Tag Archives: Indigenous Science

Indigenous Science

4 April 1988 Personal Correspondence on Anger (PDF)

On Anger

04/04/88

Dear Pam

This is the second part of the letter to you on Violence/Anger. I presume you, as a Bear, are testing my Peace Research. I can assure you that by doing Peace Research I have come to know “nothing”. Peace is a kind of gem that you cannot “Possess” nor can you “Manufacture” by Science. It is not a question of Knowledge, but more to do with “Grace” in Christian term, or “Cosmic Love” in Buddhist term. You might call it “Gii Li” in your favorite term. I tell you about this later.

Last weekend, I went to Calgary and saw the “Spirit Sings”. It was a poor show. It was said to cover from 1600 to 1800. But the choice of the period was Political, as if from unconscious Cultural Bias. It neatly avoided the violent history of Invasion, Oppression, and Genocide. It evaded pre-colonial Native Culture. The main body of the show was Bead Work. The cheap glass beads were European imports. Indians sold two continents for these damned glass beads made in places like Firenze, Italy or Amsterdam, Holland!!! There was no display of native Copper Work etc. It implied that Natives had no culture before Europeans “taught” and supplied materials.

A few artifacts were genuine Native American. Several canoes, wood crafts, stone carvings, and one earthen pot, etc., were there. But they were the ones Europeans liked and collected. And the famous Sacred Mask was not placed properly, but crowded with other displays around. The arrangement of the surroundings was like a supermarket commercial display. The Mask deserves a room to itself, and it has to be placed appropriately in a “sacred” context. The Glenbow bookstore ought to sell books like the Vanishing White Man (Stan Steiner) to educate about what is happening to the World. The “Civilized” people who celebrate the Olympics only in Narcissism make me sick.

The only one that caught my attention was a “Wampum” made of natural seashell beads, purple and white, depicting people joining hands. It is a documentation of a Treaty. Perhaps it was from Iroquois, or from East Coast. The Museum does say it is a Treaty Document, but does not tell what the Treaty was. Nobody wants to remember the Treaty. White Culture is indifferent, or rather does not wish to know. The Natives would think it too painful to remember. So it sits in a Museum as a dead artifact whose meaning is lost forever. I wonder if anyone now can read the Wampum. (Purple is a sad color, but it is my favorite color. It appears just before the Red of Dawn. I can feel the kind of people who made the Wampum.)

Looking through Glenbow show, my niece commented that the Japanese would not have traded nothing for the cheap beads. She could not understand why Native Americans were “crazy” about the damned beads. I do not understand that either, and could not explain to her. I thought of explaining it in terms of “Pride” which blinded Natives. But I stopped short of saying that. I have to check that with you. [*1.]

Old Japanese did not have a taste for “bright colored” stuff. Europeans who came to Japan apparently found that out soon enough and did not even try. Japanese art designs had to be “simple” and unobtrusive. They did not like the “Complexity” of Chinese Art much either, when they came in contact with it before the Europeans came. Their sense of beauty demanded “subtle authentic elegance”, half-hidden in “ordinary practicality”. Until recently, they despised “show offs” as superficial. they did use ornaments, but valued “gems” in purple more. Stones and metals may be valuable enough, but they praised “Artists”, not “Artifacts”.

Tea ceremony, Flower arrangement, Poetry, and even Cooking, are typical of Japanese arts which are performance-centered, non-objective and ephemeral. They are “done”, just like Love-making, and that’s it. Or they are like the punch-line of jokes, there is no “justification”, no “explanation”, and nothing more can be added.

They are “Gems of the moment” created and gone, just like the momentary smile of a beautiful girl. There is nothing more to be asked. Nobody can “keep” the Gems as such, let alone “possess” it. And because they are ephemeral, they are most precious.

The above story has to do with your question. It is not Japanese art that I wanted to tell you about. If I could, I might have tried House Made Of Dawn to bring you here. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough about the House Made Of Dawn to do the same. I guess there must be Anger behind House Made Of Dawn. You know it and that is why you can read it. But I cannot find Anger in the story. There are many references to “drinking” in Momaday’s story. You know what it is. But I do not know what “drinking” means. Perhaps, to understand contemporary Indians, one has to understand Alcohol. I fail in that.

So I talked about Glenbow Show to Japanese Arts to say the following.

Peace is like the passing of a Gem of the moment. When Pam looked at the Oklahoma Moon, that was a moment of Peace in this sense. She might say “Aha”, or Weep, but she cannot keep it. She cannot display the “gems of the moment” as such in Museums either. The only thing she can do is to try to create moments. It may take a great anger to bring out such a moment. Then, one is obliged to act out the anger.

I heard Woody saying “It Hurts. It Hurts”, on CBC broadcasting from the picket line against the Glenbow show. It was a “primordial scream”. For that moment, CBC crews must have sensed a meaning in Woody’s “scream”, for otherwise it would have been “edited out”. but then, how many people heard it as a scream? I mean Natives. It is offensive to say this, but I wonder if Natives are “sensitive” enough. To be sure, if a lot of Natives scream loud, I would be frightened. After all, I am a parasite on the dominant power structure that oppresses the Natives. Yet, I cannot understand why Natives are not angry.

At the beginning of knowing You, someone referenced you as “She is one angry woman”. I thought it very interesting. But, so far, you disappointed me. I have not seen you angry in any big way. Why aren’t you angry? Are you getting too old? I say this to you, because not angry means that you don’t love enough.

I am not a great guy to talk about Anger. I am too “intellectual” to be angry. But you should not use my failure for your exercise. By writing to you, I am guilty of making an “intellectual” out of you. I know that. But I count on your Spirituality to resist that. And what happened to your “Aquarius Conspiracy”? You are supposedly a “Believer”, “Revolutionary Doer”, and “Passionate Lover”. I am a “doubter”, “technician” and “critical analyzer”; a typical “Virgo” which is the dead opposite to Aquarius. We have to make the best out of our bad match. And I think it would be best that you be in anger.

It is strange for a Peace Researcher to say such a thing. But, I don’t see a point in being just another nice guy who would dare not go beyond his reasonable defensive safety. Peace is not the keeping of Defense. It calls for the creation of a Defenseless World. For that, the world needs extraordinary, crazy guys. Any fool can be “reasonable”. Don’t be one. In anger, You can have all the fun and excitement that alcohol can give and extras such as creating something and giving it to the World.

[*1.) As to “Pride”, I have a suspicion that it also has something to do with Alcoholism. Sometime ago you said that Alcohol makes the drinker feel “Powerful”. That was a clue.

The “Power” in the sentence is not the “power” in the sense of “Facilitator”, but rather the “Power” of those who seek domination. It is the same Power that The British Empire sought. It is a denial of vulnerability. British called it “Invincible”. But Alcoholics seem to take it in a defensive sense. They “forget” defense, but there is nothing to give out. the Pride in Power there is empty of authentic content and does not facilitate creation of Love-Eros. They seem to not be aware that all human beings as bodily existences are just passing things, and no better off than alcoholics. Non-Alcoholics are just as miserable beings to whom alcoholics need no alcohol to feel superior. I would think of “En-noblement”, beyond “Empowerment” for Natives. And to avoid the romanticism of the “Noble Savage”, I recommend Fallible Man. By understanding Vulnerability, one gets into a state of mind called “Caring” which is needed to substantiate being “Noble” in daily life beyond ritualistic moments. The Power sense from Alcohol is superficial ritual, romanticism without authentic content, and worse, alcoholics know it, and hence are defensive. Life in anger and love is unconsciously full and overflows its limitations, and hence is “unreasonable”.

Alcoholics may be very sensually sensitive people, more so than others. And they are vulnerable because of the sensitivity. But they may also have more “Pride” than others. And because of it, they get hurt more. As a result, they are Defensive all the time. If Alcohol gets them to feel “invincible”, that is a welcome relief, however momentary it may be. An alternative would be the acceptance of vulnerability. But that is apparently not an Option to Alcoholics. Somehow, they feel being vulnerable is incompatible with their Pride.

I hesitated to ask you about this. I sense that you are an Aquarius to whom “Pride” is very important and at the same time it is the stumbling block. It is called “Pigheaded” — Pigs have big pride, if you know them —.

Now that I made you somewhat angry, I would like to introduce you to a book; Fallible Man by Paul Ricoeur. It is not a book on Science, but rather about Metaphysics of “Subjective Mind”, I shall send you the introduction and the table of contents. If you are interested, I shall copy the rest for you. It looks very “snobbishly intellectual – it represents the best of “European Academic Intellect” at the moment. I do worry it might “brainwash” you into an intellectual Snobbism. the combination of snobbism and your stubbornness (pig-headedness) would be deadly. You might become not only incomprehensible to People, but also “arrogant”. But being “arrogant” is not the same as being “angry”. I hope you know the difference, and do not forget that you are a poet.

Please not the term “Affective Fragility” appears in the table of contents as a “mistranslation” of “Vulnerability in being Sensual”. “Pride” is the dialectical opposite to Sensual vulnerability.

Yours

Sam K.

Indigenous Science

18 November 1987 Personal Correspondence on Women, Myth, and Goddesses (PDF)

[Ts-itstsinako]

Ts-itstsinako, Thought Woman

is sitting in her room

and whatever she thinks about

appears.

She thought of her sisters,

Nau’ts’ityi and I’tots’ityi

and together they created the Universe

this world

and the four worlds below.

Thought Woman, the spider,

named things and

as she named them

they appeared

She is sitting in her room

thinking of a story now

I am telling you the story

she is thinking.

 

[Ceremony]

I will tell you something about stories (she said)

They aren’t just entertainment.

Don’t be fooled.

They are all we have, you see,

all we have to fight off

illness and death.

You don’t have anything

if you don’t have the stories.

Their evil is mighty

But it can’t stand up to our stories.

So they try to destroy the stories

let the stories be confused or forgotten.

They would like that

They would be happy

Because we would be defenseless then

She rubbed her belly

I keep them here (she said)

Here, put your hand on it

See, it is moving.

There is life here

for the people.

And in the belly of this story

the rituals and the ceremony are still growing.

[Leslie Marmon Silko: Ceremony]

 

Nov. 18, ’87

Dear Pam

In the poem [Ceremony], I changed (He said) to (She said). It makes more sense that way. Silko’s book was quoted by Paula Gunn Allen, and I was checking the source for the purpose of finding some illustrations for my story on Linear/Non-Linear Dynamics.

The “Belly” is Ghii Lii, but I do not know if you would like to use that or not. I am trying to make up some “intellectual model” for those academic snobs who are not enlightened enough to appreciate the sacredness of the Womb, particularly described as “Belly” — of perhaps the Mother who is old enough to tell stories —.

Like we talked about, Stories (Myths) are in the hands of Males nowadays. I think that is why Silko wrote (He said). But, that brings the question of how Women lost the status as the Myth Makers.

I forgot who wrote it in what book, but it is a standard theory in Sociology that Women lost their status when “external relations” (trade, war) invaded tribal communities. It was an almost universal reaction of tribal communities all over the world that the “external relations” were handled by “Warriors” who were, by and large, males. Paula also  says the same as to the “degradation” of women’s status in Native communities which came in contact with “outsiders”.

[There were some exceptions. In the Japanese Myth I sent a copy to you last week, the Goddess Amenouzume was a “diplomat”. Besides, ancient Japan was ruled by an Empress, and even pregnant women went to wars along with men. They were like Amazons, who supposedly lived in Northern Europe, possibly Czechoslovakia. In my father’s country in northern Japan, peasant women used to be the ones who sold and bought things, until 1945 or so. Peasant men in the country were, in general, “reclusive” and did not like to deal with strangers. They talked only when they were drunk, but then they could not count money. “Samurai” Warriors were the complete opposite, which supports the theory in Sociology.]

But, trades and wars were “external”. How did that become “internal”? Why is Myth Making lost?

I am not against the “happy myths” that women make about “A little cozy house with a white picket fence and Sunday strolls to a park with children”. It is a worthwhile Myth and I hope the Myth becomes a reality for every woman. After all, the Socialist Ideal that Rosa Luxemburg fought for, with all her intellect and passion, was for the happiness of all people in that sense. And, in that sense, European Socialist movements had at least a partial success, in terms of a compromise called “Welfare Capitalism”. That is, Rosa’s Myth becomes true, to a degree. It is rather the megalomaniac Utopia of men-socialists, such as that of Stalin, Hitler, and Big Money Men, that brought disasters.

You read Silko’s poem, with a minor substitution of “Myths” for “Stories”. The “Theory” is absolutely correct. When women make up a Myth of the New World, the New World comes. That will be, for sure, the reality sooner or later.

Women, with their “manipulative minds”, can make men do most anything. Men would not know what was happening to them. It was Women — said to have been some 200 of them — who made Jesus do what he did. It was ladies who made Galileo do science, by their show of support in terms of “popularity” and perhaps coy flatteries. Galileo was known to be a lover of wine and women.

The only exception was Newton. Young Newton adored a daughter of a pharmacist in his town. But she did not even look at him. And we all know the dreadful result of that. If Human Race annihilates itself by Nuclear War, I shall blame women for their part in frustrating men, driving them crazy, and making them desperately suicidal. To be sure, however, before men can blame women, women of the world must be given a universal and absolute “Natural Right” to each own “a little cozy house”. You may not have noticed it, but with some 800 Billion Dollars we have been spending on armaments every year, we can do that. (No less than 40 million houses a year. And think about the employment they would create, plus the secondary effects on the economy.) The problem is, of course, the “egg and chicken”. We are in a Vicious Circle — a bad type of Non-Linear Dynamics —.

The only way to get out of the Vicious Circle is Myth Making. I do not go into mathematics here. But the same can be explained in cases like the “high jump”. Athletic coaches would tell you that the first thing one has to do is to make an Image of one jumping high. If you cannot see yourself jumping high, you cannot jump high. That is the most important “pedagogical” secret.

If you can imagine that you are doing it, then you can do it. Whatever the “it” is. If we can see what Indian Reserves look like, then that is what it shall be. We do not have Peace, simply because we do not know what Peace looks like. In dealing with Vicious Circle situations, Imagination, i.e. Myth Making is the most important thing. If we have a “Story”, we can jump. That is why I am “holding a gun to your head” — though I would prefer a better metaphor —.

OK I tell you a story. The story is about a strange man and an author. This strange man used to stand on a bridge over a river in Tokyo. There was a sand bar in the river. This strange man, on a certain weekday, every week, would go there and look at the sand bar. The author also had a habit of taking a walk and passing by the bridge on the same evenings. Eventually, the writer came to know the man and they started to talk. The man was thinking of building a beautiful town on the sand bar. I do not remember the details, but I guess it was something like Utopia. Maybe it was a Woman Town, consisting of “cozy little houses” with flower gardens and parks.

The writer did not believe a single thing this strange man was talking about. It was a crazy dream, nothing more than an “escape from reality”. But nevertheless those two kept meeting and discussed all details of the Town Plan.

Then, like any story of this kind, it came to an end. One evening, the writer came to the bridge, but the strange man was not there. The next week, the writer waited a little longer, but the dreamer did not show up. The next next week, the writer went a little earlier and waited. No show. A month passed. A season passed. A year passed. In the dusk of Tokyo, the writer kept looking at the sand bar in the River Sumida. The Utopia was no longer there. And there the story ended.

I must have been 10 years old or so when I read it. But the sad feeling is still with me. My mother did not even know that I was reading stuffs like that. My teachers, schoolmates, brothers, would not have known what the feeling was like, even if I told the story to them. Only my sister knew that I was reading, but I did not tell her about the story. And that I learned math, physics, Marxism, Christianity, etc., including digging into Bear Shit, has to do with the story too.

I am looking for the imagination lost.

You see I am the writer still looking for the man with the strange imagination. I am not holding a gun at you. I am hanging on to the imagination.

What you are talking about may be a dreaming nonsense. But it is important to me. I expect you to be a Myth Maker. You have to tell me your “Stories”.

If you cannot find words, I supply you tons of words. As long as there is a vision, in a sense of even being a feeling, there will be words for it. If not, we make up words. If you can’t get the picture right, someone will dram it for you. One thing about Myths is that they are communal properties. Don’t try to monopolize the burden like Jesus Christ — even his case was not an egoistic enterprise  as the Bible distorted it to be —. You are not even a Christian.

Back to the “Woman talk”. The difficulty of Ghii Lii is from its Femininity. C. Kerenyi open the chapter on Kore by saying “How can a man know what a woman’s life is?”

[Essays On A Science of Mythology. C.G. Jung, and C. Kerenyi. Princeton U Press 1949. BL313 J83.]

Kore, a Greek goddess, Holy Virgin, The Mother Earth, The Female Spirit of the Universe, is dated some 5,000 B.C. Her name is spelled variously, like “Car”, “Carna”, “Ker”, “Kali” and apparently worshipped all over Indo-European World, including Egypt. The Myth is the oldest, from the time before any Male Gods appeared. But the Kore Myth was destroyed. We only have fragments, and with many distortions. Probably you do not think of this, but to me it was obvious from the beginning that Ghii Lii has to do with the Female Spirit. It was “Water” that led me to it. That led me to Paula’s books, etc.

Now I have a hell of a problem. How can a man know what a woman’s life is?

It is one thing to talk of a “different culture” in terms of, say, male anthropologists interrogating male informers. As long as “Culture” is defined by Males, there is a hope in understanding. But what I am facing is something else. I try “Geometry/Field” — because that is the only thing I know —. Hopefully there is some Female Principle in Geometry/Field, enough to get to Ghii Lii. But that is tough going.

At any rate, let us see what we can get out of this mess. Like I said, Levi-Strauss could not do it. So if we fail, there is nothing to be ashamed of (in and intellectual sense). But, for the sake of the life of people under oppression, I hope someone will find a way. I remind you that many people pampered you (a pun intended), because you hold a key. In a sense, we are “mouse woman” to you as the “bad tempered, flighty, headstrong girl” in the “Bear Shit” story narrated by Bill Reid. If and when she become the noble Bear Mother is an open question at the moment.

Yours

Sam

P.S. In summer 1988, I am offering Physics 2020 “Physics And Society”. I will be talking of the Role of Scientists in the Nuclear Arms Race/Destruction of the World. Would you kindly consider talking about Native Science in the course? The summer course will likely be offered in July (in the second session). However, if we do not get enough enrollment, it will be withdrawn.

Indigenous Science

12 October 1990 Personal Correspondence on Economy and Justice (PDF)

Oct. 12, ’90

Dear Pam,

The day is getting shorter, cold, damp, for work outdoors. The climate at Kootenay is similar to Northern Japan. My ancestor peasants knew when to retreat. That was a way to respect nature. They did not fight against winter, but rested with it. So, with cuts, bruises, stiff fingers, middle pain in joints from heavy carpentry,I came to rest for the season. I might do a bit of dynamics of “field-field interaction” for the winter. For I have neglected it for years. That will also give time for big lumber today. I had enough of the pleasure of working with wood, and the smell of them will last and keep me happy till the next spring. The love affair with wood also needs retreat.

While working on the cottage building, I heard that GST is not applicable for “home economy” inside Reserves. That set me thinking of a possibility of “Moral Economy” in Reserves. Of course, the majority opinion is “Assimilation” into the dominant economic system. White Intellectuals were saying that. Some Native Intellectuals also implied the same, if they did not say so explicitly. They are believers of “Economic Development” — much the same way as International Economic Developing guys are — . For them, the “Trading for Cash Income” is the main “Medium” through which everything else, including Mental Health Welfare, Justice, Rights, Human Relations, etc. are put in order and dealt with.

It appears that native speakers picked up by CBC for comments on “native rights” etc., were unconscious of the link between Economy and Justice. They insist on the distinct independence of Native Cultures/Nations, but they do not talk of distinct independent Economy — i.e. the “Way of Life” —. Rather implicit assumption seems to be “Economic Dependency/Assimilation”. The Economy as the “way of life” is mundane, technical, and does not appear to have anything to do with Justice nor Spirituality — that is, if one thinks of it in European categorical separation —. But the daily practices are like body functions that carry and manifest “mind”. The atomistic separation is an artificial illusion used to simplify dynamics for low intelligence. It has a danger of perpetuating the dependency on the colonial system, while maintaining show rituals of cultuality/spirituality. It is no different from “Sunday Christians”.

Interestingly, in the Massey Lecture I mentioned to you before, Lebequers design for Quebec Sovereignty was criticized as being a half-ass. Lebeque was a chicken in that he did not go far enough to insist “Economic Sovereignty” — his plan was to retain Canadian Dollar as the common currency, which comes under the control by the federal bank policy —. He was saying that “Cultural Independence”/”National Sovereignty” are not separable from independent means to maintain “Economy” within. Trading will interfere with internal economy as we see in international trade, particularly in the “North-South Problem” which is a manifestation of the new way of Colonialism/Imperialist War —.

To be sure, “Trader” in the sense of “Exchange” is an intermediate evolutionary step in human relation, between “Appropriation” to “Love Gift”. Human Race is learning ways of relating through Exchange Trade. But if its linkage to Human Rights/Justice (i.e. Moral Economy) is shut out in “conceptual separation/rationalization” as most 19-20th century intellectuals do, it no longer serves as Learning Process.

[Marx pointed out that only the parts which are “Alienated” come into Trade. Marxists did talk of this, yet they do not seem to think it serious enough, perhaps because they think the market economy is “Rational” and has nothing more to improve.

Marx himself was a half-ass in that he did not elaborate far enough about the problem of Alienation. His limitation/mistake was self-imposed by his “Pique” against Utopian thinkers. In that hew was a victim of self-pride. but European way of “intellectualization” itself is a “Trade in the Market” and “Self-Pride” manifested as “Pique” the other side of the”Alienation”. It is almost universal in European Intellectual Trade.

They did not have the mental posture of “Love Gift” that Medicine Men/Women had. They were not “Noble” nor “Virtuous” in the Asiatic sense. Rather, European Rationality rejected “Nobility”, “Virtue”, (and “Love”, “Grace”) as “Asiatic” that the Colonialism of Marx’s time contemptuously referred to and European Intellectuals today have it as “Orientalism”. (c.f. Edward Said) Critiques of Heidegger point out that his defect started with Greek Intellectualization which was Technical and lacking the sense of “Sublime” that I mentioned before. They say Heidegger slipped into Nazism because Heidegger, great as he was, was a “Technical” intellectual in the Market.

You might think about the possible linkage between “Technical” intellectualization and Greek Misogyny. In my view, Misogyny is a form of Alienation. In Freudian terms, “Alienation” is the sense of separation from Mother/Womb. In my terminology, it is a denial of Rationality in terms of Object Language/Thinking i.e. Newtonian Physics.

Alienation is a disease, disfunctioning our minds. Medicine Men/Women knew how to treat such a disease.]

Economic Independence means Cultural Independence, and more importantly Spiritual independence. It matters little how the home economy is evaluated in “Dollar Values”. If needed Reserves can have “Note” to facilitate and account the internal economy, though in “intimate Relativeness” the accounting is probably not needed.

I was reading a sad story by Sue Shyokan, a Chinese writer, who was involved in the Student Revolt of 1989 at Beijing. He was a professor of literature and an “Intellectual”. He was talking of “Powerlessness”, “ineffectiveness”, “Uselessness”, and “Cowardice” of Intellectuals — of himself — with naked honesty. He talked of “Fear” that is the basis of “Reason” (Intellect/Rationality). But this “Reason is a European notion.

He lamentingly refers to the ancient Chinese “Reason” which was from the Virtues (Medicines) of Love, Grace, Nobility, the Sublime. It was not Fear-based like the European one is. the trouble of the modern Chinese intellectuals is that the modern intellectuals lost “Home Base”. In old days the”wise” had “home/village” to go to when they fell from patronage by the power. They could contentedly live with “home people” and did not need the official “Raison d’Etre” (= Raison de Etat). Europeans might call that “Marginal Existence”, which is excluded from the Exchange Market or “Outside Currency”. But because of their self-sufficient basis, the ancient wise men/women did not need to “prostitute” their intellect. If they go out of their “Village” to speak, then it was a gift of Love. It is “Surplus” in the jargon of Economics. And the noble/graceful were not obliged to sell it. Sue Shyokan lamented that he, and modern intellectuals, no longer has the base to “fall back on” — just as the “proletariat” has to sell its labor everyday to live at all —.

Those who have to sell “intellect” in the market for their daily living are forced to think/feel their labors in terms of “necessity”. (The sense of “necessity” is a part of Fear.) Whereas, the ancient medicine men/women were moved by Love/GRace. Intellect is like “Sex”. It can be sold on the market and be the means of making a living. Or it can be a gift/expression of love. The choice is determined by the Economic System, which is a social choice.

Biologically speaking, I think intellect does have two mixed bases of Fear and Love. European Intellect has been fixated on Fear side, only allowing marginal existence for Love side. Even in China, the modern intellectuality has taken over — and modernizations, such as university system imported from Europe accelerated this decay of the virtue of Nobility/Grace —. Hence the lament of Sue Shyokan.

It may sound banal and even European, but it seems if Natives are to live in dignity, the Home Economic Basis, independent of the Market Trade, has to be established. (This is true for anybody). “Welfare” has to be moral and “Moral” cannot be there without “Sovereign Independence”. That is the meaning of Self-sufficiency.

To be sure, by “Independent I do not mean the European notion —that means “Egocentrism” for isolated “Individuals” —. I used the word because there are no other words to express it in English/European Physics. Here comes my problem of “Relational Physics” that Einstein failed to make (*).

[*Einstein’s “Relativity” was a descendent of the Imagination which Michael Faraday had (Electro-Magnetic Field). He perused ways to describe “Event/Existence” on the basis of Relational Flow of Fields (Geometry). If he succeeded, we would have a way of talking about “happenings” without any reference to “Body” and “Body” (Object) as manifestations of fields in an interaction. But he could not complete his work. The problem of the “Two Body” remained. We have no way of talking, and hence thinking, dynamics of relations without “Self”, “Other” (objects) etc., in our “rational” language. Hence we are forced to talk and think (and worse, feel) “Independence, “Sovereignty”, “Self-sufficiency” etc. in the Atomistic Object Language. Actually, there exists no such thing as “Existence” without “Relations”. In this sense, European “Existentialism” is completely wrong. I am trying to talk of Rationalism (Relativity). But I do not have adequate language to do so.

Not that “Fear” comes when you say think/feel as an isolated (alienated) Individual (ego) alone.

Love, Grace, Nobility, Sublime are words in Relational Science. Unfortunately, there is no such Science/Discourse in Relational Language as yet.

Of course, “Natives” all over the world had Relational Languages (Sciences). But we how are colonized (educated) in modern European languages (science) lost not only the ability to understand the languages, but also the respect for the science. Since we do not understand those who speak the old languages (sciences), we think they are “irrational”, if not stupid. Thus we exclude them from our discourse-market and marginalize them.

David Suzuki said that “Native Americans have quite different thinking” in reference to “Wildlife Management” problem about Wolves. The program revealed how little European Science of Ecology knows about “Wildlife”. Rather, the science is nothing but Fear-Driven superstition plus Greed of Hunter-Tourist Business. I wonder if the basic philosophy/ideology behind “Indian Policy” is not the same “Science” of the Wildlife Management.]

At any rate, Natives do have basis to build “Home Economy”  along with Trading Economy with the dominant one. If they do, the consequences are great. It is not just a way of avoiding GST. It means that Reserves would produce every thing they need, including medical services and education, making them almost self-sufficient. That cuts down their dependency on the supermarket economy. If natives think three-quarter-ton tracks are needed, they can make them. Potatoes can be grown, breads are baked. There is enough talents/ability to do that. If not, they learn the power. That is what “Education” is for. One might start with Relational Science. Is there any sign that Natives are becoming aware of and interested in “Moral Economy”?

Yours

Sam K.

Indigenous Science

Power and Love Principle in Social Organization (PDF)

Oct. 26, 87.

Dear Pam

Enclosed is a report of what I have been doing.

Yours

Sam

There are some physics in this, if you’re interested.

POWER AND LOVE PRINCIPLE IN SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

A Paper to be presented to CPREA, Ottawa

June 1, 1982. Session VIII.

S. Kounosu

Department of Physics

The University of Lethbridge

Lethbridge, Alberta

Abstract:

Social organizations require the co-operation of their

constituents. One way to secure the co-operation is coercion by

Power of various forms. Newtonian Physics provides a paradigm of

the Power way of system constructions. It is a “forced” relation

among constituents. Another way to achieve co-operation is

through Love. Both ways are as old and basic as Life phenomena,

and one can observe them even in ecological systems. However, the

dynamics of Love are not well understood. In view of the high

energy cost of maintaining power-system structures, this

underdeveloped state of Science of Love is of a grave concern.

This paper is written as a plea for serious considerations and

developments in social dynamics of Love. Implications to

International Peace are discussed.

Power and Love Principles in Social Organization.

1. Power Principle and its Newtonian Metaphor.

It is almost a tautology to say that a social organization requires

the co-operation of its constituents. For without some ways of maintaining a

practical degree of coherence in their interactions, a collection of

individuals can hardly be called “social”. And we expect some mechanisms for

“organization” to sustain functional structures and appearance of a constant

order to claim its identity. Although a collection of atoms (individuals)

like the “ideal gas” of statistical mechanics may be discerned as a

paradigmatic metaphor behind some social theories such as the social

contract theory and the equilibrium economics, society is not a collection

of randomly acting independent individuals.

To keep an order, which may well be even nominal, the society has to

plead, guide, persuade, manipulate, coerce, force or eliminate unwilling or

misbehaving members within. Order costs effort and energy—as is the case

for Entropy cost for mechanical systems, and we have power structures to

carry out the task. If we call the way of organizing our society

“civilized”, then it is distinguished by its high energy cost before its

merits are listed. Our education system is a part of the power structures as

such. If the internalization of the social order is not, sufficient, it is

followed by the penal system. We rely on the “adversary system” to bring out

the best of our justice. The process of justice is at a sublimated level,

but its metaphor is like boxing and its final outcome is at the hands of the

sovereign authority which is the apex of the power structures and has the

right to kill humans. We note that we have never denied the power of the

sovereignty to declare nuclear war and annihilate the human race.

In terms of economy, we have a system of distributing unequal rewards

among us. This has been justified by a hope that competitions for higher

rewards stimulate higher performances and result in a net gain of economy

overriding the cost of the reward system. The competitions are not just for

possession of more material things, but more intensely for controlling

power. To enjoy a high level of consumption is one thing, but to accumulate

“Capital” is quite another thing. We enjoy our high level of consumption and

we are proud of it, if not identifying ourselves with it. However, the

consumption has to be sustained by the capital (means of production) which

is not merely machines and factories but also control of human labor. The

term “accumulation” may not be appropriate for the human-social side of the

Capital as such, but it had to be built with accumulative energy input. And

the distribution consumption side of the economy had to be controlled so

that the construction-accumulation of the production side goes on. Unequal

distribution of reward or “competition” is a technology developed to achieve

the accumulation and maintenance of the power structure.

The unequal distribution of rewards also act as a deterrent to those who are

unwilling or are incompetent players of the game. The threat to livelihood

is a sublimated form, but it is a threat to life and violence. But, since

economic inequality relates and simulates political power structure and what

is conceived as “civil order”, the violence is condoned as a legitimate

exercise of power.

In terms of our inner thoughts or intelligence, we regard that which

is successful in climbing up the ladder of the power structures to be the

high quality one. And we try to attain it, or rather we think we ought to

attain it. Our education system supposedly helps everyone with this ideal,

but the “success” is only relative to failures, like in the “Zero Sum Game”,

and the system only intensifies the adversary competitions. The school

system often acts as a “filtering system” by which “inferiors” are labeled

and it prepares them for inequality that they are likely to face. Freud went

so far as to say that civilization is an illusion. Illusion is distinguished

from “delusions” of the “mentally ill” in that “illusion” is good for the

economy whereas “delusions” are useless, if not damaging. According to

Freud, I imagine, the “Reality” is an illusion which the controlling power

of the economy takes as a set of reference points for its operations. We

assume that the power has the right to “cure” those who have difficulties in

accepting the “Reality”.

In summary, the power is regarded as necessary and an ideal, if not

“the only”, means around which any society has to construct itself. I call

this the “Power Principle”. The power principle says if one desires

anything, apply “force”. If one has a problem, apply “force”. Might is the

answer to all. Thus, human relations are imaged as motions of objects that

have to be forced, and therefore the “intelligent” and “realistic” way of

dealing with them is to apply “force” as Newtonian physics suggests. The

ultimate expression of the power principle is Nuclear War. Chemical,

Biological weapons are relatively easy to prohibit, but Nuclear weapons,

since it represents the power principle of our civi1ization, cannot be

banned easily unless we change the fundamental image-metaphor of how we live

The terms like “force”, “energy”, “power” are terms of Newtonian

physics. I shall not argue whether our ways of social organization are

influenced by image and language of physics, or physics as such is merely

one expression of our ways of organizing. According to L. Mumford (The Myth

of the Machine), machines are modeled after political structures which

existed long before the modern science and technology appeared.

Mumford’s argument is convincing, particularly with respect to the

popular image as a metaphor or paradigm of what machines are; perhaps

physics is a refined expression of a popular paradigm, or even merely a

refined language organization. Terms of physics are borrowed from existing

language. And without the acceptance and support of society, even with mis-
interpretations of popular understanding, science would not have developed.

In the age of specialization and professionalism, popular image-metaphors of

“science” may not coincide with what “science” is doing for (and to) them.

But there has to be a shared

paradigm which makes up a positive feedback loop.

On the other hand, however, it is doubtful if modern society could

have developed in the way it has without the patterns of thought emerging

along with the modern science. The Bourgeois Ideals, the Capitalism, and the

Central Government System appeared along with the Science and development at

roughly the same accelerated pace. And their “take off point” may be traced

to about Galileo’s time.

To be sure, ideals or ideas expressed may not correlate with practice.

At least, time lags are noticeable. I imagine that the image of “machine”,

which may be very o1d as Mumford suggested, could not come into social

practice until some means of converting fossil energy into some forms

similar to human labor were developed. That requires developments in

science, so that the “idea” can be connected to “know-how”. That is, the

idea or image has to be refined. And the idea has to win the support and

cooperation of the society. Willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or

unknowingly, our ancestors made the investments into the development of this

civilization which had a long lead time.

As economists commonly point out, developments as such are slow —

i.e. with time lags — at least at the initial stages. Society supports the

necessary investment for a long time only on a basis of vague notions of

what would come out of the process. It had nothing more than metaphor to go

on. And unless the whole circle of the inter-related developments

constituted a “Positive Feedback Loop”, the system would not have “taken

Galileo needed the accumulated wealth of Italian textile merchants

like the Medici family or the cultural affluence, confidence, and interest

in science such wealth provided. Contradictions and resistances were there,

like the “friction” of Newtonian mechanics. But as a whole, the positive

feedback loop was formed and set into motion.

And the history of the past 400 years of European style development,

which now includes North and South America and some Asian countries, is very

impressive. There we find the roots of our faith in “science” or

“rationality”. Right or wrong, the history so perceived provides the

metaphoric foundation for what terms like “science” and “rationality” mean.

It is not that non-European societies did not have some notion of

“Force”, but the notion of Force even in Newtonian mechanics is rather

static. “Power” as “rate of flow of energy per unit time” is a dynamic

notion. Admittedly it is only a slightly different semantic variation in

terminology, and even physicists today may not make the distinction in

colloquial usages of the term, but the fact that “power” in mechanics

provides a distinction is an indication of a linguistic development and a

corresponding shift in metaphor.

Physics may be nothing more than a linguistic system of model

(metaphor)- making and rules of language for efficient communication. Or one

might say physics is an art of “saying things”

like rhetoric. But “saying things” in certain ways have far-reaching

consequences. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the prime example of how

important it is to have a certain way of “saying things”. I cannot tell

whether notions, ideas, metaphors, images come first and generate language

appropriate for them, or language forms come first and generate ideas. I

imagine they are also in the “feedback loop”-relations, if not in a “vicious

If so, it is vain to attempt to “explain” the relations in terms of

the linear mechanics of the “Cause-Effect” rhetoric. We need the language of

“system-dynamics” to describe such relations. Unfortunately, we are in a

process of developing such a language and, at the moment, we are not able to

give an appropriate description of the loop structure that can be accepted

as an “explanation” on a social scale.

At the moment, the best practical language at the social scale is that

of Newtonian mechanics. And within this language, or the metaphors it

provides, only the “power” makes sense. People may not have formal training

in the mechanics, nor are they necessarily conscious of the mechanics

implied by their saying and thinking. But social practices are guided by

languages of the society.

But to the extent we do have to communicate for social life, economic

activities, political commotions, and to the extent that we may be able to

change our languages with less energy than changing social practices, there

is hope to break the vicious circle. Our “thoughts” may be nothing more than

the “Form” in language, as Plato seems to have suggested — that is, we

start our “thoughts” from expressions in a language and we end our thoughts

in some expressions in a language—, but we note that language also

And to the extent Newtonian language and metaphors of Power were

important in the Western history, we can hope to make some input for the

future by generating or, more modestly, by stimulating development of the

physics of Love (Language of love). We note that even Newtonian mechanics

taught us about time lags. If one tries ordinary statistical analysis, the

“force” and “motion” do not correlate at all. This is because “force” is a

term in the second order time derivative. As a number of objects or entities

in dynamical description increases, the leading term in the description of

the system as a whole gets to be higher and higher in the order of time

derivative. That means the effects of the “higher order forces” would

manifest in longer time lags. We should not be impatient, according to

Newtonian Theory.

Of course, we need not believe in Newtonian mechanics. Personally, I

am very critical of it. But as a learning process, one could follow the

mechanics to a point. After all, Newtonian mechanics is the best we

developed so far, even though a few flaws are known.

In a way, all of our descriptions, intellectualizations and

theorizations are not only linguistic models but also simplifications. Our

brain may handle a huge amount of information, but in terms of our

“intellect”, we can only handle a few terms at a time. Social

complexities are beyond our mechanics, unless we appeal to metaphorical

imaginations. In this, Newton already introduced terms like “force” which is

a “ghost term” as E. Mach, Albert Einstein et al pointed out. Yet the “ghost

terms” are the essential ones in the system of “saying things”. The western

history attests to the importance of the “ghosts”. By this I am saying that

terms like “Love” need not be “unscientific” and “irrational”, any more than

“force” and “power” were.

Mach rejected the term “atom”, saying it is a “ghost”. He was correct

in saying so, as the Elementary Particle physics later came to the same

view. But for the Elementary Particle physics to develop and vindicate Mach,

it was necessary to “believe in the “atom” and search for it until then.

Mach was wrong in the development strategy. Mistaken ideas are often a more

useful means of learning than the correct one, for if we have the correct

answer, we have no motivation to learn any further. At least this is my

excuse to dare introduce a “dynamics of Love” as a heuristic device for

I imagine there is a need for studying the Power Principle much deeper

than I outlined above. There are criticisms by social scientists against

“physics” —society, social phenomena are not simple like planetary motion,

obviously, but the “Scientism” in social studies is far more powerful than

the critics appear to estimate. And the basic metaphor of “science” is the

Newtonian Mechanics. If it is difficult to get out of the metaphor, then

second best would be to know what the metaphor is. Perhaps soul searching in

Newtonian mechanics may be the way to overcome the myth. As Zen and

Motorcycle Maintenance tells us, one needs to perform a Proper burial ritual

to go beyond Newton.

However, in order to give some sense of direction to the search, I

would like to present my speculations on the dynamics of love and discuss a

few implications. If my story is of some interest, then I shall come back to

Newtonian mechanics in detail. I think “history” is like “dream

interpretation”, which would be of no interest unless it suggests future

possibilities, if not hope or even “prophecy”. For that matter, knowing

“what is of fact” is of no consequence unless it relates to “What shall be”

(T.S. Elliot). If you find “prophecy” objectionable, then replace the word

with “prediction”. The latter sounds “scientific”, but I would not know the

difference, except for the false pretense the latter semantic carries.

2. Love Principle

—why and how to talk of it—

Love may be everywhere. And there may be many kinds of love. But, in

comparison with the rather elaborate vocabulary for Power Mechanics, we have

only poorly developed means of describing love phenomena. The unbalanced

development of our language concerning Power and Love reflects our sense of

value, priorities, and different sensitivities about the two.

In addition, our “scientific” or “intellectual” vocabulary is

dominated by nouns and visual senses — of objects named and metaphors or

images derived thereof. But in the context of discussing “love” on a social

scale, “love” is more like a verb. It could be replaced by “loving”, but in

the sense we say “rain” for “it rains”, I have retained the simpler form.

I intend here to use the term “love” as a dynamical term. It is not

referenced to a thing or object, not even to an “essence” of platonic

atomism. It needs no object(-ive) “existence”. We recall that terms like

“point” and “line” in geometry need no objective existence, and their visual

images and metaphors are more or less arbitrary choices in subjective

interpretations or “animations”. Terms like “force”, “energy”, “entropy”,

are also of this kind. Some physicists like P. Bridgman even insist that

“electron” is not an object as it might be suggested by its noun name, but

an operational term referring to a set of “doing things” and “measuring-
detection” procedures-processes. “Electrons” is understood as “it

electrons”, in the sense we say “rain” for “it rains”.

Thus the “love” here needs not to have an object(-ive) existence like

vitamins or hormones that can be crystallized in a test tube. It needs not

to be seen in a genetic code under an electron microscope. Somehow it could

be sensed by body sensations, but needs not to have any visual sensation or

perception. Hollywood movies might give us visual images of “love”, but that

is not the kind I shall talk about here. I think visual images, models and

metaphors are helpful to us, and I intend to give several of them. However,

they do not constitute complete pictures of “love”.

My intention here is to start discussions on love by rather “heartless

descriptions” of the “social engineering of love”. It is only a small part

and suggested as a starting point of learning processes. If this paper is

taken by the readers as something like “Soft Technology”, I shall be well

satisfied. As it will soon become evident, even this limited treatment is

difficult enough for me. I am sure that there are many people who know Love

better than I do. And they might point out that my difficulty is due

precisely to such a “heartless” attitude of “system engineering” which is

necessarily limited in scope. Love, by its fundamental nature, has to

encompass everything of life and environment, as they might say. I am aware

of what E. Fromm and H. Marcuse said about love-eros. Their works are indeed

impressive and perhaps there is nothing to add to them. But I

detect a Platonic Atomism in their rhetoric and attempt a dynamic approach

as an alternative here. Like many geometries, alternative approaches need

not inherently be better or worse. Thus I shall try a typical simplification

of physical science here.

For a start I shall try “love” to be any tendency of interaction to

form cooperations. Symbiosis, herd instinct, collective behavior of magnetic

materials, emergence of quasi-stable structure out of random motions, or

even “anti-entropy” may be taken as a metaphor for love at this level of

“Love” as collective behavior of many-body dynamics can be discerned

among soldiers at battle fronts. The huge organization of war effort cannot

be maintained without the “love” of millions of people. Nuclear weapons

could not have been produced without the cooperation and support of many

people. Therefore, one could say that Nuclear Holocaust, if it comes, is a

product of “love”. If people did not accept, obey, and feel good about

identifying themselves with their hero-leader, the Holocaust of the

concentration camps could not have been possible. Without supportive wives

at home, men at work for Capitalism would have become monks and probably

become extinct in a few generations. As for “behind every successful man

there is a woman”, we would say “behind every successful social institution

and development, there is love”. The state of “living together” constitutes

at least “circumstantial evidence of “love” in this broad sense.

The crudeness of the above examples is purposely made to minimize the

image of “nice and sweet love”. “Love” can be nice and sweet, but it need

not be so, and the primary interest here is on the social phenomena-dynamics

of love, not on the romantic aspects of love. Love on a social scale can be

just as infatuating as that of Romeo and Juliet, though it may not

necessarily be “romantic”.

But it is more important to look at the “low-intensity” types with

longer time-scales, like the toil of mothers looking after their offspring.

This type is rather like a “daily routine”, always present and forever

caring, if one takes notice. Even within the Power-centered civilizations,

people do live together, accepting, accommodating, sympathizing,

understanding, communicating, and taking care of the unrewarding “minor

details” of life.

In this connection, it is interesting to note that the experimental

and empirical ways of science (knowing) introduced by Galileo are deviations

from the Greek tradition and closer to Love in that they require enormous

care of minute details of interaction with the environment. But in the

abstract theoretical expressions, they are acknowledged only as supporters.

In practice, the means actually defines what science is. But the end claims

the glory. It is the way we present and image our “knowledge”.

Power cannot exist without Love. Just like the “Macho” or “Man-God”

image, the power takes, or rather needs, all the credit, rewards, and public

appearances, and it can not get enough, whereas Love is content with the

invisible, unrecognized, unrewarding supporter’s position. Power gets its

energy from exploiting Love.

Love has to do with “quality of means, process”, not the “end”,

“purpose”, “intent”. Love is not an “answer” or something that one achieves,

like when heroes finally win over the monsters. It is not “value” or

“evaluation”. It does not look for “what”, but rather is concerned with

“how”. It is the opposite of “intellectualization” and “rationalization”. It

is close to randomness accidents, particulars, that our intellect tends to

look down on with contempt. Sweeping generalizations of our intellectual

expressions are impressive. I fantasize that “Love” adores that, but the

sweeping generalizations have to come from the nitty-gritties of particulars

and have to go back to the chaos of life experiences. The image of love here

is dangerously similar to that of the one who stays pregnant, cooks, cleans,

and cares for everything that comes along in random chances. Unfortunately,

that has to be done if our life process is to continue. The only way out is

to give recognition to the love as such, and for everybody to share the

burden. If we are to replace the love with the power-way of doing things,

the energy costs of the necessary tasks would be forbidding.

Engineers know that any mechanical system has to have plays and

tolerance. The system also needs “lubricants”. One cannot control systems

beyond a certain scale with dogmatic order, even though the metaphor of

intellectual description may be “deterministic”. Machines are not. In cases

like Nuclear Power plants, one can conceive safety devices upon safety

devices, but the probability of failure increases if too many safety

controls are build into the system, for safety devices could also fail. That

is, even a mechanical system, if practical, does not operate on the Power

Principle a1one. It needs something analogous to what we shall call Love. I

attempt here to decipher Love Principle from such engineering principles. I

acknowledge my image of Love is not necessarily a popular one. And I am even

afraid that I am degrading love by pulling it down to the engineering level

of discussions. But I am not saying this is all there is about love. It is

only a small part, or a starting heuristic metaphor. I hope our learning

about love is limitless. And I think this way of “knowing” love is tolerated

by the Love principle.

This is analogous to what physicists and mathematicians do to “Non-
linearity”. The “non-linear” simply means situations for which linear theory

description fails. The linear theories and descriptions are simpler and one

can have sweeping generalities, provided linearizations are good

approximations. In fact, in linear descriptions, one rarely needs to be

conscious of the “approximateness” of the description. Tolerance is

automatically assured in the structure of the descriptions themselves. If

the description fails to accommodate tolerance and cannot maintain

stability, the axiom of the linear language automatically rejects such cases

to be outside the universe of the discourses.

Of course, we encounter difficulties. We cannot manage everything by

the linear way of describing and thus knowing things and situations. But our

sciences have developed only as simplification by linearization, thus

whatever we excluded is called “unscientific”. Today, we have a rise of

interests in non-linear phenomena and the prejudice is diminishing. However,

the simplifications strategy of scientific knowing has to be maintained.

This is partly because the intellectual part of our brain cannot handle

complexity. And if “science” is to be useful socially, it has to be

reachable by anybody who is patient enough to follow the rules. The practice

may deviate from equality, say in professionalism, or elitism that thrives

on the monopoly of “scientific expertise”, But even Professionalism has to

claim the universality of science to justify the power of the monopoly

position. And if professionals have theories at all, the theories are based

on simplifications that they can understand.

Interestingly, however, the recent rise in interest for complexity

came about because of computer developments, which can be understood as a

part of the development of our language skills. We can now delegate “simple

routines” to computers and afford to think and talk about complexities. Or

it may be a sign that we have come to realize that we humans cannot compete

with machines In doing simplified routines. If human existence is to be

rationalized, then the image of “rationality” based on simplification cannot

be maintained any longer.

Ironically, our “intellectual basis” is now threatened by the machines

our intellect has created.

Francis Bacon warned about the “cheapening” of intelligence by the

science that was rising in his time. But “science” as such has a historical

role to play. It did prepare the next stage of evolution. Just as Marx was

wrong in predicting the fall of Capitalism within his time, prediction of

the fall of “science” may well be wrong. But no social structure we know of

stayed constant. The vicious circle dynamics supporting such structures may

be stable, but as much as the structures are manifestations of dynamics,

they can only be quasi-stable, that is ephemeral”. Physicists today think

that even the Proton, the fundamental substance of all material existence,

may decay, as much as the Proton is dynamical. And the Greek idea that Order

has to be an eternal constant and therefore “knowledge” has to be eternal,

is slowly fading in our science.

And an idea, metaphor or paradigm that we are describing relatively

fast changes in references to relatively slow quasi-stable structures — a

Buddhist mandala — is gaining popularity. This is a generalization of

Relativity and, perhaps, abhorred by those who like to entertain the feeling

of security in constancy. But as Galileo said, the Earth moves. To say it is

another simplification is vain, if the intent is to defend the old myth. The

paradigm of science already starts shifting.

Here I rather like to exploit the paradigmatic (metaphysical-
metaphorical) nature of our intellectualization (science) to propose and

encourage the dynamical ways of thinking and

talking. Love may not be a suitable subject for this infantile stage of

dynamical language to talk of, in that it can describe love only in contrast

to the Power that the previous language of mechanics talked of. But that

hopefully becomes a translational bridge of two languages or a part of the

transition between the two.

3. TOWARD DYNAMICS OF LOVE.

If we are to extend Newtonian mechanics to describe Love phenomena, it is

perhaps possible to represent some features of Love in higher order terms in

time derivative.

“Force” in the Newtonian language is a term in the second order derivative.

“Power” is “the rate of Energy flow per unit time” and thus it is also a

term in the second order.

One notes that the effect of a “Force” is not immediately visible. It takes

a certain time-lag before we can see the effect of a “Force” in changes of

positions. If one is to take a statistical correlation analysis between a

“Force” and “change of position”, one would not find any relation, let alone

“Causality”. Of course one can take a correlation analysis between “mass

times acceleration and “Force”. The correlation would then be perfect

because the two terms are identical by definition. Since it is a tautology,

it would be vain to hope for discovery of “Causality” in mechanics by

statistical analysis. Social scientists are warned here that Newtonian sense

of mechanics cannot be arrived at by statistical analysis. As to “Cause”,

Newton himself declared that he is not explaining the “cause”, but merely

describing how things move”. In essence “Force” is a ghost term invented for

convenience of description. In Newtonian language then, “Love” would be

another ghost term representing a certain quality referring to the “how” of

motion. If such a term achieves some efficiency of description and thereby

assists us in our competence to communicate, then the term is amply

One of the features of Love as a higher order term is obvious, without any

further specification at all. Love as such is not visible in motion (change

of state) directly. It would take rather a long time before its effects

emerge. In short time scale measurements, Love would not manifest. It may be

that we have to wait a long tine in the evolutionary time scale to see what

Newtonian mechanics deem that the universe of discourse is complete within a

linguistic space of the zero-th and first-order terms — positions and

velocity. For this reason it does not require having any higher order terms

than the second to talk of dynamical situations. However, if one is to talk

of many-body situations – any more than two –. the system of description

consisting of the zero-th first and second order terms in effect make up

higher order description.

In Newtonian mechanics, a situation with N bodies with 3 degrees of freedom

for each can be described in a system, of 6N first order equations. If the

equations do not contain “crosstalks” of terms, each equation can be solved

as if it is for a single body in vacuum. In general this cannot be done. The

“crosstalks” are representations of interactions. In some fortuitous cases,

we can find “collective” motions which are waves extending over many bodies,

but equivalent of individual motions. And even in such cases, the over-all

system itself can only be represented if we desire to talk of the system as

an entity like “society” – by a 6N-th order equation.

A love phenomenon between two people, treated in mechanics as one between

two atomic individuals with only one degree of freedom is already complex

enough that it requires 4-th order equation.

We do not like higher order equations, for we are usually incompetent. So if

possible at all, we like to treat things 1n the first order, or at most in

the second order. That is, atomistic and individualistic talks and thoughts

are simpler. The ordinary practices of Newtonian mechanics, thus, are

limited in lower order treatments. And the wide practice generated a habit,

if not a prejudice, that if someone is to talk in higher order terms, we do

not fear it is “scientific” alone comprehending it.

Ordinary undergraduate texts in physics do not mention “Three-body

Problems”. Intellectuals educated in such limited mechanics become social

scientists who might entertain an idea that to emulate such mechanics is

science, if not “knowing” in general. Despite most people being aware of co-
operative dynamics and Love, talks on such subjects are consequently

regarded as “unscientific”, if not “irrational”, “sentimental”, etc. But the

trouble is not with Love. It is in our incompetence in talking and thinking

I am not saying learning of higher order equations and many-body mechanics

would make us competent in Love affairs. After all, mechanics can only do

certain limited things. Not all features of Love phenomena can be understood

in mechanics. But if we are to entertain the idea of “mechanics = knowing”

at all on the phenomena of systems like social, political and economical

ones, and particularly Love, the higher order terms may be essential in

talking-thinking of “how the system as an integrated whole behaves”.

Higher order systems, aside from the time-lag mentioned before, have the

possibility of “loop-structure” — positive and negative feed-back”–. In

the context of talking about social phenomena, this loop structure is very

interesting. I imagine that so-called “Dialectics” is referring to the loop,

though the language of dialectics is too obscure to be mathematized.

(However, the Catastrophe Theory is of interest in this connection: see R.

Even the second order systems already show the possibility of the loop

structure. And electronics engineers use the concept routinely. The loop can

easily be deciphered in linear approximations as the “eigenvalue” of the

matrix describing mutual interactions (cross talks). The “eigenvalues” are

invariant within projective transformations of references. It is arbitrary

in what “terms” or “measurements” are used in descriptions of the loop.

That a dynamical system contains loop structures is invariant even in a

topological sense. That is, it matters little if we perceive the system or

situation differently. If needed, we can use most any “measurements”,

“scaling”. This feature is a great advantage for social-human studies. In

fact, “measurement” need not be of that which mathematics defined as

“measure”. Social and human scientists are, in topological dynamics, no

longer required to pretend that they are “measuring” in a rigorous sense.

One can even employ “poetical

license” in descriptions, for topological characteristics are invariant

under “poetical license”. This would avoid a great deal of trouble in

In case one is interested in “non-linear” phenomena — say, the “diminishing

return” in economics, for example –, the topological approach is the only

sensible one. I am saying the traditional “quantification” is for the birds,

if not a fraudulent sham. For the situation the system is indeed non-linear,

the approximability by quantitative language is no longer assured. The only

thing meaningful is the “Qualitative” description about quasi-stable

generalities of the situation system. This teaches us humbleness in our

imperialistic tendency to “know”, “predict” and “control” the situation by

quantifications.

If President Reagan’s economic advisers are somewhat less dogmatic and admit

that economics is an approximation and could possibly be wrong, I think

people in the US might find a better way of living together.

The dogmatic attitude of contending “truth” and “being absolutely Right” is

prevalent not only in economics but in politics and particularly in the

military. People know that, in such areas of human endeavors, things are not

easily theorized, comprehended, and controlled. But, paradoxically, the

inherent uncertainty, or rather the suppressed awareness of incompetence

with regard to the situations tend to call forth strong dogmatic knowledge

claims. Assertion of “truth” is used to soothe our anxiety.

Hitler was a great hero and leader because he knew how to exploit the

psychology of people in perplexity. And what is striking is that the

traditional knowledge claim by “science” resembles the psychological trick.

That is, the “Power of Knowledge” is the same as a quasi-religious notion

which emerges and is entertained by people in crisis. “Science” in the sense

of the love affair of learning is often replaced by the “Power of Knowledge”

in such a situation. People demand that “science” is the Messiah who solves

all problems. They would be terribly disappointed if “science” is shown to

be incomplete, or worse, is said to be a love play. People would complain

why they have to foot the bill for a show in space, such as sending men to

the moon at a cost of 30 billion dollars.

If the popular image of “science” is a kind that is powerful enough to blast

away mountains to lay a highway through, then it is natural that people

expect the same science to blast away “Evil Forces” such as U.S.S.R. or

China with hydrogen bombs.

If the image of “science” is the kind that cures the disease of completely

helpless patients and it is often imagined that patients are completely

ignorant of their own state –, then scientists and experts say it is the

Truth and has to be done. People are not requested to learn anything about

their own life but are ordered to act as directed by the authorities.

I think our “science education” is a great propaganda machine. And I even

wonder if “Peace Research”, conceived as a science, is also part of it.

I have said nothing about “indeterminacy” or “uncertainty” that exist in

fluctuating environments or in the Quantum States in this talk about Love

Dynamics. Although I think it is essential to consider “catastrophes”,

“random”, “chaos” in Love dynamics, it is beyond the scope of this talk.

There are also some implications and suggestions from Quantum Mechanics and

Relativity. However, I shall not go into this here, for I am afraid that it

might be taken as a continuation of the scientism that I criticized.

Even without Quantum Mechanics and Relativity to talk of Zeno’s Paradox on

position and motion and time dimension in a dynamical sense, Newtonian

mechanics already suggest our “intentionality” in knowing. To know “what is”

of facts and situations is of little use even in the Power sense of

knowledge. The knowledge as such is valued for its implications as to “what,

shall be”, if not what “ought to be”. We call it prediction, but it is no

different from “prophecy in religious contexts. Our Science as it stands

today is not devoid of religious tendencies; it is political and psycho-
therapeutic as well.

Positivist philosophy in science today would like to eliminate the

“intentionality” from science — here again we see an example of the slip

from “what is” to what ought to be” –. But elimination of the

“intentionality” may be elimination of science-knowing. Rather, one is

advised to recognize the intentionality and treat it with respect; when we

include time dimension in dynamics, it is unavoidable that future and past

come to play active roles in the dynamics. It is possible that loop

structures are made in time dimension. Cyclic phenomena in many human and

social fields are well-known. They may be projections of loop structures in

time dimensions. If we are to talk of these phenomena, the rhetoric-logic of

“what is” is no longer competent. Love that is seen as a higher order term

contains this sense of dynamical time dimension. If we are to talk of these

phenomena, the rhetoric-logic of “what is” is no longer competent.

We note that talks in love relations often contain references to time.

Paradoxically, the feeling of Love transcends Time, yet the transcendence is

based on a feeling of time in a holistic sense, not in mechanical time. That

is, the negation of time in Love is negation of Newtonian time, not the time

of Relativity. As such, I contend that in Love the dynamic Time is regained

by negation of clock time as a Passive parameter. We are not quite free from

the clock time of Newtonian mechanics — it is the foundation of our

intellectual order as it stands now — but we try to see future

possibilities in our love relations and endeavor to “promise” (prophecy)

meaningful relations to grow.

That is, Power of Knowledge and Love are two different ways by which we try

to deal with time flow, anxieties as well as aspirations, uncertainties and

hopes. In Love we accept and take Time in trust and as such it needs not to

be aware of the measuring-controlling sense of Newtonian time. Thus it would

appear to be playful, sensual, or childish. We know that in love we would

die sooner or later, but

that does not bother us at all. Perhaps death, i.e. the ephemerality,

finiteness of our existence is the reason for Love. At least, while we can,

we like to have a beautiful life. It is not by accident that we have the

myth of Chronos (Time) as the god of death. If the clock time is the order

of the universe, then in love we negate its power over us. But, in terms of

modern physics, we need not depend on the clock time for our intellectual

order. We can take dynamical time, if needed, in a topological sense. There

we are not bound by the clocks. Somehow, love contains very good

understanding of time in 4 or higher dimensional frames of reference beyond

the primitive one in the Power sense of knowledge.

4. Love against Taboos

Our notion of love is formed, or rather deformed, other taboos.

Perhaps, left in the natural state unconscious, involuntary functions of our

body. To a conscious feeling, we need some resistance suppression to

heighten our senses.

The Greek myth of love supposes that the original “Man” was a union of

male and female. Only after separation, both genders can experience love in

an attempt to regain the original union. Hegelian philosophy takes the

dialectical view in that from the separation emerges the desire of reunion.

Love as such is a “negation of negation”. In that sense we might say that

without the Power Principle dominating us, we may not be able to recognize

the Love Principle.

Of course we do not need to take naive dialectics of the “opposition

of poles” perceived in the linear metaphor. The dialectical opposites can be

of two different dimensions, or on two different levels. We can recall

examples like the opposition of “point” and “line” in Zeno’s Paradox or

“position” and “momentum” in the Uncertainty relation. The dialectical

oppositions are metaphysical or metaphorical choices in geometries, any of

which need not be superior to others. But we have one in our mind to

coordinate, organize our actions and feelings in reference to it.

Interestingly, brain physiologists tell us that our middle brain, the

Cephalum, is responsible for orgasm. The same part of the brain is also the

one which imagines and projects future states of our body, coordinates

contextual references and organizes actions. That sounds like what we refer

to as “mind”, but its function appears to be one that constructs

metaphysical or metaphorical geometry.

The Cortex part functions on the basis of the over-all structure

provided by the Cephalum as a computer assisting “mind”. Perhaps love is one

element of geometry of the “mind”. And incestuous taboo may be another

important element of it.

Incestuous taboo is not a direct opposite of love in the linear sense.

It only opposes Love with certain specified objects and in certain specified

forms of expression. Our biological organs, save the “mind”, may not be able

to recognize the taboo — in fact Oedipus could not recognize his mother in

the woman he married. This is a social-cultural phenomenon and, as such,

artificial. Love as we recognize is not natural, nor purely biological.

There are certain physical and biological bases and tendencies, but they do

not dictate deterministically what we can do, feel, or think.

The Bible, for example, says “Love Thy Neighbor” on the one hand, and

“Thou shall not covet Thy Neighbor’s Wife” on the other hand. If we are

logical we might say the Bible allows us to covet our neighbor’s husband. Or

we might interpret the Bible as commending a certain homosexual relation.

Of course, here I am deliberately sacrilegious in playing with logic.

But I dare to suggest the interpretations of the moral commands, for they

are sexual taboos imposed on love. And there would likely be some political,

economical motivations or implications behind any taboos.

In cases like the Biblical metaphor of love we might consider social

benefits, such as protection of private property right or prevention of

communicable diseases. Marx contended that the family system is the

prototype of “property” which acts as the production unit. And the Divisions

of Labor started with distinctions of male and female roles in the

production of children. Whether one agrees with Marx or not, discussion of

Love soon gets into the social domain. Biology, or even Psychology, is then

irrelevant. For the good of morals, politics, economy, or whatever we might

say, we have to have civilized taboos against indiscriminate love. And in

turn the taboos define what we recognize as Love, either in accordance with

or against the taboos.

Monogamy may be good or bad. That matters little. It is one of those

nominal values in our artificially, if not hypocritically, constructed mind.

Society appears to be unaffected by practices of violation anyway. But there

is an important consequence from the seemingly harmless exercise of our

“Minds”. That is, we accept social control of Love. A society can set up

taboos against “love of the enemy”, “love of undesirables”, or “love of

inferiors”. We have many peculiar practices in this regard.

In Japan, only some 50 years ago, mothers were obliged to love,

respect and honor the firstborn male child above and beyond her other

children. Like in many other Western countries, her position in a family —

which is the “Property”, the “Capital” — was that of a slave laborer who

produced offspring and reared them. Her love had to be properly channeled.

In the U. S. the term “Nigger Lover” was a derogatory word only until

recently. In Canada today, a “Commie Sympathizer” would not be considered to

be a good Christian, although the “commie” might be the neighbor. If you are

Polish, you ought not to love Russians. A Cuban girl who happens to love an

American may be accused of “consorting with the enemy”.

In business exchanges we supposedly do not mix love. Doctors should

not love patients. Teachers have to avoid relationships which might be mis-
identified as love. Military officers cannot talk of love in their line of

duty. Bureaucrats are not permitted to consort with citizens. Political

heads and Captains of industry are here to give orders, not to display love.

Most institutions in our society are organized to carry on routine tasks and

we refer to love only as deviations from mechanical routines.

It is not that love does not exist in our social organizations. On the

contrary, at least the “fusing” kind of love that Sartre talked of in his

Critique of Dialectical Reason, is essential for the existence of the

organizations. But love as such is not admitted, not allowed to be

recognized under ordinary circumstances. Love has to be hidden so that the

order and edifices of the organizations can be maintained.

During the Industrial Revolution, peasants in England and Ireland were

obviously not loved. Even Marx did not show too much love toward peasants,

and distinguished industrial workers as the “Proletarians” would push

progress ahead, overcoming the reactionary resistance of the peasants. The

capitalists, of course, exploited the peasants, if they did not wish to kill

them en masse like during the Great Famine of 1845-1847.

Due to such denial of love, we have an advanced technological

civilization and the middle class triumphantly emerged and flourished. If

people lived the Love Principle, like Ivan the Fool of Tolstoy did, like

Christ and Buddha preached, or some of the Utopian Socialists recommended,

we would not have this affluence we enjoy now. Not only that, we would not

have developed science-technology, would not have achieved education of

intellectual elites.

We of course today can point out that civilization as such is based on

the subsidy of fossil energy resources we have been plundering. We have

pollutions that threaten our lives, if we do not care about other life-forms

and the environment. We have been escalating the Nuclear Arms Race as a

logical consequence of the way we “progressed” and the neglect and

exploitation of Love. But such is our “Intelligence”.

A popular magazine “Psychology Today” (April ‘82) had an article on

the differences between what “experts” and “laymen” think (value) of

“intelligence”. The article itself may not be of any significance, but it is

interesting that the “laymen” apparently consider or value competence in

social contexts, such as “accept others”, “sensitive to other people’s needs

and desires”, as the meaning of “Intelligence”. The “experts” had no such

notion in what they mean by “intelligence”.

If one tries psychoanalysis on those psychologists who talk of

intelligence, 1t is obvious that the professionals are conditioned by their

training and by their political and economic interests. In most any

profession, as Max Weber said, sorts of traits as “accept others”,

“sensitive to other people’s needs and desires” are not only irrelevant to

their professional competence, but also detriments, hindering their increase

in prestige and income. Scientists are supposed not to be 1n love with

people. There are more important things to do, if the scientists indulge in

secret love affairs. Love does not bring professional advances or rewards to

Love of humanity, if we ever become conscious of it, has to be in

violation of the general rules of conduct for economic, rational beings.

Love is done in violation of taboos. Needless to say, not all taboos are

irrational. On the contrary, most taboos are rational relative to the frame

of references societies take for their operations. And, interestingly,

taboos are often violated without substantial damage to society, as long as

the violations are covered up.

What we perceive as the situation is more important than what we are

actually doing. Without the nominal perception of the way we live together,

we can hardly maintain social coherence. Thus we invent an intellectual

picture of the way we manage to live in this world. The science of

“Intelligence” is just an example. It is a part of the picture we have

constructed.

If the Nuclear Holocaust comes, it is a necessary consequence of our

efforts in developing and organizing an intelligence as such. I often wonder

if Peace Research, even as a manifestation of the Love Principle, is not

relative and depending upon the intelligence as such.

Here I like to believe in the dialectics of double negations. Perhaps

the only humanly possible way to learn about Peace was through the mistakes.

A. Eddington has said that Physics was a series of mistakes upon mistakes.

Yet, we cannot deny that physics did learn something, if not of Nature then

of the way we talk and think. We understand our mind a little better, thanks

to the mistakes.

However the trouble is that in the realm of politics and economics, we

have never acknowledged our mistakes. We have not learned from the Vietnam

war, or the many, many wars before that. We have a notion of sovereignty

which is a Neolithic heritage we got from ancient religious-political

institutions. And the might of the country we associate ourselves with

persists in our mind on the basis of our secret love for it. The love as

such is one deformed by the taboos.

In comparison with our deformed practices of love, the kind of love

preached by men like Wilhelm Reich appears innocent. I must confess that I

do not understand the Orgone theory, let alone believe in it. But that does

not say that the ordinary notions of love in our society make better sense.

If we do not like extreme expressions like those of Reich, we can look

at notions like “Fraternity”, “Solidarity”. “Fraternity” was one of three

ideals that the French Revolution talked about, along with “Liberty” and

“Equality”. In the course of revolutionary history however, only “Liberty”

and “Equality” survived to our age. “Fraternity” was a pre-revolutionary

ideal among French workers. But it was pushed aside in favor of the other

two. The Declaration of Human Rights in 1789 talks of “property right” as a

part of “liberty”, but doesn’t even mention the term “Fraternity”. I do not

know what has happened to “Fraternity”, but reading Marx et al I sense that

it was deemed utopian and “Unscientific”, if not “Reactionary”, and

The term “Solidarity” appeared in the recent Poland crisis. The

Russian translation of “Solidarity”, ironically, would be “Soviet”. And the

“Soviet” is supposedly the supreme authority of the Communist State. But

what is happening in Poland, and elsewhere, does not seem to have any

relation to the term “Solidarity” nor “Soviet”.

The Capitalist system is, of course, not a system based upon

“Fraternity” or “Solidarity”, nor for that matter “Brotherhood” or

“Sisterhood”.

Perhaps Marx was right in saying that, as long as the “State” exists,

repression remains. The “State” as such is the embodiment of the Power

Principle. And to this we might add that subjugation of Love under the Power

Principle is the essence of our intelligence. However, we do not need to

eliminate Power in the absolute sense. Instead of the Utopian ideal of the

“stateless society”, we might try a sensible balance. Perhaps, a little more

recognition and respect for the Love Principle is all.

I shall not say any of these things are right or wrong. But if “Peace”

has anything whatsoever to do with how we humans live together, the problems

of Love have to be examined seriously.

5. Practice of Love and Implications to Peace

Love is not easily controlled nor contrived. One cannot reasonably

expect a love response from the other side of interactions. Love, in a

dynamical sense, is remarkably stable, or rather persistent. It tolerates

disturbances, interferences, environmental fluctuations, and even abuses.

But to initiate someone or some group of people into love dynamics is

difficult, and even if it is successful, love responses are unpredictable.

And it is often noted within our experiences that one might fall out of love

without visible cause or on account of some silly little thing, just like

falling in love. Another thing about love is that it is a mutual affair,

though it may not exactly be equal in dependency, effort, and appreciation.

These are characteristics of Love. One may look at love from an

“Engineering” point of view and analyze it in terms of physics. But that

does not make the engineer or physicist become the creator or controller of

love. We may appreciate and understand love. However, unlike other objects

of knowledge, we are not likely to manufacture a Love Bomb for national

defense purposes. This is an interesting contrast to things which our

science has claimed to be knowledgeable about. At last we have found

something safe to study without worrying if there can be abuse of knowledge,

of pollution-entropy increase. The knowledge of Love, if there was any,

would not drive us out of the Garden of Eden. In fact I hope for the

opposite, though I like to stick to science and refrain from Utopian

speculations.

Despite the unpredictability and uncontrollability of love, however,

there are a few clues to the Art of Love and there seem to be ways to

encourage Love. Or rather it appears that human beings are born lovers –

“genetically programmed to be lovers”, as hard-nosed scientists might say —

, and unless otherwise educated or conditioned, they keep on learning the

art of loving. We can try to remove hindrances, suppressions and

inhibitions. If necessary, we might even try un-educating ourselves in order

to regain love.

The basic step in love, despite all its complexities, appears to be

very simple. That is, we can start with close contact. In fact, most people

know this and avoid close contact. Something happens to our perception or

mode of thinking-feeling operation when someone or something comes closer

than a certain distance so that our visual field is fully occupied. I even

feel this in reading books, in contrast to listening to someone across a

table. Most of the time I am unconscious of it, however, occasionally I

notice a funny feeling that “I” am not in my brain but in the book.

In the “contact” situation, as the prototype of love, we note that our

sense of self becomes confused. I do not think it has to do with

“altruistic” motivation as much as it has to do with difficulties of

maintaining the metaphor of “Self”. In a too close distance we face the

epistemological problem of where the region of “I” starts and where the

“other” starts. We cut our fingernails and hair quite often, but in ordinary

circumstances we do not feel or think that our “I” is diminishing. We eat

food, but we cannot tell when and where the food becomes part of the “I”. In

short, we do not

really know what “I” is, except for the spatial region around our body. If

anything comes into the volume of space conceptually marked as “I”, we have

trouble maintaining the metaphor of “I”.

Of course the volume of space demarcated as “I” is perceptional. It can

be large or small. We do not carry a hard shell around us. And senses like

“Privacy” may even be “psychological” or “intellectual” constructions with

no reference to physical space.

Our sense of kinship and family is generated in close and frequent

contact, but the perceptual “space” is not a physical one. We note

intermixing of time dimension in our perception of relations in this regard.

The sense of family originates in close physical proximity in which the

members of the family live. However, this sense can be extended in physical

space on the strength of perceptual juxtaposition in significances. A dog

can be like a member of a family, but sons and daughters who live in far

away places are considered to be more important in value. To an extent, this

might be due to historical conditioning and social construction of values.

Or more immediately, the sense may depend on memory, if not nostalgia. But

we do note that the sense of “living together” can be extended despite

physical distance and remoteness in time.

There the sense of “I” is extended to include family. It is, perhaps,

because the “I” in that context is the sum total of experiences which

necessarily include interactions. “I” cannot be purely “”individual” like

atoms, independent in isolation and be constant in environment.

Interestingly however, in terms of intellectualization, and in

particular in legalistic contexts, we have the notion that family as an

integrated entity has a will. It is treated as a “person”, that is a

metaphorical projection of “I” to somewhat larger entities. Business

corporations are also this kind of pseudo-“I” and are often treated as

“persons”. There also appears the sense of “Property”. The “property”

belongs to families or other pseudo-“I”. And it is the “property” that

identifies unity in these cases. Just as much as the body was the visible

identity of “I”, the property is the identity of the pseudo-“I”. It is not

by accident that the French Revolutionaries insisted on Property Rights —

against frequent arbitrary confiscation by the ruler of the state — as the

central item in their concept of Justice and Liberty. I think these

revolutionaries were not ignorant of the fact that Justice and Liberty are

abstract concepts. But humans need some media to express concepts, even if

the visible objects are symbolic. Without something to relate the sense of

“I” to, there can be no “I”. Unfortunately, that suited the Capitalism

rising at the time, and the ideal of “Fraternity” without having any visible

medium of expression withered. Marx’s analysis of “Family and Property” was

significant, but it appears to have missed the pseudo-“I” aspect of the

The next step of extending the “I” on a social scale is that of

community – tribe, village, city, artisan guild, religious communion –. It

may be noted that before the Industrial Revolution, peasants were

“communist”, even before the term was invented in the political

vocabulary, and lived off “commons”. The “Commons” were exterminated by the

Enclosure. For Capitalism needed “private property” to dominate the economy.

Historically speaking, the notion and practice of “Family” as the property

owner came after “community”. This is an interesting example of how an

economic system as an expression of the form of people’s relations to each

other affects the way people develop the sense of “Pseudo-I”, or rather

“We”. The “We” is the way people organize activities on a social scale, Just

as “I” was. Of course the social interactions are diverse and often get into

conflicts, if not exploitation and suppression by one part against another.

Thus the notion of “We” is difficult. It used to be that only the Sovereign

King was entitled to speak in terms of “We”. The rest of “we” were not

amused by the peculiar language protocol, but it shows that words and

consequently concepts are politico-economic, even at the simple level of

saying “we”.

The difficulty of “I” also appears in national boundaries. We do not

really know what “my country” is, due to the same epistemological troubles.

This, however, does not prevent us from entertaining quite seriously the

metaphor of “I” and “my country”. Roughly speaking, we can take a

geographical territory as “My Country”. It is a good approximation, though

not absolutely definable. And our international relations are interpreted on

this kind of geometry and we organize our actions based upon the metaphor

mental image. As long as everybody is far away, this meta-geometry is

practical enough. But unfortunately, our interdependency brings in contact.

Then we have trouble 1n maintaining the mental image of the individual

“Self” and the independent “sovereign Country”.

Because of this incompetency of our mental image, we on the one hand

avoid “close contact” with others at a personal level, but we insist on

“national territory” as a protective shell.

We also have metaphors like “Race”. Sometimes the image of “Race” is

mixed up with “nationality”, or “citizenship of a country”. “American”,

“Russian”, etc. is sometimes used as if they were races i.e. Russian

attitude about Jews” etc. But to be fair we have to admit the mix-ups are

natural. After all, who are the “Jewish”, or “Spanish”? What is “Japanese”?

We may trace certain genetic traits or bloodlines in history and get to

certain geographical regions as the origin of the name-labels. But tracing

semantic usage in etymology does not tell what “race” is or what happened to

“race” in the meantime, if it has to do with biology. For that matter, we

are all monkeys, of some varieties. “Americans and British” were right in

calling Japanese “yellow monkeys”, except they forgot that Dr. Darwin, the

eminent scientist of whom they are very proud, told them a century before

that they themselves were some kind of monkeys.

In the face of biological diversities and complexities, it is

ridiculous to maintain metaphors like “Race”. Yet, we even have to fight

wars on the meta-physical basis between people like “Arabs” and “Jews”. We

even have linguistic trouble like “Anti-Semitism among Arabs”, although

anti-Arab and anti-Jew sentiments artificially created on the metaphysics of

“race” do hurt people now living in that particular region of the world.

In one sense the notion of “We” is beautiful. It lets many people

overcome the narrow, self-centered life and makes them somewhat competent to

live together. But on the other hand, the notion of “We” is just as

difficult as the notion of “I” and when the notion is perverted, “we” as

such lead people into bloody fights, not mentioning the difficulties it

creates in social interactions.

The inescapable fact is that neither “I” nor “We” is “Independent”.

They exist on mutual interactions and mutual dependency. However undesirable

we think it is, we cannot eliminate interactions. The only thing we can do

is to try to make the interactions as one-sided as possible. We have to have

relations, thus we try to the best of our intelligence to make the relations

un-symmetric, unequal, less mutual as we can manage. It is a simple

mechanical principal that in an equal, mutual, two-way flow of energy there

can be no “Power”.

Even in “knowing”, modern physics tells us that it is a mutual

interaction between the “knower” and the ““knower””. But the trick is to

minimize the effect on the “knower” and maximize it on the “knower”. That is

where the “Power of Knowledge” is generated. Nature tends to follow the Love

Principle of mutuality. But our Science has to try to cheat Nature into

asymmetric relations. In the contexts of social relations the ruling class

has to maintain differentials and gradients for its existence.

The maintenance of asymmetric relations requires a great deal of

effort and restrictions and inhibitions of Liberty for both sides of the

relations. We construct institutions, including the sense of Justice, to

protect the inequality. Only in love relations we forego our intellectual

preoccupation with denying mutualness. We do then enjoy the liberty and

natural justice as well as Love itself. There we find a foundation of Peace

— Liberty, Equality and Love –.

Viewed with this projection, our effort towards Peace is the effort to

extend the scope of the primordial “contactual love” to a social scale and

encompass the whole wor1d. And if this conjecture is plausible, we have a

lot to learn from children in the way they find playmates.

It is not that the formal contractual ways to make international

organizations are invalid, or that the scientific efforts to convince and

assist governmental structures for Peace are unimportant. But there is

another dimension to Peace, which is not just controlling violence or

managing conflicts. For humanity to learn Love, the impending Nuclear

Holocaust has to be prevented. While spending on huge armaments, it is

difficult to encourage understanding among nations. Thus we have to de-
escalate the arms race. Conflicts in many regions of the world have to be

managed. Starving children have to be fed. Those tasks are urgent. Yet even

those tasks would be he1ped by the understanding of Love and can be used for

learning love above and beyond the Hollywood movie romances; there seems to

be no other basis for Peace than Love.

6. In Summary

I. Love is discussed here as a negation or alternative to

I.1. The formula “Double Negative = Affirmative” is used,

I.2. There are other approaches; Love from ethical, religious,

II. There is one advantage in trying Newtonian mechanics of

II.1. As in the case of geometries and various mechanics,

II.2. As in the cases of geometries and various mechanics,

Power. And Power is taken as a term in the language of

Newtonian Mechanics. Thus, Love appears here as a

deviation from Newtonian World View.

however, as a provisional means. (The principle of

Exclusion of the middle from the Classical Logic may not

be valid. However, I have not come to the logic of Love

in this paper.)

or spiritual side (young Hegel, Feuerbach, Theology of

Liberation), and Love from poetical side.

Love. Newtonian mechanics is the dominant language of

intellectualization today and understood well. Therefore

defects become easily visible.

terms such as “point”, “line”, “force”, “energy”,

“power”, and “love” and “undefined” terms. Terms

(notions, concepts, ideals, metaphors) acquire and

develop-evolve their “meanings” in their usages,

applications in practices, and in feedback loops in

historical time-dimension.

theoretical structure (linguistic systems) are neither

true nor false. They provide organization for talking and

thinking. The power-centered theorizations, ideologies,

political-economical rationality are just as metaphysical

(metaphorical) as love-centered ones. This paper is a

part of comparative study of alternatives.

III. The Power concept in this paper is that of the

Bourgeoisie-Technological society, including both the

Capitalist and the Communist versions. (For this concept

of power, see C.B. MacPherson Democratic Theory: Essays

in Retrival Oxford U. Press 1923.)

III.1. In the Ideals of the Bourgeoisie Revolution: Liberty,

Equality and Fraternity, the last one was lost in the

historical development thereafter. I notice Liberty and

Equality are incorporated in Power centered sense of

political economy. But the Fraternity (Love) is not. I

sense a prejudice against Love and suspect the root of

the troubles of the Bourgeoisie-Technological society,

including our logic of power which leads us to Nuclear

War.

III.2. The concept (notion, metaphor) of “I” (individual, self

ego) in the Bourgeoisie-Technological society of ours is

an “Atomistic” one. It is a possible construction

(theorization), provided interactions (mutual dependence,

love dynamics) are negligible or neglected.

Newtonian mechanics, which we take as the basic model of

“science”, if not intellectualizations in general, was

developed to deal with simple situations with weak

interactions. That is, we are incompetent to think and

talk of Love.

III.3. The metaphor of “I” gets into troubles in Love affairs.

We fear our realization of our own incompetence. Thus we

defend “I” by force.

The more fearful we are, the stronger we cling to our

ego. Our intelligence, rationality, and their language

are developed within this context, by and large.

III.4. If natural fears were not strong enough, we can add

social-political ones like “Scarcity”, which drive us

into a frenzy of wanting to have things. (As to the

development of the notion of “Property Right”, see

MacPherson, for example. Marx, Proudhon et al talked

about this at length.) The notion of Power of ours is

from such an environment — and the environment as such

is made out of such a notion, perception, in a vicious

circle type of dynamics —.

IV. Love stands in a different dimension from Fear. It does

not require having a strong concern for Ego. It is not in

defense of “I” or “Private Property”. It does not appeal

to “Force”, “Power”, “Coercion” and not even “Duty”,

“Obligation”, “Contract”, “Right” etc. of the power

centered social mechanics.

IV.1. It is interesting to ask an inverse question. Namely,

how is it possible at all to lose the sense of “I”,

(individual, atom, Ego) that we have constructed with

enormous efforts in our history? Love simply wipes it off

from our mind-intellect. How come we do not fear this

awesome disaster of Love which annihilates “I”s into

chaos? Many philosophers said that Love is irrational.

Yet we fall. Are we stupid or crazy? Moreover, we can

observe at least the “Fusing” kind of love in most social

organizations. (See J.P. Sartre Critique of Dialectical

Reason. NBL. 1976. For “Fusing” kind of Love.)

IV.2. My contention is that Love is not irrational, but our

“rationality” is incompetent. Our intellectual vanity

makes us say, whenever we fail, the object projected is

irrational. It is we who love and it is we who fail to

understand what we are doing. (Love is not an “object”,

though the modern physics would say that what are so-
called “objects” are symbols, manifestations of dynamical

processes. Thus we need no “objective” existence of Love

to be victimized or to enjoy it.)

IV.3. Love is needed for the making of social organizations.

Nationhood is impossible without some feeling of love,

though it need not take extreme expressions like

“Nationalism” or “Patriotism”. Wars would be impossible,

in the scale by which we recognize wars, without the co-
operation of millions of people. Nuclear Bombs could not

have been produced without some love to maintain

coherence of organized efforts. If we do not expect love,

however perverted and exploited, in a Nationhood, we

would not demand that the Sovereignty act to protect our

private properties, let alone fight wars on behalf of our

interests, at great costs to the nationhood.

IV.4. Therefore, we must understand Love, either in a positive

or negative sense. To say it is irrational is of no help.

Our intellectual vanity may need defense, but our life

suffers more by the neglect. However, it seems that we

have to construct alternative geometries-dynamics to deal

with Love, which appears not to be easy.

IV.5. It is instructive to look at the biology of Sex.

Biologists today say that Sex is disadvantageous to the

“Survival of the Fittest”. A-sexual reproduction is twice

more efficient than the bi-sexual reproduction. It

puzzles the biologists why and how the majority of life

forms adapted bi-sexual reproduction in their evolution.

The Darwin notion of the egoistic individual gene

struggling in an adversary environment appears now to be

rapidly becoming a superstition, a bigoted ideology, in

biology today. “Competition in power struggle” does not

seem to hold water.

The biologists suggest that survival concerns the “Gene

Pool”, rather than individual gene. However, even with

this socialism of genes, the phenomenon of Sex is not

understandable. Perhaps, the whole eco-system has to be

considered in the Evolution, though even then the puzzle

of Sex may not be solved.

At any rate, biological studies do not support our

assumption of the “aggressive” nature of life forms.

Rather, Love is more fundamental for life.

(See W.S. Moor et al. “Sex in Random Environment” Journal

of Theoretical Biology vol. 92. pg. 301. 1981. And

references therein. It seems that this line of studies

was initiated by J. Maynard-Smith “What Use is Sex? J.

Theor. Bio. Vol. 30. Pg. 319. 1971.)

V. Our notions of “I” and “Nation” are analogous. The analogy

comes, not as a realization of the similarity, but

because we, as many “I”’s, demand the nation to be in

conformity with our notion of “I”.

“I” is the embodiment of “sovereign will” (B. Russell

talked about this in his book Power), conceived in a

strong perspective of “adversary”, “hostile” environment

and political economy. In the bourgeoisie system of ours,

the “I” is the exclusive owner of properties, by means of

which the sovereign will try its best to extract

satisfaction. To this “I”, the other “I”s are instruments

for attaining what this “I” desires. “Power” notion

conceived in such a context is that of “ability to secure

the conformity between the will of one man and the acts

of other men” (James Mill, quoted by MacPherson).

An atomistic aggregate of such “I”s may concede to the

advantages and enter a collective contractual arrangement

in which they accept a certain set of restrictions. But

the “collective” of “I”s as a whole would then be obliged

to pursue what is yielded by the “I”s. The “Sovereignty”

of a nation, having a “Will”, exclusive properties

(territory) and seeking the maximum power is made by the

contract (supported in the metaphor).

Despite it being a social entity, the egoism conceived in

the adversary perception of the world persists in the

notion (metaphor) of Nation and it is demanded to act

accordingly.

V.1. If the above contention offers even the faintest clue to

the troubles of our society and particularly to the

problem of Nuclear Arms Race, phenomena of Love appear to

be very interesting subjects of studies for Peace.

V.2. Love phenomena do exist and function even under the

dominance of Power ideology-intellectualizations. Whether

humans are stupid or crazy, they do fall in love, despite

good advice by the “rationality”.

We can take advantage of such human nature for Peace. Or

we can construct a dynamics of love and replace the

obsolete “rationality” based on power. “Force” is not the

only possible term in description of motion. Love as a

term in dynamics may not lead to “Causality” (and

Determinism) and as such it appears wishy-washy. But

Newtonian “Force” is not “Cause” either, if one examines

the mechanics critically. The term “Force” only provides

animated illusion of Causality and hence “order”. It is

largely psychotherapeutic by linguistic symbolisms. In

view of the impressive effects of Newtonian metaphors,

our Love dynamics need not be any more “scientific” than

Newtonian Mechanics. Rather, we can use Topological

languages, as Poincare et al did. This allows us

“poetical license” and makes our task a bit easier.

VI. In Peace research, Love appears indispensable and

inevitable. It seems to provide convenience for s

integrating various studies.

S.K.

Indigenous Science

4 March 1988 Personal Correspondence on Alchemy and the History of Science (PDF)

The enclosed article by Evelyn Fox Keller talks about the

Battle of the Sexes in which Alchemy as Feminine lost to Male-
Mechanist Physics. The battle took place in England 1650-1670.

Since then Alchemy became “superstition”. That Newton

(1642-1727 ) was a secret practitioner of Alchemy meant that

Alchemy went “underground”. But Newton invented the “Gold

Standard” and became the Director of Coinage. Perhaps, he

understood the magical power of Gold over people better than any

As to why Alchemy was considered “Female” and even

dangerous, please see Jack Lindsay; The Origins Of Alchemy In

Greco-Roman Egypt. [QD13 L54l Sample pages are included.

Another interesting source is C. G. Jung. ALCHEMICAL

STUDIES. (Collective Works vol. 13. Princeton U Press. 1967.)

It is noted that European Science was not much “advanced”.

It was from a religious reason that Atomism and Mechanism came

out. Even after Newton, European scientists could not understand

“Fire” (Heat, Energy) well. It was after 1850 that they came to

realize “Fire” is not a substance. Energy concept emerged in

1850s. That is to say, Marx did not know “Energy”.

I saw a transcript of a speech by Russell Means made at

Black Hills in 1980. In the speech, apparently aimed at Marxists

(and perhaps also for the political need of AIM to say he is not

a communist), Means says (if Indians follow) “We will all be

Industrialized Science-Addicts in a Marxist society”.

In one sense, I am sympathetic to Means and understand why

he said that. But I think Means overestimated the Intellectual

Power of Europeans. Germany, in the time of Marx, was barely out

of the “tribal culture”. They had a hell of a time adjusting to

“invasions” by “science”, “rationality”, “intellectualism” etc.

from the “west”. What Europeans and Means call “Rationality” is

not “rational” at all — it was an illusion, conceit,

superstition, arrogance —. Or at its best, it is a Language

It may be disrespectful to say this. But Means was fooled

by Europeans. He did not see through the superficial veneer of

“rationality”, “science” etc. It amounted to “surrendering before

the fight”. If Indians have such a weak intelligence that mere

contact with Marxism or Science makes them “Industrial Science

Addicts”, perhaps there is no point in fighting. The “Feminine

Scientists” have better guts in their declaration that they will

Of course, I do not know what was the context of the

circumstance in which Means’ polemics emerged. But I wonder if

such is the pervasive attitude of Indian Braves. And if so, Pam

The point is that every “Culture” is tribal. There is

nothing superior about euro American tribes relative to others.

If a Haida need not fear an Oneida, there is no reason for a

Lakota to fear a Marxist or a Scientist. Means could have said

that he can beat Europeans at their games, “intellectual games”

Interestingly, even P1ato distinguished “Noesis”

(intuition, intelligence ) and “Dianoia” (Rationality, Reason).

European Science is not “Intelligent”. And if you ask for

“Wisdom”, you would be disappointed even by Plato — Socrates

was not “Wise”, he was a skillful player of a fashionable

Intellectual Game of Greece of his time —.

The trouble is that, for survival, Native Americans need

something beyond the level of collective intelligence that the

European tribes have. For that, I would imagine every mistake

European Science made is a good lesson for Natives to learn.

Instead of being victims to the mistakes, Natives can become

“healers” of the mistakes. This difference in “posture” would

make a difference in the “overview” (Worldview). You might say

you are not the savior of the World. I don’t ask that. But,

Yours

Sam K.

Excerpt from “The Social Brain”; Chapter “On the Inevitability of Religious Beliefs”;

Pp. 166-167. Underlining and red italics are notes by Sam Kounosu.

In religious beliefs, as with any other belief we again see the

left-brain interpreter seeking an explanation for a series of life experiences. Just as it is

charged with delivering a running explanation of’ the behaviors of all of our independent

modules, it is similarly, charged with explaining real-life events and circumstances

existing in the culture. It is seeking consistency, and the left-brain interpreter module,

linked as it is to the special human inference system, works hard to construct theories

about the causes of perceived events, That our brains accept the theories this system

But how did the idea of religion start? Why did our species generate the idea of

deities? The nature and origins of religious beliefs has an intriguing and, I think,

interpretable history that underscores the centrality of the brain-based psychological

mechanism I have been describing. I will argue that religious beliefs were inevitable and

had to start once the left-brain interpreter was fully in place and reflexively active in

seeking consistency and understanding. Explanations were generated and institutions

created to manage and deal with the issues of human existence and cosmic origin. Once

launched, such institutions, given their intense coercive power, have a way of staying.

Alternative views like the ones now readily available from modern science and

those made available by Aristotle have played and continue to play a subordinate role to

beliefs involving revealed truths. And, in an effort to explain this fact, I will also argue

that the acceptance of these not-of-this-world beliefs is due to another special capacity of

the human brain, the capacity for magical thinking. Let me explain.

There is a region of the human brain that, when tampered with, causes profound

changes in the human psyche. A lesion in that region, which can come about for a

number of reasons, tends to cause a change in three behaviors. This “temporal lobe

syndrome” was first described in detail by the late Norman

Implication is that “Intellectualism” is a brain malfunction.

Geschwind of Harvard Medical School. I would have been most skeptical of his account

if I had not seen a case that exactly matched his description. This syndrome now has been

reported several times. In its basic form, the brain injury causes a deepening of religious

conviction, a desire to write extensively (hypergraphia), and the performance of bizarre

sexual activity. There is no a priori reason I know of why affecting one of these behaviors

The reality of the syndrome is not amusing. Of interest here is the religious

behavior aspect of the syndrome. Not only is conviction deepened, but the form it takes

becomes erratic and the person switches from one belief to another rapidly and without

apparent cause. The brain process that allows for nonrational and magical interpretations

of events that are usually implicit in stories of religious creation is readier than ever. It

seemingly doesn’t matter which belief is plugged into this process. In a way, the brain

lesion frees the patients from their personal histories and prepares them for any set of

beliefs. These clinical phenomena suggest that a dynamic equilibrium can be set up in the

brain between systems that generate hypotheses and systems that accept such

explanations as meeting rational criteria. The normal state allows for a certain degree of

nonrational and magical beliefs. The diseased and disinhibited state so lowers the criteria

for acceptance that rapidly accepting and changing beliefs become the rule.

If there are brain networks in our modern brains that do tilt us toward magical

beliefs, it would follow that there should be evidence for religious behavior in primitive

humans, at least in all humans who possessed the same brains as those we possess. That

means we could examine the prehistorical record back to approximately forty to sixty

thousand years ago and, if clever enough, find evidence of religious practice. It turns out

Indigenous Science

7 January 1989 Personal Correspondence on the History and Foundations of Science, Technology, and Worldview (PDF)

Jan 7, ’89.

Dear Pam

So you finally pulled off the caper! That is good. I am

glad. Power be with you!

The following are a few comments and afterthoughts.

1. Leroy was saying, in my translation, that the word “Science”

tends to make people imagine “European Science”. We might have to

say something to avoid that.

We are not looking for “something similar to European

science” in indigenous cultures. There is nothing wrong in

identifying “similarity”, “commonness” among Native Sciences. But

the European one is too strong a “standard” for most people that

unless we exercise some care, there is a danger of defining

Science in the European “Fashion” and give recognition to it only

through identifying with the visible European Fashion. But that

is like defining the “dignity” of human beings by the European

Style Clothes they wear. The closer they dress like Europeans,

the more “human” they are!

By saying “foundation of science”, it is partly covered. By

mentioning “metaphysics”, we are implying that there is more to

Science than what is visible. But that might not be enough. So,

let me elaborate a bit.

2. “Science” in a wider sense is a “Matrix” (incidentally “Matr”

in the “Matrix” means Mother and “ix = ics” means a Complex of

Dynamics). It may be better to say that explicitly. The simplest

picture that I can draw about Science is something like below.

Foundation Expressions

Metaphysics Mathematics

Worldview Principles

Cosmic Vision Axioms

Will Knowledge

Love Theory/Theology

Etc. Ideology, etc.

(Textbook Science)

Aim Technology

Utility Application

Benefit Routines

Value Skills

Survival Performance

Progress Practical Arts

Happiness Policy

(Economy)

2

We call the whole dynamics in loop “Science”, not any one

of 4 elements depicted in the picture. Or, in Leroy’s language,

the whole “process” (going around the relations) is the Science.

In Rene Thom’s Language, “Science” is a Verb = “Science-ing”.

Science is not an object, but a “doing”.

[In relation to the picture (mapping of dynamics), I found

a diagram drawn for G. Bateson’s theory on Alcoholism. A

copy is enclosed. Please tell me what you think.]

The “elements” are in a mutually supporting Loop (network)

or “vicious circle”. That is the Dynamics that gives rise to

“Existence” of a science (culture) as “Living Organism” and keeps

it maintaining itself. It is the “Becoming” of the science as a

“Being” (not a Linear sense of becoming a Being, but Feedback

Loop. In Hegelian/Marxist jargon it is said to be “Reproducing

itself”.)

Unfortunate habit of European language is that the word

“Science” is used to refer only to the top-left element and being

understood as such. Actually, the situation is worse in that the

Matrix in different cultures has different media (stylisms) to

express that element. A particular “Medium” (stylism), however,

becomes the identification/identity of the particular science.

(McLuhan said “Medium is the Message”.) I called that “Fashion”.

[It is like naming and identifying a sickness by its

symptom, say like “Red Nose Fever”. How and Why such a symptom

emerges may be traced to the existence of a certain virus in the

sick person. That is like recognizing two elements in the Matrix.

When “medical knowing” comes to trace why the immune system of

this particular person fails and others do not, then it knows

three elements in the Matrix. If the medical science comes to

trace how the disease developed in evolution/history, then they

know the 4th element.

But the above is a Linear model. Only after the Medine has

come to know the “Meaning” of Life-Death,

3

perhaps it will have a view of the complete Matrix.

At the moment, European Science knows itself by its

“symptoms”. In general, scientists themselves do not know

(do not care to know) why and how its peculiar “stylism”

(medium of expression, visible appearance) has come to be.]

Native Science starts with a different “World View” (Cosmology,

Metaphysics) — say, for example, (1) it does not distinguish

(see) “Human Ego” and “Objects” —. (2) In expressing

“Knowledge”, therefore it cannot use Newtonian Language of

“Objects”. (3) In the Technological applications, it cannot be of

“subjugation/exploitation of Nature as an aggregate of objects”.

(4) it does not satisfy the aim of gratifying Ego. And therefore

(1′) it does not enforce Will To Power. That means, (2′) it does

not Develop the Language (theory/principle/knowledge) of

Force……..

That is, the dynamics that started with the Native World

View cannot go on the same “vicious circle” of the European

Science.

3. I sensed that Boniface wanted to talk about “Technology”

(Science in Practices). European thinking is very much “class

conscious” and discriminatory. It separates “Science” from

Technology. Science in the academic sense is the Superior

intellect. “Technology” is what lower class laborers do by Body.

Technology smells like soil and sweat (if not blood).

In the late 19th century, European scholars came to

recognize that “China had developed a high 1evel of Technology

before Europeans”. But they said that “China has never developed

Science”.

One ought to think about this distinction/discrimination

between Science and Technology.

Let us, for example, take Time Measuring “Technology”.

European scientists would grant that Mayans had far advanced Time

Measuring Technology as evident in Mayan Calendars. But what

about the Science of Time?

It is easy to grant an advanced “Technology” of Number

Computation to Mayans. But what about “Mathematics”, “Geometry”

(Science of Space-Time)?

Salmons communicate by Electricity. They have sensors

running along their body lengthwise. They have a High

4

Technology in Radio Communication. That is the Technology of Love

Making. Salmons also use the same technology to communicate with

their Environment. The Science of Salmons, therefore, must be

based on the “way of Knowing” developed in their Love Making.

European culture developed the Technology of “Insulating”

individuals and actually retarded, repressed the Science of

Human/Social relations. The “separation”, “discrimination” served

European Aims (Value), and hence it became the foundation of

European Science. European Science was based on the Way of

Knowing developed in War Making. You note that the notion of

“Defense” is a part of the technology of Insulation/Separation.

“Sciences” are relative to Aims as such and their expressions are

shaped by the Technologies which serve the particular Alms for

each.

I imagine it is necessary and “educational” to have a

discourse on “Technology”.

4. Interestingly, once we get into “Technology”, we would soon be

talking about “Appropriate Technology” etc.

But, the phrase “Appropriate Technology” contains a

patronizing notion (paradigm). It is good that CIDA has learned

(from bitter experiences) that Transplantation of European

Technology does not work. But it seems that the European Aid

Agencies and Experts still think that they can teach “Appropriate

Technology” to the people in the Developing countries. Just lower

the standard. That will do.

[This kind of idea appears often in various contexts. In

science education, physics teachers often said to “make

science easy” for female students so that they would take

physics course.

I am afraid, but not surprised, to find some

“educationists” thinking like “make math easy for Native

Math Education”. That may be called “Appropriate Math”?]

What is “Appropriate” or not is relative to the “Aim”, or

“Value”. For what does any people wish to have an “Economic

Development”? Is it because Canadian Banks want to get Interest

paid? Or is it for European Trade to expand its market?

What if the Aim, Value, Utility of the Native Science,

Technology and Economy happened to be achievement of “Justice”

rather than “materialistic wealth”?

5

The Native might value Love Life to be of the Supreme Value (say,

the Tahitians). What then is the “Appropriate Technology”?

It ought to be noted that even the European Economy that

dictated Technology and, hence, Science was not purely

“materialistic”. Rather, it was “Pride”, in my view. There are

scholars who did “Psychoanalysis” on Capitalism. E.P. Thompson.

Fo1klore, Anthropology, and Social History. Indiana Historical

Review vol. 3. no. 2. (1977); Poverty of Theory and Other Essays

(1978); J. C. Scott. The Moral Economy Of peasant. (1976); F.

Braudel. Civilization Materielle, Economie et Capitalime. ( ); K.

Po1anyi The Great Transformation (1957); etc. are the examples.

If you like, I can present a meta-picture of the worldview

like below;

Value Knowledge

Ideology Science

Polity Law-Norm

Welfare Bureaucracy

Economy Technology

Utility Works

Unfortunately, Economists (Social Scientists) in general do

not pay much attention to “Peasants”. But, there are, however,

several publications on Latino American Peasant Economy, such as

Ernest Feder The people Of The Peasantry. Anchor Books 1971.

Florentia E. Mallon. The Defense of Community In Peru’s Central

Highlands: Peasant Struggle And Capitalist Transition 1860-1940.

Princeton U Press 1983. [See also Gerald Walsh. Indians In

Transition. McClelland 1971 for a comparison.] And studies of

Latino-American Peasantry give rise to Liberation

Pedagogy/Liberation Theology. It will come to Liberation Science,

eventually. In a sense “Science” is a Pedagogy, except it is

“self-learning” not “teaching”.

At this level of “Holistic View”, we come to see that

Native science is a part of Native Liberation. It has to do with

how the Native Community comes to Peace, and thereby leads the

entire World to Peace.

5. It may be my error in perception, but I sense a certain Fear

or Apprehension in going forward with Native Science. I sensed

Defensive Thinking here and there.

I understand and respect genuine Fear that we might

misrepresent Native Science and disgrace it in the public.

7

die. It comes to the question of accepting Death as a part of the

process/dynamics of Birth. That is the meaning of Sun Dance. We

die once any way sooner or later. If we die in Love

process/dynamics, like salmons do, We should be happy in that.

When you waved your hand, I had a moment of imagination

that I was sending off my friend who was taking off on a Kamikaze

mission. Actually, I had never sent off friends on a Kamikaze

mission. But that does not matter. I am sending off the Brave

Sou1s. They are to give away all they got. In a sense, it does

pain me and I feel something sad. I try to protect you, but in

essence, I cannot do anything for you in your love affair. That

is entirely yours to live and die.

Yours

Sam K.

Indigenous Science

On Speech and Dynamics: Introduction to Quantum Logic and then to the Logic of Native Science (PDF)

Example of 4-in-relations see the picture on page 3 & 5.

On Speech and Dynamics

— Introduction to Quantum Logic and then

to the Logic of Native Science —.

I. Why Do Humans Speak?

1. This is an introductory note for “Quantum Logic”. But I

intend this note to be for a bit wider purpose. Namely, I am

interested in deciphering “Native Science” through Native

Language or, more technically, “Parole” (Speech). Therefore, I

step back and consider the role/function of “Speech” before I go

into “Logic”.

2. There is another reason to digress on “Parole”. That is, if

I simply start with Logic, people might say, “Who cares about

Logic?”. Indeed, native speakers, whether in English, Chinese or

in Tlingit, are not even conscious of “Grammar”, let alone

“Logic”. Scientists, in general, may know Logic as an academic

subject, but the overwhelming majority of scientists do not care

much about the technical sense of Logic. It comes “natural”, and

as much as explanations of Logic(s) require speeches in some

native language to be understood at all, “Logic” is not

fundamental. Human beings are not “Logical” at all, in that

sense. Science, as practiced by the majority of scientists, is

not Logical any more than it means “use of language”. Only selfconceited

academic idiots would think of “Logic” to be of any

importance.

But then, we observe that there are “Orders”, “Patterns”,

or “Rules” in the ways people say things. If some non-natives

come and speak in violation of the “Order”, natives would have a

hard time figuring out what the “foreign students” are saying.

The native speakers may not know precisely what the “order” is,

but they do sense if it is violated. Speech without the implicit

“order” does not make sense to them. That is, there is an

implicit “Natural Logic” which regulates how people

feel/think/speak.

That may well be “psychology”. But to say it simply as

“psychology” is no help to anybody. If we say it as “psychology”,

we need to explain how that particular psychology works.

[If you are an English speaking person, try to explain to a

Japanese person what is the “Psychology” which makes you feel

“natural” in using the articles “A” and “The”, beyond saying, “It

makes me feel right”. I bet you would have trouble. So far, I

have never heard an intelligible

2

explanation. Yet, as much as a large group of native English

speakers shares a certain, more or less identifiable, common

“natural feeling” about the usage of the articles, I would guess

that there exists a “Natural Logic”. What I refer to as “Logic”

includes such “linguistic habits”, though I am not going into

“Socio-Linguistics”, but staying within a small area of language

technology in the Sciences.]

It so happens that, for us who are either “Foreign

Students” or in search of the “hidden” science but wishing to

learn Native Science from “outside”, it has to be mediated by

“speech” (Parole) and, worse, through “translations”. We are

“ignorant learners”. [Those who are not do not need to read

this.] We respect the “Teachings of Don Juan” which is claimed to

be beyond “Linguistic” means to reach. But what we are attempting

to do here is very humble learning. We are not aiming for the

Power like Carlos Castaneda did. That was the “Fire Way” of

Learning. We try the “Water Way” of Learning, one drop a time,

but with continuous persistence. We do not pretend that this is a

complete learning, but just a part of the “introduction”.

In order to understand the Native Science, we need some

“explanations” in terms of some “Parole”. In that context, it is

convenient to regard what people can do well without. Conscious

“thinking” is beyond the “Science”. We do not need to assert, in

the McLuhanian Doctrine, that “Science is what is expressed in a

certain Form of Parole” (Media is the Message). But we

concentrate on the Science that is communicable, because that is

the only part which is accessible to us. Before we become

arrogant enough to reach for what are not “explainable”, we try

to understand what are “explainable”, or what are reachable

through guides of the “explainable”. Only after we learn that

part well, we shall be able to pay homage to what we have missed.

3

3. That brings us to the question of “Why Humans Speak”. Let us

try to understand what we are doing by “speech”.

For a naive start, let us make a simple model of “Human

Being” and locate the function of “Speech”. The simplest I can

think of is a “4 part model”. In this modeling, a human can be

represented by a picture below:

By “Eat/Breathe”, I mean all internal physiological functions of

a human body which have to do with maintaining the existence of,

and the growth of, the body. Seeing, hearing, touch sensing,

etc., are taken in analogy with “Eating”.

By “Act”, I mean motions of body, hands, and feet. It’s a

basic function to “goes to food, grabs them, and brings them to

mouth”.

“Think/Feel” is mainly done by Brain.

The first thing we note is that “Speak” part is not

necessary. That, in the picture below, is possible:

Plants (and many insects and animals, to a large degree)

lived, survived, and even “learned” in the Evolutionary sense,

for more than a billion years without “speech”.

Trees did not speak in our sense of language, but they were

able to “learn”. It was because they were “plural” (more than one

tree). When there are more than two trees (beings), there emerges

the possibility of communication and

4

“making love” between (among) them. In a picture, I can depict

what the communication looks like.

You note the Feedback Loop (Hoop) structure made possible

from the Plurality. The picture is the simplest one, and the Loop

can be more complicated and involve many other Beings. But the

Feedback Loop is essential for Communication. The Judeo-Christian

“Unidirectional Command” from God to something else is a patently

false image of communication. European Logic, which was developed

— in Judeo-Christian institution in particular for the need of

the Inquisition — is wrong from the start. I shall not talk of

the significance of “Diversity” for Communication in this note,

but the importance of Loop/Hoop has to be kept in your mind. I am

not helping Logic as a tool for fighting arguments. My “Logic”

would be useless for Lawyers who wish to be “powerful” in their

art of “Adversary Justice”.

The “Love Making” was done as the change of “T”, which can

be analogous to what System Engineers call “Internal State”. This

may be understood as “Thinking/Feeling Habit”, which affects

linkage between “E” to “A”.

The Loop of communication changes “T” part. It is like a

“Computer Virus” which comes into computer system as if “input

data”, but changes the “software” inside. As “signals”, computers

cannot distinguish the sneaking “program affecters” from “data”

inputs that are meant merely be processed by the “program”

(internal state). In the neuro-psychological term, “T” is

something like an “Emotional State”, if not “Mind” itself.

(3.1) [We might take a Hard-nosed Engineering way of saying

things to say “Mind” is a Nickname for the

Dynamics/Function/or Phenomenon of what goes on in the link

between “E” to “A”. It is not necessary that the “named”

exist as an identifiable object. We use the word “Mind” in

the same sense as Physicists use words like “Gravity”.

Gravity is a Phenomenon/Dynamics, not an object. Or,

“Rainbow” may be a better example. “Rainbow” is what we

see, not an object.]

5

It so happened that the “program” is a bit more “stable”

than “input data” (sensations, stimuli) and stays in the memory.

Some memories are in terms of “metabolic” dynamics, and they can

be made quasi-permanent. If that happens, they can be transmitted

to the next generation. That is the role of Love Making in the

Learning. In a simplistic picture, the process looks like the one

below:

The scheme works very well. Then why do we humans need

“speech”?

I think it is for “social” interactions, co-operative or

exploitive. A picture of “Exploitation” looks like:

The Co-operation may be depicted as the next picture;

4. We note that both “Exploitation” and “Co-operation” are

difficult, if the “Beings” have to communicate through “A”

(Action) channel alone. It is like talking through

6

“Body Language”. In a sense, “Actions” (Body Language) are

“honest”. But it takes up too much Energy to communicate

Information. You might appreciate this “Energy Cost” by imagining

our buying and selling through a strict “Exchange of latter with

Matter” alone. It is true that our Symbolic Exchange Media called

“Money” also makes so much room for “manipulations”, if not

“deceits”, “betrayals”, “treacheries”, “frauds” etc. But if you

are to shop around town with tons of Potatoes on your back, you

would say the exchange is not worth the trouble.

That “Speech” can be misused and abused for dishonest

purposes is a problem over which we are concerned. But on the

other hand, we can hardly help each other without talking. What

do you think young lovers do, if there is “sweet language to

talk”? They may have to “club” the desired mate and drag him or

her to their cave. You, faced with a potential mate who is

breathing fire like a dragon, cannot say that you “wish to know

him/her better, before going into a heavier relation”. As it is,

such situations are difficult enough even with talking-language.

In Learning, it is necessary that one has to risk

“mistakes”. In such a situation, Action (Body) language is too

heavy-handed and the damages are often irreversible. So we need

to have some means of doing “As If”. Without the room for

Imagination, our Creativity cannot function. And without

Creativity, we cannot learn — though we can Copy —.

In social scale Negotiations, we have to exchange what we

imagine, dream, or desire, as “possibilities” or “potentials”.

They are not expressible in terms of “Concrete Objects”. Our

language lets us imagine what is not existing. If you call that

“Dishonest”, that may well be the case. But what are you going to

do about the “Future”? The “Future” is what is not existing now.

And without your imagination of the Future, there can be no such

thing as “Will”.

Interestingly, one who does not have a “Will” is the most

telling characteristic

Indigenous Science

1 September 1988 Personal Correspondence on Cross-cultural Science Translation (PDF)

Sept. 1, ’88.

REf. Native Science Conf.

Dear Pam

Here is my suggestion for the “Frame” for the Native Science Conference. There is nothing I can say to you that you do not already know. I only attempt to write out some ideas that might make you feel assured. You are honoring me by taking the posture of asking for help. Whether I could help or not, I have to respond.

I gave you a picture of the Matrix. So this time I shall explain the Matrix and add notes. The picture is simple, but it has to be so. Once you get into discussions, however, the picture turns quite complex. Perhaps, it may be better explained in several “Levels”. As to the trick of “Simplicity” which constitutes the backbone of European “Science”, there are several philosophical problems. But I shall explain them later (see Appendix A).

Level I. Nominal Comparison

Imagine average North American White Male University students, and consider a task of explaining Native Science in contrast to European Science, such as;

(1) That Native Science is not “alienated” from its practice.

(2) Native Science/Counseling is more “Supportive” than “Clinical”

(3) Native Science is an integral part of Communal Living, not Individualistic Assertion of Knowledge. There is no Intellectual Hero in Native Science.

Having such a task in our mind, let us look at a “Comparison Table” (Map) such as below, and think about what questions the simple map might generate.

The basic idea here is to trace 4 items in relation, not just pairing comparison of 2 in antagonism. Dialectics of conflicts must be presented, but at the same time if we can shift our attention to the relational dynamics in looking at 4 items, that would be nice. I am trying “Quadra-lectics”.

———

[Table 1]

European Native American

Psychoanalysis

Physiology

Therapy Medicine

Ritual Healing

(Native

Science?)

Medical Science Clinical

Practices

Medicine ( ? )

Social Sciences Social Works Community

Participation /

Support

( ? )

– – – – – – –

I–1. The Question on the Existence of Native Science.

The first reaction of the students is to question “Does Native Science Exist?” They might say, “Science” has to be “documented” knowledge (book knowledge). Therefore, (in the nominal sense) Native Science does not exist.”

You have gone through the question thousands of times, and you even feel angry about the ignorance of the students. [Besides, for the participants of the planes conference, the answer is already clear. There is no need to go back to the rudimentary question.] But, be patient. The question is not trivial.

Let us look at possible questions/debates the table might generate. i.e.

a. “What example of Native Science do we have?”

b. “Where and how can one find Native Science?”

c. “What use does it serve to find Native Science?”

d. “Why do we need to elaborate/document on Native Science?”

“Does it help anybody?”

e. Do not Natives have/want “Wisdom”, not “Book Knowledge” sense of “Science”? Do they wish to be “Scientific” in the sense “Technical” or “Intellectual”?

If “Science” means “to reduce anything into simple mechanical routines”, is it not reducing Wisdom/Spirit into Machine?

f. “Suppose there is a set of basic ideas, guiding principles, metaphysics, or world-view, for the Native Praxis. Can we call it “Science” without modifying, correcting, or enlarging the European notion of Science?” “If so, on what ground can we justify the change?” “Is the change necessary?” “Does the change help anybody”? “Why do we need alternative sense of Science?”.

Etc.

I-2. Questions on European Science.

But then, there are questions about European Science. The advantage of Quadra-lectics is that it makes easy to see there also exists conflicts/problems/antagonism/tension inside European Science. One has to look at every combination (there are 6 of them) of the 4 in relation.

a. There are problems in asserting that (European) Psychoanalysis is a “Science”.

European “Medicine” may be more of an Art than a Science.

How Scientific are the Sciences, such as Social Sciences or Physics?

b. What is the relation/connection between “Science” (Theory/Knowledge) and Practices?

What good does Theoretical Science provide to the Praxis? (What roles does “Theology” play in Religions as social/psychological phenomena?)

Is the theoretical sense of science only for edifying?

c. How relevant are “Social Sciences” to “Social Works”?

How useful is it to elaborate “Theory” for the people who practice routines which are nominally associated (subjugated) to the Theory?

What does the science of Economy say about the bureaucratic system/technique/procedure of the Social Work/Service/Welfare?

To be sure, it is reasonable to question if the Economics that we have in our academia today is a “Science”. It is sometimes said to be “Dismal Science”, but it may not be a “Science” at all.

Interestingly, by some strict definition, Physics is not a Science. Some physicists even “proudly” say that they are “Artists”.

d. What is wrong with being a “Non-Scientist”? Why should every good thing be a “science”? Is not being a “Humanitarian” enough?

Those questions have to be asked to make a comparative match with questions in I-1.

[See for the problems of European Medicine; Charles E. Rosenberg in The Care of Strangers, Basic Books 1987, talks of the inconsistency of “Vocation” and “Stewardship” which are nonetheless made into a “marriage of convenience” between Healers and Hospital. Illich, Foucault, et al likewise criticized the Medical Profession/Institution. And even our conservative governments are aware of some of the problems, because it costs too much.

I suspect the institutions of “Clinical Social Work” have similar problems with “Medicine”. The “Success” of Institutionalization/Professionalization always brings problems.

And, this leads to the question of the Social Cost (Pollution, Entropy) of the Mechanical Thinking that is worshiped as “Scientific”.]

I-3. Why bother making a comparison?

You might say; “I have made comparisons. So what?” In fact, you showed me many articles which are written on comparisons. Ones which attack European Science always carry some comparisons as the basis of attack.

On the basis of comparisons, one can go to

(i) Assimilation (Surrender) to European Science,

(ii) Rejection of Science without assertion of an alternative.

(iii) Rejection of Science, with assertion of Pure Humanism, Spiritualism, or Wisdom.

(iv) Compromise, Reconciliation, Integration.

(v) Construction of Strategy to deal with the Conflicts/Problems.

(vi) Emergence of Alternative Science, with a creative vision of World Community.

In terms of questions, students might ask

a. Is it not a step in assimilating Natives inot the Domination by European Intellect?

Just because European Culture/Civilization has a distinct fragment called “Science”, why should Natives have it?

b. Is not the show of difference a device to “demonstrate” the Intellectual inferiority of Natives?

c. When European Science itself is having troubles, if not in crisis, why should Natives look for “Science” to copy the troubles?

d. What are we going to do with the differences? Are we to eliminate the differences, say by making one of them extinct?

e. Are we not interested in Native Science, because we have troubles with our European Science? [Turning Point, et al]

II. Level II Case Studies at Level I

Here, we consider Graduate School level of talking/thinking. They presumably had exposure to the level I questions, at least some of them. You are a Professor supervising young Ph.D. candidates who are working on Native Science. What would you tell them?

 For Master’s Thesis, an articulation/elaboration on the Level I questions is a good exercise. They must do one. They must read and know a body of materials (book knowledge) and do at least one “Field Work” to see what the written materials are talking about. I point out here that even if one does work on one aspect, having awareness of the overall picture is helpful. That is the Table I is worth looking at repeatedly. The Map tells where one is.

This level of work is publishable in academic journals. In fact, many are published. But they are “academic” in that they are not intended to help people.

One might select a thesis that Native Communities (Culture) ought to reject European Science in totality and live in an “Ideal Isolation”. I concede that this might be a possible and viable strategy for some nations. When an African Economist proposed it as an answer to the problem of Economic Colonialism, I agreed. The Burmese Socialist Government, which is talked about in News Media today, tried this. Pol Pot Communists went to the extreme of even eliminating “science” along with “Intellectuals”. [Mao’s Red Guard was anti-intellectual, but respected “Science”. What Mao might have thought or hoped of “Science” — that is, there is a dialectics of “Destructive Technology/Constructive Science — may be a topic at Level III.]

I acknowledge the value of Warning Statements, pointing out problems of European Science. But I wonder what the writers are thinking as to what to do about the problems that they saw.

One can write and talk about “Rejection of European Science” and “Back to Traditional Native Medicine”. However, the comparison to European Science is there. Even if the comparison is rhetorically avoided, such works can hardly escape from being a “Reaction” to European Science.

What is worse, by the “angry rejection”, they may be taken as implicit acknowledgement that they cannot overcome European Science — i.e. acknowledgement of unquestionable superior “rationality”, “intelligence”, “power”, etc. of European Science. Saying “I cannot help Europeans from going down to Hell with their Science” may be taken as an equivalent of saying Native Wisdom has no capability to help.

That leads us into Level III. (Critical Reflection), and IV. (Creation of Alternative Science).

III. Critical Reflection

III-1. Supportive Counseling versus Clinical Operation.

As an example, let us take up the differences between “Clinical Therapy” and “supportive Counseling”. Native Healing is “Supportive”. It is not done in the sense of “putting a totally incapacitated patient, knocked unconscious, on a table to operate on it”. (The pardigmatic Metaphor of European Medical Science). Native Medicine often involve Family and Community. It was not done on an Individual basis. All powers (love relations and functions) are solicited for help. Medicine men/women are “Mediums” and “Facilitators” for the power to come together, not power itself.

In the beginning, I said “North American White Male Students”. Female students are excluded, because in the “Macho Science”, they may not talk/think/behave in the “typical” ways. There is usually considered to be a weakness and “unscientific” tendency in Females. they do not like to play the role of (Male) God in cutting up people on the operation table, even if the ultimate aim is to help the guy. Females tend to see “People” being sick or in trouble, rather than entertain the glorious mission of fighting a War against Disease (Evil) as Male Doctors often do. Male Doctors do acknowledge “Will To Live” in patients, but such “help” is solicited in “their” Fight against Disease. “Conquer the Disease” is the main paradigm of Male Medical profession. “Care of person” is the job of nurses, not doctors.

It is not that Females are dysfunctional in Clinical situations. In fact many are engaged in Clinical Social Works — except that they tend to take a posture of either (i) “being told” what to do, alienating them from personal involvement/responsibility, or (ii) like the case of the Big Nurse, identifying themselves with the Power Structure. they are more at home with “Supportive Counseling”, if not merely “Comforting”.

That makes interesting “observation” what Native Healing (Medicine, Science) is “Feminine”. Calling upon the help of the Power Spirit is not the same thing as having a sense of Power within oneself.

In the context of Social Works, what are the role/function of the workers? And what kind of Science would be helpful for them?

For the Clinical works, there Power Science justifies, and even what they do is a false sense of compelling workers to do.

Is there any “Science” behind supportive Counseling?

Evidently, the Support is needed, appreciated, and recognized as effective. But “Science”?

European Science came from “Fighting”. Humans, faced With Fear, either get aggressive or regress into inability. In that “Science” is “empowering” — to make humans assertive, aggressive, active —. “Love Play” has always been in Science, particularly in creative works, but it has always been “subservient”, “secondary”, “helping side” of the Power side. There have been many talks by great scientists about “Love” in science, but texts in Science do not intend to “teach” about that.

I would imagine even Clinical Social Works is motivated by “Love/Care”. But “Love/Care” is not the main “Operational Principle” of the Clinical Social Work, but the “Power of Technical Routines” is the main concern. Having or seeing Problems, the Clinical Operation set itself up as the means to Fight — the “War” to eliminate the problem —.

“Supportive Counseling” may be seen as “weak”; some might perceive it as “ineffective”, if they do not know the performance, say in terms of quantified “Success Rate”. This is because the Support gives an impression that it leaves the problem unresolved. It is not attacking the problem directly, but merely caring for the person.

The separation/dichotomy of “Being” and “Problem” is a heritage from Ancient Atomism. Being is a Dynamics and Problem is a Dynamics. Although the “level” of Dynamics may be different they are both Dynamics (Interaction). The Mechanical Science whch sees “Beings” as “Objects” is totally inadequate. There exists the awareness of such an inadequacy in some sciences, but it is far away from the “Science” of the Clinical Social Works. And because the majority in Social Works is Clinical, the Social Works as a whole has not yet come to construct “Science” for the “supportive counseling”. It is left for a few brave (or rather bleeding) souls to practice on ad hoc basis.

It is not only Native Science that is unrecognized and repressed, but all “Love Sciences” are.

This is a topic for the Level III works.

III-2. The Difficulty of Translation

Another possible topic at Level III is that of “Translation”, “Cross Cultural Understanding”, “Bridging”, “Interfacing”.

It is understandable that the Native Community entertains an Ideology of Separation/Rejection. After all, it has been European Culture that separated, rejected Natives. European Domination accepts only total Surrender of Natives, territory, culture, bodies, souls, and even history.

Therefore, naturally any attempt in the direction of “understanding” is suspected or viewed as “Compromise”, “Betrayal”, “Sell Out”, “Contamination”.

In many Colonized countries, a certain portion of natives became “Translators” for the European Power. They enjoyed somewhat privileged positions in the power structure, while others were mercilessly exploited, oppressed, killed and even sold as slaves. East Indians were often imported into other colonies to serve as lower class officers for European Administrators. Even after these colonies gained independence, the “Class Distinction” remained. [Japan narrowly escaped that owing to the late coming of Europeans to the Far East.] Native Americans have never developed such a “Class Distinction”, but nonetheless there are resentments against those who sell services to Europeans.

Eber Hampton in “The Sweat Lodge and Modern Society” mentions the destruction of Native Agriculture, which David Riesman missed in his Harvard lecture. Indeed, that is a “deliberately forgotten history” (The Big Brother erased it). But many Natives themselves seem to have erased the history when they refer to “Traditional Fur Trade”. The Fur Trade, when Iroquois Nations became addicted, destroyed their Agriculture and Community Craft Industry that they had. Hunting to provide for their own community needs is Traditional. Hunting to sell furs is not. I say this not as an accusation, but as an example of how easy it is for History to be destroyed by “Translators”.

And one thing which caught my attention is that Eber Hampton appears to be proud of “Indian English”, but it is strange for a guy like me who never learned English enough to develop “my own English”. I only manage to read an write in English as a “Foreign Language”. To me Indian English is not a Native Language. However, that betrays a tragic reality of Native Life today. Namely, without Translation into Academic English, Eber could have gotten nowhere.

You might say “Live with Native Language!” That is easy to say, as long as one is not going to do it in real life. Even without European Languages, what will Natives today do? What about the rifles that they use in their hunting? What about power boats? TVs, refrigerators, Trucks, Supermarket, Hospitals and Alcohol? The pens and papers used to apply for European Welfare? They are not “Languages” in the formal sense, but, they are the kind of idioms and vocabulary by which Native Living is spelled out.

There are millions of “Non-Reserve Indians” whose homes are on the streets of Whitemen’s Cities. Thousands of Native children were adopted by European families. Even if “Pure Blood Indians” opted for total separation in some Indian Territories (Nations, Reserves), there would be millions who will be “Outsiders”.

And what will the pure-blood Nations do about dealings with the rest of the World? A Closed State in political rhetoric is easy, but the problems of actually Living Life cannot be wiped off by the inflated hot rhetoric. Much as I admire and sympathize with the sentiment which might say, “Fuck European Science”, I cannot imagine any other way but to come to terms with European Science in one way or another.

And to come to terms with the other Science, one needs to have one’s own Science, or equivalent thereof. Ideally, the Native Science is so much better in that it can understand European Science, including its limitations, weaknesses, and faults, as well as strength and power. One cannot get that by closing the door and watching T.V. while drinking beer and liquor from European stores.

Let David Riesman be alone. He can rot in his ignorance. As far as he is concerned, he is doing very well without knowing about Natives. Even if he happened to know about Natives, he is not obliged to restore Native Farming for Education. Therefore criticizing David Riesman is a waste of time. It can only be done by Natives.

The atrocities, sufferings and pains inflicted on Natives, pureblood or otherwise, inside reserves or outside, are Real. They are there, whether one likes it or not. They cannot be ignored. Europeans imposed them on Natives, but if Natives do not remove them, Europeans would not. That makes dealing with European Science unavoidable. There, Translators have very important roles to play. If European Science is the Enemy, one has to know it to fight it. One might even think about the possibility of “Beating the Enemy at his own Game”.

Righteous indignation is natural, and there ought to be more of it. That is the Passion needed. I would venture to say that is the Fire Way. However, sooner or later, one has to come to the question of “What To Do About The Problems?”

To face the question of “What To Do About the Problems?” is a Science. Describing the problems, so that many people come to know the problems and can start building basis of co-operation, is the important first step in the Science. But one cannot let one’s passion be exhausted by that. There is a next step, which is harder.

If we attempt Science, we need

(1) The “Science of knowing what problems are, and

(2) The Science of knowing what to do about them.

The second step has to be persistent. I would characterize it as the Water Way.

[There is the Earth Way to make things concrete, and the Wind Way has to help with Creativity needed. Then must come the Tree Way to Integrate and gently embrace the whole. But that is the topic of Level IV.]

Let me try here my armchair psychoanalysis. Natives are brave, and they are not afraid of European Science. What they Fear is not that. They are not “running away” from European Science under the disguise of righteous indignation — though European Science is indeed horrible —. The psychological trouble is that any Learning involves Love. Learning of Science is “Erotic”. Traditionalists may indeed Fear this “Love Affair”. They are afraid of “Seduction” by European Science.

Education can be “Sweet”. Yet my grandfather rioted against the Japanese Government when it imposed the school system on his village. He said, “It is bad enough that peasants are forced to pay high Tax, but now the Government is taking our children away”. He appeared to stand against Education. That is strange for one who learned to read and write on his own. He was not afraid of Science, but eagerly read and learned. Besides, he often took care of “troublesome kids” from villages around, and was known as a great educator (Therapist/Counselor). But his sense of Education was not “School Education”. Being a peasant himself, he knew what was needed to be learned. He never lost his Peasant Spirit. I have known a Scholar in the same village who was reading works of French Linguist in 1945 when most Japanese did not have any more than one pair of shoes, in the aftermath of WWII. In 1945, the life of Japanese was worse than that in, say, Nigeria then, a lot less than “Bushmen” in Canada. He did not become a Frenchman but stayed as a Peasant even after he became the president of a college. He was entirely self-taught. It is unfortunate that Japanese Peasants are not well known as “Samurais” who constituted less than 10% of the Japanese population.

I am not saying the Japanese are any better in comparison with Native Americans. They have a lot of problems. But the point is that learning European Science without selling our souls is possible. One jus has to remember that accumulation of “knowledge” is not of any value, but how much help one can offer to others in community is the measure of Science.

Level IV. Tree Science

This is Pam’s Science. I am not qualified to talk about it. The Conference hopefully comes to the Vision of it. Or better yet, Pam will bring a Prophecy. I am merely guessing at your dream. By introducing “Quadra-lectics”, you are overcoming the antagonistic paradigm in European Dialectics and introducing “relational science” which is a better Format for Healing/Love. You suggested the idea of 4-in-Relations not by so much words, but by dream-pictures.

I imagine you would talk about concrete, real, direct and personal experiences in Community Counseling. It is always good that talk is made “concrete”. But, You are “Counseling” the World Community by the same talk. If you can help the Healing of a Native Community, the very same Science can heal the World Community.

You might talk about your Science that you are raising.

There was one thing You said that was something to the effect of “in some cases there may not be a cure”. I do not know what you were referring to. Therefore I may be totally off the mark. But if you mean by “cure” in the “Clinical” sense, there is no cure for any case. The community has to recognize its own problem. The community has to do its own healing. Agencies from outside can only be helpers. Suppose the agencies of the dominant culture find a situation in some native community is a “problem”, then it is likely that the “problem” is, by a large measure, caused by the dominant culture. [If a child is behaving badly, it is likely that the family is in trouble.] And if so, then Clinical Therapy ought to be applied to the dominant culture, first of all.

If the Clinical Therapy is either not workable or not acceptable to the dominant culture, it is silly to expect the same would work for, or be acceptable to, the Native Community in question. One cannot apply the Principle of “Do as I tell you, not do as I do”. Science ought, at least, to be honest.

One of the advantages you have is that you are in a position to practice the therapy of the dominant culture, though yours is not the “clinical” kind. If you remember, that is where I met you, namely in Peace Research which is a science for “counseling” the World, in particular the most powerful of European Nations. It is what I might call “Social Therapy”.

Here, I like to tell you that Newtonian Mechanics was a very powerful “Therapy” (Brainwashing) which “empowered” Europeans to Industrialize. Yet, Newtonian Mechanics is made of nothing but “Words” and “Metaphors”.

You might think about why the “Story” called Newtonian Mechanics was so effective, so powerful. If you were in the Europe of the 16th century, you might have said that there was no “cure”. Germany did not come into the “Scientific Revolution” until the 19th century. In the beginning of the 20th century, Russians and Italians were no more ahead of the Japanese who started to learn European Science some 20 years before that time. And the learning of European Science in any country came at a horrendous cost.

Your Native Science (or Tree Science) may appear powerless. Because the only thing you can do at this moment is just make up “stories”. You may not foresee the consequences of what you are making up, any more than Galileo, Descartes and Newton did about their “Stories”. But, that does not mean there is no consequence, no effect. You might get a big surprise. It is not defending the traditional Native Culture that I am concerned about, but rather I am interested in Native Science as a Creation of Alternative Science which works for the World. It is a gift from Native Culture.

That brings me to say a few things about “Science”. “Science” is not an object of Archeological Study of some Dead Knowledge. It has a life, dynamic, development, creativity. At least, Science responds to the problems of community of the time. Or rather, Science is created and manifested as the response of Community to its problems. Just as Love takes a particular form of expression in a particular relationship, Science is particular to the situation; The Vision that one seeks is particular to the one who is in the particular circumstance. I respect ancient Wisdom. but Wisdom is wisdom, only if it is alive in the minds and souls of people today and functioning. That is why the learning of wisdom takes creativity. And I hope all the suffering Natives have had to go through was not vain.

—–

This is incomplete, but I send this to you for now. The Appendix A shall follow.

Yours

Sam K.

P.S. Thank Chyna for me. I appreciated her patience. She is an impressively well-behaved, happy child. Her mother must be a very loving person. I wonder if I am wrong in saying “Looking at a Child is looking at Parents”.

Indigenous Science

The Need of Sensitivity in Science: As the foundation of Cross-Cultural Science Education

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 1

328-1640

THE NEED Of SENSITIVITY IN SCIENCE:

—As the foundation of

Cross-Cultural Science Education—

“Science sets forth this formative process in all its detail and

necessity, exposing the mature configuration of everything which

has been reduced to a moment and property of Spirit. The goal is

Spirit’s insight into what knowing is. ”

[Hegel: Phenomenology Of Spirit. 1807.]

1. That what we usually think as “Science” is “Power Science”

and lacks Sensitivity.

The image of Powerful Science bulldozing through problems

and resistances to get things done is very strong in our mind.

And, therefore, it is hard to talk about “Sensitivity” as an

important element in Science.

Occasionally we do talk about beauty, poetry in science,

such as Fabre’s The Diary of Insects, and Einstein’s Cosmic

Vision. But, I am afraid, we tell such stories as “diversions”

from the main instructional materials. Perhaps we tell more jokes

of dubious value to entertain students more frequently than

telling about the “sensitive” tender elements in Science.

By and large we treat the sensitivity in Science as of

secondary importance. As a consequence, teaching practices of

Science tend to be that of imposing the Powerful Science on the

minds of students. We may not be conscious of us doing that. But

if we step back and look at our practices, it appears that we are

teaching Power side of Science almost exclusively and neglecting

I think it is unfortunate, for the creative thinking, the

sensitivity is essential. Even if the majority of human

population has to perform mechanical routines to make a living,

our children deserve an educational period where they are treated

with the delicacy of the Sensitive Science. For that reason, I

would try here a “scientific explanation” of

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 2

the Sensitivity, is a rational to stress the importance of it in

Science. I hope, my explanation is sufficiently general to

encourage Sensitivity in human life in general.

And, I have a feeling that what I meant by Sensitivity also

has some meaning to the Cross Cultural Education. Since I am not

familiar with the Cross Cultural Education that experts here are

engaged, I do not make a claim. Rather, I would like to ask you

if what I am going to discuss here has any relevance to the Cross

Cultural Education. I would be grateful if you kindly give me

back responses and reactions to what I said.

2. Where can Sensitivity be located in our Intelligence?

In order to introduce the Sensitivity, let me talk briefly

about “Science” in general. To save time, I present a simplified

archeological diagram here.

Science is a part of human intelligence to use the

faculties of our brain/mind.

(i) The first level of intelligence on the surface is Object

Recognition level. This is what Atomism does. We recognize

objects and identify them. We sometimes decide to ignore things

as well at this level.

(ii) The second level is Relation Recognition level. There we

think of relations between Objects. Statistical Correlations,

Causal linkages may be recognized and identified. Basically, the

relations recognized are of the “Linear” kind. [*See Subnote 1.]

(iii) The third level is Utility Recognition level. We sense what

we can do with the objects and relations we recognized.

(iv) The fourth level is Strategic Construction. This is often

referred to as “Problem Solving” intelligence. We take the

situation at hand as the starting point, and see the desired

state as the final point. If we find “The Means” to connect these

two points, we call it “The Solution” of the problem.

As such, the fourth level resembles the second level,

except that the “Connection” (Relation) is imposed by us. And,

often times, the task of finding the “means” to connect the two

points is accomplished by ignoring and cutting off relations that

existed. The image for this “problem

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 3

solving” is Alexander The Great cutting a knotted ball of string

with a sword in one blow. The sword is the imposed connection

cutting through all pre-existing relations. Unfortunately, this

happened too many times when a powerful dominant Culture met

In these 4 levels, there is no need of the Sensitivity.

Rather, we would think of the “Minimum” that is necessary for

what is desired. We deem that is “Efficient” and “Rational”

within the contexts considered.

For example, we recognize two towns on both sides of a

mountain. That is at the Object Recognition level. We see people

going back and forth between the two towns. This is the Relation

Recognition level of thinking. We see the Utility of the

exchanges. And we Bulldoze to make a Highway between them and

think that the problem is solved.

The “Science” in our ordinary sense is an organized and

formalized “knowledge” at the above 4 levels of intelligence. It

empowers people in that sense. Let me call this Power Science. It

lets us do things. But there are levels below this, if we dig

into our minds deeper.

(v) Although we seldom think any deeper than the Power Science

levels, we occasionally do “Think Twice”. We ask whether or not

the construction of the Highway was a good thing. Let me call

this 5th level intelligence as the “Reflective Level”.

We do have this intellectual capacity to “Think Twice”

about what we have done, and also sometimes what we are about to

do. That is where the Sensitivity comes in. Although we have the

Power to do and to get a certain thing that we desire, we ask

ourselves if doing so might not hurt someone. We exercise a care

to protect other’s safety, interests, wellbeing. This takes a

fair amount of imagination as to the situations that we are about

This requires thinking of the whole system of things in a

complex web of relations. It is different from the kind of

thinking of Power science which can be metaphored as that of

“Drawing a line from a point A to a point B”. For, in the complex

web of relations, there are lines from the point B to the other

point C, which in turn relates to other points. All linked in

that sense, the circle of the linkage most likely comes back to

the initial point A. That complicates the situation. A

straightforward thinking is only applicable

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 4

to linking nearby points. The whole circle of relation is not

“straightforward”, but rather “Non-Linear”. That makes thinking

[Linear/ Non-Linear distinction is explained in Subnote 1.]

But the strange thing is that Humans do have an intuitive

sense by which they can “Feel” the harmony or disharmony of the

whole system. Even in highly theoretical works, physicists often

came to “Feel” the whole thing and said it is a “Poetical

Beauty”, or “Poetical Unity”.

That is the “Care” that one exercises to understand the

whole of the cyclic relationships and the “Beauty” that one feels

about the whole are related.

I think it is highly desirable that children are given the

opportunity to experience the “Care” and “Beauty”. It requires

Sensitivity to experience it. But the Sensitivity cannot be

developed without experiencing it. I think this is a great

challenge of Science Education.

I would like to suggest that Science Education has to aim

at the caring level of intelligence. And I think it is possible

to lead students to that level by asking them to “Think Twice” as

often as possible. The Science Education has to contain exercises

for saying “I can do this But on the other hand…” Such exercises

are training for Sensitivity.

We might call this “The Sensitivity Science Education”, in

a contrast to the “Power Science Education” that we have been

And I hope that they enjoy seeing the “Beauty” attained

after many exercises of “Thinking Twice”.

3. The Sensitivity Science is a “Pragmatic” necessity for

Human Survival, and Cross Cultural Science Education is a

beautiful way of the Sensitivity Science Education.

In view of what we are doing nowadays to our Environment

and to our fellow Human beings, I would say that without

Sensitivity, we will not survive the 21st century. For the

sensitive eyes, the bad consequences of the Power Science are

visible almost everywhere. Even if we do not want to see them,

things such as Acid Rains descend

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 5

upon us. Incidences such as Chernobyl happens and force us to

know what we are doing to ourselves.

In the line-like thinking of Power Science, we do not see

the remote consequences of our actions. But the fruits of our

deeds loop around and come back on ourselves.

In that, I am not a Romantic Idealist to advocate the

Sensitivity Science. I have a “Pragmatic” concern about the

future of the World in which our children live or die. Either we

educate ourselves and change to become Caring Beings, or we

annihilate ourselves. It is not possible to evade the choice.

Fortunately, however, we have a marvelous educational

opportunity called Cross Cultural Education.

It gives very good opportunity to Think Twice about the

Power Science that our dominant Culture has been practicing up to

The Cross Cultural Education is one way of giving our

children the opportunity, and a beautiful way of doing the

Sensitivity Science Education. Here, remarkably, we have a

consistency of the means and the aim. We have the way of studying

which cal1s for Sensitivity. And we have the aim that is the

I look upon Cross Cultural Education to be not a “Tokenism”

to satisfy disgruntled minority races, or “Window Dressing” to

soothe the “Guilt” from the colonial oppressions and the racial

discrimination in the historical past. But I consider it as a

Golden Opportunity for every one to learn the way of Survival and

at the same time the way of constructing a beautifu1 Future.

Beyond that, I would like to stress here that this is not a

subject of “social studies”, but of “Science”.

I am not saying this because I am a scientist and wanted to

externalize the power of science. You must realize that I am a

“scientist” only in the Power Science. Among other things it was

the prejudice of the “Power Science” that used to say that Euro

Americans have the Science.

And, I have to learn Cross Cultural Science for my own

sake. And people here are great help to me. I wish I could go

back to school again and experience beautiful education that you

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 6

– – – – – – – –

I add one, perhaps, “Bad” example for the advocacy of Cross

Cultural Science Education. It is from General Relativity.

General Relativity can be viewed as an “art” of how to

connect a small local Linear way of thinking (analogous to making

a short sentence) to the next. The connections of many small

Linear descriptions (analogous to a whole “story” made of many

sentences) make up a Global Geometry which may be “Non-linear”.

General Relativity is concerned with the Whole of the Global

Connections. Needless to say, to make a comprehensible coherent

picture is not a trivial task. Some constructions are beautiful,

The “connected whole” is a “World View”. And among many

ways to make up the “connected whole(s)”, we can study how to

compare various ways of making “connected wholes”. In this sense,

General Relativity is interesting. It resembles “Cross Cultural”

However, as I said before, General Relativity is “perhaps a

bad example”. The trouble with this example from modern physics

is that it is by and large inaccessible to the general public.

There are “popular books” such as The Turning Point by F.

Capra etc. However, ordinary Science Education does not come

anywhere near to the “Way of Thinking” contained in those modern

developments in science. Schools, perhaps unconsciously, teach

the 300 year old physics and waste time in “beating the

established mechanical routines into blank minds of children”

under the name of Science Education. It so happens that the Old

Science also carries the Authoritarian Ideology of that

It also represents the “Alienated” mentality of the 19th

century European Intellectuals. [see] M. Berman. The

Reenchantment of The World.] That Science emerged in the 17th

century as a “Liberation of Thinking” is largely forgotten and

perverted, under the disguise of “Rigorous”, “Exact”, discipline.

Psychoanalysts ought to examine why so many scientists and

science teachers today still maintain the illusion of “rigorous,

exact science” as if they have never heard of the Uncertainty

Principle or Godel’s proof of Incompleteness of Mathematics.

Their quasi-religious belief may be within the Freedom of Belief

allowed by the Constitution, but the Authoritarian posture of

scientists talking down to the

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 7

public, as if they are the guardians of the Absolute Truth, is a

pedagogical disaster in barring the majority population from

access to the modern science.

That I have a considerable difficulty in talking about

fruits of the modern science in terms of “Ways of Thinking”

attests to the failure in Physics Education for which we

physicists are collectively responsible. We have spent Hundreds

of Billion Dollars of tax money, but we have not helped society

with cultural developments in terms of the Ways of Thinking. The

public money is used to edify a small group of specialists and

widen the gap of thinking inequality, not mentioning the North-
South disparity in science-technology and wealth. We ought to

think, for example, why we do not use science to make rudimental

water supply systems available to the poor half of Humanity. It

could be done at a fraction of the cost of sending a school

teacher to Space and getting killed in a Show of National

Superiority. I do not think it is excusable.

One very inexpensive way of introducing New Way of Thinking

to general public is to do Cross Cultural Science. Since most of

the “Sciences” from different cultures are accessible through

non-technical expressions, they are better suited for general

Education. (I fancy that “Hopi Relativity” is just as good in

conveying the main idea as General Relativity which is accessible

only through complicated mathematical manipulations.) That is to

say, we have discovered a mountain of treasures in the Native

Science. I recommend school teachers to seriously look into

Native Science and take advantages of the treasure.

(However, I would caution the teachers to pay proper respect in

exchange, lest be accused of stealing the last and the most

precious treasures of the Natives after taking everything away

from them. One way of expressing respect is to invite Native

Scientists and let them speak, rather than giving an

“Interpretation” to students as if that is genuine Native

Science. And if possible, let students learn from the way the

Natives live with the “Science in their actual life, rather than

substituting an “intellectualized version” for it.)

– – – – – – – –

My story here was perhaps tedious and technical and it was

from the background of the Power Science. But I hope it is of

Thank you for your patient listening.

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 8

[Subnote 1. On Linearity.

“Linear” means “line-like”. When relations between pairs of

two quantities, such as “Input and Output” plotted on a graph

paper appear like lines, the relations are called Linear.

Most relations in Reality, however, are not Linear. Why,

then, do we favor Linearity? The most theories in science are

Linear ones. Economists use Linearized models; Political

Scientists and Politicians talk and think in Linear Language. We

usually think Linear, such as if something is good, then more of

it is better. It is not rare that sick people take more pills,

thinking that the more pills he or she takes, the faster the cure

is, then ends up with an Overdose. Or a man who makes hundred

thousand dollars a year thinking that he would be a twice bigger

man if he could make $200,000 etc.

But, the worship of Linearity is not just silly

superstition in numbers. There is a definite advantage in

Linearity. I cite an example.

Suppose a psychologist or social scientist is faced with an

unknown entity or system named, say, G. How will the scientist go

about knowing what G is?

The first principle of Science is the Principle of “Do

something and see what will happen”.

So the scientist does something, which in psychologist’s

jargon is called “Stimulus”. Sociologists might call it “Input”.

Something happens in Response (X) to the Stimulus (x), or Output

corresponding to the Input. By this, the scientist gets a data

(X) = {G} (x) or x → X

Of course this one data point is not enough for the

scientist to claim “Knowledge” on the entity. The scientists have

to try more Inputs and get Outputs. But if the entity (or system)

is Linear, it is easier to know what Response would be for any

Stimulus. For example, the Linear Entity G would produce a

Response 2X for Stimulus 2x, and 3X for 3x, and so on, i.e.;

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 9

What is more, provided the Entity (System) G is Linear, the

scientist can predict what the Response (Output) would be for an

arbitrary combination of various kinds of Stimulus, say like

(3X + 2Y – Z) = {G} (3x + 2y – z).

This predictability is an enormous savings in the cost of

the research to construct the Knowledge about the Entity (System)

Having this sense of Linearity in mind, one looks into

texts in Physics, Engineering, Economics, etc. One would find

that the majority of Theories are about Linear entities or linear

systems. Texts in Psychology, Sociology, Political Science,

Anthropology etc. are not explicit in what they mean by

“knowledge”. But when they do imply “knowledge”, they are usually

an implicit assumption of Linearity.

Most economic-politico-social policy recommendations from

the Power Science are of the Patch-work type which in effect says

“Granting that all other things stay constant, do x to get the

result X”. This is only justifiable on Linearity Assumption. The

characteristic of Linear Thinking is that it neglects all

complications. It only sees the starting point (the problem as

the initial state) and the desired end point, and finds the means

to connect the two points. It is like drawing a line between two

points without looking at other points around. Perhaps, it is

analogous to shooting an arrow at a target. As such, the

concentration of attention is necessary and it is not a bad thing

In real systems, however, when one thing is changed, all

others change. There would always be the second, third, fourth

order effects, like the ripples created by a stone dropped in a

lake. Linear Assumption is simple and convenient, but it is a bad

“superstition”, if it is worshiped as The Best Science. Yet the

Insensitivity of the Power Science neglects the higher order

Another trick of the Power Science is that, when the

uncertainties in the higher order effects are visible, it goes

for “Short Term” projections and makes decisions on that basis.

It is hoped that the higher order effects would not manifest in a

short time scale taken as the reference frame of the thinking.

Unfortunately, the neglected higher order effects do not

disappear; they “disappear” only in the short-term thinking.

People have to pay for them eventually. A funny thing about this

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science 10

is “scientific”. That is the Power Science; it provides an

edifying cover not only for the negligence, arrogance, and

insensitivity, but for the stupidity. I would think that the

Native Science which thinks on a long-term scale would be good

“medicine” for the Power Science.

Non-linear entities or systems are that which cannot be

treated by Linear Theory. That is the definition. Non-linear

entities and systems are nasty, for they defy the simple

“predictability” of the kind illustrated above.

Non-linear systems are “Unpredictable”, which means there

is no possibility of doing the “science” which usually means

“predicting power”. Of course, we can do a modified sense of

“science”. In fact, non-linear physics is now getting

fashionable, where things like “Catastrophe Phenomena” are

What is so-called “Ecology” in biology and geology is

largely confined to Linear cases. Some Biologists and Geologists

are aware that Nature is Non-linear and Catastrophic Instability

— such as mass extinction — is expected. But the prejudice

(or rather “superstition”) of majority of the scientists

demanding “Predictability” for “science” on some emotional ground

does not make the study of Non-Linearity in Nature popular.

As to knowledge in social and Humane areas, their implicit

Linear “Rhetoric” are yet to be recognized. “Causal Relation” is

often nothing more than a Linearized Expression. As a

consequence, people do not know they are assuming Linearity.

Hence, Linear Thinking is prevalent.

I do not think the “Linguistic Philosophers” are even aware

of Non-linearity, except perhaps in Logical Paradoxes. (The

“Paradox of Self-Reference” has a “loop structure” and as such it

is Non-linear. “Circular Argument” is also Non-linear. They

reject it. But interestingly the most “definitions” in sciences

are “circular”. Newton’s Laws of Motion and Darwin’s famous

statement “Survival of the Fittest” are well known examples.

Perhaps, because of these bad cases, philosophers do not like

Non-Linearity, But, their dislike prevents them from serious

studies of Non-Linearity. This is unfortunate.)

However, the Philosophy of Dialectics is a Non-linear one. [See

Thorn cited below] But I doubt Dialecticians themselves such as

Marx — are aware of the Non-linearity.

Sensitivity and Cross Culture Science

As to Mathematics of Non-Linearity, see Rene Thom: Structural

Stability and Morphogenesis. Benjamin. 1972. (Thom also had an

interesting thing to say about Math Education, Science 1972.)

Also, there are several texts on Non-Linear Physics. What

is called “Solution” is an unusually stable wave produced by Non-
Linearity. It is to be noted that “Stability” can be a

manifestation of Non-linearity. Non-linearity is not always

unstable and catastrophic. I suspect almost all biological and

social systems (such as human life) is “stable” because of Non-
linearity. They “die”, however, because of the Non-linearity that

maintained them to be stable for a while (quasi-stable).

The escalation of Nuclear Arms race which goes in a

“vicious circle” is an example of bad Non-linear Dynamics. On the

other hand, the “positive enforcement” effects in Education etc.

are also Non-linear Dynamics.

These examples show that Non-Linearity is important and

interesting. But here again, it is too technical to be taught

directly in schools. I would appreciate very much if you could

suggest to me some ways of bringing “awareness” of Non-Linearity

into school science education. Interestingly “Sensitivity” is a

highly Non-Linear Phenomenon. I wish some psychologists would

write about “Non-Linear Dynamics of Mind”. Hegel came close to

doing that, but his intellectual snobbism is too much for popular

reading. Perhaps, Native Science might have good stories to tell

Oct.18, ’87. S. Kounosu Phys. Dept. U. of L.

Indigenous Science

21 November 1988 Personal Correspondence on Lust, Natural Love, Cosmology

Handwritten Notes Italicized 1

Copy to Pam

Nov. 21, ’88.

Dear Norm

Thanks for your letter. I sent a copy to Pam.

I am going to send you several stuffs to show what I have

been doing. But for now, I tell you about Leonard Cohen’s

Beautiful Losers. It is old stuff from Hippy days, published in

mid 1960’s, and it was a hit then. So you might know it. Anyway,

I write assuming you have some memory of the story. I came to it

from a review which said something about “Cosmology”. So I

checked it up.

There are other “motives”. One is your letter, though I do

not know what you said led me to this. Something you said did the

trick. Another one came from a Blackfoot lady. I gave an exam to

my introductory physics class and the result was disastrous. It

depressed me enormously. I cannot teach. Not that I taught

before. I do not “teach” any way. But this time, it made me think

that I ought to resign. Then, I met this woman from whom I am

learning Blackfoot language. She asked “How are you?” (I mean she

asked, not just greeting. Incidentally, you say “Tsa Niita’piwa?”

If you mean greeting, then you reply “Soka’piwa”.) So I told her

the reason for my depression. She laughed and said “Don’t you

have Lust any more?”.

“Lust!” The word sent me down to my memories. I am a clumsy

guy from my early childhood. That is why I tried to “know”

everything about humans. By 6th grade, I understood what adults

were talking about. I had no difficulty reading adult books, and

read a lot, more than my schoolteacher mother ever did. That was

a kind of compensation for my inability to do “Lusty” things.

They say “Those who cannot, teach”. In my case, “Those who cannot

do, try to know”. Relative to that, you are doing splendidly.

But, I am used to it and that does not hurt me much, for the most

time. Only occasionally, it does hurt, and I go down deep into

despair. Usually, I do not complain, because there is no use

saying anything to anybody. They have their own troubles and

doing the best they can. The last thing they need is someone

nagging them.

My mistake was that understanding of what is “talked” is not

understanding of anything.

Handwritten Notes Italicized 2

“Ah, that is your Ego!” you would say? Yes that is there

too, So, I tell you my troubles. But Orientals have this

peculiarity that they do not talk much in Love and in Sorrow.

They would be silent about deepest part of feeling, as if they

are afraid that talking might make things cheap. Oriental lovers

just gaze into each other’s eyes and don’t utter even a single

word for 3 hours. It also happens between friends. (This, Leonard

Cohen would know nothing about.)

Now, about this Beautiful Loser. It is a story, or rather a

“non-story”, about an Indian Saint Catherine Tekakwitha, the

narrator which is a scholar-researcher who admires Saint

Tekakwitha, Edith an Indian girlfriend of his, and “F.” a

homosexual friend. I do not know if Cohen was conscious of it or

not, it involves 4 elements. That is the Symmetry Group (2 x 2),

characteristic to Native American Myth-Mandala. [The story “To

Carry The Grace” is based on the Native Geometry of 4 elements. I

added one more, Tree Princess, to suggest a way out. You know who

the Tree Princess is. But my Princess is not quite ready to

accept the meaning of her Being. That is another reason why I

look into stories like this.]

Tekakwitha is an Iroquois name. She was a Mohawk girl

adapted from “Tribe A… ” and was Christianized by Jesuits. She

represents the Native Spirituality. Edith represents decaying of

the same “Tribe A… ” in the story and a (suspected) member of

only some 20 survivors. Out of the 20, 4 are young women whom F

“managed to fuck them all”, including Edith. F is the modern

decadence, nihilist, sex maniac. F is one side of the Euro

American Culture which does the “let it go”. He also represents

“Urban Indian” Phenomenon. The narrator is another side of the

same White Culture which did not “let it go” — in story he is

having “Constipation” problem —.

In terms of Group Dynamics the “story” is simple one. But

of course it is not “a story”, but a Style of writing — in the

sense “media is the message” —. I could not help thinking that

if you write like this, you would have sold a half million copies

two years ago.

It is only clumsy guys like me who see “Geometry” in

stories. The million people who read this story, probably did not

read “Geometry”. Say, 90% read “Explicit Sex”, 1% read an Indian

Story, and 1% read something else.

This does not say, however, that people did not get

anything beyond a dirty sex story. Implicitly, they do probably

sense something. And for the sensing of that “something”, I do

not think it to be of any help to know the Geometrical Structure

of the story (or the Dynamics of the situation). I only do it

because I am always looking for

Handwritten Notes Italicized 3

“Native Science” in anything, so much so that I see the (2×2)

Group Dynamics almost everywhere.

And, that “doing science” to story destroys my enjoyment of

“unadulterated” reading. I cannot read things for pure

enjoyment’s sake any longer. That is bad. For a while Cohen

entertained me by defying my “science”. And I liked his “Style”.

But it lasted only a quarter of the story through. I soon caught

up with the author in technical sense, and the rest became

predictable, and in fact deteriorated even in its “style”. His

story got to the climax too soon, like premature ejaculation.

That is no fun. The picture of Catherine Tekakwitha stayed on the

wall in the room where all those Lusts were going. The “sensual”

Tekakwitha did not “come”. The story ends with the suicide of

Edith (extinction of the romanticized Indians) in the first

quarter of the book. If I did not have a respect for Tekakwitha

enough to make up a sensual story in my imagination the

“Cosmology” world have collapsed. At expense of (1) all manner of

fucking, (2) suicide of an Indian gir1, and (3) religious death

of an Iroquois Saint Maiden, the story failed to elucidate what

this “Lust” is.

[My theory of (2×2) Dynamics suggests that Cohen missed one

more entity (power being) to go beyond the romanticism that

is too frequent in Whitemen’s intellect. Pam’s “Rock” might

be the one (4).

To be sure, in Cohen’s Story, there was a feeble attempt to

go back to “Spirituality”. That is the episode about the

“Water”. It took place a few days before Edith commits

suicide. “Going back to the Tradition” often takes place in

Desperation” “Going back to Nature” (and join Indian way of

life), “Going back to Uninhibited Sex”, etc. are variations

on the same theme. The frantic sex life is the Last Refuge

for those “Urban Indians”, from European Tribes or Native

American ones.

In the desiccated modern urban society, they try to escape

through the only intimate sensual medium left for them. The

Capitalism left nothing else but Sex. It is a “let it go”

only in the sense of relieving Constipation in the urban

Waste Land. It is the only “moist” thing in the Hell. As

such I respect it, but, to me, it is rather painful.

The “Natural Love” is indeed uninhibited and people did

walk around naked. Sex was free, but it was no “Big Deal”

like those Urban Indians are obsessed with. Sex was as

natural as eating, peeing, etc. That is, Love was diffused

all around, permeated in, distributed throughout every

interaction in the community life. There is no “Intensity”

of the kind that Cohen was

Handwritten Notes Italicized 4

“making points” and keeping scores about. They shared women

and men, mothers, sisters, brothers, just as they shared

foods, dwellings, works, and life.

Bourgeoisie life dried up all that Except Private

Possession, including Private Sex. Having Free Sex does not

bring back the Love Community. We perform all sorts of

rituals, including Sex but that would be vain. What was

lost will not come back, no more than Buffalo herds come

back to the prairie. That is, unless we bring back the

whole Community, the whole Boundary Condition to the Field

Equation, the whole Enchanted Cosmos.

While we are refusing our neighbors Free Foods, Free Sex

will not liberate us. Love is a whole life, not an

obsession with “coming” and “going”.

Intellectually and Emotionally, Cohen probably knew it. But

he also knew that Urban Bourgeoisie Indians, from European

Tribe or Native American ones, are not capable of the Whole

Love. Hence there is no way out. That is why his story is a

story of Death. He meant to write another Waste Land. And

he did.

Hippies were too narcissistic to clean up their ass of

Christian shit like “Chosen People”. And probably they

thought themselves as the “Vanguard” for Sexual Revolution.

The “Savage Indian Wild Sex” might be their way of “back to

nature”. In a narrow sense, they were correct. Except their

Bourgeoisie snobbism blinded them to their lifestyle based

on destruction of Nature and desecration of community.

Greenwich Village had nothing in common with the Amazonian

Tribe Village that George Wallace wrote a poem about.]

The “Cosmology” of Beautiful Losers is analyzed by Dennis

Lee in Savage Fields. ANANSI 1977. It gave a rave review to

Cohen. But I am rather disappointed. Most “erratic” literature on

Indians do not do justice to the “Lust” that my lady friend is

referring to. Sex is there to sell the book.

The “Beautiful Losers” are not beautiful. But it is perhaps

another “Constipation” of Euro American Intellect. And if that

was the aim of his description, Cohen succeeded very well. Saint

Tekakwitha failed to “loosen” the intellect. That may be blamed

on Judeo-Christianity.

By the same token, the cover picture on a book by Gunther

S. Stent, Paradoxes Of Progress, is misleading. The picture is

from “The Golden Age” by Lukas Cranach. Naked

Handwritten Notes Italicized 5

men and women are dancing around a tree, perhaps the Tree of

Knowledge. The book talked of problems of “Scientism”, suggesting

“The Fall” by “knowing”. But it did not cut through the surface

of discussing “Ethics of Science” etc., to get to the “Lustic

Origin” of human Intellect.

So I am back to the question of Lust. Cohen was writing

about Lust. So was Stendhal, Lawrence, Goethe, Nietzsche, etc.

etc. Also, all Indian stories written by Europeans are stories of

Lust in one form or another. Even Max Weber was writing about

Lust, which he saw as Conflict-violence-irrationality and hence

could not find any way out but to control it by Power. That is

what I told Galtung. Galtung, being a good “scientist” in the

Weberian sense, was very much surprised hearing a physicist say

this, In effect, I told him that “Peace Research” has not even

begun to look at the Origin of Conflict-Violence, though it was

the theme of Literature and Art since anything was written or

drawn by humans.

I would very much like to write about “Lust” for Peace

Research. Alas! I am not much of a man of Lust. My sexual

adventures, aside from book-knowledge and imagination, is very

limited. Those who know it, namely you, do not write. Despite all

my pushing, Pam does not use writing as a means of knowing. I

would think that one does not need to constipate before shit.

(Pregnancy is a different matter. According to Blackfoot Myth,

women have to have a Big-Being Orgasm to get pregnant. That is a

part of the Lust.) But then, what could I say? I do not have

anything even to constipate! I write and write, in a hope that

they come to constipate someday. I hope it comes before my Lust

runs out.

I heard that “Okanagan” means the Lost People (or Lost

Souls). It has a marble quarry somewhere, which I have not yet

seen. I might pay homage there and see what the Rock tells me.

What was that Thomas Hardy was suggesting about the Power of Rock

(Stonehenge) in Tess?

Yours

Sam K.

P.S. If you do not need it for a while, can I borrow back

Easlea’s Fathering the Unthinkable. Internal-library Loan

Handwritten Notes Italicized 6

is somehow holding me up on this book. In the spring semester

next, I plan to do a bit of Feminist Science in Physics 2020. I

also coordinate an Integrated study course on Peace and War.

There, I intend to talk about something like “The Paradox of

Intelligence; its making of Wars and Peace”. I will not fail to

mention an anthropological finding that to gain women was the

biggest cause of fighting. In addition, I would say that our

sense of Power came from the feeling–illusion of men subjugating

women in sexual contexts. For that, we Nuclear Physicists built

the Super Bomb. I think it is a clumsy way of imitating Orgasm. I

like to do it “Gracefully”, if possible at all.