Tag Archives: love

Native Philosophy of Peace (PDF)

Title: Native Philosophy of Peace

Part I. An Introduction to Native Philosophy of Peace

Part II. Speaking Towards Peace: A Native American Way

Pamela Colorado

Lethbridge Extension

Faculty of Social Welfare

University of Calgary

Sam Kounosu

Physics Department

University of Lethbridge


From the time of the invasion by the European Civilization in the 15th century, the history of Native Americans has been a history of violence. The Natives have had to endure and subsist under the genocidal policy of colonial powers that overwhelmed them. And the struggle still continues. Yet, the Natives had a profound Philosophy of Peace and have lived and survived with it. We have a great deal to learn from the Philosophy of the Natives. It also gives us an opportunity to examine “violent” elements in our “Civilization” itself, as well as a way out of it. Since the Native Philosophy of Peace is not the academic kind that can be summarized in a set of propositions but rather is a way of life, we shall not attempt to “describe” it. Here, we shall endeavour to introduce the Philosophy in two ways. In Part I we make a descriptive introduction. In Part II, we narrate the Philosophy in the Native Oral Tradition, aiming at communication at a spiritual level.

Feb. 14, 1987.

An Introduction to the Native Philosophy of Peace

Since the invasion by Europeans in the 15th century, the history of Native eAmerica is a history of violence. Therefore, it may appear almost a contradiction to seek the message of Peace from the Natives. But, because of experiences of violence and facing their own extinction, Natives created urgent messages for Peace and have lived with them and survived by them in desperate situations. We have much to learn from their wisdom that is embedded in their way of life.

The violence which the Natives experienced was not the kind which we consider in the conttext of the “push button” Warfares that our science-technology has made possible nor the Nuclear Arms Race between two Super Powers that the huge bureaucratization of violence has lead us to. And if our concern for Peace is limited to the question of how to prevent Nuclear War from impending upon us, the Spiritual form of the Native message for Peace might appear only remotely relevant to us. However, the very difficulties which we have in reducing the scale of the Arms Race indicates that we have a need to examine if our way of life for itself is a part of the problem. And, in that we may find and gain great wisdom for Peace from Natives who have faced and survived the destructive forces of modern civilization.

To understand and to learn from the Natives, however, it is absolutely necessary that we look back to the history of violence. This is an exercise in dialectics We shall learn Peace by learning about our own violence.


[Vine Deloria, God Is Red, Laurel Book, 1973.

Francis Jennings, The Invasion of America, Univ. of N. Carolina Press, 1975.

Gary B. Nash, Red, White and Black, Prentice-Hall, 1974.

Merrill D. Beal, I Will Fight No More Forever, Univ. of Washington Press, 1963.

Dee Brown, Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, Holt-Rinehart, 1970.]

2. The way Indians were treated in the North American continent was worse than the Apartheid of South Africa today. Outright massacres were carried on even after the Civil War which supposedly liberated Black slaves for humanitarian reasons. One might imagine that for economic growth, the liberated Blacks were useful, whereas “the only good Indians were dead Indians.” And since Natives resisted “Christianity”, the Christian compassion was not applicable to them. They were considered a part of the Wild Nature to be conquered by the Civilization.

The colonialization started with violence. The Spanish came with greed and atrocity in the name of Christian mission to the New World. That part of history is well known, so I shall not talk about that here.

[See Bartolome de las Casa: Brevisima Relacion De La Destruccion De Las Indias, 1552, for the earliest account. In Montaigne’s Essay (1580), the third book, chapter 6, there is a brief remark about the Spanish atrocity.]

The British flowed soon after, with no less violence. According to the few records that are left, British settlers came to the Virginia coast area and found the natives there to be friendly. One report said:

“We were entertained with all love and kindness, and with much bounties, after their manner, as they could possibly devise. We found the people most gentle, loving, and faithful, void of all guile, and treason.”

[David Quinn, The Voyagers, 1584-1590; quoted by Gary B. Nash Red, White, and Black.]

But the Britons did not come there simply to live with friendly natives. The competition among empires in Europe to establish and expand colonies had already started. Naturally, soon the initial friendly relation deteriorated and “incidents” were created for “Show of Force”, which became a universal pattern in most colonialization processes elsewhere. I cite only two examples here.

“No conflict occured until the English discovered a silver cup missing and dispatched a punitive expedition to the nearby Indian village. When Indians denied taking the cup, the English decided to make a show of force, burned the village to the ground and destroyed the Indian’s supply of corn.”

[Edmond S. Morgan, “Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox”, Journal of American History. Vol. 59, 1972, p. 16.]

“Many were burnt in the fort, both men, women and children. Others forced out…which our soldiers received and entertained with the sword. Down fell men, women, and children…Sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents. Sometimes the case alters; but we will not dispute it now. We had sufficient light from the word of God for our proceedings.”

[John UnderHill, News from America, (1638), London. Quoted by Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence. Wesleyan Univ. Press, 1973.]

One notes here that burning villages and destroying crops were already practiced tactics when the British invaded Ireland centuries before that time. Both the Red Army and White Army in the Russian Revolution practiced the same. Hitler used it in W.W. II. Americans did that in Vietnam.

[As to the “metaphor” of Indian War repeated in Vietnam, see Richard Slotkin: The Fatal Environment — The Myth of Frontier in the Age of Industrialization, 1800 – 1890. Atheneum, 1985.]

The idea of “show of force”, or equivalent phrases such as “show who is the boss” appears quite often in the records that were left from the period of colonial time. The British were there with the intent of conquering and domination from the beginning. They needed only slight provocations, if they did not create the excuses. Many stories of Native attacks may well have been fibs constructed, like “the Bay of Tonkin incident” in the Vietnam War.

To be sure, there was romanticizing of Natives as “Noble Savages.” We can read it in poetries of Walt Whitman, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, et al.

(see White On Red, ed. N.B. Black. Kennikat Press, 1976.)]

Or see it in paintings by Benjamin West and others. But the romanticizing was in effect a beautifying cover for the colonial conquest. It did not stop physical and cultural genocide. Quite aware of such a sentiment, John Quincy Adams wrote in 1802:

“The Indian right of possession itself stands, with regard to the greatest part of the country, upon a questionable foundation. Their cultivated fields; their constructed habitations; a space of ample sufficiency for their subsistence, and whatever they had annexed to themselves by personal labour, was undoubtedly by the law of nature theirs. But what is the right of a huntsman to the forest of a thousand miles over which he accidentally ranges in quest of prey? Shall the liberal bounties of Providence to the race of man be monopolized by one of ten thousand for whom they were created? Shall the exuberant bosom of the common mother, amply adequate for the nourishment of millions, be claimed exclusively by a few hundreds of her offspring.”

[Quoted in I Will Fight No More Forever, p. 24.]

The answer to Adam’s rhetorical question was obvious, as we can see in history. The Natives were driven off the land, if not exterminated. They were confined in concentration camps, called “Indian Reserves.” And as the “Progress of Civilization” wanted more and more land, the Natives were forcefully moved again and again to smaller and smaller confinements each time. The metaphor of the “Mother Earth” was Native, not White, nor was it Christian, as we see in the environmental destructions that went on under what was called the “Manifest Destiny.” The rhetoric asked for sharing the gifts of Mother Nature, but the invader came to dominate and rape the Mother. Environmental concern did not emerge until late 1960’s, and collectively speaking, our actions with regard to Acid Rain, Nuclear Wastes, Deforestation, etc., regretably suggest that we have not yet stopped rationalizing our rapist practices.

[see “Metaphysics of Indian Hater” in Herman Melville’s Confidence of Man. 1857. As to hi Moby-Dick, critics pointed out that Melville was writing, in the metaphor of Whale Hunt, on the whole American assault on Nature in the name of Progress.]

We note here that as late as October of the last year, The United Church of Canada has come to Apologize to the Natives for its “policy of cultural genocide”. In an article “Of course we forgive you,” [The Observer, Oct. 1986], Rev. Wilf Dieter narrates:

“I grew up in residential schools…The second year, I remember going back to school. I was crying. My mother was wiping away the tears. Why were my parents sending me away. I guess one of the things I didn’t realize was the law. If she didn’t take me back, the police would come for me.”

This was taking place only a few decades ago in Canada which we think the most peaceful country in the world. What if some agents of a foreign country come in and pass a law to separate Canadian children from parents? Does white majority consider it less than atrocity? Of course, we as the majority “did not know” that we have been practicing the cultural genocide policy, just as the majority of Germans did not know of the infamous concentration camp during W.W. II. The point is that we did not care to know about them. While reading philosophy of Kant or Russell in books, we did not “read” our real philosophy that we practiced and lived in.

3. Today, we may be sufficiently “liberal minded” to say that the colonial practices of the historical past were “mistakes.” But read the rhetorical question of Adams again and see if we have changed our way of thinking. The Capitalists, the bourgeoisie, and the liberal thinkers would say that, “in the inevitable power struggles which bring the progress of the production power”, the “backward” way of the Native life had to be eradicated, although we might try to employ as “humane” means as possible. And socialists and Marxists would agree. The modern intellectuals, left, middle or right, are believers of “progress” in which some unfortunate “backward” portions of humanity will become extinct like Dodo birds.

[see also Ward Churchill, ed. Marxism and Native Americans. South End Press, 1983.]

Christians today would say that the atrocities condoned by the missionaries in the colonial conquest did not represent “True Christianity”, which is presumably based on Love. But, one wonders if the christians clearly distinguish the religion of Love and the religion of Power, and honestly live by the principle of Love, as the Natives have lived by their Spirituality. It appears that the Christians believe more in the Might of Nuclear Weapons and Laser Guns than Love. It is ironical that the presumed anti-christians in the Soviet Union do the same. They both are believers of the same Power.

[However, we pay attention to Liberation Theology.

Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation. Orbis Books, 1973.

Bishop Remi De Roo, Cries of Victims – Voice of God. Novals, 1986, etc.

As to links between Christianity and European Civilization, see:

Max Weber, Protestant Ethics and The Spirit of Capitalism.

Lynn White, “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis”, American Scientists. March 1967.

Lawrence R. Brown, The Might of the West. Joseph J. Binns Pub., 1963.]

Here I am not talking of the hypocritic morality, but doing purely pragmatic thinking about the consequences and the cost of the European World View. The “Intelligence” of the European tradition is centred around “Power” to dominate people. Our “science” stemmed from the desire to conquer and exploit Nature. Academic and theological knowledge claims are claims of authority and control of thinking. Our official languages are basically the languages of commanding others.

Of course, we know that our competition for power, authority in terms of knowledge claims, etc., is illusionary and for the most part of little significance. Nonetheless, we do use the stylism as a “proper ritual” in academic settings, if we wish to be taken seriously. And, perhaps, the effects/consequences of such a ritual may only be indirect in encouraging the notion of the Conquest of the Wild Nature with Barbaric primitives in it. Our higher Education, which produces elite classes of our society , may or may not be directly responsible for Pollution and Environmental Destruction. If someone argues that the Pollution and Destruction are necessary requirements for the existence of the Elitist System, there would be many objections from the Intellectual elites. They would demand “scientific” proof demonstrating causal mechanisms for the connection. But, in a noncausalistic sense, we are all implicated in the violent history. And if the Nuclear extinction falls upon us, it is we who made it possible, not by default, but by a determined will, a great organized drive and mobilization of intellectual efforts.

4. After all, we do believe in the hierarchical system of Power. In our ordinary language, “Powerless” does mean degradation. We have not reconciled with Love that is powerless. For the North American psyche, it is winning that tells them that they are on “God’s side.” Not fighting tantamounts surrender to the Devil. We say “all men are created equal”, but we are as “equal” as the degree by which we win the competitions. As long as it is legal, and does not offend one’s own “moral feelings”, Might is Right. The only thing that protects one’s safety is, therefore, military superiority. The modern nation-states followed that logic. If one follows the causal-mechanistic thinking which we consider “rational”, there is no other way.

We know SDI would not work, but we do have to keep the illusion of the Superior Power going even at the cost of Trillions of Dollars. Recently, some among us apparently started to worry that the “peace propaganda”, such as The Day After, made us “too soft” and so they produced a counter-propaganda series on T.V. called Amerika to remind people that the Power Principle has to be defended. That is because Power is our religion. If the Power Principle is undermined, the whole social structure of the Western society might collapse.

The only trouble is that the logic of Power has now reached its ultimate in that it can destroy the human race as a whole. That is why some of us are interested in searching for alternatives.

[see also Fritjof Capra, The Turning Point, Bantam Books, 1982.

Morris Bermann, The Reenchantment of the World, Cornell Univ. Press, 1982.]

But there is a problem. If we are to turn around on the way to ultimate power, what would be the alternative? Certainly, going back to the arbitrary dictatorship of the feudal system or the old slave-caste system would not likely secure Peace in any sense. At least, we think, we do have a “civic” sense of peace in the advanced industrial countries. “Democracy”, although perhaps imperfect, seems to correlate with the progress of civilization in the European style. We would say that we cannot go back to the Stone Age, in a metaphor of Indians as wild beasts who lived in inhuman indignity. The Noble Savage metaphor does not work here any more than the romantic metaphor of womanhood works for women’s dignity. But rather, it enforces our fear of going back to Feudalism or Barbarism which we think dictatorial authoritarian. Hence, we would normally not think of the Native Culture as possible instructive material for learning the way to Peace.

5. Surprisingly, however, the Native Americans were not authoritarian. Their communities were organized on the principle  of sharing. The Indians were capable of becoming fierce warriors, but they lived in their communities of Love. They had a strong sense of personal dignity, and honored their liberty, though they were not egocentric Individualists. Nash narrates:

“One aspect of child-rearing on which European and Iroquoian cultures differed was in the attitude toward authority. In Iroquois society the autonomous individual, loyal to the group but independent and aloof rather than submissive, was ideal…

They were trained early in life to think for themselves but act for others…

They were being prepared for an adult society which was not hierarchical, as in the European case, but where individuals lived on a more equalitarian basis, with power more evenly distributed among men and women…”

[Red, White and Black.

See also: Walter B. Miller “Two Concepts of Authority”. American Anthropologist. Vol. 57. 1955, p. 271-289.

What Max Weber described in his study of “Authority” may be peculiar to Europe. We also note that, phrases such as “Show who is the boss” appeared frequently in the expressions of British colonialist to justify atrocities committed against the Natives.

In the context of Peace Research, Wm. Eckhardt’s study showed that the “aggressive” and “authoritarian” personality are correlated.]

It is also known that the principle ideas of Democracy in the American Constitution were influenced by Iroquoian ideals.

[Carol L. Bagley and Jo Ann Ruckman, “Iroquois Contribution to Modern Democracy and Communism.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal, Vol. 7 #2, 1983. p. 53-72.]

6. Iroquois, before their contact with Europeans, had established a “United Nations”. The name “Iroquois” stands for a group of five nations established in the 14th century or earlier: the Mohawks, the Onondaga, the Oneidas, the Cayugas, and the Senecas. The philosophy that united these nations was known as “Dekanawideh”, and we can decipher that the basic principle fo the Native “United Nation” was a philosophy of Peace, not the European tradition of “domination by the strongest.”

[Anthony F.C. Wallace, “The Dekanawideh Myth analyzed as the record of a revitalization movement”. Ethnohistory, Vol. 5, 1958.

Wm. N. Fenton Parker On the Iroquois. Book III. Syracuse U. Press, 1968.]

It appears that to the Natives “to know” a philosophy can be nothing short of honestly living by it. Therefore, they left no written “expose” on their philosophy. Nonetheless, we can infer a few glimpses of their philosophy; for example, the Philosophy of “Tree of Peace” has been translated and documented. It is remarkable that the Natives, despite their experiences of violence, had a vision of Peace in which they embraced whiteman within the “Four Roots of the Tree of Peace” that holds the World in love.

The Natives narrated the philosophy of Peace in a form of “prophecy” using a metaphor of a huge tree that protects and provides for all people. Its four roots are said to interconnect and hold the entire World.. They did not see any other possible way to have Peace on Earth, but by love that embraces the whole.

Since Dr. Colorado is to communicate the Peace message in the proper Native way in the following presentation, I shall not elaborate on the Peace Philosophy.

[See also Pamela Colorado, “Inowediwin. Peace and Honor Going Back and Forth Between Us.” Toward Social and Economic Justice, Gil & Gil, Schenkman Publishing Co., 1985.]

I would like to discuss one thing however. In studying the Native Philosophy of Peace, I have come to think that this Philosophy was embedded in a distinct Epistemology from that of traditional Western culture. I shall try explaining, the best I can, the distinct Epistemology that the Natives had.

7. The Natives had an oral tradition and to them “to know” was “to live in” the philosophy, as I mentioned above. They did not have “philosophy” existing only in texts, as in the European case. As a consequence, there existed no written text for their philosophy. Therefore, from our European custom of scholarship being a “book knowledge”, there exists considerable difficulty in researching the Native philosophy. I cannot assert that what I say here is correct. The only thing I can do is to report what I have “guessed” so far in my groping of an hypothesis in hopes of stimulating interest.

We cannot understand “philosophy” here in the sense of technically analyzing written expressions — as lawyers do in technical arguments about the “letter of the law” —, but we have to address “the spirit of the law”, so to speak. and the philosophy has to be deciphered from practice, and inferred from the way of life in the contexts of concrete situations at hand. The western sense of “objective knowledge” alienated from the knower’s own life is absurdity, if not dishonesty to the Natives. That is, Native philosophy was “spiritual” in the sense that it was the inner most thinking of the sovereign soul. And at the same time, the philosophy was “pragmatic” and “existential” in that it did not allow alienation from actual living. It was also akin to the Marxian position, in that “knowing” was “changing the World”. They did not learn “philosophy” as a text, but learned it as “awakening to wisdom”, which is an experience of change in the way of life. “Truth” that does not change one’s way of life is not a Truth, in their philosophy.

Even the Greek work “Truth” (a-letheia) meant “uncover” or “revelation” , refering to the existential experience in learning processes. The authoritarian dogmatism of European religion and academia perverted the active sense to a static sense of “knowledge” that someone could have a “patent” on, stake a claim on, and even could sell on the market. This “objectification’ is a peculiar fetishistic characteristic of the Western Scholarship and Science. It is the Epistemology of Capitalism, although the Communists also believe the same; whereas the natives had a dynamic epistemology.

We talk, in particular in an academic context, in the posture of claiming knowledge, with an implicit assumption that the audiences are hostile and demanding proofs and demonstrations. We are competing in an intellectual market, on an assumption that the adversary system brings the best. This is the assumption of the Free Market and Social Darwinism. Although we have disproved them a long time ago, our stylism has not been changed.

The Natives would much rather think of their statements to be gifts from love. Their discourses are not “power struggles”. Their propositions are “proposals” offered with unilateral commitment by the speakers. They know “giving” is the way of making a community. If the negotiators of Western nations talked in the Native way, we would not have the Arms Race.

We have an intellectual pride in being able to articulate technically on “letters.” But we might look back to see why we have come to do that. Perhaps, we are thinking of our communication as if a battle with a hostile audience and the art of articulation is a defensive shield against expected attack. We also think by articulation that we assert our intellectual superiority, if not attack the other. Do we play such games so often that we come to value the skill? If so, we may be mentally sick in admiring the art of manipulating our letters. To the Natives, it is a puzzle that there can be differences between “letter of law” and “spirit of law.” And they would say it is incomprehensible absurdity, if they were told that the Western Philosophy thrives on technical analyses of “letters” and has little to do with “spirit” or practices in living. They would not understand why we have to be so aggressive even in intellectual games. We analyse violence in Alcoholism as someone else’s problem from an “objective” stance. But, perhaps, we might look at our own tendency to intoxicate in a Power sensation.

We do know that Nuclear War in its scale is not the same as aggression at a personal level. We do have concerns about social structures of violence, but it may be that Nuclear Aggression is a collective consequence of our aggressive drive which manifests even in academic contexts.

And in talking of aggressiveness, we might also pay attention to our attitude of contemptuously looking down at “subjective” experiences in the name of “objectivity” or “value neutrality” of “science”. It might very well have come from our alienated neurotic psyche. I might concede to some theory to an effect that the scientific sense of “knowledge” can only be generated from alienation, enigma or fear, and although the “knowledge” does sometimes “sublimate” the aggression, it leaves residues of fear or hostility which leads us to violence. If so, we have a serious task to change “science” as such for the sake of Peace. And on this point, Native Philosophy appears to be very instructive.

[As to “Science as a destructive element”, see Birgit Brock-Utne. Education For Peace. Pergamon, 1986. This is a feminist critique of science. ]

4 April 1988 Personal Correspondence on Anger (PDF)

On Anger


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.


Sam K.

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”?


Sam K.

Power and Love Principle in Social Organization (PDF)

Oct. 26, 87.

Dear Pam

Enclosed is a report of what I have been doing.



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


A Paper to be presented to CPREA, Ottawa

June 1, 1982. Session VIII.

S. Kounosu

Department of Physics

The University of Lethbridge

Lethbridge, Alberta


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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



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


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,


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


That is, the dynamics that started with the Native World

View cannot go on the same “vicious circle” of the European


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


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


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


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”?


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.


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.


Sam K.


Native American Science, I hope, stands on “Will To Love/Grace”.

Actually, Science has all three phases of “Will” (Hope, Aspiration, Desire, Value, Ideal, Idea, Purpose, Theory, Achievement, etc.), “Becoming” (Process, Means, Technology, Know-How, Manipulation, Practice, etc.), and “Being” (Fact, What is, What is given, Existence, Condition, Environment, etc.) But in the Western sense, the “Will” part in Science has been hidden or even denied in the name of “Value Neutrality”, or “Objectivity”. Only guys like Husserl, Heidegger (Phenomenologists) took issue with this aspect of Science.

To be sure, if you equate “Reason”, “Rationality”, “Intelligence” with “Science”, then the story is different in contexts like “Reason and History”, “Theory and Practice” etc. there have been many arguments. But, Philosophers in English speaking countries used not to understand them to have anything to do with “Science”. When one is to talk about “Will” in relation to “Science”, one has to take “Science” in wider sense. If one does, then Hegel, Nietzsche, et al. were, in fact, talking about “Philosophy of Science”. (A. Whitehead is an exception).

Now it appears that things are changing. Gradually, Nietzsche, Hegel, Marx, Husserl, Heidegger, et al — the whole German Philosophy of Science — are revived even in American Academia. In terms of “Sociology of Science”, the influence of Frankfurt school on “Science” is coming into the U.S. (Habermas, Ricoeur, et al.) Canada is lagging behind. They dare not say anything until some big names at Oxford or Cambridge start saying things. That is from the “Colonial Mentality” of Canadian Academics. They wait for big Bandwagons to come and offer a ride.

You might try Name Dropping. It is not effective to try justifying and defending Native Science. Instead, you might have to argue that if White Culture refuses to learn Native Science, the world will be destroyed. Just as the missionaries did to natives up to this time, you tell them you want to save their souls, and see how they react.

Whatever anyone says, Love and Care of Gaia/Tree is a Science. [At least it is no less a Science than the Thirst for Power and Greed for Material Possession are Science.] This alternative science may not be suitable for organizing industries and exploiting nature and people. It may not help the present system of Political Economy and its Ideology. But it is necessary wisdom for survival at least, if it fails to reach “Grace”. In a sense, it is more complex and difficult, because this science does not ignore the “Will” part. It does ask what it means to “know”. That, however, makes it more interesting. At any rate, there are reasons for me to write like mad. I may be a compulsive writer, but I cannot write fast enough for the needs.

[I wanted to write to you about an article; “Alternative To Western Psychotherapy: The Modern-Day Medicine Man” by William K. Powers (from Beyond Vision U. of Oklahoma Press 1987.) and a book I mentioned to you before The Psychoanalytic Movement by Ernest Gellner (Paladin 1985.)

I think there are parallels among connections of “Psychoanalysis-Therapy”, “Social Theory/Ideology-Social Policy/Welfare”, “Science-Production”, “Education-Culture”, and “Native Medicine-Community”. Patterns and problems in them may be comparatively identified. But, I could not even start on it as yet.]

Now you know why I am happy to help you. Whether you need or not, I will pursue alternative science in one way or another. You owe me nothing. Rather, I am thankful that you give me the opportunity and motive. I have “means” to complete the “perfect crime”. That is beautiful, if not “graceful”.

I know you have to do things within a frame related to Native Welfare. The second gateway is Native Education which Leroy probably does. I do Peace Science. The fourth one is Feminist Science, for which I will find someone, somewhere.

Things already start happening. Don’t be too defensive. The World is waiting for you. All you have to do is to tell what you are dreaming about or suggest the direction of the Spirit. Once you do that, you will be surprised to find many helpers. Close your eyes and jump off the bridge! At least you get to somewhere.


Sam K.

Part II: Love Science

Part II. Love Science.

5. I have talked about Power Science. It is easy to talk of how powerful Science_Technology is. It is also easy to talk of how dangerous Science-Technology is and go into gloom and doom. If you are typical of European intellectual — the ones who are “Educated” in European Power Science — you might think of the situation in a “Dialectics” of two oppositions. It came from the religious tradition of thinking things in “Good/Evil” antagonism. Science does that in terms of “Atom/Void”, which is the prototype of “Ego/Environment”. In schools, I observe a prevalent pattern of thinking which goes by “Teacher/Student” antagonism, which is enforced by “Those who have Knowledge/those who are ignorant”. Pardon me to say this, but that is the Missionary mentality. It is intellectual colonialism that a Kipling poem “The Whiteman’s Burden” expressed. At any rate, the picture/metaphor of Two In Opposition is a powerful image, but too simple to get us anywhere.

So let me introduce a slightly improved picture/metaphor/map about the situation. By doing so, we are taking one step into and actually doing a bit of Love Science that I am going to explain to you. Interestingly, this came from Indian Science that I would like to mention later.

The picture/metaphor/map is not perfect, but helps us to find a way out of the Antagonistic Way of Thinking. It is very simple. Namely, picture in your mind a circle and divide it into 4 sectors. It looks like:

Power Science \\ Power Elite

Recognized Authority\\Dominant Male

Edified Intellect\\Growth Economy


Love Science\\The Exploited

Un-Recognized Intelligence\\The Oppressed

Life in Practice\\Subjugated Female/Environment

6. I have put in a few words in the map to illustrate what I am going to talk about. But please notice the Form/structure first. The Form (format) is a circle containing 4 things. This is a way to avoid Two in Opposition. I intend to do “Multi-lectics” instead of “Dia-lectics”. The Form can also be called “Matrix Form” in a mathematical jargon, as a contrast to the simple Linear Form comparing object A and object B. The “Mat” of the “Matrix” is “Mat” of “Mather”. If I may, I like to call it “Matalectics”. “Lectics” is a way of talk, and it came from narrating legends.

By drawing a circle around the 4 things, I am indicating that they are there in relations. In particular, I am saying “Love Science” has always been in existence. It is just that formal text in Physics failed to mention it, or rather the “Science Education” did not wish for you to know about it.

In elementary school and junior high, I always notice how students are eager to learn. If we define “Science” to be “Ability/Competence to Learn”, those children are geniuses. They learn better because they Love to Learn. The way the eagerness and ability to learn get killed as they go up grades in school education is a sad scene, and I would very much like to talk with Educators about the tragedy. But, before that, let me identify what I mean by “Love Science”.

In a small book, The Limits of Science, Peter Medawar talks about “What is Science”. One story that this distinguished Nobel Laureate Biologist narrates is about a house wife who is confronted with a breakdown of her electric home appliance. He says that the house wife who looks around the toaster, locates a broken wire and fixes it is doing “Science”. I agree. That is a beautiful example of Science. But, I also notice that she is not “Recognized” as doing science. Nobody would call her a Scientist and pay premium salary. Why not? Medawar is totally blind to this social “Class Distinction” implicit to honor titles like “Scientist”. How come a super-intelligent scientist such as Dr. Medawar can be blind to the Class Distinction, and in a nation notorious for its acute Class Consciousness at that? That is the problem of “non-recognition”.

One more example. In hospitals, it is often an experienced Nurse that tells young interns what to do. But it so happens that the Nurses are paid far less than the Doctors. The reason is, I presume, the Doctors have gone through years of Formal Education and know “Science”. Whereas, Nurses do not know “Science”, though they may have vastly superior “Practical Knowledge” gained from their experiences.

Actually, if they ever do anything creative, even hard-nosed scientists do Learn things just the same way the elementary school children and nurses learn. The way they go about doing their science is very “Emotionally Involved” and they have “Sensual” contact with Nature. It is a passionate Love Affair. They experience intense Pleasure doing their stuffs. You may have experiences of thinking about Woman or Man in your life os intensely that nothing else in the World mattered. That is no difference from what creative scientists do. It is dangerous, and I am not saying all scientists do that. In fact, 99% of professional scientists are more likely “laboring” through their job, just as alienated as production line workers are.

If you read Max Weber’s “Science As A Profession” and “The Protestant Ethics And The Spirit Of Capitalism”, you would probably understand the sense of the “Alienation” in the “Professionalized Science”. The feeling is strangely very similar to the one we get from reading Death of a Salesman or the like. [See also: A. Mitzman. The Iron cage – A Historical Interpretation of Max Weber.] So that the scientists have to maintain some personal sensual satisfaction in some ways. Some opt out for “Power Trip”. As Henry Kissinger said, “Power is the best aphrodisiac”, and it is very sensual stuff anyway.

It is just that in the formal discourse of science, and in teaching in particular, the Sensual, Love Affair part is not mentioned –Scientists are forced to act like Macho guys. And science teachers are, perhaps, afraid that showing Human Emotions in class rooms is “Unscientific”. It is a Taboo. So it is not “Recognized”.

You are not Vainglorious persons, and think that “Recognition” is not a big deal. You know what you did and can be happy with it, regardless if society grants a Recognition or not. I admire you for that.

7. But there is a catch. As Feminist critics of science pointed out, “To Recognize” is “To Know”. Epistemology has to do with “Recognition”. Besides, “Science” is not a private knowledge, but it represents the Intelligence of a Culture/Society as a whole. What is not recognized by a Culture/Society cannot be the Knowledge that acts as the “common ground/reason”, so that people can organize co-operation on the basis of it. What is not recognized is not “legitimate” to have a “social efficacy”. It is like a beautiful Color that you saw, but you have no way of telling your friends about it. Or it is like UFO that you have seen, but you keep it to yourself. Our society cannot make an appropriate response to the things it does not recognize. The chances are that when a society denies recognition, usually it actually “knows” but is repressing it with a great energy cost. As a consequence, society tends to make a wrong response to the thing it denies.

In the history of science, there were many cases of non-recognitions. Things that do not sit well with the dominant Paradigm of the time are always suppressed from “knowing”. You might have heard that people at the time of Galileo Galilei thought that the Earth is flat. Well, it so happened that some 100 years before Galileo, Christopher Columbus knew that the Earth is round, and on the basis of that knowledge he sailed across the Atlantic Ocean and got to the America. People on street actually knew the round Earth. It was only official scientists and philosophers who did not know it, because their Text which they had to uphold as “Truth” and “Authority” did not say so.

If you believe that Science is Powerful and Cut-and-dry hard-nosed stuff, you learn to ignore all “human frailties”. All human traits, such as foibles, sensuality, passion, pride, love, enjoyment, fun, pleasure, adventure, groping for unknowns, wonderment about mysteries, etc. are “By Definition” not parts of the Science as such. The are not recognized, repressed out of consciousness, intellect. If you keep that up, very soon you would learn not to see, feel. That is what happened to mediaeval scholars and scientists, and we can be just as well.

The “non-recognition” is the key to the repression, oppression, and prejudices against women, the poor, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, and Natives under Colonial Domination. That is, one who does not see the existence of Love Science in the Matrix picture cannot see the existence of the Oppressed, Exploited either, let alone seeing the four in relation.

It is far from innocent. I believe German intellectuals who claim that they did not know the infamous Concentration Camps during WWII. Even if they saw it with their own eyes, they would not “recognize” what was happening.

And, it is very likely that we are blind to certain things we do not feel easy about. What is more, if you are “sensitive”, chances are that you get hurt. You sense that you are vulnerable and ephemeral. You do not feel like a Macho Hero. The you lose out in competitions. So you do not like to “know”. Rather, we like to know something that makes us feel “Powerful” and “Invincible”. We say, before knowing anything “What’s in it for me”. That is our usual epistemological stand.

8. I did not give any “definition” of “Love Science”. It is because “Love Science” is not “Deductionist Science”. Rather it is a matter of recognition that you give to your Love Science that you have been doing. That is, seems to me, the only way to “know” Love Science.

If that is difficult, there is a neat way. That is, we can look into how children do their “science”. Give them a recognition they deserve. By doing so, we also give a recognition to our learning. So both get recognition.

On CBC news, I heard of a 12 year old boy who is studying the local rail road. It was news from a small community in Newfoundland where the Rail Company is about to pull out rail service. He thinks that is a disaster and tries to find a way to save the communities linked by the rail road. The way this kid is going about studying the matter is very impressive. I think people who listened to the news felt a fine scientist there. I do not mean the statistical numbers that the kid collected or the notes that he kept writing. I mean the care that this boy is extending to the lives of people in the communities around. That is remarkable.

And, I do not overlook that fact that people, who recognized a scientist in the boy, must have known what “science” is to recognize it. That is, they also learned science that they had. They might not have had chance to exercise their science, but now that they “discovered” it, they can do it too. And by doing, they would learn more.

The essence of science is not in “knowledge”, but in “how to learn”. Once known it is a matter of “history” to record, not a matter of science. In a peculiar social circumstance, our science is developed to be an official record keeper on “Knowledge Claims” very much like what the Patent Office do —. But, I think such is an anomaly that our egoistic competition for power created. Love Science as the communal and environmental intelligence is emerging now to correct such an anomaly.

If we must have a “definition” of Love Science, we can say it is learning from care and for understanding of relations among lives and natural and human environment.

It is also an “empowerment” (though I do not like this word) of people to liberate themselves, in a sense people recognize what ability they have in themselves.

Another neat way of learning Love Science is to look for Native Science in Native Way of Life. To be sure, I do not know Native Science. I am not making any knowledge claim. I was lucky to find some friends to go along in an adventure into unknowns. Interestingly, however, I did find very sophisticated pieces of science. The 4  element Matrix way of thinking I used in the above is one of them (with a bit of my interpretation which may well be wrong).

I also find that the notion of Space-Time is different and interesting. This is something to do with what American Linguist Benjamin Whorf and Edward Sapir found in their studies on Hopi and Navajo Languages known as “Whorf-Sapir Hypothesis” on the Language — how people speak reflects how people think —. Surprisingly, Hopi and Navajo have a Relativistic Thinking. I think they are ahead of Einstein in that they appear to have a Space-Time Geometry that includes “Becoming” part, along with “Being Part”. It is “Existentialistic” as well as “pragmatic”. It is fascinating to study their Science, for it suggests a way of overcoming the dialectical opposition of “Space-Time” and “Existence” (Object-Being). I am thinking that this “Relativity” might work better in dealing with Human-Environment relation/dynamics than the way of European Science which is developed for power of production.

[Remember Wayne Gretzky’s Super-Relativistic Map? Native Hunters used to make Maps before their expeditions in the form of “Dreams”, or in “Vision Seeking”. You can see this in the book, Dreams And Maps by Hugh Brody (NAS text). You also recall the famous “I have a Dream” speech by Martin Luther King Jr. The Dream is a Map.]


On Science: Power/Love // The Dominant/The Repressed

For Education Seminar

On Science: Power/Love // The Dominant/The Repressed

1. It is well known that just before his death, Einstein talked about a necessity of changing “The Way of Thinking”. That was some 35 years ago. He warned that while everything else changed since two explosions of Atomic Bombs, our way of thinking had not changed. And as the consequence, we are drifting towards our own annihilation by the power of our own science. He meant our way of science has to be changed. His saying is famous, but so far we have failed to heed his warning.

Today, the danger of all-out Nuclear War between the two superpower nations has somewhat receded. But, we have not eliminated the possibility of Nuclear Holocaust. And, we have problems of Air and Water Pollutions, Acid Rain, Waste Disposal, and accelerated destruction of Natural Environment, all thanks to the rapid developments in our Science-Technology. We have come to suffer increasing Stress, Tension, Anxiety and Alienation in our society. Despite Economic developments, the gap between the Poor and the Rich is widening. We have now Permanent unemployment as a part of our economic structure, demoralizing young generation into despair. Economic inequality, internal to our own country as well as in international sense is reaching a degree that can be called criminally immoral.

We may not think of ourselves as privileged, but Canadians are within the top 10% of the richest nations and the fact that we are in a university places in the top 10% of Canadians. That puts us in the richest 1% of the Humanity. The poor half of the Humanity live with an annual income less than $500. We are the “Yuppies”. Yet we cannot escape the problems of the World today.

Even if we think of Education to be the means to attain “Good Life” in personal sense, let alone thinking of Education for a better life of Humanity as a whole, we are failing. The warning of Einstein still stands like a bad prophecy. Einstein meant “Science” to be the “Way of Thinking” that has to be changed. But we have failed to do so. Perhaps, that is why Educators are concerned about Science (and Technology), and that is where “Love Science” comes in [*1]

2. But, you might ask what is wrong with “Science”. Did it not work wonders? Let us think about this, for answering this question is one way to understand that our science is “Power Science” and also we may pick up some clues as to how to change that.

Let me take the “Progress” of science-technology for example, and talk about it a bit. In the past 400 years or so, the progress was fantastic and it brought a general improvement of Physical Health standard. In industrialized countries, it helped the peasant class, at least some of them in the class, to climb out of the life of heavy physical labors and created the “middle class”, if not “affluent” consumers. This came about because our “Power Technology” provided the means to convert and substitute the Fossil Energy for Human Muscle Power. The fossil energy had been accumulated and stored on the Earth for the past hundreds of millions of years. It was just sitting there. To exploit it was a very “clever” move, as I shall explain below.

Thanks to the free gift of Fossil Energy, we, at least some of us, are liberated from heavy physical labors to do things like science. (Please remember that we are the top 1% of the Humanity, and ones who have Time to think. The rest of Humanity hardly have the “Luxury” of thinking. That puts us in a certain obligation.) And, at the same time, in order for the Progress of Technology to continue, Science as its Infrastructure had to be developed. This made up a “Positive Feedback Loop that can be nicknamed “Vicious Circle” and it took off and escalated. We call this phenomenon Industrial-Scientific Revolution. To be sure, for the Industrialization to advance, other Infrastructures, such as organizational management, systems of market distribution and government control had to be developed. The emergence of modern Nation-State and Colonialism coincided with the Industrial Revolution, not by chance but by necessity. Modern School Education system was also a product of the historical time. The development of Science was only a small part of the huge social movement as such.

3. However, the concentrated massive power is the characteristic of Industry. for an illustration, let us look at Energy Economy, (Physical Power Economy). In the U.S. and Canada, the average Energy Consumption per capita is like 10 tons of Coal Equivalent per year. In terms of “Human Power” unit, this amount is about 300 “Human Power-Year”. That is to say , we have 300 slaves working for each of us. This is the reason why we have only 4% of working population in agriculture and we can still have plenty of foods.

Of course, we only use about 1/3 of that power for production of things and efficiency is low like 10%. Nonetheless; we are supported by the Fossil Power Input, equivalent of 10 very diligent slaves for each of us in average. But the labor force working in the primary energy production sector is less than 1% of the total. That is to say, the concentration of the energy sector is such that one person can provide for energy needs of 100 other workers. This is an example of “Concentration” of Power just as Nuclear Bombs are. (Every one manpower invested in primary Energy Industry is returned some 10,000 manpower equivalent of “raw” Energy. Unfortunately, this will not last too long.)

Number of active Physicists in North America is about 50,000. Scientists and Engineers combined, we may have 750,000. That is about 0.4% of the total population. They are the “Producers” of the “Science-Technology” as the infrastructure of the industry and the rest are the passive “Consumers” of the science-technology as such. [*2]

4. Thus, you might wonder if Public Education System needs to care about Science Education at all. It might make sense to have specialized schools for scientists and engineers — like “Military Schools” and let them concentrate on Science Education. Even if there is a failure rate of 80%, the Lethbridge School District needs only one Science Education Class for each grade, and the rest of the children may be spared of the pain, frustration and humiliation of taking Science-Math courses which they hate anyway. As far as the Science that is needed for Production Industry is concerned, that would be sufficient.

If so, is it not a waste of time, money, and manpower to try “Ramming Physics down the throats” of children who are going to be passive consumers of “science” as such? In terms of economic efficiency, University of Lethbridge need not have a Physics Department. It is a lot economical to pay the specialized students to go to “The Western Canada Federal Industrial Science University” where Research in such Science can also be concentrated. (U.S.S.R. seems to practice this.) Science is often said to be “universal” and “International”. If so, why not let a few American Elite Institutions for science-Technology take care of all North American needs in this regard?

At any rate, unless one is going to be a Hard-Hat Scientist or Engineer, why should anybody know anything about Science of that sense?

I ask the above questions to you, for I hope you would think about what “Science” means to you, What Values Science has, other than being an Infrastructure to Production Industry.

Your answers to the questions, I think are keys to the fundamental question of Science Education, and ways to respond to Einstein’s warning.

[*1. Historical note.]

I quoted Einstein’s statement made in 1954. But a long time before that the questions about “Science” and its relations with “Labor”, “Industrial Production”, “Power” and “Love” were raised by the 18th and 19th century Utopian thinkers.

F.E. Manuel. Utopian Thought In The Western World. (Harvard U. Press 1979. Leth. Pub. Lib. 335.02.M.) has chapters titled “New Face of Love”, “The triumph of Love”, etc. referring to Count Claude Heri de Saint-Simon (1790-1825), and Francois Marie Charles Fourier (1772-1838).

You find in the book that these philosophers dealt with problems of “Science” and “Love”, and rightly or wrongly made concrete proposals for Education so as to make an ideal Society. Interestingly, at first Saint-Simon was a believer of Science and sought salvation of humanity in Science. But he soon came to criticize the failures of “scientists” already some 200 years ago. He saw that scientists were no more than servants to Industry.

If you read on to Robert Owen and Karl Marx et al who followed, you find a long history of the unresolved struggle about “Science” relative to “Power” and “Love”.

As to Historical Development of “Masculine Science”,  Brian Easleea Witch Hunting, Magic and the New Philosophy, and Evelyn Fox Keller Reflections on the Gender and Science offer analyses.

As to Ideological Struggles about “Human Science” since the time of Marx, Paul Ricoeur’s Lectures On Ideology and Utopia gives a philosophical analysis.]

[*2. Canada has 1.2 Scientists & Engineers per 1,000 population. U.S. has 3.2, Germany (w) 2.1, Japan 4.3 (1981-82). About 40% of the U.S. scientists and Engineers are employed in the military-industrial complex, which makes the number to be about 1.9.

It is also known that some 1/2 of the US graduate students in science and Technology is imported from abroad. The science Education there, even for a limited purpose of supporting Industry, is failing, despite many “Tinkering” attempted on Science Curriculum. A recent joke (half serious) is that in order to free Male scientists to do SDI, science Education has to attract more Females who could replace Males in Science Teaching. That Teaching is considered to be “less important” than Research is the current ideology in the North America, and the joke carries the obvious Male Chauvinism.]


F. Cottrell. Energy And Society.

J.M. Fowler. Energy and the World.

E. Shumacher. Small Is Beautiful.

B. Ward. Spaceship EArth.

J. Ellul. The Technological System.

A. Toffler. The Third Wave.

D. Bell. The coming of Post-Industrial Society.

K. Polanyi. The Great Transformation.

E.P. Thompson. The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays.

F. Capra. The Turning Point.

M. Bellmann. Reenchantment of the World.

B. Easlea. Witch Hunting, Magic and the New Philosophy.

E. Fox Keller. Reflections On the Gender and Science.

P. Medawar. The Limits of Science.

M. Weber. Science As a Profession. (in Gerth and Mills. From Max Weber.)

H. Marcuse. One Dimensional Man.

Eros and Civilization.

M. Foucault. Archaeology of Knowledge. Power/Knowledge

F.W. Manuel. Utopian Thought in the Western World.

P. Ricoeur. Lectures on Ideology and Utopia.

I. Illich. Shadow Work.

P. Freire. Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

P. Colorado. “Science: A Way Of Knowing – AWay of Life” (in Child Welfare Needs. Indian Association of Alberta.)

Appendix to Part I.

On Tunnel Vision, Peripheral Vision, A-Life-Through-Doing-One-Thing-At-A-Time, Columbus’s Vision, and Dream Map In Your Head.

There are differences in Ways of Thinking, (Levels of intelligence, or Quality of Mind, etc.) But it seems that people tend not to see them. Using familiar examples, I would like to demonstrate the differences. The examples are also useful in distinguishing Power Science and Love Science. Besides, for teachers to know the differences in the ways mind works may have a pedagogical value. Let me cite 3 examples.

(A). Wayne Gretzky is said to be capable of knowing what his teammates are doing while chasing a puck towards the goal. The defense men of the other team try to block his advance not only by physical presence but try harassment, so that Gretzky may be disoriented. In this sense Hockey is different from Baseball. It is just as a “mental” game as a game of physical power. You like Hockey because it is a complex game, besides being a Powerful and Exciting one.

I do not know much about Hockey, but I count on your knowledge to try illustrating what it means to have a different way of thinking , or different levels of intelligence. Help me.

My question is this. How does Wayne know and keep track of his teammates while concentrating on the puck in front of him?

Chasing the puck is a “Goal Oriented” task. Your eyes are fixed on the Object. You are moving the Object to the Goal with all of your Power and don’t have time to look around. You have a Tunnel Vision to do that. That is the situation Newtonian Mechanics deals with. The motion is from a point A to point B. Yu force the way through. That is the way Power Science thinks; Max Weber in Science As A Profession, talked about this and said “If you are not willing to put on Blinders, you’d better go see a movie (i.e. you are not cut out to be a scientist/scholar)” If you have a purpose, you better concentrate on it. “One Track Mind” is the must in science. You understand that.

But that is not quite enough. Gretzky has something else in his mind. Remind you that just breaking through the defense is difficult enough. You do not have too much room left in your mind to think about something else, like which movies to go, etc.

Yet, it is said that Gretzky has a kind of “Moving Map” in his head and know where his teammates are at that moment and also anticipate where they are going to be. He also knwos defensemen of the other team are coming at him and about to give him a hard body check into the side wall. The Map is not the usual static one at a given time, but a dynamic one that contains anticipated Future, or the “Flow of the Game”. In that sense, the Map is a Relativistic one.

[I do not know, but I do not think Gretzky has ever taken Relativity course. Here, what is important is not whether Gretzky knows Relativity in formal sense or not. What is important is that, as educators or educators-to-be, you recognize it. The role of educators is not “teaching” anything like Relativity, but to recognize it in actions of people and encourage them. Any mediocre person can read physics texts to a roomful of students and think it “teaching”. To recognize what students are doing takes more understanding than just ability to read off texts.

Particularly, I think this ability to “recognize” what is in children is an absolute necessity, if one wishes to get involved in Cross Cultural Education.]

The “Map” is imaginary thing in his head. And I do not know how he carry and maintain it. He is not looking around. It seems that he make up the Map by Periphery Vision, plus perhaps by Intuition, Instinctive Feeling, or Dream-like Fantasy.

As to Periphery Vision, we know one thing. That is, even the 100 yard sprinter running gets the sense of his Body Balance from Periphery Vision. The sprinter has a Tunnel Vision as to the goal and the track in front of him or her. What the sprinter is doing is “One Track Minded” thing. But the Tunnel Vision on an object does not tell how one’s body is oriented. It is the Periphery Vision that tells your body orientation relative to the Environment that you are Not Looking At.

If you make an analogy here, you can sense what I am driving at. The way our Power Science and Technology do things is very much like the 100 yard race. Things are done with a Tunnel Vision, often in competitions with something or somebody. That is, Power Science-Technology has not Periphery Vision to sense its own orientation. The Natural and Social Environment is ignored.

What I am insinuating here is that Love Science is like Periphery Vision. Gretzky got it.

(B) To illustrate the Power of having a Map further, let me cite a historical event. This has to do with how Christopher Columbus got to America. In a sense, this is a bad example in that the Power was used to help build European Colonies. But the Map of Columbus is also a dramatic example of the fundamental method of modern science that I cannot resist citing.

Before Columbus’ time, European navigators were sailing along coastline using landmarks. The mode of operation is characteristically “One Thing At A Time”. This science of navigation was good enough for them to navigate around Mediterranean. It was powerful enough for them to go along African coast to its southern tip. They used to make maps with Landmarks. But to copy maps, and other reasons, they start drawing lines on maps. You note that these lines are not “Real”. They do not exist out on the ocean. They only exist on maps that human minds made. They are mental artifacts.

But the imaginary lines had a great effect on the way people think and act. Once lines are on the map, it is a matter of time for some navigator to think of sailing along a line, like “go on East Wind 10 knots for 2 days” and trace the course on a map to keep track of where the ship is. In fact, Spanish navy perfected the method to locate a fleet in the middle of the Atlantic shortly before Columbus’s time. Columbus learned that. Combined with the knowledge-vision that the Earth is round — and fortuitously there was an error that made the Earth look half its size —, Columbus came to see that India was just 40 days of sailing to the West.

Of course, only Columbus came to have the Map-Vision. Navigating on Imaginary Line was a new science, and others, even a map was shown, would not have had confidence in it anyway. The story says that Columbus had a mutiny on his ship, but since crews did not know how they could set a course to go home, he was not killed.

In a way, the lines are the Man-made Rules imposed on the Nature, and imaginary ones at that. Yet the Imaginary lines imposed on Space-Time was the foundation of modern Geometry and Physics. From that Descartes’ Analytical Geometry emerged, though the story is that Descartes had a Dream in which and Angel appeared and told him how to start New Science. Newton was very much impressed by Descartes’s Geometry and wrote his Mechanics emulating Descartes. Einstein came some 250 years after Newton and negated him, but he also used an Imaginary Map, i.e, Geometry.

Now the point of narrating this story of Imaginary Map is that Gretzky is doing precisely what Columbus, Descartes, Newton, Einstein did. He overcomes the Tunnel Vision by having a Map in his head. By the help of Imaginary Map, which he is not even conscious of, he can do something beyond “reacting” to the immediate situation in front of him, and go beyond the level of “intelligence” that is characteristic to the mode of operation called “One Thing At a Time”.

(C) When you become a grade one teacher, you have some 30 children each doing different things, each having peculiar problems, crying and laughing and some have to go to the bathroom. As a teacher, you care for each one and every one all the time. You know what each of them is doing and what they are about to do. If you think Gretzky is a miracle, you are a miracle.

How do you do that? Your answer probably is “One Thing at a Time”. After all, that is the most any human being can do. But what about your Periphery Vision? While you are wiping off Jony’s bloody nose, you are aware Betty and Rosy are pulling each other’s hair.

On the top of it, you have a Map in your Head called Lesson Plan or Day Plan. The Map is like Ideal Dream and never works under daylight. Nonetheless, without the Map, you would not be able to keep your sanity.

When you said “I do one thing at a  time, and just keep going”, you are not telling the truth. You do not work like Scientists in teaching grade one. You have to care about everything at the same time. But you somehow keep your physical and mental balance relative to, or by the help of the imaginary Map you have in your head. It is just that you are not “Consciously” thinking about it when you are rushing Nick to the bathroom.

What a human mind can do is amazing. Consciously thinking is just a minor insignificant fragment. Our “Rational Thinking” cannot do that, so we say “ONe Thing At A Time”. And we imagine we are running in a Maze with a Tunnel Vision. (The reason why Maze is confusing and disorienting is that we do not see the whole picture. That is when we have no Map. We do not have Environment to know where we are and guide our way out.)


I think you know what I am talking about. When you are in the world of children, you no longer have the luxury of having a Tunnel Vision on one object called “children” or “Class”. You are in it. They are all around you. Perhaps, you feel as if you are trapped in a Maze and you say to yourself that all you can do is to do “One Thing At a Time”. But actually, you do have Peripheral vision, Environmental awareness, Dynamic Map, and are performing a miracle.

“Love Science” to me is to recognize that miracle of yours, feel dignified and enjoy it.

***I add here two notes. (i) Today, Science is fragmented and no longer has a Vision-Map. It is pursuing “One Thing At A Time” with a tunnel vision. I am afraid, Science today, in that sense, has retrogressed, (ii) The Science of “visionary-Map” navigation was practiced by Polynesians long before Europeans came to know it. Native Hunters in the North woodlands also knew the Science, as Hugh Brody’s book Maps and Dreams (a NAS text) illustrates.


Notes on Power, Love, and Science: From Agony to Max Weber

DRAFT — Handwritten Notes added in Italics

Notes on Power, Love, and Science:

—From Agony to Max Weber —


1. Preliminary Notes: Why dig up Weber this late?

2. Texts by Weber, analysis/interpretation.

[“Religious Rejections of the World And Their Direction” (Gerth and Mill).

“The Relationship of Religion to Politics, Economics, Sexuality, and Art” (Fischoff)

My intention is to read these texts as if they included “Science” in the title “Religion”]

3. Love Science Possible?

—Being Rational and Becoming Wise —


I. Preliminary Notes: Why dig up Weber this late?

1-1. How I came to read “good old” Weber again?

Weber’s works are the classics in sociology. One might say Weber started “Social Science” and presumably all social scientists have read Weber, just as every physicist reads Newtonian Mechanics.

Yet, in listening to social scientists in a North American setting, I used to notice that their works do not seem to reflect their knowing of Weber’s works. By and large, Weber is forgotten or ignored. I knew Marxists do not like Weber. But most of social scientists in North America are not Marxists and would deny that they have an “ideological bias”. So that was not the reason.

I thought perhaps Weber has become obsolete. Sociology in recent times has had sophistication surpassing Weber, particularly in “scientific” methodology. Weber’s works might be thought as belonging to the “pre-science” level of Sociology. For one thing Weber did not take Statistics on questionnaires and thus is “out of style” in the modern Sociology.

[In contrast, every physicist today would say that Newton’s Mechanics was superseded by Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They even say Newtonian Mechanics is “wrong”. Yet, they do still read and even use it. That it was “proved” to be wrong, does not make Newton “obsolete”. Physics is “co-operative” and “constructive” in that sense. It is built on the works in the past. Even mistakes are not wasted.

The attitude of social scientists seems to be “competitive” and “arrogant” in this respect. They have too much of Oedipus Complex?]

But my friends did not suggest me any reason why they discarded Weber.

I even suspected racial prejudice against Germans. Although British American academics do exhibit anti-continental bias, that did not seem to be sufficient.

I have been puzzled about this curious social phenomenon in sociology. In order to find out what has happened to Weber’s work, I picked up a few books and read a few pages. [1] To my surprise, it was I myself who had forgotten Weber! I found Weber in despair, and defeated into “Power Science”. Yet his yearning and struggle for “Love Science” are evident. To my interest in the possibility of “Love Science”, Weber provides a nice text/material, though his conclusion is negative. I intend to analyze why (how) Weber came to the negative verdict.

[Weber reached his negative conclusion, because he started with an axiomatic proposition that “Rationality” is born out of the World View that basic human relation is conflict/strife. And consequently he would not get out of the world of conflict/strife where Love can only be “irrational”, “insanity”. To overcome the conflict/strife among and enforce any control over irrational fighters, a stronger force (violence) is needed. That leads society to Nation-State which is the ultimate violence. “Rationality” is the justification of the ultimate violence. And European Science is based on “Rationality” as such. I shall discus this further in part 2 and 3.]

[Page not available]

full use of it.]

But, it is “Right that is more popular word/notion among north Americans and Scholars of the time. they were not quite out of the McCarthyism. In the Cold War climate, there was a subtle anxiety as to talking of certain subjects. Not that academics liked McCarthy nor did they necessarily support Cold War Ideology, but they appeared to have exercised “avoiding troubles” and “choosing rewarding topics”. They were,  in general “defensive”. That is how “The Universe of Discourse” among scientists then was formed.

Even today, I sense that North American Social Scientists are “defensive”. They talk of Human Right, but not much about the Dynamics of Power. Talks of Power actually presuppose existence of Power or Power Structure in which “Right” appears as “resistance” and “protection”. But in the rhetoric of talking about “Right”, “Power” is implicit, not direct target of attention. The rhetoric does let people to have a discourse on problems of power in a sense of “reacting to” them, but it avoids directing the discourse to the essence of Power question of how the Power exists and is maintained in the first place. The “Human Right” rhetoric  covertly makes the Power and its violence “acceptable,” say like, “It is there and one cannot do anything about its existence itself” or “Power is a part of the Given Social Condition which cannot easily be changed and hence one ought not to attempt to change. And since one is not going to change it, it ought not be talked about.”

Talks of “Human Right”, (“Property Right”, etc.) do not intend to deny the “Right” of a “Sovereign Nation-State” of exercising its violence such as declaring War, imprisoning and quarantining people. “Right” is technological “moderations — “sugar coating” — of the fundamental violence. It does not intend to eliminate violence, but “justify under conditions”, specify the procedures, and the manner of violence. But, of course, it may be thought as “the best one can”, given that humans are aggressive beasts.

That is not what I am concerned. The problem comes when the technology of “the best one can” becomes the foundation of “Rationality” and hence “Science”. Love is then excluded from Ratinality and Science. That is the problem. And modern social scientists do not question their metaphysical assumption that “humans are fundamentally aggressive,

Weber talked about “Legality” in Wirtschaft and Gesellschaft. Woody might be interested in this. America, our schools in general ignore “Rechtssociologie”.

“Right” refers to what is permitted by and within a given power structure. For Native Americans to be granted the “Right” to hunt and fish is not the same thing as having “Power” to do the same. When we come to consider “Love and Nature” as a part of Native Science, we shall have further complications–you see why I am stuck!

violent”. “Right” is a compromise between fighting beasts.

*See also: Wirtschaft and Gesellschaft for “Law”/ Niklas Luhmann Rechtssociologie

Radical left scholars who followed the orthodox Marxist belief in “Power Struggle” did not wish to talk critically about Power either. They see Power is the instrument to be used by the “Vanguard of the History” (i.e. Communist Elite) for the construction of the Proletariat Utopia. But, at the same time, they appeared to have had a “gut feeling” that Power is fundamentally “Irrational”, despite their rationalization.

Hume said “Reason is, and ought only to be, a Slave to Passion”, If so, then “Science” as something about “The Means” is not competent to deal with the “Passion” (Will, Desire, Value, etc.) that exercises Power. And Scientists and Scholars are, then nothing more than technical “assistants” at their best to the “Sovereign Power Being”. Prostitutes have a better position in that they might touch the Passion of the Sovereign Power Being. By some reason, Scientists and Scholars, at least in their pretense, talked as if dealing with “Passion” is below their intellectual dignity. [Kissinger was merely “honest” in this respect.]

Weber became, in effect, a persona non grata, because of the “defensiveness” of Scientists and Scholars.

1-2. Weber’s personal struggle in Power and Love.

Weber characterizes “Power” as “that which forces people to do what they do not otherwise do”. And it was placed as the fundamental element of every human relation, upon which Social Relations were considered to be built. Weber did recognize “Love/Eros/Affinity” in human relations, but he concluded that they are “irrational” and unfit as foundation of social institutions — may they be “marriage”, “economy”, “legal”, “religions” or “politics” —.

Ironically, Weber’s writings betray an inordinate internal struggle with regard to the question of Power and Love. It is as if Weber wanted some sensitive souls to sense that what he formally announced in his “Science” were quite opposite of his internal feeling. In the name of “Science”, he had to say what he said. But at the same time, he had apparent pain in obeying the “Norm” of Science, which he himself imposed on his works. He advocated “scientific objectivity” and “Rationality” in the strongest argument that he could find. But then he turned around and cried in the pain that “Iron Cage” of science gave him. [See Mitzman. “Iron Cage”.]

It is well known that Weber had difficulties with his “Junker” father and “religious” mother. He could not respect “philistine” father. Nor could he accept “spiritualist” mother. He went to military school and became an army officer. He engaged in “duels” and at one time got his face cut. It is said that his mother slapped him for that. He disliked “stupid” military, but at the same time he took pleasure in displaying “machismo” and was a proud officer. He had an affair with a girl and then married another, which bothered him a great deal later on. He had many nervous breakdowns. He had to fight with his own conditions of mind alternating between “high excitement and deep depression” which were out of his control. In short, Weber was a huge bundle of inner contradictions.

[See the introduction to From Max Weber by H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills. Galaxy Books. 1958. H38 W36.]

His intense search of “Science” (Rational Intelligence) was not just for “academic” interest nor accidental. He was searching for a salvation of his soul in the quest of “Science”. I admire Weber for this. At least, his “Science” was not for “academic prestige/promotion”, “salary increments”, which he advocated in his “Science As A Vocation”. He was dead serious.

1-3. The Inner Conflict/Strife of Modern European Intellectuals.

*+ “Modernity or Modernism? Weber + contemporary social theory in lash.

One can see the same “conflict” in the modern intellectual movements in Germany, say in Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Nietzsche, Goethe, Marx, Freud, Mannheim, Marcuse, Habermas, et al. In the 19th century, the “Peasant” Germany was trying to respond to the “industrial Revolution”, which invaded her. It set a peculiar tradition for German intellectuals. Germans were asking questions to themselves. Adapt “Science” and survive? Resist it? Make it acceptable? Fight and win the race to the modern scientific/intellectual hegemony? They were apprehensive about “Science-Technology” and at the same time they were trying to “Modernize” Germany. To them, “Science” was an enigma and hope.

[as to the “cultural/intellectual” history, see P. Ricoeur Lectures On Ideology And Utopia. Columbia U Press 1986.]

The intellectual turmoil in historical Germany has a good parallel with what Weber had to go through in personal sense. And in European Intellectual Tradition, the sharp, conflict, confrontation, crisis, were the well-spring of intellectual achievements. Marx’s sense of “Dialectics of Class Struggle” and Freud’s sense of “Oedipus Complex” are cases in point. “Strife” is the trademark of European Intellectuality. From the European standard, Oriental “attitudes” such as Zen and Tao are not “Intellectual”, let alone “Scientific”. Marx called it “Asiatic” in a sense of contempt.

I add here that Native Americans and Intelligentsia in “Colonial countries” have the same trouble as Germans had in the 19th century, in their confrontation with invading “European Science/Technology/Rationality”.

[See V. Deloria God Is Red.

E.W. Said Orientalism.

Pantheon Books 1978. DS12 524.

(This is from an Islamic point of view)

Nathan Reigold. Scientific Colonialism.

Smithsonian Inst. Press 1987.]

There is also a parallel in “Feminist Science”.

[See Evelyn Fox Keller. Reflections On Gender And Science.

Yale Univ. Press 1985.

Hilary Rose and Steven Rose. Ideology Of/In The Natural Sciences. G.K. Hall & Co. 1979.

Mary Field Belenky. Women’s Ways of Knowing. Basic Books 1986.]

1-4. The Epistemology of the Oppressed.

I had some interest in “Native Science” that a small group of Native American scholars in my locality was doing. I soon came to realize that the central issue in the research is “Power of Knowledge; European versus Native”.

The “Power of Knowledge” became an important issue, because the overt physical violence used by “Conquistador” was replaced by a more effective means of repression, which is the control by “Science/Knowledge”. We have now “Epistemological Oppression”.

The typical everyday example of “Epistemological Oppression” is that the oppressed people have “no voice”. It is not that the oppressed did not complain. They do. But they are not “heard”. The reason is simple. The intellectuals in the position to effect social scale communication regard the “Voice of the Victims” as not “scientific”, “Objective”, “Rational”, “Inarticulate” etc. That is, the poor people have no “authority” nor “legitimacy” to command listening. They are denied the access to the communication.

[See Bishop Remi De Roo. Cries of Victims, Voice Of God. Novalis. 1986.]

And it is more tragic that the people themselves have the tendency of worshiping “intellectual heroes”. I observed that people, and academics  alike, tend to listen and “believe” big name “scientists” such as Carl Sagan. Suppose a child suggested to them that, say, “Universe may be like an Infinite Series of Images made of two parallel mirrors”, nobody would pay any attention. They have to be told by Big Name Scientists and get “impressed”. Not that they do not know fallacy of “Hero Worship” in Science. In fact they complain against the discrimination. But the statement from a child is not “quotable” in academic communication, whereas the same sentence from a Big Name Scientist has a “quoting value”. And the very people who complain that “nobody listens to me” do not in general listen to children or their own close friends. The discrimination has a “One-Way” hierarchical structure. It is tragic when that happens to ethnic minorities. In a mutual contempt, they deny their own access to the “grassroots support” that their community could provide. “Power Science” enforces such a tendency among the oppressed and silenced.

We note here that “knowing” in the professional sense has little to do with a scholar’s living, other than in the sense of job security and winning the competition for prestige and power positions. If a statement is not “quotable”, it is useless for “publication” on which they depend their life. Their “Knowledge Acquisition” (they call “Knowledge Production” in a megalomaniac conceit) is “Alienated Work”.

It would be quite a different story, if the “knowing” has to do with actual life — say, asking where the bathroom is in an urgent need —. Even a child can be a great help. Scholars and Scientists would appreciate the value and thank the child. But in the formal sense of “knowing” (science), “helpful communication” as such does not count.

The “knowing” in formal, institutional Science is primarily for “Knowledge Claim”, not for “helping people”. And if the Scientists and Scholars wish to have “Immortality” in their Knowledge Claim, they have to “register” the claim. The helpful communication that ordinary people provide for each other is not “Immortal” but “Ephemeral”. It helps and disappears. Scientists and Scholars, as “professionals” in the Knowledge Claim competition could not afford to waste their mind on “insignificant” statements of little children or people with no “authority”.

And even in ordinary conversations, we often engage in “Knowledge Competition”. Whoever utters a “New Knowledge,” say, read from newspapers or new books — win their game. The primary aim of talks as such is “Display of Knowledge” in the “One-Upmanship” game. It matters very little that what was said helps nobody. One tries to sound “smart” and gain”admiration”. Suppose one tries to help one’s friend by offering a comment that touches on an important problem in the friend’s life; it is most likely resented. Unless one is confident in the degree of “intimacy” with the person, one must regard offering a “too personal comment” is unwelcome offense, and it is not good “etiquette”.

We do know the disgusting habit of “righteously superior” people to offer “free advices” unsolicited. They are not “polite”. Even to our own children, we try to control our impulse to offer “free advice”. We should be careful! People could be offended by offer of help. I wonder in what degree even Lovers tolerate mutual help. Rather the game of “news” is relatively innocent.

Weber had something to say about this. He thought that intellectual discourse is fundamentally a “Power Struggle”. He suggested that even Lovers cannot avoid “dominating”, “subjugating” and thereby “exploiting” in mental sense. To him, the propensity of women to submit themselves to the intellectual domination of males and become “willing victims” is “Irrational”, yet that seemed the only “practical” way the Love Relation can be maintained. However, in his despair he did suggest the possibility of “Grace” — he used this word only once in the entire book —, but did not say any more than using the word. [I shall come back to this point later.]

But, that tell us that we do not “communicate”. We do not like to listen, even if it is really helpful. We resent precisely because “helpful communication” is “real”. And we do not wish to know other people’s troubles, because we have our own and we might be embarrassed to realize that we have no ability to help So we stay in “pleasant” exchanges of superficial greeting, such as “good morning”. When we say “How are you?,
we do not really mean to say that we are interested.

In this way, people with low social status are denied of the access to social scale communication. The Native Scientists know that well, for they suffer the very same “discrimination” and they talk about “Silenced People” in the History. Yet, it seems that they are not aware that they themselves do the same to the “Powerless”.

[Subnote 1-4. Example of mutual disrespect among the oppressed.

It is well known that even unionized Laborers vote for the Conservative Politicians. Not that workers trust the politician, but they do not trust themselves. Weber would point out that “Power” could not exist without the “Dependency” of the subjugated.

We might go to a small town and observe how the town council makes decisions, say on the basis of “Expert Recommendation”. There may be oppositions from townspeople and they might make a presentation to the town council. The typical attitude of the councilors is to say “Whose opinion do we believe?” Obviously the councilmen have no ability to “think” for themselves and have to depend on “Experts” from a Consultant Firm in a Big City. The town pays several hundred thousand dollars to the experts and ask for “Scientific Research”. Having paid for it, they cannot now listen to townspeople, who are “obviously” uneducated, ignorant, and, worse, “emotional”. That is to say, the councilmen do not believe that townspeople can be “intelligent”. It is logically understandable. As far as the councilmen are concerned they represent the best of the town’s intelligence otherwise they would not be elected. But since they do not know, they have to believe that nobody in town knows. That is the reason why they asked the Consultants. And that is what Weber discussed under the terms of “Legitimacy” and “Authority”. From that “Ought”, one can easily slip to “Is” of the fact.

It used to be said “If you are so smart, how come you are not rich (and powerful)”. One can sympathize with such sayings and understand that the issue of “Credibility” is important — for the most cases in politics have to do with “unknowns” and the community has to “gamble” on the basis of incomplete set of information —. The real issue is not the “Fact” which belongs to the Past, but “Trust” in the Future sense. We do not make important decisions by opinions of anybody whose past record does not impress us. But that is not because the Past Record is relevant. An opinion at a particular time expressed in a statement is not actually the issue. The issue is “With Whom One Feels Like Risking Life?” Certainly, we do not go into a venture with “Losers”. We look for “Winner/Hero — i.e. Authority, The Power —.

If the National Leader says “Let us fight a War”, you follow. Suppose your wife says do not like War. You say to her and to yourself “That is irrational. I cannot and ought not follow women’s intuition”, Besides, following wife’s instinct is below man’s intellectual dignity. It hurts your pride in “manhood”. That is why we go to wars. Needless to say, there are plenty of “Rational arguments” why you have to fight. In our history, there was no war that was not intellectually “justified” and “rationalized”.

Such cases make us question as to why we “repress” our feelings hinder “intellect – just like colonial officers suppress colonized people and that is the problem of “Power Knowledge” that I would like to discuss in this note.

[See also:

Max Weber. The Sociology of Religion. (19220 (Tr) E. Fishoff. Beacon Press 1956. BL 60 W433.

Arthur Mitzman.  The Iron Cage. A.Knopf 1970. Hm22 G3 W455

S. Lash and S. Whimster (ed) Max Weber, Rationality And Modernity. Alen & Unwin 1987 . JM22 83 W454735.

E.W. Said. “Foucault and the Imagination of Power”. in D.C. Hoy (ed). Foucault: A Critical Leader. Blackwell 1986.]

1-6. Asiatic Sense of Knowing

Weber is a European Scientist. His sense of Knowing and Intellect is distinctively European. There are, however, non-European sense of Knowing and Intellect.

The first thing Confucius said in the Analects — which is the most important text of all Confucian teaching — is that:

“Is it not pleasure to learn and in times recall what one has learned and fondle them. It is like having an old friend visiting from afar. If people around me does not know this pleasure, it is nothing to warm up about. (Pleasure is mine)”.

Of course the above is my translation. When I was taught Confucius, my teachers did not offer such a translation. Rather, my teachers and scholars alike hurriedly passed the first paragraph and went into the “technology” of how to maintain ritual orders etc. I hated Confucius. But by a chance I came to read the text again, I noticed that in the first paragraph Confucius was stating the Purpose of Learning. The purpose was “Pleasure”. One studies in order to know “Friend”. Confucius did care about pragmatics of rituals for the good of society. But “Knowing” was not for the “utilitarian value” nor the “Moral Cords”. It was simply the pleasure of having Friend.

Such “Knowledge”, if it is called knowledge, has nothing what so ever to do with “Power”. Just as it is absurd to “Claim Friend”, the “Knowledge of Friend” is not claimable. In this, Confucius was much like Taoists and Zen Learners.

I mention this as an example of Non-European sense of Knowing. It is a “Sensual Pleasure” that the Knowledge is cherished.

To be sure, even in Europe, there is “Knowing the Sensual Pleasure”. Knowing Art, Music, and Poetry is of that kind. But that is definitely outside the sense of Knowing of European Science. It is not “Rational” from European sense of Epistemology.

We open any European text books on Epistemology, and read a few paragraphs. We would notice that the preoccupation of “Philosophers” in Epistemology is “Justifying the Power/Authority of Claimed Knowledge”.

In the Oriental sense, no Justification is needed.

You say “That is Irrational”? If you say so, I agree. For the term “Rational/Irrational” is defined in the context of having conflicts and power struggles as to knowledge claim. (It came from Religious Inquisition, where “right or wrong,” was a deadly serious matter that People were often burned on stake or stoned. Socrates was pre-Christian. But even then the “Truth” of knowledge Claim was a serious matter in which “wrong” was punishable by death. That is far different from the “Sensual Pleasure” of Tao, Zen or Confucius.

I am interested and proposing to look at Weber from Non-Authoritarian view of Knowing. I note that Weber went into despair because he could not resolve “conflict” even between Lovers. The reason is his European Intellect stood on Power Conflict. Using such an Intellect/Rationality, he naturally could not resolve the Conflict of Sexes.

Confucius would have recommended to have “Proper Ritual of Mutual Respect” between Sexes. That would be “practical”. Weber, however, sensed that Sex (Erotic Relation) has “Religious” significance. That is: Sex (Eros) is something “Sacred” to Weber. Therefore, he would not go along with Confucius. To that I rather take Weber’s side.

Nonetheless, Confucius offers a perspective from which one can see what Weber was thinking/feeling. As such I value Confucius.

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

Dec. 6, ’88

Dear Pam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sam K.