Tag Archives: education

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?


Sam K.

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!


Sam k.

2 December 1988 Personal Correspondence on Scientific Literacy

Mr. Oliver Lantz

Program Director-Science

RDI Unit, Curriculum Support Branch

Alberta Department of Education

11160 Jasper Ave. Edmonton


Dec. 2, ’88

Ref” STS Education

Dear Mr. Lantz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

S. Kounosu

Physics Department

Univ. of Lethbridge.

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

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

Dec. 8, ’88

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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