Tag Archives: Dr. Shigeru Kounosu

Indigenous Science

Notes On The Epistemology of Discrimination And The Epistemology of Liberation. Ver. Fall 1987.

Study Notes in NAS 2000. Native Philosophy

Gall 1987. S. Kounosu

Notes ON the Epistemology Of Discrimination And the Epistemology of Liberation.

I. The Problems of Social Recognition.

1. In most any society, there are Class Distinctions, and therefore there has to be Discrimination. Hence, even a famous Physicist, Michael Faraday had to practice saying, “Rain in Spain falls mainly on plain” before he was admitted into Royal Society London.

Speaking the “Proper English” was a mark of the Upper Class in British Society. That even the reputed Scientific Society had to insist on what we might today consider “Snobbism” is not unique to British. And preoccupation with Stylism,, rather than the substance of learning and the capacity of creative thinking, is interesting for our considerations on Epistemology. It suggests that “Science” is perhaps a term of Praise and a tool of Class Distinction/Oppression, aside from its claimed virtues such as “Utility”, “Rationality”, and “Truth”.

The easiest way to discriminate something is by what is visible on the surface. We do that, therefore, by color of skin, hair styles, ways of dress. Languages are another easy target. We discriminate against people by their accents. In academic context, writing stylism is ver handy one. Substance, content, utility, messages are worst for discrimination. And by the time one “understands”, discrimination becomes ineffective.

(There are reasons for some standards for the efficiency of communication in social scales. And there are problems concerning the “Meaning” that people intend to transmit or grasp, and “Understanding” that a community of people reaches through communication. I shall discuss this in later part of this note.)

2. Under ordinary circumstances, we are not critical enough to distinguish between “Knowledge” and “Expression of Knowledge”. We think, if one knows, one ought to be able to express the knowledge in a proper form. We do not think stylisms, Rhetoric, etc., are important in Science. Nonetheless, we demand and judge “Knowledge” by the stylism, like judging the contents by the containers-packages by which they are wrapped.

To learn what we are doing in this regard, let us consider the examples below:

We note that Native Americans knew of the cooperative interdependence among living organisms, trees, animals, and humans, etc. It so happened that a word “Symbiosis” was “discovered” by academic science in 1960s. The notion of Symbiosis is, of course, recognized as a part of Science.

Does the Academy of Science credit Native Americans for the Discovery of Symbiosis? Of course not. But why?

One of rationalizations may be that Native Americans did not make “Knowledge Claim”. Native Americans did not publish their knowledge in Academic Journals, nor did they present their knowledge to an adjudicating body such as Royal Society. Perhaps, Natives practiced saying “Rain in Spain falls mainly on plain”, they might have had a chance for the recognition. But they did not.

3. In National Geographic Magazine [November, 1987] had an article about New Mexico. The article mentioned Dr. Fred Begay, who is a Navajo Indian. Dr. Begay thinks that the Myth about “Warriors Armed with Weapons of Light” suggests an ancient Navajo understanding of Laser Theory.

But there is a problem here. According to our standard “Ritual” of Knowledge Claim, such an “Understanding”, even if existed, does not count as “Knowing”. Because it was not expressed in a “proper format”. One has to write it up and submit it to an Authority, Just as Land Claims are. Natives did not accept the Authority of Whitemen’s Institutions. Therefore, there was no “Registration” submitted for Whitemen’s Recognition. So it remains outside Science.

4. In Leslie Marmon Silko’s Ceremony [Viking Press 1977. PS3569 I44 c4.] a Navajo Indian named Josiah gets cows of a hardy variety adaptable to the harsh climatic condition of the locality, instead of Holsteins that white ranchers around him raise. The idea is “scientific”, but then the poor Indian is not an “Agronomist”, had no school education, of course, nor Ph.D. Whatever he learned from his practical experiences is not recognized as “Science”. One can be a “Good Samaritan”, but cannot be a “Christian” unless one is formally labeled by the Church Authority.

5. Worse yet, I found a passage, in John R. Swanton’s collection of Haida Myth, describing Copper Smelting. It is the “standard” knowledge among anthropologists and ethnologists that North American Natives had not known Smelting Technology. Mayans knew smelting, but Haidas were supposed to be ignorant. The problem is that the Native Informer apparently did not know the Smelting Technology and narrated it to Swanton as a Myth about “Copper Salmon”. Swanton did not know Copper Smelting, and record the narration as a Myth and translated into English as such.

[Swanton.J.R. Haida Texts: Masset Dialect. “The Copper Salmon” Jesup Expedition vol. 10, part 2. p. 689. AMS Press 1975 P1,1L274 Zg 1137.]

Because the “standard theory” dictated that Haidas were ignorant about copper smelting, the field worker was not alert to notice the story to be any more than an incomprehensible Myth. And because the famous Ethnologist said it is a Myth, Haidas themselves think it Myth. They think their ancestors had no science.

To be sure Haidas today are well educated people. I am not surprised at all, if there are Ph.D. metallurgists among them. But the degrees came from schools in Euro American stylism. What schools teach as “science” has a certain “ritual” stylism, which is not readily identifiable with the stylism of the Native narrations. It is hard to recognize what are hidden under the name of Myth.

6. Carlos Castaneda’s stories are sold as “Stories”. does that mean readers cannot learn anything “Scientific” from them? Perhaps, many scholars and scientists would say Castaneda was “making up stories”. It is fiction, any way.

But, I wonder if the same scholars and scientists would say that Mathematics is just a “made up linguistic system” and hence “unscientific”, for it is not concerned with “experimental facts”, “observations” or anything “real”. On the top of that, Mathematics is proved to be either inconsistent or incomplete by mathematics itself.

Newton’s “Theory” of motions and Einstein’s “Theory” of Gravitational Field are not “descriptions of facts”, but rather aids to descriptions. Basically, they belong to Metaphysics.

What are, then the differences between Castaneda’s “Stories” and “Theories” in Physics or Mathematics?

Shall we say that one is recognized as “Science” by well established institutions of Science, and the other is not. Therefore, one is science and the other is not? If it were a political or religious matter, we might base our judgment on institutional authority. But is such a judgment itself “scientific”?

If not, what are the criteria? We use the term “Science” and “Scientific” frequently. But we do not have a set of clear specifications to judge if an Intellectual work is “Science” or not.

7. In the time of Colonialism, the British Empire had a great interest about China, and it produced “China Experts”. Some of Cambridge Professors became famous for their knowledge on China. Their reputations and prestige were World Wide, and what they said about China was taken as “Truth”, at least in Euro-American Academia. One of such dogmatic “Truth”, until late 1960’s, was that China never had Science. They acknowledged that China “Technology” such as production of Paper, Gun Powder, Rocket, Water Clock, Mechanical Dolls, etc. “Technology” is something practical and useful for working people, but it is not “Science” that European Scholars and Intellectuals take serious. It takes a Superior Intelligence to do “Science”. Naturally, Chinese could not have had “Science”.

Today, it is not wise to make such a contemptuous statement about China. So the professors stop saying that. But there has been no sign that those professors repudiated the previous view on Chinese Science. They apparently did not revise their “definition” of Science.

Now, suppose some Native make a claim of “Native Science”. What would be the reaction of the Experts? They may be polite and may not ask questions. But do they take Native Science serious? I doubt it.

8. Some 40% of medicines (chemical drugs) came from North American Native Herb Medicines. If one count Chinese Herb Medicines, the percentage would double. Does the “Medical Science” of ours recognize this? The North American Medical Profession would denounce Native Herb Medicine, being “Superstitious”, if not dangerous.

The “Medical Science” does not know how a chemical works, for the majority of cases. It only knows “effects”. Yet one is called “Science” and the other is called “Superstition”. How the two medicines are distinguished and discriminated?

It goes back to Stylism. One refined by test tube type chemical processes is the “Scientific Medicine”. One that is used in forms closer to the Natural state is the “Superstition Medicine”. The differences in Stylisms are far from trivial.

(To be sure, some medical doctors are honest enough to call Medicine and “Art”. But the people in the “culture”, in general, would be frightened to hear such a statement. They much rather “Believe” blindly in “Medical Science”. That is, those people who use the term “science” are rather superstitious.)

9. these are but a few examples of how Native Science is hidden from our recognition. And the “Recognition” has to do with “Social Status”. Practical people wishing to achieve a certain practical result would not and could not care less whether what they use is called “Science” or not. It does not bother them much.

And, that the Academia to be incompetent in recognizing Native Science may be a trivial matter. The Academia is fragmented to hundreds of small specialties. And scholars and scientists today have to compete within those specialty. They could not care less, if they do not know something, other than what gives the advantage in their competition.

But, if we are to consider the “Understanding by a society as a whole”, the matter is very serious. In the Political Economics of ours, “Recognition” is an important element. It defines “Reality”. And social scale cooperations of people must be based on the “Reality” as such. That some of “Recognition” is like the value of stocks just a matter of “Face Value” does not prevent them from being “Significant” and being taken seriously. And, for the “understanding” that a society or a community makes up by communication, Language Expressions are critically important. What are talked about in a society represents the “Intelligence” of the society.

Sticks and stones only hurt you personally, but “Names” (language expressions) could kill a society.

The above examples point the need of a critical examination of what we mean by the word “Science”. A simple act of uttering two words “Native Science” is a Political Act. Our Society can either reject it in laughing, or pay serious attention. In either case, the consequences are not trivial.

II. What is the difference between “Science” and “Practical Know-How”?

10. One outwardly visible feature of “Science” is that it is “Refined” in its articulation. And since the establishment of Scholasticism in the Middle Ages, the “Refine” meant “In Writing”.

[For Science in the Middle Ages, see; D.C. Lindberg (ed.) Science In the Middle Ages. U. of Chicago Press 1978. Q174.97 s35. W.A. Wallace Prelude to Galileo Boston Studies In the Philosophy Of Science vol.62. D. Reidel Press 1981. Q175 873. D.C. Lindberg and R.L. Numbers. God And Nature U. of Calif. Press 1986. EL245 G53.]

That is, what is not written (printed) is not “Science”. The “Oral Tradition” of Natives is therefore excluded from Science as such. Today, under the rule known as “Publish or Perish”, it is extremely difficult to survive as a “scientist” without producing written statements. One might teach science, through experiments and oral communication, but one has to “edify” the teaching by some written materials. Even in this essay, I had to quote books published to impress upon you that I am doing a “Scholarly Work”. Whether or not you are duly impressed, that is the academic ritual.

Book Knowledge counts far more significant than personal experiences, observations, and thinking. And everybody in academia knows that citing of Big Names is very effective weapon, if one wishes to be taken serious. Quoting diary of one’s grandmother does not fare well in academia, and, I imagine, quoting some obscure Indian woman is not too much better than that. The assumption is that, if it is important at all, some Big Name Scholar must have picked up and published somewhere. That one does not quote from the Big Name can only mean ignorance.

11. But, in the History of Science, until very recently, private letters were important media of scientific and scholarly communication. One can see, in recent publications, scientists like Newton, Leibniz, Faraday, Einstein, Cartan, et al used private letters for important scientific communication. They could not quote Big Names, because what they were “creating” were not known by the Big Names of previous ages. Besides, intellectuals such as Voltaire, Hegel, Mill, Goethe, et al, all had intense interests in Mechanics, Differential Calculus, etc., and apparently learned these things in private meetings (parties) through oral means. Interestingly, Voltaire, in particular, learned Newtonian Calculus-Mechanics from his Lady patron, Emilie Marquise du Chatelet. One can get some glimpse of the “Learning Through Conversation” by reading “Dialogues” by Galileo, Diderot, et al. There, apparently,Oral Tradition was alive and playing an essential role in the development of Science (though today we can only read them to guess how it was.)

[D. Diderot. The Dream of D’Alembert 1769. Neveu de Rameau 1761. G. Galilei Dialogue Concerning New Science. 1632.]

Today, thanks to the advancement in Printing Technology, we have almost killed the Oral Tradition in Science. At least, for formal recognition on Knowledge Claim, one has to have Printed Evidence.

12. One might say that this requirement of Printed Statements is a consequence of “Socialization” of Science. Science today is a “Profession”, not a “private” matter. Besides, Science today takes a huge financial backing, so much so that if one is not supported by ‘grants”, one is liable to be judged “unscientific”. The prestige of scientists are often measured by the Dollar Value of the grants they receive.

Science Native Americans did not get “Research Grant” to do their Science, and often they did not print their findings, it is likely that the Natives are judged as “Unscientific”. I wonder, if the Natives themselves think of “science” and judge their scientists by the Money Value. It used to be said in the North America, “If you are so smart, how come you are so poor.” Since, Natives see themselves “poor”, therefore they might think that they are not smart enough to do Science.

This is a Politico-Economy of Science today.

13. There remains an Epistemological question concerning the relations among “Expressions in Language”, “Knowing”, and “Understanding”. This is a question in Hermeneutics.

[see: Paul Ricoeur Hermeneutics And Human Science. Cambridge U press 1981.]

We note that in Euro American Culture, “Knowing” is only recognized by “Expression in Language” (Symbolisms, Signs, inclusive). And “Understanding” is reduced to insignificance, relative to the “Expression”.

We are not quite sure what are the differences between the people who knows Newton’s Equation for Gravitation (or Einstein’s Equation for the same) and people who competently move themselves and objects in the Gravitational Field.

The former is deemed to have Knowledge, in “Scientific” sense. The later has the skill to perform the task of moving, but is deemed to be ignorant. It matters little in terms of having the honor title of Knowledge, if one is able to break the Olympic Record in spectacular high jumping.

But then, spectacular high flight to Moon by a Rocket is said to be “Scientific”. I suppose the difference is that for the High Jump, we normally use little “language expression”, whereas for High Space Flight, we imagine many, many Formulas are used.

However, we not that no Formula in Physics had “understanding” of Gravity. In fact, the majority of human race seems to get less understanding when more Formula are used. Natives who had to survive in”raw” Nature appear to have had better “Understanding” of the Nature, but not much Formula. Are we, therefore, to call Natives ignorant?

In addition, we note a prevalent attitude to look down people who do things, relative to “aristocrats” who do not work. Intellectuals are respected, because they do not labor. Farmers are raged individualists, but they know the Power of Bankers who do no physical labor.

14. Newtonian Mechanics can be traced back to Euclid Geometry via Descartes’s Analysis. Relativity also came from Geometry. But, Geometry is one of the 9 Muses in Greek Myth.

Muses were 9 daughters of Gaea and Uranus (or of various others, which indicates that Muses preceded the time of Patriarchy where Zeus came in). They were, Thalia (Muse General), Memory (Clio), Calliope (Poetry), Terpischore (Dance), Melphomene (Tragedy), Erato (Love Poem), Euterpe (Music), Polyhymnia (Sacred Song and Geometry), Urania (Astronomy) [B.G. Walker The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myth and Secrets. Harper and Row 1983. However, Walker does not mention Geometry among Muses.]

The Alexandrian Museum was a Shrine of Muses and it was a institution very similar to what we might consider the “Ideal Liberal Art University”. And we not that those essential subjects for education were represented by Goddess. It was likely that women taught those subjects. Besides, learning as such was a “Delight”, if not “Erotic”. It was “Sacred”, but not in the secular sense of “Work”. Learning was “Ceremony” of Humaneness.

And Geometry was among muses (according to Aristotle et al). Perhaps, it might have meant “Visual Art”. Or, perhaps, it meant The Harmony (Structure) of the Universe. And Geometry was the Grandmother of Science.

If we understand Geometry as such, the we can also appreciate Geometrical Patterns of Native “Art” as “Science”. It deals with “Perceptions” of the World. It depicts Relationships of things and events, as the Spider Woman of Navajo Myth did. And notably, the “Mythological Geometry” also included Time Dimension, preceding Relativistic Cosmology.

[As to these senses of Cosmology, Silko also makes references in the novel Ceremony. For Artistic side, see Kandinsky’s writing. For “Eros”, see Wilhelm Reich Cosmic Superimposition. 1949. Wilhelm Reich The Mass Psychology Of Fascism. M. Bermann Enchantment of the World. J. Spring A Primer of Libertarian Education. Black Rose Books 1975. LC189 s73.]

At any rate, once we get to the level of “Understanding”, it is almost impossible to discriminate Muses from “Science”.

The reason we discriminate Native Science is that we do not want to “Understand” it. We do not wish to know the meaning. What we are afraid of is our own liberation. We do not like the burden of freedom. As to this, Existentialist writers wrote extensively. Therefore, I shall not repeat. But we ought pay some attention to what Nietzsche called “Slave Mentality”. To be free is not painless.

Even Castaneda who was lured by Power Trip, begun to know the History of Colonial Oppression. Castaneda did not develop an Understanding of the history, but it appears that he was bothered by it. The reason Castaneda did not “understand” the history was perhaps he was not prepared to take the pain. One wonder, if Castaneda went deep into the Colonial History, what would hve happened to the popularity of his books. Perhaps, he would never made “Best Sellers”. Readers do not wish to understand either. Rather, Castaneda stayed at the level of Power Trip. Today, such is the “Knowledge”, which is a “Commodity” to be sold at Market.

Of course, some of us in academia, who have to write in the way acceptable to editors of journals, are not in the position to cast stones at Castaneda. We are in the profession of manufacturing sellable “knowledge”. “Understanding” is perhaps too personal. Or, we are afraid, if our society as a whole “Understands” something, someone gets hurt. Because that is no less than a Revolution.

15. Relative to the Ancient Science, we see that our “Science” has gone through many changes, (or “perversions”). By the time of Aristotle, despite references to Muses, Science was already a “Macho”, “Authoritarian” Institution.

In the Middle Ages, it became Book Knowledge.

In Renaissance, it appeared to turn back to “Art” and “Artisan” (“craftsmanship”) for a short while. But the development of the “Absolute Power States” negated the move soon after. Newtonian Mechanics reflects the historical condition of the time. Mechanization of Thinking went with mechanization of Political System. Intellectuals were not a part of “Working Class”. Hence, the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages was revived in New Science very soon after it was appeared to have destroyed it. Of course, the emerging “intellectuals”, “scientists” were from lower class, and they brought “Work Ethics” with them. They were nominal “Petty Bourgeois”, but substantially “Proletariat”. These sociological conditions shaped what we call Science today. The Class Distinctions among people killed the Liberating Spirit of the “New Science” that Galileo et al started.

It is interesting to note that the “Fathers” of Modern Science were very much like “Spiritual Gurus”. For example, Rene Descartes had a Dream in which Angels appeared and told him to work on the mission of New Science. Descartes, pretending to be an “Enlightened Rational Intellectual” never mentioned his Dream in Public. Newton was a very devout Religious man. He wrote on Religious matters more than he wrote on Mechanics. He also indulged in Alchemy and spent more time on it than on Mechanics. Of course, physics texts rarely mention such things about Newton.

If we say Medicine Men and Medicine Women are “Religious”, and therefore they cannot be “Scientific”, we must also say that Newton and Descartes could not have been “Scientific”. That we dare not disqualify Descartes and Newton from being “scientists” is an evidence of our Prejudice.

The difference between Common Sense and Science is our habit of Class Distinction. We use our Superstition to Discriminate some people and Justify our Prejudice. There is nothing “Rational” about our edification of “science” and in our Worship of Printed knowledge. It is a matter of Politics.

III. Towards Liberation Science, Liberation Epistemology and The Role of Native Science in the Liberation.

What is “knowledge” if it does not help people to be liberated? For what value we learn Science?

And what is our strategy towards Liberation?

16. Science is far from “Value Neutral”. Slaves are the ones who have no value sense of their own. If Scientists who work on the routines of a Production Line have no “Value Sensation”, it is only because they are degraded to be Slaves. It is also known by a Sociological term “Alienation”. In such a case, their Masters have the sense of value and exercise will Power over them. “Value Neutral” means that the slaves give up the Right of questioning the Values held by the Masters.

Most Scientists work for Money. Some work for personal Pride, or Prestige. Some work for Power. A few work for the good of humanity. There are minority of Scientists who do Science for Love and Fun. Some may be “compulsive”, “megalomaniac”, “neurotic” etc. But there are “Values” in any case. And the Value dictates the Stylist of Science.

Different Cultures have different set of Values, or Value Priority Science in different Cultures would be different. And Stylisms would be different. The ways of communicating would be different. These things make recognition of “different silence” difficult. The only way to breakthrough and overcome such barriers is “Understanding”. But, even Understanding of European Science is not trivial. There are “good reasons” why we do not Recognize Native Science. Namely, we do not understand ourselves. Studies of Native Science is, actually, a help for us to understand ourselves.

17. Even within European Physics, Mechanics and Field Theory are completely different. Mechanics chases around motions of objects. Field Theory is concerned with “Environment”, so to speak. Only because their common Historical roots, they are recognized as two branches of the “Same” physics. But the level of “intelligence” is different between the two. If one is trained, one would immediately recognize the difference is Stylisms. That is more profound than what is referred as “Paradigm Shift”.

Unfortunately, European intellectuals in general are not aware of the difference. They are still in the Old Physics of Newtonian Mechanics.

A prime example is the Behaviorists in Psychology. They are trying a simplified Newtonian Mechanics for studies of “Mind”, but have no appreciation of Field Theory. Whereas, Native Americans exhibit Field Theoretical thinking patterns more often than Mechanical ones.

[see F. Capra Tao of Physics. 1975 and The Turning Point. 1982. E. Lehrs. Spiritual Science. Electricity and Michael Faraday. R. Steiner Press 1975.

Freud was “Mechanical”. Whereas Jung was Field Theoretical.]

18. In addition to the above two, Physics recently has come to “Non-Linear Physics”, (In Math the same is called “Catastrophe Theory” or “Topological Dynamics”, etc.) Or one might say that Physics finally has come to deal with the Complexity and Sensitivity that were neglected for a long time.

I shall not explain this new Physics here. But it is noted that Native Thinking Patterns are remarkably similar to “Non-Linear” Physics.

It appears that Natives are not “Primitive”, but rather too “sophisticated” in their thinking to be effective in a large social scale. When one wishes to get a heterogeneous society to cooperate in a Mass Mobilization, “Simple Slogans” are essential. The “Mass” was commanded by the Power. Things like “Understanding” was ignored. In the past 300 years or so, European Intelligence primarily depended on simple Mechanical thinking and pushed the Industrialization by Force.

It was a great success in one sense, but we all know that it created many problems. We came to the Dead End of the Simplified Power Strategy. Even if good for some, the days of “Forcing” is over. Guns that symbolize the Newtonian Way of doing things no longer bring solutions to the problems. “The Power of Revolution does not reside in the barrels of Guns”, if we parphrase Mao’s famous slogan.

Unfortunately, problems such as Environmental Pollution (concerning the Stability, Elasticity of Environment) are essentially Non-Linear. Simple Linear control devices such as “Money” do not work well. We need more sophisticated thinking to deal with complex Systems and complex Fields.

An important example of Non-Linear Field Dynamics is “Sensitivity” of Humans. But it is difficult, if one is to approach from European Science. We need a “strategy” in our learning of a “way out” of European Science. And “sensitivity” is one of important key for that. But to learn “sensitivity”, we need the very same “sensitivity”. That is; we are in a “Vicious Cycle”, which is a Prime example of Non-linear Dynamics.

The new strategy shall liberate Science. And in formulating a new strategy, we have to make “Science” a tool of liberation. How to break through this vicious cycle is the challenge of the New Science.

[For Pedagogy of Liberation Paulo Freire. Pedagogy Of The Oppressed 1985. See for Feminist point of view; Paula Gunn Allen. The Sacred Hoop Beacon 1986.]

And for the strategy of Liberation, the studies of Native Science and Feminist Critique of Science are very important.

19. The Dehumanizing effect of Science has been well documented by Capra’s Turning Point, etc. And we note that even in the beginning of the 20th century, Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of The West appeared. The problem is not new. It is just that, collectively speaking, we have been putting off the task of facing up to the problem.

Just as we have been ignoring and denying our oppression and repression of Native Americans — if we say “We Did Not Know”, then think about Why we did not know —, we have been refusing to admit the problems of Science.

The most readily noticeable characteristic of the Scientific Mentality is its preoccupation with Power and Insensitivity. Feminists pointed out that we are Proud of the Power-Trips and Insensitivity. For the sake of appearing as Macho, we thought we have to be Insensitive. Perhaps, it was Darwinism that commandes us to “Compete in Power Struggles and Win”. The God’s Design is such that the Winner is the Fittest and that is the Supreme Virtue.

Of course, we are not so strong as to having extra capacity to care for the Environment and other Life Forms. We had to use all we have to fight. We could not afford to be Sensitive. On one hand, we claim to be “God’s side” by winning power struggle. On the other hand, we are Fear Driven to defend what we got. Deep down, we know we are worthless worms, and therefore it is justified to fight dirty, using deceits, betrayals, tricks, lies, treachery, etc. which are our “technology-science” of survival. We can not live by Grace nor Love. Christians know that and call themselves “Sinners”.

And because we know ourselves to be ungraceful being, we think others to be equally ungraceful. What is more, we project our own “sins” on others and punish them. Since we are angry at ourselves, we are merciless against those presumed “sinners” and we perform atrocity as if it is a sanctified ritual to bolster our righteousness.

For most of us, Science is a precious little thing that tell us we are “Right”. Science is a precious little power that we have in fighting off all those barbaric hostility — that we projected after our own image — in the Nature and other Races. We cannot afford to criticize our Science.

20. Unfortunate consequence of our Fear is that our Insensitivity is rationalized by it. Unless we have some alternative vision to stand on, we cannot even start thinking of sensitivity.

The importance of our studies on Native Science comes in here. We are provided an opportunity to see things differently. Like Carlos Castaneda, we are lured by mystery and perhaps in our habitual quest for more Power, but we learn, at least, something different.

Our attitude may be more liek the “Romanticism” of the early colonialist who idealized the “Noble Savages”. Or we may be “Patronizing” Native Americans, from our assumed “Intellectural Superiority”. We would try to Rationalize and Justify Native Science on the basis of European Science.

From the point of view of Natives, this is unsatisfactory. But Don Juan just laugh at that. It is Tolerance/Kindness that is inherent in Native Science. The Sensitivity to “see” has to be cultivated carefully with the same Sensitivity. And Native Science is not like her European brother who has to push itself to dominate others. It is not tool of Power Dominance, but rather it is a Gift of Love. Natives do not believe in “Missionary Work” nor in “High Pressure Salesmanship”. It aims at Understanding, not Control.

21. There is, however, a context in which the above mentioned “unsatisfactory” state might pain Native Americans. That is, Natives themselves see the situation as “desperate”. Rocky, in Ceremony, was a full blood Indian, yet he saw no hope in Native Way. He was impressed by the Power Display of European Science, and he try to identify with the Oppressor. He was not aware that European Science has come to its Dead End. He was killed in Pacific for the Glorious Cause of War that marked the beginning of the end of the Colonialism.

Perhaps, there were many “Veterans of Vietnam War” among Natives. Perhaps, the War was a “Sacrifice” Natives would endure. Yet the pain is real. For their young generation is demoralized and deserting the Native Culture. They get into Alcohol and Drugs to ease their Pains. But the problems do not go away, just because one does not feel them. Ignoring, Rejecting, nor Denouncing does not make the problems disappear. One has to understand the problems and work with them, if one is to solve them. There, Native Science can be powerful help. Unfortunately, the obscurity and low prestige of Native Science make it difficult for Native sons and daughters to learn. Honored recognition of Native Science will help them in their recovery, or discovery of their own worth. And for that task, a construction of a Network of supports, — physical, mental, spiritual supports — is perhaps the first step.

22. Actually, the difficulty is common with all people in the World. In a context of discussing Peace Education, JoAnn McAllister and Matthew Fox writes;

“The Institute In Culture And Creation Spirituality at Holy Names College has been providing a critique of the Old Paradigm — Newtonian Physics and Fall/Redemption Christianity — and has been building the foundations of the New. Our Educational program reclaims the long-neglected creation centered Spiritual Tradition that begins with a Theology of Blessing; incorporates the new understanding of the emerging Universe; Reveres Native Spiritualities and evokes and celebrates the artist as a Prophetic Voice”

[Breakthrough. Spring/Summer 1987. p53. Publication of Global Education Associates.]

The writing is from a Christian background. Nonetheless, one hears a Common Voice shared with Native writers. It is a Prophetic Voice at our crisis. Native Science is the New Epistemology that reads the Prophecy of Blessing.

[page not available]

IV. That Science is Performance in Learning, and that Learning is Communal.

23. We tend to think of Science to be what are printed on papers. They are “Dead Science” and belong to History. Science alive is a Force of Knowing.

Epistemology in the past had the mistake of identifying Science with the Dead one. It used to preoccupy itself with the task of Justify, or Reject, claimed Knowledge. It did not look into the Process of Creating Science seriously.

“Knowledge” is not “out there”. Knowledge is created, not “discovered” in the sense it had been there under some cover. “Discover” only metaphorically refers to what goes on inside “Mind”. We take our self-imposed blinders off. That is the “Discovery”.

[Greek word translated as “Truth” in English, means “to take cover off”. It meant “exposing” what had been Concealed By Humans. The notion of Truth, as such, is Dialectical. It is a Collective of human Minds that conceals, and it is the same Collective of human Minds that exposes what it had been concealing. The Greek notion of Truth coincides with A. Eddington’s view of European Physics as a “series of mistakes upon mistakes.  Without previous mistakes, there can be no Physics learn on. This is a parallel to Oedipus Complex metaphor for Social Progress. But, we shall correct such a metaphor, and create a better metaphor, in the new science.]

Science alive is in the action/process of knowing. That is, it is in Learning Processes. Science refers to the “Ways” of learning. It recommends strategies of how to deal with Unknowns and Problems. That has nothing to do with the “Answer”. It is an “Approach”, “Procedure”, “Strategic Principle”. It is the “Ways”, not the “Results”.

24. In addition to the foregoing, the term “Discovery” is a misleading metaphor, in another sense that the word suggests Individual Discoverer. Perhaps, one person might “Discover” Gold Nuggets, etc. But that is not what happens in Science. Indeed Science is a Creation of New Way of Perception and/or Thinking. And there, “Communication” in a social scale is important.

In a larger view, it is Human Race as a whole that learns. Individual knowing is important enough, but Science ought not to be an Ego Trip. We do honor creative individuals. But Science is to be Science it has to be communicated. It has to be given away as a Gift of Love to Humanity.

And Science such as Geometry and Physics is developed in Linguistics level, presupposing existence of a “Language Community”. And the Creation has to be meaningful to the Community. Otherwise, making terms like “Force”, “Energy”, “Field”, etc. is useless.

That is, at least, Metaphysical and Theoretical structures are built on the basis of existing Language, and add new vocabulary. It requires existence of a community who speaks and thinks in the language. It is not just a person to sense something, but it is the Learning Process to reach an “Understanding By the Community” that is Science.

When we talk of “Knowing” (Epistemology), we ought to have meant the social process. The Epistemology in the past failed completely in this. Only recently, Frankfurt School of Social Criticism has come to address to this dynamics. Habermas, Ricoeur, et al are the examples. We have been blinded by our own “Egoism” to see our ignorance — or our “ignoring” —.

25. In contrast to the Individualistic Epistemology, one thing impressive in Native Science is that it is a communal effort. In Haida Myth, Mouse Woman always comes out and helps. What appears to be a “Heroic” deed in a European interpretation is actually accomplished by communal help.

Tayo, in Silko’s novel, reaches a resolution of his problem through communal help. Individual efforts were there. It should not be minimized. However, it is equally bad taste to ignore those who helped Tayo. And, in turn the Community as a whole learned. Tayo’s problem was not Just “His” in the individualistic sense. In Silko’s story, a new hope for the Community, if not the survival of Natives, is prophesied by Tayo’s learning. There is clear presence of the Spirit, which represents the 4-dimensional existence of the Natives — not only the historical Past, but also the prophesied Future —.

The Native Science is Communal. Native Science spans a huge Time Dimension, not only its Historical Past, but also the Prophesied Future. In contrast, European Science (Knowing) is like an isolated “Point here and now —, aside being Egoistic.

Even in religious contexts, this European “Egoistic Knowing” comes through. Perhaps, the original meaning did not intend, but Christians today think of Christ bearing the burden of “Sin” on himself Alone. None of Native Spiritual narration carries such a sense of “Alone-ness”.

In a sense, not having the sense of “Alone-ness” may be a weakness of Natives. Forced into a Civilization where “Everybody is for oneself”, Natives cannot function well. Only the Natives well educated in European Individualistic Epistemology can match their wit with the “foreign culture”.

To be sure, not all European descendants are competent in the game of Egoism. The majority fails. Thus, we do have social problems.

But, on the other hand, the problems, the pains, the suffering, are the well-spring of creativity, provided people are not crashed under completely. The Liberation Science-Epistemology cannot emerge from anywhere else.

The Liberation Science-Epistemology (Knowing) is the Learning Action of the Community as such.

The Native Communities that kept the Spirit of Communal Learning, under the heavy oppression is a great Teacher in this respect.

Our strategy is, then, to build Networks of Learning with Native Communities. Our institutions of Learning must sum up courage and set up the Networks. That would be the beginning of a New Science.

26. In a sense, we are about to “steal” the last and most precious Treasure from Natives by learning their way of humane existence. We do this after we have taken land away from them. We took their dignity away. In some cases, we have taken even their hope od survival and annihilated tribes all together.

I do not know what I could say to that. I only hope that Natives do not mind us learning their “Science”. A rumor is that their ancestor had prophesied this coming. And, perhaps, without paying proper respect, we may not be able to learn, if that is a sufficient tuition.

(Nov 30 1987.)

Indigenous Science

On Pedagogy Of The Silenced: Towards Foundation of Networking. Ver. 2/12/1987.

NAS 2000 Study Note V.

Dec. 2, 1987. S.K.

On Pedagogy Of The Silenced.

—Towards Foundation of Networking —.

1. Context; What problems I am writing about?

Who am I to say anything? For what good this talk is going to do?

Who will listen to this, serious enough to respond any way? So shall I be silent too?

1.1) The “Chief”, the Big Indian, in a novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, was a psychological “dumb”. He lost his speech and put himself in a mental institution, where he came under a tyranny of the “Big Nurse”. Centuries of repression, humiliation, and hopelessness, which Chief calls as “Nobody Listen to Indians”, got him into Silence. [Ken Kesey. Viking 1962.]

The novel is about this Silent Indian, whose way out is “speaking out”. I shall reflect on the problem.

Why Silent? What keep him from speaking out?

And what are the ways out?

1.2) Paula Gunn Allen points out this Silence in many novels by Native American writers;

“Tonguelessness. A dimension of alienation is not mentioned in the literature concerning it but that occurs frequently in the work of American Indian poets and novelists. The inability to speak is the prime symbol of powerlessness in the novels of Momaday, Welch, and Leslie Marmon Silko.”

[The Sacred Hoop. Bacon Press 1986. p. 138.]

1.3) But the Silence is not exclusive problem of American Indians.

The Native Americans have better chances in speaking out and breaking out of the Silence than White students whom I am familiar with. At least, the Natives have easily identifiable targets at which they can be angry.

1.3a) Indians ought to be angry, not sad.

Natives had a superior philosophy-metaphysics, in which “History” contained Future Time Dimension. It ought to have told them the power of Prophecy. They may be procrastinating, using the History as an excuse for their silence. If so, it is indeed sad. But then, why?

The case of Chief in One Flew Over Cuckoo’s Nest is one “pitiful” example. Murphy in the novel was amazed and told the Big Indian that “Nobody can stop you”. Of course, Murphy was wrong. There are so many things that stop anybody speaking out. That is what I am intending to discuss here.

1.3b) Most of us are oppressed into silence.

Over the years that I was in a university, students changed a bit. The angry mood of the radical students of the 1960-70 is gone. Students today are just as sociable and cheerful as the students of a decade ago. The amount of “chatting” has not changed much. On the surface, they are more “reasonable” and managing their affairs better than the students of a decade ago. but they are more sad than angry. And as to their sadness, they rather not talk about.

They know they may not get jobs after graduation. They have a hard time managing financial matters for staying in the university. These things are depressing; enough. But, the economy is not quite the cause of the sadness. If I say it in a simple word, it is the feeling that the society does not want them. They are “surplus”. They know that, but they do not want say that. It hurts to talk about that. Therefore, they are silent. And they are silent about their silence.

To speak out means to take that pain. It is no less the first act than for an alcoholic to declare am an alcoholic, or a battered wife to tell others “I am battered”.

This writing is a declaration, saying that I am oppressed into silence. My task is easier, in a relative sense, than the cases cited. But I think it has to be tried.

1.4) As an academic, I observe that academic writings are done in the posture of “claiming knowledge” and “giving commands”.

Philosophy, Social-Political Critiques, Commentaries on Human Condition, etc., are articulated from an assumed superior position for the benefits of less intelligent beings. In that, they are “Imperialistic”. This is not one of those “texts” to tell anything to anybody, but an attempt to open a gate for the voice of victim crying out.

Those who used to read things in the psychology of “identification” with Intellectual Heroes will not find it comfortable. By saying that I am silent under oppression, I am telling you that you are also unfortunate miserable losers, silent under oppression. You are no more than “the second class citizen”. You are rotten, shrinking, alienated, loveless, powerless, and have no guts to speak out. You are eating your own heart out. Only thing you have plenty is Fear and Narcissistic Self-Pity. Your intelligence is too busy avoiding pains and inventing excuses for the drying-up state of yours to do anything else. If you get offended, it is intended. For I think it is better to be angry than to rot in silence.

So you would say “I don’t have to listen to this”. Indeed you don’t have to listen, let alone responding. You look at those people in the miseries below you, and you say to yourself that you are doing alright. In that you have some 5 billion people below you. The fact that you and I are in university level education or have had one indicates that you and I are within the top 1% of “well-to-dos”. The vast majority of the World population today cannot even read, let alone write. Thus, for me to write this is a self-contradiction. But, if we, in the position to voice, remain silent, there will be no voice. By being silent, we are imposing silence on the vast majority of humanity under the oppression.

I am quite aware of the possibility that we can sit on a fence, if not be “good boys” to the oppressive powers so that we are safe. Nonetheless I write. The reason is simple. I want to cry out. Seeing that, you can cry out, I hope. And by doing that, I wish I become sensitive to others and hear better of the silence that the majority of human race is suffering.

To compensate my arousing of pains in you, I shall discuss strategies in breaking the silence. One of strategies is called “Community Building” or “Networking” and has been proposed by many people. But most of them stayed as “Utopia”, because they pay insufficient attention to the reason why people are silent.

Another reason for the failure of so many writers, despite of their good intention, is their writing style. They preach, as if they themselves have no Problem. Or they tell as if the problems can be solved by a simple “change of attitude”.

Some of them tell you that you are making “logical mistake”, which can simply be corrected by “analysis” of words. They give lectures on definition of words, etc., to correct mistakes in our thinking.

Not that people do not make logical errors. We do think wrong, and I do appreciate the “therapeutic value” in looking at the ways we talk and think (feel). But, it does not touch our practices in actions. It skips over the problems in our ways of living. Intellectualization is an essential part of “speaking out”. Yet, when it is edified enough to be accepted for academic or intellectual publication, it is abstracted out to be useless.

1.4a) Example: Dr. Buscaglia is right in saying we are silent about our Love. But the “Love Professor” is concealing the real conditions of Love.

The “Love Professor”, Dr. Leo Buscaglia, tells of a moving story of his girl student committing suicide. He says, if people Loved her, this would not have happened. That is true enough.

As Dr. Buscaglia points out, we do not hardly even smile at each other. We repress love expressions. We indulge in Narcissistic Sex Affairs, but we are Silent in the Love that goes beyond privacy (private property). As a result, we also suffer what Paula called “Lovelessness”. It is a part of our “Alienation”. But the silence is our “Political Will”. And we kill others by that. Dr. Buscaglia is right about that.

1.4a1) But, think deeper! Suppose the Love Professor found the girl student in time, and she wanted to make Love. What the Love Professor would have done?

Not many of us can afford to support her in material sense, let alone enter into physical relation with her. Macho Sexists talk of a fantasy of multiple sexual relations. But, that can only be done as “aggression” and “possession”, not as “caring”. (Polygamy is different and requires separate discussions.)

Needless to say, she may not have needed physical sex. But, if we are to draw an “off-limit” line somewhere, we are saying “We can Love people only when it is reasonable and safe to us”. We are “Fair Weather Lovers”.

Under the capitalism in the U.S., the “reasonable and safe” limit is clearly shown by the Practice. Namely, we let her kill herself. Dr. Buscaglia is silent about this.

And his silence about the “practical condition of life in the U.S.” is, at least partly, the reason why his books sell well. By the concealment of the real Problem, people are made to feel as if they solved the problem. Now they are “beautiful loving persons”. There is no risk in entertaining such an illusion. But, of course, in the meantime, the suicide is increasing with an exponential rate.

1.4a2) Suppose, Dr. Buscaglia wrote like Wilhelm Reich, he would have gotten into real troubles. [See for Reich’s idea and practice, Joel Spring. A Primer of Libertarian Education. Black Rose Books 1975. LC189 s73.]

Freud, Marx, Marcuse, Foucault, et al tell us that Sexual Repression is the origin of all other repressions. Paula Gunn Allen talks of “Lesbian Power” in the book cited. Whether or not they are “right”, how far are you willing to think and talk? Or do you want to remain “safe”?

The Ideology that demands love to be controlled within a “reasonable and safe” limit, is the one that killed the girl student. If you are not convinced about the hypocrisy and inhumanity of the “reasonable and safe limit”, try an experiment of telling your girl or boy friend that you love her or him only within reasonable and safe limit. Or better yet, let the other side tell you that and see what you feel.

1.4a3) This also leads into the question of silence as a “Crime Against Humanity”. We say we did not know that we have been practicing Genocide Policy against Native Americans, just as Germans did not know the infamous Genocide against Jews. We did not know, because silence was imposed on us. And the silence was, at least partly, imposed by us.

1.4a4) Dostoevsky talked of unreasonableness of Love.

We can read the argument between Jesus and the Grand Inquisitor, in famous Dostoevsky’s novel, Bratya Karamazovy. The Grand Inquisitor tells Jesus that his Love is Unreasonable.

It is interesting to speculate how the Professor of Love read this debate about Love. I have a feeling that Dr. Buscaglia did not understand Human Suffering, let alone Existential crisis. He is a typical American, full of self-confidence and “do-gooder” level righteousness, but shallow. Perhaps, he have never gotten hurt in Loving someone deep. Did he ever consider if humans are capable of unqualified and unlimited Love?

1.4a5) What is “Reasonable”?

We note that the “reasonable and safe Love” is the kind that let Massacres and Genocide of Natives go on for centuries in the North America.

It was “imminently” reasonable to take lands away from Natives, so that White Race can Love them. It was “obviously” reasonable to destroy environment for Buffalos so that Indians must starve. You have realize that if we did not do that we would not have this University here. We are parts of the Reasonableness.

And, the self-centeredness is the foundation of Reasonableness — that is, what European Intelligence has come to know as “Reasonable” is concerned —.

White Race was not “Loveless” except perhaps Spanish Conquistadors —. But its Love was limited to its immediacy (Self-centeredness). We may condemn the “immediacy”, but we are not going to be any better by condemning it. For our Love is not going to be liberated from our immediacy by simply saying it is limited. To go beyond, we need some practical social construction. That is, we need Engineering of Social Scale Love, in which breaking out of Silence is a Part.

(1.4a6) We are not Angels of Love. So what we can do?

I am not saying we can go out to the “rim”. We may be fools, but not crazy. Besides, when the chip is down, we chicken out any way. But, then I would ask what you are going to do about your dishonesty.

We are not Angels of Love. What I like to discuss is some “practical” alternative that can be reached by us “imperfect” beings. I like to discuss what we “can” do, not what we “ought” to think, As such, this is a talk for and by “artisans-craftsmen”, not for and by “philosophers”. I am not capable of “Moral Talk”, but trying a humble thing like “Engineering”, except I honor “Feelings”.

2. Who has the right to speak?

2.1) Indians did not have the “Right to Speak”.

Indians were allowed to speak. For that matter, even the drunken utter some words. But the “to speak” implies “to be listened to”. The “Right to Speak” is the Right to be listened seriously. The “listen seriously” is a nebulous thing to be specified, but let us say that it means to treat what are said by others as if they came from within our minds. It entails a “social relation” of a certain level. You may hear attentive enough to recite what are said, but you may not necessarily be “listening” in this sense.

We do not know what goes on in our own Mind (or Brain), and the mental Processes involved in linguistic, Symbolic, intercourses are largely inaccessible to us, despite we are doing them all the time. Perhaps, “Hermeneutics” might help a bit. [P. Ricoeur. Hermeneutics And Human Science. Cambridge U press 1981]

2.1a) But, let us start with an experiment on ourselves to see what improvements in Communication do. This is a “Process Approach” discussed by A. Whitehead, D. Bohm, et al, and it is similar to “Learn-Teach-Learn” approach, developed for Native Education.

[R.F. Mulcahy and K. Marfo: “Assessment of Cognitive Ability and Instructional Programming with Native Canadian Children” in L. Stein (ed). Contemporary Educational Issues. Copp Clark Pitman. Toronto 1985. p. 157-176. Ref cited. J. Schubert and A. Cropley; “Verbal Regulation of Behavior and IQ in Canadian Indian and White Children” Developmental Psychology 7. 1972. p. 295-301. The paper points out an important role of “interactive discourse” in developing intellectual faculty and “creativity” I wonder, if Network play that role.]

2.2) Speaking is an Act of Sovereign Being.

It is a royal protocol that the Sovereign speaks.

Speaking is issuing commands. It is, therefore, and assertion of Political Will and Power.

Unless you are commanded, you are not allowed to speak. A famous linguistic philosopher, A.J. Ayer asserted with an intellectual authority that speaking is Commanding. [Language, Truth, and Logic. Dover 1946.]

Slaves do not have their own Will, nor Power, They may chat, but do not speak.

2.2a) I had an unfortunate, but very educational experience in this regard. I was among teachers in an African country and was staying at a guesthouse with them. One British teacher had an excellent skill in dominating dinner conversation. She would not let anybody say anything edgewise. I was amazed at the art, and for the first time in my life I came to see what the sense of “dominance” has to do with speaking.

Incidentally, in that newly independent country, those who speak English are said to have incomes at least ten times of those who only speak native languages.

2.2b) Of course, I knew that in schools teachers had authority to speak. They commanded us students to “know” what they told us. Transmission of Knowledge is the mandate of the “Education” as such. Just as the First Law of Thermodynamics, “Knowledge” has to flow from the superior to the inferior. If we learned anything in school, we learned that rule. We are made to “learn” in the sense of “copying”. There is no sense for students to think, let alone go through the time-consuming process of learning. Some theoreticians in education might stress Process of learning, but school systems are fundamentally Authoritarian. The Creative sense of learning is reserved for a few privileged. After all, teachers know the Right Answer. It is a lot simple and efficient to tell students what Knowledge is.

To be sure, there are many teachers who do “educate” despite the system. I am one of those who are lucky in having had them in schools. It was as if they knew and wanted me to write about this. Only I did not know what I was destined to become.

And, the authoritarian education based on “recitation” was not all together useless. I learned in Philosophy that Epistemology is concerned with justifying “knowledge claimed”. To claim Knowledge is to claim of the Political Power of Commanding others, it has to be Justified. An in the process of justification, one find it unjustifiable. That is, the failure of Philosophy is the success of its teaching.

In Mathematics, the ultimate of the teaching was to teach Incompleteness of Mathematics. In Physics, the ultimate of the teaching was to teach the existence of the vast unknown and the unknowable. Physics is a Poetry. All the social and political theories taught me contradictions and insanity of the way we think and live. Suppose, I did not learn various Geometries, I would not have come to see that Geometries are Arts. I am glad that I was trained to understand Whitehead, Bohm, et. al.

2.3) To be sure, there is a matter of “intellectual discipline” which does include concentration of thinking and self-critical analysis.

“Intellectual Courage” and “Intellectual Honesty” are indispensable, at least for avoiding Narcissistic tendency of oneself. I can listen to someone telling me something I do not like only to the extent I can do it to myself.

2.3a) As I shall discuss later, the problems of Narcissism are not going to be solved by simple denial, not by contemptuous rejection. One who cannot love oneself is not likely be capable of loving others. Rejection of “self-love” would be very destructive. Hence, I do not reject Narcissism. At any rate, we have to understood our Narcissism, before we can do something about them.

2.3b) Critical understanding of the phenomenon of “Authority” is important, if we are to build Communities and Networks.

2.3c) For that matter, mistakes are very precious “educational materials”. We only learn, in a sense, through our own mistakes. Those who have not mistaken are poor souls who cannot learn.

But this is not the “Sinner Trip” of Christians, but an elementary logic that the “Perfect One” has no room of betterment, and hence no need of Learning. To the “bottom” 99% of Humanity, this is unnecessary qualification. Nonetheless, it is needed to be said. For I am not attempting to “eliminate” problems, but merely working ways to deal with problems. I expect no sympathy from those who has no problem within themselves, and I have no sympathy to help them either. Even the Universe as the God has problems such as creating Human beings within. My “God” is not Almighty, but the kind that can be silenced by the Power. He has to know what humiliation is, therefore He must be capable of being Defeated. He can be depressed, sad and be angry, as well as capable of joys, love and being sensually sensitive to ephemeral beauty. I do not reject “Righteous”, but understand it as a Part of Narcissism.

3.. “Money Speaks Louder” and Where we are sinking in Silence, Money Speaks Loud. Why? How this came to be? Let us think about this.

3.1) In a Haida Myth, there is a story about a daughter of a powerful chief. She is proud of her lineage and arrogant. Natives do not like arrogant person. Nonetheless, like in any other society, Haida had a fair share of arrogant snobs. Because the respect of Human Dignity and the fear of persons in the position of Power to do a lot of damage is not easily distinguished.

Besides, Haidas had a Slave System, like Greeks had. Haida myths are better in that they did not go through “editorial distortions”, as much as Greek myth did. The existence of slave means existence o Trade. And Trade means “Money Exchange”, as we shall see. that is, “Arrogance” is a by-product of exploitive trading (“Capitalism”).

At any rate, she went out picking berries and stepped on Bear excrement. She slipped and landed right on it. Being an arrogant person, she cursed Bears out loud. Some bears nearby overheard her rude remarks, and abduct her. She was put in a prison, while bears were deciding what to do with her. Then, just in time, Mouse Woman showed up and offered help to her. This is because Mouse Woman knew what this girl was destined to be. In Native stories, it is a typical pattern that those who are destined to be of some significance are “tested” but always get helps from Mouse Woman. The trick was to place her copper piece on her excrement. Copper was a precious metal. The Bears got impressed. She marry the sone of Bear Chief. And this was the origin of Bear Clan among Haidas.

We notice that the piece of Copper “Spoke Loud”. We would say that the Copper was “symbolic” of social-political status. And the “status” speaks.

[And, if you know “Anthropology of Money”, you note also a universal association of Money and Excrement. As to the universality of “Excrement” in myths see Levi-Strauss; The Naked Man Harper 1981. H. Lefebre; Language et le societe. 1966. G. Dalton; “Primitive Money”. Amr. Anthropologist. 67. 1965. C. G. Jung Psychology and Alchemy 1944. etc.]

To be sure, the girl found the son of Bear Chief to be attractive enough to marry. And Bear People find her acceptable. They did not make her a Slave. But, we do not overlook the role of the Copper piece. If it did not “speak”, none of those happened Speaking determined the course of events, or we  might say that it made a “social commitment” between persons and between communities.

The essence of “Speaking” is in the Exchange, around which individuals construct each “living”. Human beings are not simple machines and “social-political life” as such does not tell the whole story of the “Living”. But nonetheless, that part is a very important, in the sense it represent the “center core” of the living, if not what was referred as “Super Ego”. Marx was quite correct in his saying that “Economy” is the base, except his oversight about the essence that the “economy” is mediated by “symbols” (speaking).

(The Haida Myth points out “Sexual Trading”. Marx failed in this regard. Also Freud failed in “Psychoanalyzing” the Economy.)

3.2) Capitalism is a culture controlled by Money Language.

We are not overtly “emotional” about Money, particularly after the Market Crash of October which taught us that “Money is just a number on paper”. Subjectively, we may not feel money to be very important. But, in terms of organizing social scale actions, money is important. We work for persons or institutions rather “persistently”, even if we do not like the boss, company, etc. We are not quite so “faithful” to our loved ones. It would be very difficult to organizing stable co-operations on the basis of Love or Friendship. Sometimes, we are Passionate enough to pursue certain actions. But we do not last in “working” as much as we do with things for pay.

Family is an institution which is very stable. But family can be sacrificed for the Job that pays. Rewards by our loved ones and friends are valuable, but not quite enough to sustain a long lasting Project, nor a large scale operation. Even artists and poets have to sell their product, otherwise, they eventually “discouraged” by the lack of “audiences” and “listeners”. Silence by the society has a very strong negative effect on artists. Schools are not “money making” institutions, not in any direct sense any way, but they too rise or fall with money flow.

We might ask a question of ourselves. Can we sustain a cooperation without Money? Volunteering works, charity organizations, social clubs, Political parties, “secret societies”, etc. do exist. It is said that about 18% of “works” in the U.S. is done by “non-profit” and volunteer works. (This does not include “Home Works” by wives.) Yet, they are not quite “legitimate”. We would say, they are “Avocations”.

More interestingly, people who receive “welfare Money” apparently do not feel it quite “legitimate”. It is not earned by “work for pay”. Some natives apparently feel it “shameful”. Whereas, the extra that Medical Doctors charge is “legitimate”. Why?

People do not “listen” to their fellow beings and act (work) on the basis of the communication. Lawyers would “listen” to their opponents more serious than to their wives and children, let alone friends. Is the language of Money so loud?

3.3) Suppose we are to set up a Network. How much efforts are we willing to put to it? And how long we would keep it up? Most likely: we would only put “spare time”, and only wen we feel like doing something for it> It is a part of “Fun Play”, and has only a secondary importance.

And, since “extra curricular” things are for “recreation”, there is no sense doing them when we do not feel like doing. They may be satisfying our Narcissistic needs, but not considered as “Meaningful”. Works around homes, communities, are of that kind.

And when “Alienation” of ours gets to be such a degree that we get “Depressed”, we would be totally apathetic and would not do anything.

4) Abdication of Sovereign Will in Large Social Scale Actions.

We have a sense of control in our individual affairs. We may have a sense of control in our community life. But, in large-scale social scale, we feel we are totally powerless.

4.1) How this came about? One thing we note is that the “recreations”, “community works” are “Immediate”. They do not directly concern with a large social scale. The paid works, on the other hand, do have “Social Meanings” of a larger scale. To build a “Professional Career” is “Meaningful” in a Social Scale. Whereas being a “Nice Guy” to neighbors and friends ar “Socially Meaningless”.

Suppose our Network was some kind of “Study Group”. Unless it has to do with “Professional Career Building”, we would not take it serious.

We do have Bible Study Group, Aerobic Exercise Club, Basket Weaving Association, Marxist Org, etc. They do have stability. Amnesty International has been operating quite well for a long time. Human Right, Environmental, and Peace Action Groups are, on the other hand, rather unstable, but does provide some sense of “value” in our life. Einstein had a group called “Olympians”. Max Weber used to have “street corner cafe group” to discuss things. For all these Groups, we have varying degree of “Meaningfulness”, but not as much as our “Professions”.

4.2) What is the secret of maintaining a “meaning” for a group?

We have a need to “feel good about oneself”. One kind of way to satisfy the need is “individualistic” one. We play golf, listen to Music or “Spend Time” with family, friends, etc. But they are rather “Ephemeral”, in a sense they are “pastimes”. Another kind is “social”. The “social” one is nebulous, but it somehow contributes to “Making of History”. It relates to the Will of human kind. In the language of Natives, social actions are the means of acting out Prophecy.

Actually, the distinction of the two kinds is not easy, nor clear cut. But, for our considerations, it is convenient to make.

4.2a) For example, we look at community actions like Soup Kitchen. We can do such “charity works” and it is important in that such action “speaks” of our “quality” of life. But our charities do nothing about the Economy as a whole. Our system of Political Economy keeps producing “welfare recipients” by millions.

We are “humanitarian” enough to adopt “unfortunate” children from Reserves. We feel good about ourselves in doing the “philanthropic”works. But we do little to change the social structure that oppresses Natives.

4.2b) Why people are silent about the System? Is it not because we “gave up” any hope of doing anything about the System?

We may be analogous to Slaves. We would help our fellow slaves in misfortune. But we do not have the Sovereign Will to change the Social System structure.

(Or if we are relatively “well-to-do: part of the population, we do not wish to change the structure.)

Our sense of “Meaning in Life” does not contain much of Social Scale actions, except the “job”, “profession” which do get to “Social Significance” through Market System.

In the above sense, if we “value” our jobs and professional works more than personal “enjoyments in life”, perhaps we are not too wrong — except the question of what the System is leading human race to —.

Perhaps some Natives become “radical revolutionary” and work on social scale changes, at even sacrifices in their “personal” enjoyments in life.

4.3) But there is a problem. When a large number of people are involved — I am referring to some 5 billion people —, how anyone can find the “Collective Will” of the people?

We do not even have means of communication. Our technology made the communication from one point to another faster, but has not reduced “complexity”. Rather, the complexity of the world is increasing with an accelerating rate. We do not have the competency to handle that.

There is not “Specialized Science” about the Whole of the World. Science today is hopelessly fragmented into specialized “routines”, so much so that there is no “wisdom” in it. It is not even “intelligent andy more than specialized machines are intelligent.

In that sense, we are bunch of “ignorant slaves”. And our “master” is no better. The “boss” does not know what he or she is doing, except trying to hang onto the position of “boss”. The “boss” does not have the Will of its own, let alone knowing the collective Will of Human History.

There, a native writer Silko is right. [Ceremony]/ It is the Prophecy of Myth that represents Will.

(4.4) But what happened to our Myth? We made it Silent. We are back to where we started in this note. The silence is killing us. Why do we not, then, speak? What stops us from speaking out?

(to be continued)

Community Development, Indigenous Science

4 January 1988 Personal Correspondence on Alcoholism and Social Welfare (PDF)

Jan. 4, 88.

Dear Pam

I am glad to hear that you wish to attend CPREA this year too. People will be delighted to see you again. Peace people are such — “lost souls” looking for companies in misery? —. It is much like A.A. (so I imagine.)

Because the Program Director, Don Bryan fell by a minor heart attack, the notice of meeting and call for papers are delayed. In a phone call to Pat Alcock, I found that out. She suggested me to write up a proposal and send it to him any way. The “proposal” is a way of letting CPREA know of my coming to the conference. It ought to be less than 200 words, announcing Topic and the theme of a paper. they call it “Abstract”, but they know we do not have a paper by this time to “abstract” from. Later, they would ask us if we wish to change Topic and the content.

At any rate, papers are for tickets. Because others put effort in writing in order to come there, I am also obliged to put some effort to it. As you had discovered, we do not read papers in the meeting, except the “new faces” to the meeting. Presumably, papers are sent to participants before the meeting, so that we can spend time on discussions. This is, however, easier said than done.

I would like you very much to come.

You are thinking of a talk on Violence in Alcoholism. That is a splendid topic. In my memory, nobody in the meeting has presented a paper about it. I would beg and appeal to the goodness of your heart for your presence in the conference. And please consider the enormous spiritual righteousness that you aroused in the hearts of those Social Welfare Scientists who had the chance to attack you personally. Please do not deprive of their pleasure and opportunity to uplift their souls in an illusion of knowing what you were talking about enough to attack you. Basically, I am doing the same in criticizing you, though I am careful enough not to talk as if I know Native Science.

Yours

Sam K.

P.S.

Here, I give you my immediate reactions and questions, anticipating your talk.

Why men turn to violence? I imagine the conventional theory explains the phenomenon by saying “When Men lose Intellectual Control of themselves, their Intrinsic Aggression takes over”. The assumes the “Axiom” of “Man is a violent animal in its natural state”.

I do not believe that. I might grant that Fear Reaction is “Intrinsic” (instinctive, innate). But “Fear” is essentially “freezing into inaction” and “inhibitive”. It is not “upper”, but “downer”. Fear makes the “outside” control one’s actions, and behavior. In that , it is quite different from Violence, Aggression, Anger, Intellect, Love, etc. In fact, the very same conventional theory, also insists that Fear is the only effective means of controlling Violence. I might say that Fear is almost “Intellectual”, and henceforth contradict the conventional categorization between “Thinking” and “Feeling”, or “Higher Intellect” and “Animal instinct”. I think Violence is a function of the Higher Intellect, whether Man is conscious of it or not.

Violence require highly coordinate body motions, not mentioning all the calculations needed to do things which aimed at hurting the opponents and victims. At the level of National Scale, Nuclear War is a very “intelligent war” which cannot possibly fought without Science, High Technology, and huge well Managed Organizations. There are differences between Individual Violence and Collective Violence. But the “Intellectuality” is common.

Even during “Black Out”, Man does not cease to be intelligent. It may have to do with long range “Memory”, but that does not say Man is “stupid” during Black Out. I suspect, some people are more intelligent in Dreaming than in working on their jobs. Only occasion I can think of “less intelligent” state is during Sex. And Sex is not “Violent”, unless by the intervention of Intellect it is perverted. (I heard a research result that Intellectual Professionals are more apt to perverted sex than uneducated men.)

I am insinuating that intellect is Violence. Or, if you like to defend Intellect (“Reason”, “Thinking”), then I might concede to a possibility that “tender part” of Intellect is a “Perversion of Intellect” by what is so contemptuously called “Emotion”. This is the opposite of the Sex perverted by Intellect. Perversions go both ways.

Looking at from this point of view, Alcoholic violence is puzzling. I have heard from a few friends of mine who worked with Alcoholics that Alcoholics are the most Sensitive and Tender People.

Why then Violence?

According to my “theory”, (i) Violence had to be learned/taught, and (ii) Violence had to have Social Approval [Milband condition]. The first condition is easy to meet. We have all kinds of “Education” to be Violent. The T.V., Video, Films teach us “How to do Violence” by examples. Judeo-Christianity, Moslem, religions are violent religions. Their God is known to be Violent in Rage. School teachers show us how. Parents train children in Violence, even if their subjective intent may be just opposite.

But the second condition for Social Approval (legitimization) appears to be lacking for Alcoholics. Society does not approve their violent behaviors. It seems that not much “encouragements” and “admirations” are given to the violent acts of Alcoholics. (Our society does give encouragements and admiration for other kinds of Violence. Man in Violence has the Hero Image.) In fact, Alcoholics are “looked down”.

Of course, I do not know percentage of “Violent Alcoholics” among “non-violent Alcoholics” plus “Closet Alcoholics”. I imagine not all of them are Violent. Or is it?

And there is a possibility of a “chemical-Physiological Reaction” for people with certain types of Metabolic Structures. Chemicals could “up” or “down” certain kinds of behavior patterns. You point out that Alcohol makes those people feel (“Think”) more “powerful” and “capable” than what they actually are. But I do not know, if the phenomenon is bio-chemical.

May not it be possible that those who had been under deprivation of the feeling of their own “power” and “capability” for long time tend to get the feeling as a “compensation”? [In Peace research context, Germans under Nazi exhibited this tendency. It is known that “White Supremacists” are from the “Low Prestige Class”. Poor White had been more Racists than the rich ones. While the Well-To-Do Europeans were romanticizing the Noble Savages, the Poor Wretched were shooting at Indians were not much different from them. They hated themselves, and punished Indians, Blacks and Yellow “Gooks” for it.] Alcohol may be helping them to ignore the humiliating “Reality” around them, which they do not like to be reminded of.

If so, the phenomenon is a kind of Impersonation. They may have this “Somebody Superior” in their intellect, who despise them all the time, so much so that Alcoholics learn to impersonate the Intellectual Being. I imagine this “Intellectual Being” is what psychiatrists call “Super Ego” or something similar. This Being is a very vindictive moralist and goes around punishing people. The sense of “Intoxication” beyond disability is not a simple “personality change”, but rather an “Impersonation” which is an acting out of a certain image of personality in their mind, What they imitate (emulate) depends on their “Education”.

The other possibility is the opposite one to the above. Namely the violent person is inflicting Pains to others as an “appeal” for “Sharing Pain with me”. Since other people around them are “uncaring”, “insensitive”, the only way to communicate the Pain is to let them have the Pain.

Parents may hit their children, perhaps unconsciously, in order to let children know how much they are hurting. Of course their folly of pride prohibit them to say directly that they are hurting. They cannot admit that they are vulnerable beings, let alone admitting that their children have the “Power” to hurt them.

Those “odd” behaviors are, however, not limited to Alcoholics. The “salesman” in The Death of A Salesman was not an Alcoholic. But what I read about Alcoholics somehow reminded me of him. And, at any rate, anybody in this Culture is violent. Not only that, I think many university Profs are “Sadists”.

And, Judeo-Christians appear to associate the degree of “Sacredness” with the degree of “Atrociousness”. They are saying, in effect; “The more cruel it is, the more sacred.” [of Apocalyptic Vision for the Chosen Few.]

Perhaps, only Alcoholics are “honest” and “sensitive” enough to admit their own violence.

From my point of view, that is where Peace Learning starts. For Learning (science) start with recognition, acknowledgement of problems. I try to point out Violence of Science, because one who does not know one’s own violence cannot learn anything about Peace. Peace Education is a Therapy for Violent people who beats up wives and children and fight wars etc.; namely it is for “us”. The Angels of Peace and Love need no Peace Education.

Indigenous Mind

Newtonian View of Universe is lonely: Atoms in the vast empty space-time is a reflection of the way the modern men feel of their existence (PDF)

I. Newtonian View of Universe is lonely.

— Atoms in the vast empty space-time is a reflection of the way the modern men feel of their existence —

1. Introduction. Where we stand now.

Newton formulated his Mechanics, some 800 years ago in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. It was an instant success. What was new in the Mechanics was the Mathematics of Differential Calculus, which was a language capable of constructing descriptions and predictions on the basis of “infinitesimally” small segments. According to the Mechanics, if one knows a very very small fragments of the universe, one can know everything, including what will happen in the future. The sense of power generated in the minds of people then was enormous. For the first time in the history that it knew, human intellect became powerful enough to replace “Prophecy” by “Scientific Prediction”.

One must appreciate this revolution in human intellectuality. Before that time, people had suffered from “false prophets”, “demigods”, and corruptions of religious institutions etc., for long time. Often, their spiritual needs were taken advantage of. Finally, people got a “sure thing” which was “true” as far as they can see, and accessible to anybody who learned the art of the language. It encouraged and empowered Europeans to go out for the adventures of colonial explorations and manufacturing industries. It liberated their minds from fear of unknowns. Man no longer needed to fear the Nature!

It was not that there was no navigational technology to get to New continent. Columbus already knew navigation by stars in 1400s. By the seventeen century, accurate clocks were in navigational use to tell the position of a ship in the middle of ocean, within a precession of 100 miles or less. But for a large scale transoceanic trades to develop, a few brave men and desperados were not enough. They needed something more to make range number of people to feel “confidence” in themselves, not only for the voyages, but also for “investments”. Newtonian Mechanics gave that. Spaniards may have braved rough Atlantic Ocean in their quest of Gold in the New continent. But they were not free from the sense of “adventure” in the haphazard voyages. British after Newtonian Mechanics had “deterministic knowledge” of the Future. They could rationally calculate their fortunes, thinking that occasional failures and accidents were exceptions, not the rule. In the peak of the British colonial trading, the returns of investments were like 400%. There were risks and losses, of course, but the colonial trades were not risking for 10% profits like investments today do.

Today, even English speaking people, by and large, do not know the meaning of the trade and consequently would not understand what a great confidence giver Newtonian Mechanics was. They think that Newtonian Mechanics is just a “physics”. It was the backbone of the Imperialism, if not the essence of the culture. And one ought to note that the “Power” of the Europe name from the “confidence” in knowing the universe. we know that people and group of persons can perform a lot efficiently when with confidence. If we are to think of ways to empower people, the first thing to do is to build confidence in themselves.

But, you might ask me; “Why then is Europe in decline today?” What happened to the confidence by Newtonian Mechanics? Did the physics change?

The physics indeed have changed. But I shall talk about that later. It is more important to think about what we think as “knowing” first. The knowledge of Newtonian Mechanics was a “knowledge” at the particular historical situation. It was the “environment” that made it “effective” and “powerful”. Newtonian Mechanics contained many flaws from the beginning. It was merely one way of “perceiving” the world, not a “Truth”. As much as it was useful in the circumstance, people can take it as a “Truth” and “the Description of Reality”. At least it was advantageous to believe in it, say for the “power of positive thinking”, even though it was not true, or even be wrong.

But, Newtonian Mechanics contained metaphysical assumptions which were not visible. Newton himself did not see himself making assumptions. A philosopher I. Kant was very much impressed by Newtonian Mechanics and wrote a critique — ironically titled as “critique of pure Reason” —, but he failed to see alternatives to the implicit assumptions. He ended up saying that Newtonian Mechanics is the Truth, and all human thinking ought to copy the style. Today, in retrospect, we would say that the metaphysical assumptions are like “prejudices” in the sense they can not be justified, though they can be believable immediately.

In Mathematics, and Logics, the basic assumptions are called “Axioms”. They are not “prejudices” because they are explicitly said. The first “Axiomatic” system known to the European science was that of Euclid Geometry. (Euclid himself did not axiomatize the Geometry, but Geometry was simple enough to be reduced into a set of axiomatic propositions soon after it was rediscovered by Renaissance scholars.) It so happen that the scholars instinctively suspected one of Axioms of Euclid Geometry. The suspected axiom was that about “Parallel line”. The axiom said that there can be one and only one parallel line to a any given line passing  a given point outside the line. Other axioms were short in expressions — such as “There is a point on a line between two points on the line” etc. —.

If you have done some geometrical exercises, you would know that the Axiom of Parallel line is very powerful one used very often. You would say that the axiom cannot be false, otherwise the whole Euclid Geometry word collapse. You are right in one sense, that is, the axiom is not false. It so happen that there were two alternatives to the Parallel Axiom. And without changing any other axioms, one can build two different geometries known as “Non-Euclid Geometries” There are “not false” just as Euclid one was. And Einstein et al found good uses for Non-Euclid Geometries and many others which they made up after the discovery of the freedom in geometries.

Kant was wrong only in that assuming that “There can be one and only one Truth”. It turned out that there can be many “truth”. Or one could say that there is no “truth” in any of geometries. Mathematicians and physicists today prefer the later version. They would say that “science” is not knowledge of Truth. Science try to be “helpful” to people, not asserting the authority of being Truth.

Unfortunately, the majority of “scientists” and academics even today are still in the medieval habit of asserting Truth, and do not like to acknowledge “non-truth” status of their “sciences”. They are ignorant of the foundation of science. I would imagine, even after you learned of the freedom of choices in theoretical constructions, you do not like to admit that what you are believing is “non-truth”. Your intellectual megalomaniac tendency would not like to settle for being merely “helpful suggestions”, but like to assert “Truth”. Intellectualism is an expression of “Machismo” which is also a cover up for the fear of modern individual cut off from Love relations.

One has to appreciate how lonely and fearful it is to see Newtonian cosmology in order to understand why the modern intellectualism had emerged with the triumph of Newtonian Rationality in the Industrial Revolution.

It is a contradiction of Dr. Faust who was an all-powerful intellectual on one hand and yet being a lonely kid looking for Love on the other hand. Dr. Faust, in the play written by J.W. Goethe at the time Germany was coming to the Scientific-Technological Age. Goethe was a writer, poet, a close friend of a philosopher Hegel, but also a “scientists” as well. He did understand the “pang” of the coming age. The pang was intellectual in the case of Goethe, but did convey, the pain and bewilderment that many of people, particularly the newly emerging “proletariats” under the misery of the industrialization, felt. One may have to read Marx’s account of the lives of laborers then. Our capitalism was built not only on the blood and sweat of working people but also on the alienation of the people driven out of communal life — i.e. a network of affectionate relations among peasants —. We note, however, even Marx thought it a “progress”. It required up-rooting of the old “Cosmology”. If we are to look the “adapting problems” of the Natives in North America in a parallel with the history, we would also see the significance of “Cosmology”.

Then, what so terrifying was Newtonian Cosmology? We are so brainwashed that we do not see the problem. We would say that Newtonian worldview is the true view of the Reality. It cannot be viewed in any alternative way. The Space-Time is there as Newtonian Mechanics says, independent of whatever we feel. We recall faintly that Einstein changed the worldview completely, but only a few among us dare to look at the universe in alternative senses.

Not that Einstein got it right, but he opened possibilities for different Cosmology. After Relativity of Einstein, there emerged Quantum Theory which stayed puzzling for a long time, but now coming to suggest us alternatives to Newtonian view and stimulated revival of “communal” senses of the universe. Thanks to those developments, we are now in a position to look back Newtonian World View and sense the problems in it. We no longer need apology in talking of our feelings in the ways we look at the Nature and the World, if not “Spiritual” Realms.

2. The Characteristics of Newtonian view of the World.

The characteristics of Newtonian view of the World are summarizable in a few brief statements. It says;

1) The Universe is a large empty Space-Time. Isolated Atoms exist in the vast vacuum. The Atoms are independent from each other and incapable of changing.

ii) There is no “Cause” — the Religious notion of cause is denied by Newton, his “Force” is not “cause”, despite the popular misunderstanding to be otherwise.

iii) There is no “Prophecy”. There is no “Purpose”, “Reason”, but accidents of conditions.

iv) Changes have to be “Forced”. And motions can only follow course “determined” (dictated) by the Mechanics of the Force. One simply has to be powerful enough to supply all energy needed for the desired motions.

v) Human Intellect is capable of knowing everything and to any accuracy desired. Hence, the courses of motions are controllable by Human Intellect.

vi) The Universe and everything taking place in it can be ‘measured” and treated in “Linearized Approximations”. (This is not from Newton himself, but held by the followers.)

Against such a set of assumptions, there have been several objections. A notable one among pre-Einstein time was that by E. Mach. Mach contended that there can be no such thing as Atom. He viewed that everything and anything is “related” to each others. An object is nothing but a symbolic representation of a “nexus of relationships” perceived by humans as a thing. The Universe then, is far from being “Vast Vacuum”, “Nothing”, “Emptiness”, but the theatrical stage of the relationships to unfold upon it as a drama. Even a minute grain of sand cannot move without moving the entire Universe in a complimentary mode. Mach advocated what we now call “Holistic View” of the World.

Oriental natural philosophy some three thousand years before stated that nothing is immutable, unchangeable, nor independent. We have yet to hear from Native Philosophy as to those issues.

Even within the Classical Physics, since emergence of Electromagnetic Field Theory in the 19th century, the “Empty Space” view of the Universe gradually gave away to more “sticky, filled-in” feeling of the Space. The vast “vacuum” of the Universe became something other than “nothing”. Rather, the “Field” concept made people to imagine and feel that there are “flows” of something invisible to us but nonetheless affects motions within. We can look at many pictures which M. Faraday drawn for the “Field”. They are remarkably beautiful. C. Maxwell who mathematized Faraday’s images into equations, also have drawn pictures, such as the Universe filled with “vortexes”. The only step missing was rebellion against the “god-like regularity” of Time Measure of Newtonian Universe. When the Time is also understood as a Dynamical entity, Einstein’s Relativity was born (1905). In that sense, we can view that Relativity was the first step by the modern intellectual to regain the “Enchanted Universe” that ancient people had.

[After reading this, don’t you ever say that Indians do not have the concept of time. they had a “Relativistic” sense of time. And in occasions like hunting Buffalos, they had to have split-second precession in their coordination of actions. they did that by “spiritually tuned in”. Otherwise, they could not survive. We, on the other hand, only have the “clock time” and have hard times coordinating our actions with people. We only know how to compete in Time, not cooperating. In WWI and II soldiers were often killed by the artillery fire from their own side, because of in-coordination in Time of the scale of minute.]

Interestingly, by Relativity, Time ceased to be an absolute measure, symbolizing the Newtonian Rationality. We now can appreciate why “primitive” people used to talk of Time as if an animated entity. Hegel’s notion of “spirit” as something to do with “Historical Time” was an attempt to revive the ancient Myth. But it was not understood in the Age of Newton. It would be respectable now, except that Hegelian sense of “spirit” is almost forgotten by the modern bourgeois intellectuals. [See Hegel on “Reason in History”. The famous remark of Marx “Knowing is not mere interpretation, but changing of the World” was in reference to Hegel’s Philosophy of History. Marx did not actually negate Hegel but stressed actions, Hegel did not deny “practices” either. The rhetoric of those Germans are excessively colorful, but often misleading. We need to read them with less polemical intensity but with more meditative reflection. Then we can appreciate what problems they were struggling with. Both of them tried anti-Newtonian view, but could not win the day. In terms of physics, I would make a parallel between the Electromagnetic Theory of M. Faraday and C. Maxwell with Hegel and Marx, respectively.]

We can compare such thoughts with the Western notion-prejudice of individual and see what implications the Western society led by Individualism has to pay for the assumption. Of course, the Western culture call it “Science” and deems the thinking in the mode to be “Rational”. Aside from punishing “individuals” for their crime and make them pay taxes, the western Metaphysics has no useful function. Rather, it forced upon itself many problems, among which Alienation of human lives and fighting wars and competitions are but two examples.

As noted before, the Western Metaphysics did make people to seek Power, Domination, in a conceit. But the results are less than praiseworthy. Its ill-effects and “pollutions” (both in substances and on minds) overweight any benefits that it brought upon the humanity. It was an “inappropriate” physics, in that sense.

The conceitedness comes in thinking that the “individual” can control deterministically whatever motion-change one desired. Humans simply do not have the energy to supply the motions. Rather, things do not happen by “Force”, but by “Triggers” in the sense a huge avalanche can be triggered by a mere whisper, when it is ready. Humans parasite on the Gifts of circumstances. Humans depend on the conditions of the Nature, just as a baby depends on the Mother. The baby cries and the Mother comes. But it would be a caricature of conceit, if the baby thinks it control and command the Nature, let alone “Force” the Nature.

The conceit from ignorance for itself is rather innocent. The western scientism went further than that. In its megalomaniac conceit coupled with the “lonely” view of the universe drive it to “conquering” other people in the context of colonialism. They could not see the relationships that come back to themselves. Their notion of knowledge was “isolationistic” and they thought they are above and beyond reactions. They saw everything including people as “objects” to be taken advantages. People in the old communal life would not dare thinking like that. But the age of science made it legitimate and praiseworthy calling it “rational”, “intelligent”.

The generosity of the Nature and people of the colonies let the “spoiled child” of the Europe abusing them go on a while. We note that even Marx failed to recognize the Gifts of the Mother Nature, in terms of fossil energy resources which enabled scientists and technologists to enlarge “productive power”. The industrialization would have been impossible without exploitation of the fossil energy resources. Marx did not see it, because he was like anybody else at the time believed in the hostile view of the Nature and thought that economy is based on “scarcity”, rather than “Gifts” of plentitude.

In retrospect, we would say that he ought to have noted the impossibility of the exchange economy without surplus. The origin of exchange economy is in Gift Giving in the surplus plentitude, not in the postulated “scarcity” of the Classical Economics. But the Newtonian View of the universe is a fearful one. What is not hostile cannot be taken serious by it. And, here we might reflect on the distinction between “Work” and “Play”. Today, we might operationally define “work” to be that which is pained and “Play” to be that which is not paid. But, then we have trouble as to house works that many of women do. They are not paid. Are they not “works”? In terms of the Gift economy, we can appreciate them as “Gifts”. But what the theory of economics do with “gifts”? It brushes off gifts as “irrational”. Although Marx advocated “dialectical” thinking, he could not deviate from the culture of theRationalism prevalent in his time. What is not either “Forcing” nor “Forced” is irrational and could not be a part of the intellectual work.

[As to the origin of “Economy”, Max Weber. The Theory of social and Economic organization would be a good introduction. K.H. Wolf, The sociology of Georg Simmel; K. Polanyi The Great Transformation, are also recommended. The later developments in the filed called “Economic Anthropology” are interesting, but I do not know good introductory text. Marx is said to have learned something from Iroquois Indians, but it seems that he missed a great deal, perhaps because it was a secondhand knowledge. For this, see M.K. Foster et al (ed.) Extending The Rafters.

Native Americans appear to have no compunction to write books about their wisdom. They probably do not understand the western intellectual hang-up about “writing on stone” to make oneself “Immortal”. My native friend, despite my prodding, pleadings and coercions, remains very “shy” about writing anything. It reminds me of Inuit way of non-assertion. It appears that they do not think they can be of great help to others, perhaps because of the long memory of oppression on native culture in the North America. Only way to get to their wisdom seem to be “stealing” the wisdom held in deep secret by snooping around them. It is almost as bad as asking questions to zen masters.]

As to the “Cause” and “Prophesy”, the modern physics after Einstein, came to think of various interpretations, including the “Time that goes backwards” and “Multi-dimensional Time”. The problems are not solved. We know without “purpose” that projects our thoughts into the Future, there can be no use of knowing anything. Yet, it is the most troublesome problem in sciences. It involves Time dimension where our ordinary Logics fails. I would say that the notion of “knowing” in the western intellect is an illusion. But then, we need something as alternatives which are not yet found.

I would imagine the future of cosmology has more to do with time or Time Dimensions than spatial extent of the Universe. Christian metaphor of the “one Linear Time as a measure” is too incompetent to deal with the universe. We need a dynamical sense of Time(s) which perhaps creates and annihilates. There are some attempts by physicists as to those kinds of Cosmology. At moment, however, ordinary people would reject them as insanity. They appear to be comfortable in Newtonian illusion and much rather stay in it till some catastrophe to drive them out of it. Basically, it is Fear of unknowns that keep them there. Unfortunate thing about the state of “Freeze in Fear” is that the catastrophe so invited by it may be worse. A good therapy in such a case is to suggest “crazy” cosmologies as fun-fantasies of tinker-toy plays. One cannot be creative in the defensive posture. To be courageous and creative, one way is to behave like children playing with the Mother Universe. Suppose there were some elements of eroticism in the play, I would imagine she would laugh and forgive us.

As to the “Linear Approximation”, I need to talk of mathematics a bit. The Differential calculus, which Newton, Leibniz and Seki invented almost at the same time, is a way of imposing Linear net of “Measures” on what are not Linear.

And Newton’s Mechanics talks of the “second order” terms in the linearization. The mathematical expression for “Force” reads as “the rate of changes of the rate of changes” (of positions of atoms/objects). The change is not linear when pictured on a graph paper. The graph paper is the ideal of “the net of linear measures”. The deviations from straight lines on the graph paper is like “sins” and needs “explanation”. Scientific “explanation” is a ritual of “exorcism”. By explaining one is pardoned. In that sense “explanation” is an “excuse”. And by the ritual, one gains a confidence.

Newton’s genius is in that he came up with a way of explaining: away the deviation from a straight line (linearity) by saying in the second order linearization one get a straight line. If not, one go on to the higher order differentials. Another psychological advantage is that by “differentiation” one get a number which gives an illusion of “constancy”. Hence, even though the differentials are not “objects” but rather “relations”, one can refer to them as if they are “objects”. Given our fear of motion/change, this conversion of “changing relation” to “constant object” is a good psychotherapy. But there is a price to be paid for it too.

The notion of “Measure” itself is a way of converting unknowns to “constants”. We humans are “ephemeral”. We know that. And that is why we desire “eternal constants”. Our science is from such a “sentimentality”, though we think we are “macho” in doing sciences.

Another thing to be noted is that the Linearity ideal also comes in the way “Statistics” is used to assert knowledge. We note tha Newton could not have reached to The Laws of Motion by statistical Analysis of co-relations. But, we still cling to the linear notion and correct all sorts of statistics. Mathematically, it is easy to see that Statistics does not “prove” anything. The best it could do is the “negation of negation” — double negatives of the kind such as saying “I have no evidence to say you have not killed your mother”, which the statistical scientists take as a good ground to say “You have killed your mother” —.

However, you try to tell that social scientists today. You would be considered insane. Because they “believe” in statistics as th only scientific way to know something. Even if they understand your mathematics and an elementary exercise in logic, they cannot stop their “belief”, because their intellectual pride and incomes depend on it.

The “Measuring” is, in mathematical jargon, a “mapping”, “projection” onto the line of Real Number. Why such a simple operation is thought so important? The answer seems to be that scientists and the public in general worship The Linearity. Something curved is “crooked” and evil. If it come back to make a loop, that is the dreaded Vicious Circle which the Western Religions tried so hard to negate. There is nothing in Newtonian Mechanics, as a mathematical system to object to Vicious Circles. And in fact, the loop structure is very important in Engineering of “Feed Back”. But the Western Science is not completely free from its religious heritages. Despite its brave renunciations, the Western Science is a part of Christianity, and carries taboos on thoughts.

[As to these points, perhaps Max Weber may be a good reference. See The Protestant Ethics and The Capitalism. L. White The Historical Origin of Environmental Pollution is also a good reading. “Some of my best friends” are Christian ministers. They agree on these, and go on to Liberation Theology. If you like to have “antidote” to my “poison”, perhaps H.Kung On Being a Christian, and Does God Exist, may be of good reference, though Kung is an excommunicated theologian. Interestingly Kung talks on Mathematics at a length. Mathematics and Physics are products of the Western Culture, yet they contain the seeds of their own death. From a point of view of the “Ephemerist”, that is good. The life of any individual entity, dogma, institution, ought to be finite, so that they can be replaced by better ones. That instance of eternal constant, immortality, is the problem.]

After going through the troubles of mathematics, modern science, and relate them to our environmental and social problems, we would come to convince ourselves that we do not need any apology talking of “Spiritual problems” of the Modern Age.

[J. Habermas edited a book titled “Observations on The Spiritual Situation of The Age”. MIT press 1985. It is a book in “Social Science”. But to use titles like that is no longer “crazy”. I suspect it may even become “fashionable” soon.]

If we look at the present situation with respect to Nuclear Arms Race, at an annual cost to us like 800 billion dollars, it becomes outrageously obvious that what we lack is not “scientific knowledge”. Scientific knowledge is good, if helps us. If not, we need to think them out. Science does have its way of death within itself. If one does enough of “scientific investigation” on the science itself, its limitations and even follies become undeniable, In that sense self-critical “sciencing of science” is important.

Another way of getting out the old science is to listen to what are repressed. As the cases of axioms demonstrated, opposites of widely held beliefs may be worth studying as the means of gaining alternatives. It is said that a great truth is great because its opposite is also true. Or one might say when one (system) becomes self-closed, its life is near the end. It means the loss of learning capacity. It happened to Euclid Geometry, and to Newtonian Mechanics. Hopefully our curiosity for unknowns would not die. Certainly, it appears that the curiosity with Cosmology is in its rise now.

 

Indigenous Science

10 December 1987 Personal Correspondence on Education Philosophy

Dec. 10, 87

Dear Prof. Ellis

In reading a book, I happened to find a passing comment that IQ test on children in a northern Native Community improved by “personal talks” with them by the testers. Apparently, there is an approach called “Test-Teach-Test” for children in different cultural backgrounds. I need your help about this. If you kindly advise me about literatures and data about this, I would appreciate it greatly. The reason for this is as follows.

I am not interested in IQ test. But I read the comment with an interest in that it suggests;

i) That thinking ability/performance, particularly learning ability is stimulated by interpersonal discourses,

[And further, this implies that thinking ability would not develop unless some interactions at a linguistic level take place. Verbalization and Communication of experiences are needed for the development of “Mind”.]

ii) “Knowing” is related with linguistic ability/performance. At least partly, Epistemology has to do with Linguistic ability/performance.

[Learning ability (efficiency) is greatly enhanced by having Verbalizing skill. Without language, (and language experience), one cannot learn on mental skills beyond a certain rudimental level.

“Playing with things, objects”, doing experiments, working, constructing etc., are not sufficient for the Intellectual development, to reach, say, the level of intelligence to have “Creativity”.

Saying things and having seen them communicated — having “Discourse” — is essential for the emergence and building-up of thinking capacity. Having a capacity of, or a level of competence in performing, “thinking” is called “knowing” something. Roughly speaking, “Theorization” in science does this “verbalization” and provide medium for the Discourses required, though I think “theorizing” is not identical with “knowing”.]

iii) “Speaking-up” and being listened; i.e. Discourse is essential for Intellectual growth.

[I do not believe Western Science is the only model, let alone “standard”, of what “Intellect” does. but, to reach a level of “knowing competence” to take Creative step in thinking, it is required that one has Discourse, (communication).]

I do not know if I am right in saying the above. But it may very well be the ease that those Native children were crying out for communication, as if it is a nourishment that is needed for their growth. And even a little bit that the tester gave made it possible for them to grow. It might have “triggered-on” their intellectual circuit in their brain. In this metaphor, brain is like unfinished computer, waiting certain “triggering experiences” to make “connection”. And the connections so made can be used to build on more sophisticated circuits. That is the learned is more “learnable”.

If I am right in this, then, the task of education is to provide the Discourse needed that is, of course, if the “education” is for liberation of people For the “Education of Industrial Slaves”, thinking ability is not needed. Besides “Creative Thinking” of the sort you are talking of may be “dangerous” to the society. Hence, the school systems may not wish to provide Discourse. They prefer to “teach” in the sense of handing down ready made “knowledge claims”. But, I would say that without Discourse, students would not come to “Know” anything. They just memorize, To have Discourse, students must be allowed to speak. Teachers have to be good listeners. In contrast to the present practice in “Teaching”, this would be revolutionary.

It so happened that some writers are aware of the meaning of “Speaking Up”. the “Chief” in One Flew Over Cuckoo’s Nest was a “Dumb”. His way out was “speaking out”, but for a long time he could not do it. many Native writers have pointed “Speechlessness” of Natives. Paula Gunn Allen, in The Sacred Hoop, writes;

“Tonguelessness. A dimension of alienation that is not mentioned in the literature concerning it but that occurs frequently in the works of American Indian poets and novelists. The inability to speak is the prime symbol of powerlessness in the novels of Momaday, Welch and Leslie Marmon Silko.”

However, the repression of speech is not exclusive to Natives. Girls in schools are “Silent” on subjects related to science, Math, Geometry. They would chat away their life on other matters, which are acceptable and even “fashionable” for girls and women to engage. Not that I think “science” as it is today is of any importance that is, there are many good reasons why they are not interested in science as such —. But, by not speaking, they are denying ability to think. They can be very Creative in other things — such as how to go about interpersonal relations, which is admittedly very important —, but not in things like Science. [Boys are not any better in this regard, but I prefer to talk about Girls in science. You know the reason,]

For surviving the 21st century, “Creative Science,” about Energy, Environment, Social systems/structures/Dynamics is essential. the ‘inability” imposed by the repression of speech is suicidal.

If they do not like the “Science” of today, then let them speak out and let them create their own science. In my view, “Science” is not Noun, but Verb meaning “Creating”. If Natives and womend do that, it would be great. I think, it is a matter of removing the repression, inhibition, (negation, intimidation). And the first step is to provide for them to have Discourse.

[As to Discourse, see Habermas, Ricoeur, etal. They discuss Epistemological implications of “Discourses”.]

Now all I said above depends on the three premises cited in the beginning. Would you help me in making them “convincing”? Or better yet, would you please tell me where I am wrong?

Yours

Sam K.

Indigenous Science

7 December 1987 Personal Correspondence on the Roles of Social Interaction in Creative Processes

1

Dec. 7, ’87.

Dear Prof. Butt

Thanks for your comments. I agree that the “Sensitivity” needs to be explained better. Let me think about that as a home work. I had an idea based on Mechanics and System Engineering, and I tried it once for Peace Research people. But it was a total failure. I guess, it was too much of oddity to explain “sensitivity” by “mechanics”, even though it was a higher order one. I have to think of a better strategy.

In the meantime, I would like to ask your help on a related but different thing. That is about roles of Social interaction- discourse in Creative Processes.

We tend to ascribe Creativity to individual geniuses. But in many cases, I notice there were sort of “Environments”, in which Creative Processes took place.

For example, Differential Calculus and Mechanics emerged out of an intellectual ferment, or rather “turmoil”. People then, had passionate arguments about the New Vision. There were personal dialogues, exchanges of letters, debates. There was a good reason why Galileo, Diderot, et a. wrote “dialogues”. The pattern can be observed for the case of Quantum Theory, Relativity, Double Helices, etc.

There are difficult cases, such as Edison, who appears to have been a “Lone Wolf”, creative in solitude. (Perhaps, rare do not know about his associates). Therefore, I am not making an assertion. But if interpersonal environment is a factor, it is very interesting and important in the context of school education. In schools, we already have “groups”. The question is how to “use” the group in such a way to make Creativity to emerge.

Reading an article about IQ test for northern natives, by chance, I came to notice one author talking of “improving performance by dialogue”.  He calls it “test-teach-test” approach. His interest is in testing, and does not go into “learning”. But implication is that interpersonal discourse — i.e. “talking” — is a positive factor.

I wonder if there is any data about whether or not “letting students talk” has some effects on learning performances.

In the same book, another author was writing that the Native Culture tends to discourage people to “Speak out”. The author explained that natives do not want to offend others by saying things. they do not like assertive behaviors. Science, and intellectual things are assertive, therefore, they perform rather poorly. I would acknowledge that. But, at the same time, I think natives are too “defensive”. It is an attitude of “playing it safe”. And if interpersonal discourse is a factor in developing creative ability, such an attitude amounts to self-imposed “powerlessness”.

Some of native writers know this — the “chief” in one Flew Over Cuckoos Nest was “dumb”, and his way out was “Speaking Out” —. the centuries of oppression has silenced the people. The first step in breaking the oppression is to speak out. This, however, runs against the native “Etiquette”. I may have to call my native friends “cowards”, or tell them that they are such a stacked-up snobs that they cannot make fools out of themselves by saying things. When they get angry, they might speak out. If the passion in love is not forthcoming, the passion in anger may be substituted. Creation needs the Energy of passion.

By the same token, girl students do not “speak out”, about “scientific matters”, and its consequence is that they block developments of their ability to think in the “silenced” subjects. People, subdued to “speechless” and “passionless”, cannot do things, intellectual or otherwise. They can only be slaves.

It seems that intellectual developments can only be achieved by “expressing” it, in much the same way positive feedback works. And if so, schools have to be the place, forum, for expressions and discourses.

Am I right in speculating this? I would appreciate greatly, if you could kindly refer me to literatures on this point.

Yours

Sam K.

Indigenous Science

5 November 1988 Personal Correspondence on Political Economy, FTA, etc.

Nov. 5, ’88.

Dear Louella,

Thanks for the discussion. It was an interesting evening. If it is of any interest to you, I offer my “after thoughts”. Just as students take notes, I write up something to remember what the discourse induced me to think. I suppose that is a kind of learning.

Frankly, I was not interested on FTA as an election issue. In my estimate, Canadian economy, politics and “quality of living” in general are not free from U.S. domination with or without FTA. We try to manage what we can to maintain our life within the existing situation — i.e. accepting the U.S. domination as more or less “given” and unalterable condition of life on Canada —. the Canadian position in this respect is not too different from Middle and Low Management and Labor Class people who try to manage their life “under domination by the given Power Structure”.

The attitudes of three political parties about FTA resemble that of, (A) a small local boss negotiating terms concerning “local territorial management” with a big Mafia Boss, (B) “Whitecolor Company Union” negotiating for concessions from the Capitalist, or (C) talking like “Proletariat” but cannot shake off their dependence on the Capitalists (since they lack the “superior management intelligence” and Power?). Or I can suggest a worse metaphor in analogy with “Dependent Wife” who live with Violent Husband. In terms of economy, Canada get “beating” in one way or another, but she cannot stop going bed with him.

[Academics tend to talk as if Economy is “Rational”. I would imagine they are aware of Anthropological and Psychoanalytical studies on Economy, such as K. Polanyi, G. Dalton, M. Mauss. et. al. At least Marx’s tracing of Exploitation to “Sexual Division of Labor” is known to them. But, both Lerner and his critics are pretending “Rational” technicalities. Trade is not a simple legal transaction, but a part and extension of human relation whose prototype may well be “Sexual”. The sense of “Power” which emerges in exchange relations is also “Sensual” and never was “equal” as the Rationalists assume.

For the purpose of debate, one is compelled to use “Rationalist Rhetoric”. Unfortunately, the need of our talk to be “rationally” ordered is often mixed up with and transferred to the subject matters. The Rationalization for itself ought to be regarded as an irrational ritual (trick, magic). When people on street use sexual metaphors to talk of political economy, they are much closer and accurate to the phenomena than the “experts” who talk in rationalist rhetoric. The “Experts” are merely “linguistic technicians” who perform “language Tricks”.

And I might add that just because systematized (rationalized in mechanical and logical sense), Economic Structure does not cease to be Unequal Violence. The trade between the U.S. and Canada is next between “equals”, in any case. The ideal of equality is fine, but notion of equal exchange in market is not only an illusion but an ideological deception, In particular, in the trade between the Third World countries and Industrial Power countries what economics texts talk as if “legitimate exchange” is not all “fair”, nor “equal”. When international market tightens, Canada may come to learn how unequal the exchange with the U.S. is.

That the U.S. keeps tens of thousands Nuclear War Heads and the biggest Air Force and Navy in the world — i.e., has the military hegemony — has a great deal to do with the “unequal trade”. We hope that “civilian trade” is Peaceful. But it seems that Violence and Inequality are feeding each other. They are twins in the family of Power Relations.]

At any rate, we are not out to “overthrow” the Power Structure. Canada might manage to get out of NATO. but it would be almost impossible to achieve the degree of “Economic Independence” that Germany, Japan or Sweden have with respect to the U.S. domination. The relation is not as bad as that between the USSR and Poland, or that between the US and Latin American countries, but not too far different. The only thing Canada can try is to bargain this and that of small concessions with the U. S. All three political parties operate on this axiom, though none of them admit that.

To be sure, it is fair to say the quality of life in Canada is somewhat better than in the U.S. I have a few friends in the U.S. who were among “respectable” upper middle class some decade ago and took care of me when I was there as a foreign student, but they are now aged and in deep trouble. In Canada, thanks to Social Welfare (or sometimes called in hostility “Socialism”), at least the Aged are better taken care. My friends tell me of increasing rate of violent crimes, complains about unkempt city streets and public facilities in general. Even schools are not safe places. And everybody is suing everybody else. I know American people are good estimate that Americans work a lot harder than Canadian. But somehow the social structure there tend to draw out the worst of them, despite their efforts to maintain good life. Relative to that, Canada is lucky. I would almost say that Canadians have a “Grace”, which is a luxury beyond the reach of the majority of people in the U.S.

So those Canadians who do know what happening in the US do not wish to become “Proletariat” living in poverty and under the power of the US “Capitalist” . But then, probably the majority of Canadian are not informed as to what is happening in the U.S. Their view of the U.S. is what T.V., Hollywood movies, Harlequin Romance, Reader’s Digest suggest to them. Academic publications, texts — even in Economics, Social Sciences — carry a “Subliminal Message” in that effect.

And in the belief in Virtue of Competition for Power, Canadians are not unlike Americans. I may be talking too much like Max Weber, but I do not think I am too wrong in reading off the “Mind” of people. There seems that here are two basic implicit assumptions common to all parties in the debates on FTA:

1) It is Economic reality that the might of U.S. can, and about to, do nasty things to Canada. Canada has no choice but to be subservient to the U.S. If Canada does not make concessions to the U.S., she may be “Punished”.

2) Yet, the U.S. would not treat Canada as if one of “Banana Republics”. The U.S. would be reasonable and “understanding” toward Canada, even if the U.S. may be vicious and cruel in any other country under its domination.

[Canadian understand this as “Special Relation”. Anglo-Canadians think that US dares not treat Canada like Mexico, because of the common Racial origin.]

They are two contradicting assumptions. But as much as they are not explicitly stated, the contradiction is hidden. But, the Reality of Canadian-Political Economy, perhaps is a contradiction. We think that Canada may be “exploited” a bit, say, in terms of lower wage for Canadian workers, but the exploitation would not be so bad that Canadian Capitalists and Canadian Middle Managers would not be treated less than “Junior Partners”.

To be sure, I grant that these two assumptions do have grounds. They are “Myth”, yet they are also “Reality”, and as much as they are believed they retain their effective Power. Canada will not be treated by the U.S. like trading countries in Asia such as Japan, Korea, China, or for that matter Mexico. Canada puts up trade barriers against the Third World Countries, while she is preaching the virtues of “Freer Trade”. there is a possibility for Canada of making a “Sweet Relation” with the U.S. so as to protect herself in the global trade competition. She does not to be left alone, while European Countries are making up formidable Economic Union, and Japanese is gaining trade surplus. Leave things as it is, Canada will fall into the position of being one of Third World Countries. Therefore, some Canadians may wish to join the U.S. to defend her position in the shadow of the Giant. After all to become the 52nd State is better than becoming another Mexico. I guess the logic of Free Trade goes like that.

It is interesting to observe that Canadians have never developed any sense of Economic “National Identity”, say the degree in which Swedish developed Volvo to sell in North America. Canada, if she had a “Will”, she could have modernized of Steel Industry in 1960-1970s as Japan did and built a basis for economic competition for 80’s. Canada had every resources and opportunities to do so, but did not have “will”. Instead, Liberal Government of Canada “imported prosperity” from the U.S. Canada was “borrowing time”. Canadian intellectuals have never once raised concerns about this.

What happened to Electronics Industry in Canada? If Japan can beat the U.S., despite trade restrictions, Canada can do the same. Why not? This is not a rhetorical question, because “Free Trade” may well be another attempt by Canada to repeat the “Borrowed Prosperity from the US.” Some people in our group voiced their concern that U.S. may not be a Dependable Economic Power. But Canada never had a Will to be Independent, not even in the degree South African had. we are “Colonists”.

Interestingly enough, Japan developed High Tech Industry, precisely because Japan was disadvantaged in the trade with the U.S. Japan never had “Special Relation” with the U.S. like Canada had. She had to compete against “privileged” countries — you may not know it, but Japan had to operate with full knowledge of the racial prejudice against oriental products existed in the North America then —. Much that I dislike what happening in Japan, I would that Canadians had it too easy.

But, can you imagine any political party saying things like the above in the election campaign? I am a card carrying NDP. But even within the context of “Socialist Party”, I do not have any opportunity to point out what had been going on in Canadian Economy.

In the debates about FTA, I notice the issues raised about Unknown Future. They are arguing their speculations about what Canadian Economy will be like with or without FTA. The “Experts” are, at best, like weather Forecasters, though they are worshiped as if “Prophets”. However, it seems that they do not have over-all view on Canadian Economy, but merely examining this and that wordings in the FTA. The arguments that are going around are no more than reiterations of the assumptions, such as (1) and (2) cited above. Differences come from differences in “nuances” created in mixing of two contradicting assumptions. PC is saying, in a translation to a honest street language, that “we are screwed any way, so we might just as well enjoy it”. Lib, is saying “let us maintain a facade of Dignity while being screwed.” And NDP is saying “Let us negotiate good wage for being screwed”. Canada, as mistress to the Giant U.S., does not have an easy time. And since we Canadians do not wish to do anything about that, there is no point in bringing up unpleasant awareness of the situation. Besides, in Election, one would not win popularity by reminding people painful truth about Canadian Economy.

If people are cynical, they have a good reason to be. It is remarkable, however, that despite all that Canadians do manage to maintain a degree of “Social Grace” that People in the U.S. find it very hard to do. It is perhaps, Canadians are not too crazy about “Competition for Power” like Americans are. In saying above, I am thinking what Kissinger, Hitler, Weber, Nietzsche said about “Will to Power”. I also “meditate” on your question of “What Economic Development Is For?”. Making more things which is equated making more jobs does not seem to make people any happier, and it is not feasible in a global scale any way. In that context, for Canada to become a “Banana Republic” and to join the rank of “Third World Countries” many not necessarily be a bad idea, provided we can maintain the “Social Grace”.

Yours

Sam

c.c. Joan P.

 

Colonization, Indigenous Science

18 April 1987 Personal Correspondence on Academia, Socialism, and Colonization (PDF)

18/04/87

Dear Pam

I write you a “book review” — a sort of — on William Hodge The First American, Then and Now. Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1981.

Walter Block, Geoffrey Bernnan, Kenneth Elzinga (ed) Morality of the Market, Religion and Economic Perspective. The Fraser Institute 1982.

with some references to Gil and Gil Toward Social and Economic Justice, Berman The Reenchantment of the World, and Remi De Roo Cries of Victims, Voice of God which I have commented before.

Hodge’s book is apparently written as a text for “introduction to Anthropology”. The author lives in Oshkosh, Wisconsin and naturally talks of Oneidas and Menominees, but as a text he try to cover Micmac, Cherokee, Cheyenne, Navajos, Hopi, Papago, Pomo, Klamath, Kwakiutl, Hare, Eskimos, in a descriptive fashion — for each with a brief cultural history and description of the present situation —. At the end of the text the author briefly states his theory of “X, Y, Z, Indians”. X, Y, Z, are “ideal types” or patterns, representing types, or patterns, of reactions of the Natives — resistance, isolation, adaptation, / or right, left, middle, / etc. — in relations to the White domination. His descriptions of various Indian Nations are descriptions of those types in conflicting notions in each nation.

As an academic text, it is “reasonable”. That is, if one just wish to know a lot of things about Indians from a “neutral” stand. The tone of the text is “sympathetic” and mild. But, the academic knowledge as such is not for doing anything about the problems. Scholarly stance is understandable, in the prevalent notion-ritual of “knowledge claim” in academia. But this begs questions as to “what knowledge is for?”, and also as to the role of scholars in the dominant econo-political system. I shall have to discuss what “knowing” means. (*1 below) The separation of “Value and Fact” is a shameless fraud.

The text doe mention, for example, “rampant alcoholism”, “moral decay” etc. along with “poverty — with a typical “neutral adjective softness”, saying like “living standard is inadequate” etc. —. But what the text suggests to do about the “inadequacy”, “unsatisfactory”, “insufficiency”etc.? There is no hint.

[There is a mention of Deloria, with a qualification that “The extent to which Deloria’s opinions coincide with those of other Indians is open question”. p. 526. By this statement, perhaps, the author is declaring that his statement is the Knowledge and Deloria’s is more opinion.]

—

(*1) Talking of the difference in “status” of Knowledge and Opinion, I happened to be struck by an incidence. In CBC radio program, there was a report about a “Theory” by a distinguished Social Psychologist at University of Manitoba: Dr. Altemeyer. His “Theory” is reasonable enough. I think he is right. But that is not what impressed me.

Dr. Altemeyer narrated that he had noticed, some 15 years ago that authoritarian persons are submissive and at the same time agressive (apt to do violence) — citing Nazi etc. — particularly when the superior authority approve of them. He attributes violence to Fear. According him, the authoritarian characters are fed “more than average” inputs of Fear by parents, teachers, et al. They are convinced that the world is fearful and bad Place, and they see themselves “Righteous” among evils all around them. No wonder they are ready to strike back. I agree as to that.

I think a lot of people noticed the same. But that would be “Mere Opinions”. Dr. Altemeyer, apparently spent some 15 years of hard academic researches to convert the “Opinion” (or hunch) to a “Knowledge” acceptable to an Academic Institution> It is not his “Idea” that distinguishes him, but his work to gain the Recognition is the object of academic admiration. And even CBC recognizes him having gained the recognition.

That is similar to recognition given to the actors and actresses who are recognized by some awards. That they gained a recognition is the source of the recognition. By this criterion of “recognition begets recognition”, the Natives have to get a recognition to be recognized. And how one gets a recognition? Our society does it by ritual ceremony. Publishing in a “reputable Journal” is one of such rituals and one accumulates brownie points by that. To get your “opinion” Published — register a knowledge claim —, you have to follow the rituals, such as showing “statistics” (despite statistics proves nothing). When that is done, one has to do “public relation” work by creating “media events”, saying that you Published — what you said in the publication are too much of details that nobody cares to bother with —. It is not whether one knows anything, but it is that the Public knows that one knows, that is the aim of the game.

Natives had known that living organisms cooperate. That is the Principle of Living. But it had to be professional biologists, properly educated and accredited, to claim a “knowledge” — inventing a jargon “Symbiosis” —. In this case, it was a “linguistic game” of Naming, that claimed the knowledge.

To be able to live with the “sense” of ecological cooperation, as the Natives did, doers not count as “Knowing”. It is because “the proper linguistic ritual” is not performed to the satisfaction of the institution which is empowered to declare academic recognition. Universities give out diplomas and people come and pay for it. That is possible, because the universities are institutions which give “recognitions”. Natives are handicapped not having institutions to edify their recognitions.

Pam has a Ph.D. in Social Welfare, so she knows. The poor people in reserves, who managed to survive centuries, do not know anything about how to live, because they have no degree. What Pam learned from her grandfather is not “knowledge”, because her grandfather was an Indian. What Pam’s mother taught her is not knowledge, because she taught her by her “living” not by academic rituals and the Academia does not know how to recognize it. (Compare woman who actually give birth to medical doctors who “know” what birth is.)

Whitemen’s “Science”, “scholarship” are Institutions of Rituals. Whitemen’s society is more “ritualistic” than Native community. Natives appear to be ignorant of the importance of Rituals, perhaps because Whitemen downgraded Native Rituals and the Native themselves accepted Whitemen’s concept on native rituals.

Incidentally, political struggles are struggles as to which ritual system shall be recognized and which ritual system shall be regarded “irrational”, “superstitious”, or “heretical” The struggles for “knowledge claim”, “academic recognition” are minor parts of the political struggles. It is not that the Natives did not have “Silence”, but that it was denied of recognition.

You tell a story of your “experience”, “feeling” in looking at the Moon. I wonder what the academic think of it. It is not even and “opinion”, let alone being a knowledge claim. Yet some academics are impressed, according to Elise Boulding. They must have felt something stronger than one in academic rituals. Is that a sign that there is still hope for Humanity?]

The above sense of “Neutral Knowledge” also pervades the second book; Morality of the Market. There is nothing in the book as to what to do about the problems.

The book is apparently a reaction of the “Right Wing Reactionaries” to “Left Wing” Christian Liberation Theology, (Christian Socialism?) such as Reinhold Niebuhr. [see also De Roo.] Sure enough, Fraser Institute, which is reputed to be Canadian branch of Rand Corporation in the U.S., knew enough of Public Relation Work to include some “Liberals”, such as James M. Wall; ex-editor of The Christian Century, a Journal published by The World Council of Churches, which has been labeled by the Right to be a “Communist Front”, and Kenneth Boulding, a liberal economist. But the arguments in the book is mainly about “ills and incompetence of the Socialism”. Mr. Trudeau, hearing Canadian Bishops’ moral stand on Economy, said “Bishops do not know Economy. They ought to stick to Religion”. The same message is in this book. The authors in the book tell readers how much they “know” about, economy. But what to do with the problems is not their concern. They talk about how “moralists” are wrong and how socialists failed.

Of course, knocking down strawman is a favorite game among academics. By proving others being wrong or insufficient, they claim their superiority. That is cheap. Since they are not proposing anything, they cannot be “wrong”, except that they help perpetuating the status quo by discouraging people to do anything about it. In turn, those “superior intellectuals” say “Given an apathetic mass of people, nothing much can be changed.” They would say There is no demand in the market for revolution”. In this case they do not believe in the Supply-side Economy. So the whole exercise go on a vicious circle. Obviously any change will be difficult and comes with all sorts of problems. By saying there are problems, nothing is changed, except perhaps for catastrophes — even the Great Depressions did not change the economic system much, but rather made people more scared of changes —. Liberal economists do not acknowledge their failure in changing the economic system and keep talking about the “faults” of those who had bravely tried. If they have tried, they would have failed worse. Easy armchair criticisms are not only cheap and useless but also poisonous.

Those “scholars” get prestigious attacking “socialism”, precisely because the system (what they call “Liberal Capitalism”) needs their defense. They are the “ideologues” for the status quo. But then, they pretend that they are neutral. Kenneth Boulding referred back to Schumpeter. But Schumpeter did not make phony distinctions like “Liberal Capitalism/Democratic Socialism”. He simply said “Socialism” as the inevitable end of the Capitalism.

To be sure, I am not saying “Socialism” is the answer. In my view, “socialism” is already here, in terms of Social Welfare, Medical Insurance, Corporate Subsidy, etc. The growth of Bureaucracy is, to me an aspect of “Socialism”, and it is here. It is an inevitable course that the “Socialization” started by the Industrial Revolution. The Capitalism and the Socialism are – isms emerged in Industrialization. The question is not whether or not Socialism, but what we are going to do with problems. Here, we need to look at the Industrialization itself, without assuming it to be unquestionable good. We used to call the industrialization “Progress” and never thought that there can be alternatives (Marx included).

In this book, Ezra J. Misham (“Religion, Culture and Technology.” p. 279) is the only one who addressed to the problem of “Industrial Economy” (Technological Society). He does see “Science-Technology” is a replacement of Religion. But, somehow, in this article, he lacked clearness. The main point does not come through.

Kenneth Boulding talked of “Cost of Agreement”, which is an important item in “political economy”. But it seems the scholars gathered there was not impressed. Religion was a mans of scouring an “Agreement”, effective in a social scale. “Ideology” was once thought as an effective means to get revolutionary agreement in the last century. “Science-technology” replaced them. Mishan was saying that in the conference. But as usual in academic conferences, Boulding perhaps did not hear what Mishan was saying. Nor Mishan appears to have heard Boulding.

And Boulding’s consideration of the “Cost of Agreement” refers only to production side, so appears. There is another kind of cost in “maintaining an agreement”. “Authoritarianism”, “Dogmatism”, “Theocracy” are examples. The inflexible attitude of Bureaucracy is no less “tyrannical” in insisting  a “Iron Rule” of established mechanical routines. And in Bureaucracy, even a slightest change in agreed procedure indeed “costs” enormous amount of efforts, time and of course money. That is, the “system” designed to keep a stability of an “agreed way” do so by making any changes to be prohibitively costly. The “Cost of Agreement” is also a defense mechanism. Boulding appears not be aware of this aspect.

I have a nightmarish metaphor about our economic system. That is an image of Nuclear Power Plant in crisis. Those “experts” are arguing among themselves as to “who is best expert”, while the Reactor is running toward the melt-down point.

At any rate, Fraser Institute is not interested in dealing with the problems of our political economy. It wants, so appears, to be known as a “Think Tank” institution — a snob institution for pretended “super intellectuals” —, on which their income depends.

There was, however, some references to economists like Myrdal. [See for example, Myrdal’s articles in Economic Development And Social Change — The modernization of Village Communitites — ad. by G. Dalton Natural History Press 1971.] The Materialist sense od Economy is in decay, either the Capitalist or Socialist. We are now able to talk, without too much inhibition, about the “Rituals” or market, “Worship” of Money, etc., — i.e. Economy as an “Anthropological phenomenon”. Religion and Political Economy are not that different. [Neither is Religion and Science.] Some people are already sensing this.

And that is where what you do arc very important. Social Welfare is not just for providing foods and shelters for those unfortunate “drop out!” Nor is it just taking care of alcoholism (so as to keep alcoholics invisible to the society). Berman, in the Reenchantment of the World mentions of Alcoholism, Alcoholic Anonymous (p. 21, 171, 239, 244, 273, 288, 302, 334) Why so many references? It is significant!

It was not because Berman was a student of Bateson and Bateson happened to chose Alcoholism as the subject medium to elaborate on his theory of Cybernetics of Self” (Berman p. 239). But because the problem of Alcoholism gives clues to other “addiction problems” — addictions to Money, Power, Fame, Material objects, Authority, etc. —. It tells us about how we get into problems and how we could get out of them.

Hodge, in the First Americans, narrates cases of “Trade” with Europeans. Case after case, the history demonstrates disastrous consequences of Trades.

I would imagine the Liberal Economists, the Socialist Economists, the Capitalist Economists, all would say Trade is good. Even Myrdal would say the same, except his objection to “unequal trade”. So far as I know, F. Fanon is the only one who said that the Third World would be better off without Trades with the Europeans (I guess now includes Japanese).

But, let us think about “Why Trade?” Europeans wanted Beaver pelts, because its fur was needed as a material for Top Hat. Imagine who needed Top Hat!!!

Likewise, what in a hell (or in heaven), the Natives needed beads? Trinkets? They had furs, so why they needed blankets?

The Economic Theory that says Trade is for “necessities” is pure BS. Nobody needed Trade, except for “……”.

That “…..”. is psychological, just as some people want a drink for “….”. It becomes “physiological necessity” after addiction, after development of dependency (=called “culture”) on the things that are traded.

Europeans introduced Alcohol to the Natives. But Natives had far potent stuffs. If the Natives wanted to get drunk, they could do it by their own ways. Natives could get “drunk” even by dream. Alcohol was not needed. But precisely because it was not needed, that why alcohol was Traded.

Iroquois was “addicted” by the British Trade through New York — after the Dutch were defeated —. In order to get beavers for the Trade, Iroquois had to fight wars with other Native Nations. But what Iroquois gained, in term of their living substances? A few “ornaments”? Guns? According Hodge, in the case of Oneida, their male population was so depleted that Oneidas had to capture males from their “enemy” to satisfy women. And what amazes me is that there seems nothing that shows the benefits of the Trade, which costed them so dear. Why they Traded?

The question is, perhaps, the same as asking Alcoholics “Why do you drink?”.

Was it because of fun? Was it because Oneida needed European things for their pride? For ceremonial purposes? Was it because curiosity?

The natives did have trade between Native Nations before Europeans came. In the traditional trades there seems to have been no problem. The traditional trades were like “exchanges of gifts”, more or less. Natives might have thought European Trades in the same sense. But even then, it is puzzling why so much disasters in European Trade. Even Fanon does not tell me why European Trade were so poisonous to the Natives — as if the Natives did not have “immunity” against European Trade —. And how come the Ntives did not stop after seeing the consequences? Was it a case of addiction?

[Because of the time element, Japanese and Koreans had time to learn what happened to China through trade with British — Opium War, etc. —. So they refused trade. They did not allow Christian missionaries to come onto their lands either. It took threat of Gun Boats to open ports for European ships. But then, Japanese knew what formidable “devils” they allowed to come in. Japanese decided to “beat the devils in their game”, which culminated in the WWII and was a disaster any way. The bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “symbolic” of the Trade-War.

Ironically, Japan is still in Trade-WAr with the U.S. And it will get worse. For Japan, the only effective strategy is to Trade with the Communist China and USSR. The U.S. is pushing Japan to do that.

The US share of Japanese exports accounts for some 30%. But the exports account for only some 10% of Japanese internal market. One wonders [ought to wonder] why trade at all with all those troubles. Can’t peoples in the US and Japan be happy within each internal market? Why in a hell Japanese have to work so hard, for what good?]

The question goes back o that of “Why drink?” We are addicted to “civilization”, “progress”, “trade”, “more and more things”, and “for me”. The weakness of American Natives against European invasion was, perhaps, their “individualism” — misidentified with European Individualism, which was a defense mechanism/adaptation to alienation —. Bateson does point out “Egoism” in alcoholics. They are “lonely people” cut off from community. Because of that, AA tries to provide a “community of supports” for alcoholics. In the case of American Natives, they had beautifully working “Community” and still failed. It can only be explained, to me at least, as “Loss of Spirit”. Native warriors who wanted to fight, despite advices of “Peace Chiefs”, did not see the Spirit of the Community. They lost the battle, right then and there.

The Wisdom of Oneida woman failed to stop the warriors to go off to fight wars. Did not they love their children enough? I cannot tell from descriptions in books. But it appears that women were drunk just as well. One might also wonder the difference between the “intoxication by European Alcohol”  (things) and the “heightened consciousness by the Native Rituals”. The difference is in sprituality?

Being in a psychological state and being in a “spiritual state” are entirely different. Yet, from outward manifestations, distinctions are difficult. The Native warriors might have “cheated”, by saying like “my dream told me to go to war”. In the Native etiquette, women could not question the validity of the claim. But, if one cheats “Spirit” by pretending, the consequences is grave.

I almost saying that Iroquois was destroyed because Iroquois did not follow the Spirit of the Great Peace in the addiction to trade. This is a serious accusation. I expect you to correct me.

Now, back to the Economy. I was talking of a question: if people need so many things to be happy. Why people go through so much humiliation and risk of alienation to earn money so as to buy and be proud of a 824,00 car? Why the bankrupting Dome Petro. Co has a president who gets paid like million dollars in salary? Why that is necessary?

We know the natural resources on the Earth are not enough to keep “growth” of industries. Why do we push more and more? Sure enough, there are people who feel happy with the economic situation as it is, in terms of his or her personal satisfaction or pride. But the vast majority is not. Then why this goes on?

Indigenous Science

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

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)

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.