledge itself, or as documented ethno-science enriched with analysis and explication provided by natural science specialists. The interested reader can find numerous detailed examples of TEK (Andrews, 1988; Berkes, 1988, 1993; Berkes & Mackenzie, 1978, Inglis, 1993; Warren, 1997; Williams & Baines, 1993). Additionally, the present bibliography provides the reader with a number of specific examples of TEK in Canada and worldwide.
Thus, we face four related questions: First, is science an exclusive invention of Europeans, or have scientific ways of thinking and viable bodies of science knowledge also emerged in other cultures? Second, if WMS is taken to be universal, what is the status of the vast quantities of local knowledge that it subsumes, incorporates,and claims to legitimize? Third, what is the proper role of science educators as leaders in the process of refining and clarifying the current definitions of WMS? And fourth, when viable bodies of useful scientific knowledge emerge in other cultures, how can science educators develop programs that enable all students to cross cultural borders — in this instance, between the culture of Western modern science and the cultures of long-resident indigenous peoples?
Because TEK is being used by scientists to solve important biological and ecological problems and because problems of sustainability are pervasive and of very high interest to students and others, it becomes increasingly important for science educators to introduce students to the perspectives of both WMS and TEK. The availability and varies nature of TEK examples will be useful to proponents of multicultural science (Aikenhead, 1995, 1996; Atwater & Riley, 1993; Bowers, 1993a, 1993b; Hodson, 1993; Ogawa, 1989, 1995; Smith, 1982, 1995; Snively, 1990, 1995; Wright, 1992).
In this article, we argue the view that since Aboriginal cultures have made significant contributions to science, then surely there are different ways of arriving at legitimate knowledge. Without knowledge, there can be no science. Thus, the definition of “science” should be broadened, thereby including TEK as science. The intention is not to demean WMS, but instead to point out a body of scientific literature that provides great potential for enhancing our ability to develop more relevant science education programs.

TERMINOLOGY: WESTERN MODERN SCIENCE, INDIGENOUS SCIENCE, AND TEK
Since the phrases “Western modern science,” “indigenous science,” and “traditional ecological knowledge” all have multiple meanings it will be useful to linger briefly with definitions. For clarity, we shall distinguish between “Western modern science” which is the most dominant science in the world and “indigenous science” which interprets how the world works from a particular cultural perspective. This paper focuses on a subset of indigenous science referred to as “traditional ecological knowledge,” which is both the science of long-resident oral peoples and a biological sciences label for the growing literature which records and explores that knowledge.
What is Science?
As is well known, there are numerous versions of what science is, and of what counts as being scientific. The Latin root, scientia, means knowledge in the broadest possible sense and survives in such words as omniscience and prescience. Terms such as “modern science,” “standard science,” “Western science,” “conventional science,” and “official science” have been in use only since the beginning of the twentieth century. For some, scientific abstractions began with Sumerian astronomy and mathematics; for others, scientific theorizing began with Greek atomism; and for yet others, it began toward the end of the nineteenth century when scientists began to grapple with abstract theoretical propositions — for example, evolution, natural selection, and the kinetic-molecular theory. What confidence could one have in theoretical statements built from or based on unobservable data? Care was taken to develop logically consistent rules outlining how theoretical statements can be derived from observational statements. The intent was to create a single set of rules to guide the practice of theory justification (Duschl, 1994). Science can also refer to conceptual constructs approved by logical empiricism (positivism) which, in addition, has the capacity to carry science beyond the realms of observation and experiment. Also, we have come to refer to WMS as officially sanctioned knowledge which can be thought of as inquiry and investigation that Western governments and courts are prepared to support, acknowledge, and use. Some authors have represented “science” with the acronym WMS, which either means “Western modern science” (Ogawa, 1995) or “white male science” (Pomeroy, 1994). Striving toward comprehensive definitions, certain sociology of science scholars have described WMS as institutionalized in Western Europe and North America as a predominately white male, middle-class Western system of meaning and symbols (Rose, 1994; Simonelli, 1994).
In sharp contrast to the exclusivist definitions of science in the previous paragraph, Ogawa (1995) points science educators toward a broadly inclusive conceptualization of what science is by defining science rather simply as “a rational perceiving of reality” (p.588). The merit of the use of the word “perceiving”gives science a “dynamic nature” and acknowledges that “science can experience a gradual change at any time” (p.588). Another point put forward by Ogawa s that “rational” should be seen in relativistic terms, as discussed in the previous section.
The present WMS philosophical climate would require some reconfiguration if TEK, which takes a generally pragmatic approach, is to be properly received as science. Approaches to science seem to have proceeded along two fundamentally different courses — by the timeless procedure of relying on observation and experiment, and, during this century, by the theoretical examination of queries and assertions. By examining the methodology and logic of assertions, questions, and concept, logical empiricism (positivism) has come to function as a vigorous “gatekeeper” that has certainly succeeded in screening out metaphysical, pseudo-science during this century. In fact, logical empiricism (positivism) may have become so powerful a gatekeeper that even experimental science itself appears to have become diminished. Experiment cannot prove the [absolute] correctness of assertions, it can only help to rank or disconfirm theories. Hacking refers to the general difficulty in Boyd, Gaspar, and Trout (1991):

No field in the philosophy of science is more systematically neglected than experiment. Our grade school teachers may have told us that scientific method is experimental method, but histories of science have become histories of theory. (p.247)

Certainly, we may rejoice that logical empiricism (positivism) has been able to screen out historically destructive pseudo-science by exposing the meaninglessness of its metaphyscics, but there are problems. As poet Robert Frost put it, “Before I built a wall I’d ask what I was walling in or walling out, and to whom I was like to give offense.” As an expression of Western culture (or even as a system of pure, value free, universal truth), WMS must inevitably swim in a sea of cultural assumptions about progress, self-interest, winning/losing, aggressiveness, attitude to time (the purview of meaningful history), and the benefits of immediate advantage as opposed to the importance of long-term consequences.
Until the past two or three decades, the gatekeeper’s performance appears to have been generally celebrated. More recently, however, sociologists of science have been vigorous in identifying implicit values and assumptions that can be said to tacitly structure the gatekeeper’s activities. At the same time, a considerable number of working scientists, no doubt mindful of both the gatekeeper’s power to exclude and the real possibility of worldwide environmental collapse, have set up pragmatic TEK science shops. The fact that working scientists are increasingly acknowledging TEK suggests that there are sound reasons for changing the formal definitions of “science” so as to include such important forms of multicultural science as TEK.
Our position on “science” is closely aligned with that of Ogawa (1989) who prefers Elkana’s (1981) understanding of science, which argues that “every culture has its science,” … “something like its own way of thinking and/or its own worldview” and gives the following definition: “By science, I mean a rational (i.e., purposeful, good, directed) explanation of science of the physical world surrounding man” (p.1437). WE agree with Ogawa (1989) when he asserts that “Western science is only one form of science among the sciences of the world” (p.248). Also, the people living in an indigenous culture itself may not recognize the existence of its own science, hence, it may be transferred from generation to generation merely by invisible or nonformal settings (Ogawa, 1989).

Indigenous Science
According to Ogawa (1995), we must distinguish between two levels of science: individual or personal science and cultural or societal science. He refers to science at the culture or society level as “indigenous science” (p.588).
Although we all participate in indigenous science to a greater or lesser degree, long-resident, oral culture peoples may be thought of as specialists in local indigenous science. Indigenous science, sometimes referred to as ethnoscience, has been described as “the study of systems of knowledge developed by a given culture to classify the objects, activities, and events of its given universe” (Hardesty, 1977). Indigenous science interprets how the local world works through a particular cultural perspective. Expressions of science thinking are abundant throughout indigenous agriculture, astronomy, navigation, mathematics, medical practices, engineering, military science, architecture, and ecology. In addition, processes of science that include rational observation of natural events, classification, and problem solving are woven into all aspects of indigenous cultures. It is both remembered sensory information that is usually transmitted orally in descriptive names and in stories where abstract principles are encapsulated in metaphor (Bowers, 1993a, 1993b; Cruikshank, 1981, 1991; Nelson, 1983).
We may note that indigenous science includes the knowledge of both indigenous expansionist cultures (e.g., the Aztec, Mayan, and Mongolian Empires) as well as the home-based knowledge of long-term resident oral resident peoples (i.e., the Inuit, the Aboriginal people of Africa, the Americas, Asia, Australia, Europe, Micronesia, and New Zealand).

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)
Although the term TEK came into widespread use in the 1980s, there is no universally accepted definition of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in literature. The term is, by necessity, ambiguous since the words traditional and ecological knowledge are themselves ambiguous. Dictionary etymology shows the Latin roots of “traditional science” to be “knowledge” scientia of the world that is “handed across” or “traded” (from the Latin traduare) across generations of long-resident oral traditional peoples. “Traditional” usually refers to a cultural continuity transmitted in the form of social attitudes, beliefs, principles, and conventions of behavior and practice derived from historical experience. However, as Berkes (1993) points out, “societies change through time, constantly adopting new practices and technologies, and making it difficult to define just how much and what kind of change would affect the labeling of a practice as traditional” (p.3). Because of this, many scholars avoid using the term “traditional.” As well, some purists find the term unacceptable or inappropriate when referring to societies such as native northern groups whose lifestyles have changed considerably over the years. For this reason, some prefer the term “indigenous knowledge” (IK), which helps avoid the debate about tradition, and explicitly puts the emphasis on indigenous people (Berkes, 1993). The term “ecological knowledge” poses definition problems of its own. If ecology is defined narrowly as a branch of biology in the domain of Western science, then strictly speaking there can be no TEK; most traditional peoples are not modern Western scientists. If ecological knowledge is defined broadly to refer to the “knowledge, however acquired, of relationships of living being with one another and with the environment, then the term TEK becomes tenable” (Berkes, 1993, p.3)
TEK generally represents experience acquired over thousands of years of direct human contact with the environment. Although the term TEK only came into widespread use, the practice of TEK is ancient (Berkes, 1993). The science of long-resident peoples differs considerably from group to group depending on locale and is knowledge built up through generations of living in close contact with the land. Figure 1 show one way of attempting to describe TEK within an indigenous science framework and of emphasizing its importance to contemporary environmental issues. Examples of indigenous and TEK science may be accessed through living elders and specialists of various kinds or found in the literature of TEK, anthropology, ethnology, ethnobiology, ethnogeography, ethnohistory, and mythology, as well as in the archived records of traders, missionaries, and government functionaries.
TEK information is sometimes cherished as private or belonging to one family only. Also, in many traditions, oral information may only be shared under particular circumstances, for example, when it is clear that no one intends to use the knowledge for gain.

Relativity, Relatedness and Reality

By Vine Deloria, Jr.

It was not so long ago that Newtonian physics and mathematics described a world of absolute space, time and matter and people believed that understanding the universe completely was simply a matter of policing up the obscure subjects which had not received much attention in the past. Then the Michelson-Morley experiments to detect and measure, if possible, the “ether” which was thought to exist between large bodies in the solar systems returned a blank and thinkers went back to their solitude to try and understand what this failure actually meant for cosmology—and by extension for science itself.

The result of deliberations by many of the best minds of the age was a theory put forth by Albert Einstein, then a patent clerk in Germany, and certainly not a luminary of the academic establishment. Einstein’s thesis, viewed from our present perspective, is hardly revolutionary and probably just a simple corrective of the centuries of belief that human beings could know the innermost workings of the larger cosmos by examining phenomenon on one tiny planet on the edge of a galaxy. Space, time, and matter, Einstein argued, are concepts whose measurement should be in relationship to the context in which they are to be used. That is to say, these ideas are not part of the eternal structure of the universe in and of themselves but they are how we describe this universe, and therefore since we do have experiences we can use these ideas and they have substance as long as we remember that we are part of the process of gathering information.

Nearly three generations have been required to work through the implications of relativity and physics and mathematics have prospered immensely in their ability to probe the micro and macro levels of cosmic existence once freed from the idea of absolute time and space. Other “science” have not fared as well because many of their practitioners adopted the idea that everything is “relative,” which is to say, there is no absolute truth or description of reality, it all depends on the action of the observer and the nature of the experiment or investigation. In the social sciences in particular, the idea of including the observer meant a reduction of certainty almost to the point of personal preference. Americans, as we are likely to do , have reduced relativity to a form of psychobabble.

We Are All Relatives
A positive by-product of the entrenchment of relativity in the non-mathematical sciences and disciplines has been the willingness of people to look at non-Western cultures and give them a measure of respect for their knowledge of the natural world. In my previous article I reviewed the tendency of pioneer thinkers to begin to bring separate fields of inquiry together by merging ideas and concepts and in effect create new sciences which weld together the bodies of knowledge which should not have been separated in the first place. Strangely there has been very little attention paid to Indian methodologies for gathering data and, consequently, the movement is primarily and ad-hoc, personal preference way of gathering new ideas and attempting to weld them to existing bodies of knowledge. We cannot expect fundamental change in the manner in which Western scientists interpret their data until massive changes in individual items occur and a paradigm shift is forced by the failure of the established doctrines in the field to explain the materials.

The Indian perspective of the natural world is not subject to this limitation because it already has a fundamental principle of interpretation/observation which pervades everything that Indians think or experience. Thus verification of existing knowledge and the addition of new knowledge is simply a matter of adding to the already considerable body of information which Indians possess. And unfortunate aspect of the Indian knowledge is that so much data has been lost in the last century as Indians have been prevented from roaming freely over their traditional homelands, gathering plants and animals for food and ceremonies, and performing those ceremonies which ensured the prosperity of the earth and its life forms. Nevertheless the information which we formerly had remain available to us if we can return to the traditional manner in which we related to lands and life.

The Indian principle of interpretation/observation is simplicity itself: “We are all relatives.” Most Indians hear this phrase thousands of times a year as they attend or perform ceremonies and for many Indians without an ongoing ritual life the phrase seems to be simply a liturgical blessing that includes all other forms of life in human ceremonial activities. But this phrase is very important as a practical methodological tool for investigating the natural world and drawing conclusions about it which can serve as guides for understanding nature and living comfortably within it.

“We are all relatives” when taken as a methodological tool for obtaining knowledge means that we observe the natural world by looking for relationships between various things in it. That is to say, everything in the natural world has relationships with every other thing and the total set of relationships makes up the natural world as we experience it. This concept is simply the relativity concept as applied to a universe which people experience as alive and not as dead or inert. Thus Indians knew that stones were the perfect beings because they were self-contained entities which had resolved their social relationships and possessed great knowledge about how every other entity, and every species, should live. Stones had mobility but did not need to use it. Every other being had mobility and needed, in some specific manner, to use it in relationships.

Harvest By Observation
Materials illustrating kinds of relationships are plentiful but it is necessary when speaking to them to ponder their meaning very seriously in order to understand the body of knowledge which they represent. I will use some examples from the Plains but the same kind of demonstrative process could be done by using the knowledge of the Pacific Northwest tribes, the desert tribes of the Southwest, and the woodlands tribes of the eastern United States. It is my hope that the present generation of Indian students will adopt some version of this methodology as they are studying Western science, particularly social and biological science, and leapfrog into prominence in their fields by writing and teaching from an Indian perspective. In this way science will move very quickly into a more intelligent understanding of the natural world.

The tribes who lived along the Missouri River and its tributaries grew corn and vegetables but also conducted a summer hunt for buffalo, deer and antelope. It was their practice to plant the crops, do one hoeing to reduce the weeds and grasses around the corn hills, and then depart for the high plains and Rocky Mountains for July and August to prepare meat for the winter. We might think there was great concern about the condition of the corn crops since corn would provide the major food supply during winter. But the tribes had already perceived plant relationships and so had what we might call “indicator plants” which told them how their corn was coming.

The Pawnees simply examined the seed pods of the milk weed and when these pods had reached a certain condition and were at maturity, they packed up everything and headed for home, arriving in time to harvest their corn and hold a corn dance. At first glance this information seems like an interesting tidbit but has nothing to do with relatedness or relativity. In fact the Pawnee had been able to discern, through observation or by information given to them in a ceremony, that corn and milkweed had about the same growing season. To be more precise, milkweed was a bit faster growing than corn because it would take several weeks to return to their villages after having examined the milkweed. Western science might run across the similarity between the two plants but the chances of making the linkage and being able to use it predictively for practical purposes are minimal.

Standing Bear said that “away from the woods grew the sand cherries on little low shrubs. Around and over the sand hills, and patches so barren that not a blade of grass grew, these bushes flourished, yielding a luscious fruit which we were very careful in gathering. We picked this fruit only against the wind, for if we stood with our body odors going toward the fruit its flavor was destroyed.” Here we see that scope of relatedness in a surprising context. Unquestionably we have a human-plant relationship but one in which the human is the less sensitive participant. The human had to be particularly aware of the bush and pay unusual respect to it in order to use its fruit.

I would be curious to learn how an anthropologist or botanist trained in Western science would explain how the Sioux discovered this fact of plant life. people would have to harvest the fruit for a reasonably long time in order to have enough experiences with it to formulate the most constructive way to relate to the bush. But what on earth would inspire anyone to look into the direction of the wind when picking fruit? Annual harvests would occur for a very short time each summer. The variance in rain, heat, and other climactic factors would appear to be so much more important in determining the condition of the fruit that it would seem unlikely that anyone could identify human body odor as the critical factor in the relationship. Yet the Sioux were able to identify this element from everything else that needed to be considered.

Some information must have come directly from observations made by the people and once this knowledge was gained, it was put to good use. Standing Bear noted that gophers and other small animals cached their food for the winter and “our women knew the likely places of these caches, usually near a low bank, and went hunting for them with long, sharp-pointed sticks. They poked in the ground until they came to a soft spot in the earth, and there, ten or twelve inches under the soil and carefully covered with fine dry shredded grass, would be nice lot of vegetables lying in a heap as fresh as when they were gathered. Some of these caches would be three feet in diameter and would hold as much as one person could carry.”

I suppose it is not good public relations to recount how the Indians used to steal from the gophers but from this bit of information we can derive two things. First, Indians had the knowledge of the natural world necessary to sustain themselves in spite of any misfortune that might befall them. Thus a person lost on the prairie would not starve because of his knowledge. But more important, by watching how the animals preserved food, the people learned that they could use the same techniques to preserve their foods. Standing Bear says that the gopher caches were “models of neatness… there would be no sign of the tops and roots, both being cut clean from the vegetable, whereas when the women stored they left both attached tying bunches together by the long string-like roots.” The Indians, of course, did not have large bags and boxes for carrying vegetables and therefore had to keep the roots so they could tie the food to poles and harnesses in order to carry them.

Buffalo, Bulrushes and Sunflowers
Not all information about the natural world came as a result of careful observation based on the principle of relatedness. If we greatly expand our understanding of the sense of being relatives, we discover that plants, birds, and animals often gave specific information to the people. Standing Bear described one such instance. “A food that had an interesting history for us was the tall plant that grew in the swamps, commonly called the bulrush. The duck, who brought many good plants and roots to the tribe, told the Duck Dreamer medicine-man about it and named it spa. In the early spring and summer we welcomed this plant, which was pulled up by the roots, and the white part eaten like celery.” Here is a bird-human relationship that involves information about the plant and its use. We do not know what the subsequent plant-human relationship was or might have become but we can assume that at some point the tribe had more knowledge than what Standing Bear relates.

An observation that always struck me as critically important for understanding the plant and animal relationship, although I have no good explanation for it, regarded the buffalo and the sunflower. I briefly mentioned this behavior in my previous article and I would like to expand my comments on it. Standing Bear wrote that “the buffalo loved the simple and odorless sunflower just as did the Lakota. These great beasts wandered through the sunflower fields, wallowing their heads among them. Sometimes they uprooted the plants and wound them about their backs, letting sprays dangle from their left horns.”

I suspect that we have here and observation of a buffalo ceremonial, perhaps even the buffalo version of the Sundance performed by human beings. Or we may have a form of buffalo recreation. There is no question that this kind of behavior enabled the sunflower seeds to be scattered over a much greater distance than they would otherwise be able to reach but the benefit to the buffalo, other than enjoyment, was not explained. Nevertheless we have to recognize that the buffalo, bear and the cottonwood tree were there three dominant non-human entities on the Great Plains, that they engaged in purposeful action, and that they dominated even the ceremonial relationships of humans. Therefore it is highly probable that we have in this behavior a much deeper meaning than we can presently explain.

These examples are only the anecdotal data that is most easily retried today in a library, information about the buffalo could be multiplied a thousand fold by talking with the people who are now raising buffalo and are now coming back to a knowledge of this animal. At a recent meeting of the Intertribal Bison Cooperative in Rapid City speaker after speaker related observations on the intelligence and knowledge of this animal, affirming in many instances information which had been passed down in the oral tradition but never verified by the Sioux people because of being on the reservation the last 120 years. Each speaker at this training session, however, once again confirmed the ancient understanding that these creatures are more like humans in their behavior than they are like other animals—if you know how to interpret their behavior.

Reality By the Senses
The theory of relativity dislodged Western science in its belief that humans could not obtain absolute truth about the constitution and processes of the natural world. What this theory really did was eliminate the naive belief that by using one particular methodology, that of reducing everything to mechanical form, we could completely understand the world around us. This old belief saw reality as something beyond our senses and means of apprehension and Western people have held this belief since the time of the Greek philosophers. For American Indians, however, it was not necessary to postulate the existence of an ideal world of perfect forms untouched by space or time or to suggest that space, time and matter were inherent and absolute qualities of the physical world which, when properly described in mathematical terms, could accurately explain the universe.

For most Indian tribes it was enough that they understood the manner in which living things behaved. Recognizing that the universe was alive, they began to accumulate knowledge about how every other entity behaved in various situations. Once this knowledge had begun to expand beyond he ability of anyone to remember, various people would come to be experts in how entities would behave in certain kinds of circumstances. Thus there was specialization somewhat like present academic subdivisions of bodies of knowledge but the major principle of relatedness always remained as the critical interpretive method of understanding phenomena.

Reality for tribal peoples, as opposed to the reality sought by Western scientists, was the experience of the moment coupled with the interpretive scheme which had been woven together over the generations. If there were other dimensions to life, the religious experiences and dreams certainly indicated the presence of other ways of living, even the places, they were regarded as part of an organic whole and not as distinct form other experiences, times, and places in the same way that Western thinkers have always believed. Indians never had a need to posit the existence of a “real” reality beyond the senses because they felt that their senses gave them the essence of physical existence in enabling them to see how the other creatures behaved. Life in other dimensions was not thought to be much different than what had been experienced already.

Giving Science a Sense of Purpose
The next generation of American Indians could radically transform scientific knowledge by grounding themselves in traditional knowledge about the world and demonstrating who everything is connected to everything else. Advocacy of this idea would involve showing how personality and a sense of purpose must become part of the knowledge which science confronts and understands. The present posture of most Western scientists is to deny any sense of purpose and direction to the world around us, believing that to do so would be to introduce mysticism and superstition. Yet what could be more superstitious than to believe that the world in which we live and where we have our most intimate personal experiences is not really trustworthy and that another, mathematical world exists that represents a true reality?

The idea of a relatedness of all things is not new but it may seem to be outmoded to some Indian students who have been trained in Western scientific thinking. A good way to test this idea would be to go talk with elders about what they know of plants, animals, and the natural world. If the student keeps the methodology of trying to relate bits of information to all elements in the scenario, that is to say, to regard information about plants as relevant to the birds and animals who use them and the location where they are found, there is no question that a great deal of important knowledge will be achieved. Taking these diverse bits of understanding and working them into the Western scientific format will be little difficult at first but eventually the student will discover that he or she is the possessor of a knowledge much broader, deeper, and more comprehensive than what is being taught in the classroom.