I had never considered zoos pornographic. After reading Acampora’s article, I agree that many, but not all, zoos can be viewed as pornographic. I see some significant differences between the nature of erotic (porn industry) and biotic (zoo industry) entertainment. There is a certain “economy of desire” which exists human-human in the porn industry, and human-animal in the zoo industry - relationship shortcuts.
The presumption of mastery and control occurs in both industries. For this reason, some zoos can be classifed as pornographic. However, I am unwilling to classify all zoos as inherently pornographic. At times, profound, fulfilling exchanges, however brief, can occur between humans and animals in zoos, even those meeting certain criteria of pornography.
Human-animals have dominated and radically altered the environment of “wild” animals in their “natural habitats,” precipitously so, since the industrial revolution. Acampora claims that in zoos, “The very structure of the human-animal encounter is disrupted, and the interaction that is sought—encountering the animals—becomes impossibility as the “real” animals disappear and the conditions for seeing are undermined.” I would posit that industrialization, globalization, human poverty, and human greed have curtailed opportunity for true interaction between humans and “wild” animals. Their “natural habitats” exist only in the most remote, humanly –inhospitable environments. Remoteness offers no protection to the animals, or their habitats, from human-created alterations, like pollution and global warming. Doesn’t this also create structural inauthenticity - despite the best intentions of humanity? Couldn’t we also consider the proclivity of human beings to alter habitats of nonhuman beings within the structure of possessive consciousness?
Acampora stated that his argument focuses on what the institutions of animal-keeping, particularly the zoo, reveal about us and our possibilities for relating to other human and nonhuman animals alike. Does it reveal the same, or different possibilities/limitations for relating to other human and nonhuman animals as the human domination of the environment?
How can we ethically argue against the structural inauthenticity of zoos, and the consideration of live beings within the structure of possessive consciousness, without applying this same logical morality to the reverse stewardship perpetrated by some humans against all living beings?
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Nature, Humans included.
Attending college is absolutely what I need to be doing. Wednesday, in logic class I learned about the Principle of Interpretive Charity. I had never heard of that principle. It has a Bhuddist essence, and appears to be the best way to live among linguistic communicators.
Then, in Nature of Human Nature, class discussion of the inclusion of humankind as equally natural as nature, sent my mind into turmoil. I was reluctant to give up my preferred catorgarization of humans as unnatural. I went from thinking DJ didn’t understand nature, to realizing he was right. Component, natural ingredients synthesized by humankind into products, logically make these products natural. There are the erratic, occassional, non-deliberate significant acts of natural destruction, usually confined to specific regions of the planet. Then there are the deliberate, human-caused, ongoing, planet-wide, destructive acts that are also natural. I followed a link DJ offered to the journal of Capitalism, Nature, Socialism. and found this gem on their site.
We regard nature as having intrinsic value.
We see humanity as part of nature.
We are nature’s self-transforming creature.
Humankind becomes de-vilifyed, no longer the destroyer of nature, we become nature’s self-transforming creature.
Exposure to new ideas, exposure to different ways of looking at tightly held, old ideas, and the opportunity to be gently supported through internal shifts of personal, imperfect views of the world, are the true blessing and value of a college education.
Then, in Nature of Human Nature, class discussion of the inclusion of humankind as equally natural as nature, sent my mind into turmoil. I was reluctant to give up my preferred catorgarization of humans as unnatural. I went from thinking DJ didn’t understand nature, to realizing he was right. Component, natural ingredients synthesized by humankind into products, logically make these products natural. There are the erratic, occassional, non-deliberate significant acts of natural destruction, usually confined to specific regions of the planet. Then there are the deliberate, human-caused, ongoing, planet-wide, destructive acts that are also natural. I followed a link DJ offered to the journal of Capitalism, Nature, Socialism. and found this gem on their site.
We regard nature as having intrinsic value.
We see humanity as part of nature.
We are nature’s self-transforming creature.
Humankind becomes de-vilifyed, no longer the destroyer of nature, we become nature’s self-transforming creature.
Exposure to new ideas, exposure to different ways of looking at tightly held, old ideas, and the opportunity to be gently supported through internal shifts of personal, imperfect views of the world, are the true blessing and value of a college education.
"Zoos and Eyes"
My first zoo experience was a grammar school field trip to the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston. I was deeply traumatized by the horrific condition of the animals and their environment. My next zoo-like experience came a decade later when I visited the San Diego Wild Animal Park. People were confined inside a monorail. The park was artificially divided into regions representing the world’s ecosystems. Animals were grouped according to the region where they would normally be found – except predators were arificially separated from their prey. I was delighted with the concept of confining the people instead of the animals.
My next zoo experience came about a decade later at the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. The enclosures I could see were clean, but too tiny for any mammal. I remember the tigers and the wolves. I thought they all looked depressed. I had an amazing interspecies experience with a silver back gorilla who offered to share his meal with me. We were separated by a sheet of glass. He repeatedly tapped the glass with his green beans and carrot pieces while I held my hand against the glass. I remember being amazed at his hands, his fingers, and his eyes. His graciousness couldn’t mask his sadness. I repeatedly apologized to him about his circumstances, but I had no solution for his plight. I was both exhilerated and anguished by this zoo experience.
At the New England Aquariam in Boston, a seal and I shared a brief encounter that I enjoyed. But again, the enclosure was unacceptably tiny. I went to Sea World, and hated it. I went to Busch Garden, and Disney’s Animal Kingdom. These places were considered among the best zoos and parks. I found them depressing. Unable to enjoy them the way most of the public seemed to be, I thought there must be something wrong with me. These animals have been objectified to such an extreme that most human spectators do not recognize their suffering. There seems to be no innate human compassion for the suffering of their fellow creatures.
This year I went to an animal park in Quebec, where the human spectators were confined to their vehicles and following an assigned route. Sighting of particular species was not guaranteed. Time of visit, season, weather, and the nature of the species, are factors affecting potential sightings. The animals have sufficient assigned territory to avoid human eyes, but I don’t know at what cost to them. We watched cars and the bus choose to keep moving instead of waiting to see if animals would come into sight. For many human spectators, there was a real impatience with, and intolerance of, the natural needs and rituals of the animals. This clearly was what Acampora was speaking of, those people had come to be amused, entertained. The animals were objectified, valueless. The spectator's experience of viewing was all that had value here.
“Zoos and Eyes” validated my experience with these zoos. I agree with many of Ralph Acampora’s statements supporting his argument that zoos are pornagraphic. Modern zoos are not healthy for the animals or the spectators. It would be optimum if there was opportunity for interspecies encounters, if it was a voluntary encounter for all parties. I would not want to never have the opportunity to encounter extirpated species, or non-native species. I will always cherish and be saddened by my encounter with the silver back, and the seal. I must question some of my assumptions of what I have seen in the Quebec park. As you can see from one of my coyote pictures and one of my wolf pictures taken there, sometimes the animals do choose to make eye contact with the human spectators.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Practice of Marx's Theory?
I agree, in theory, with Marx’s Historical Economic Thesis. I see the benefit of effecting change in an organic, evolutionary flow. Only organic, evolutionary processes could produce true, complete, and lasting change. I agree with that theory.
As DJ said in class, organic, evolutionary, human processes take hundreds of years. Humankind requires multiple generations for those within the superstructure to effect the necessary change within the base.
I worry that neither the planet, nor any of its species, will survive intact long enough for that evolutionary change to occur. We’ve lost so many species already; many more are on the brink. Pollution, climate change, and economic globalization, the base’s newest version of colonialism, have already destroyed complete ecosystems, and cultures. The greedy, global base should be prevented from destroying any more environments, any more species, or more people. How can that be done without harming any life?
I do not see how Marx’s theory can be put into practice in time. The base is destroying the superstructure. The base’s existence is ultimately linked to the existence of the superstructure. Is the base’s destruction of the superstructure, and its consequent self-destruction, Marx’s vision of organic, evolutionary restructuring?
While I’m a true fan of the metaphysical worldview, I deeply love some aspects of the natural physical world. I am also fond of certain convenient, or enjoyable, manufactured objects. If the base keeps moving at its current pace, the physical realm will disappear. Only the metaphysical realm will remain.
If this is the practice of Marx’s theory, I think it requires an addendum.
As DJ said in class, organic, evolutionary, human processes take hundreds of years. Humankind requires multiple generations for those within the superstructure to effect the necessary change within the base.
I worry that neither the planet, nor any of its species, will survive intact long enough for that evolutionary change to occur. We’ve lost so many species already; many more are on the brink. Pollution, climate change, and economic globalization, the base’s newest version of colonialism, have already destroyed complete ecosystems, and cultures. The greedy, global base should be prevented from destroying any more environments, any more species, or more people. How can that be done without harming any life?
I do not see how Marx’s theory can be put into practice in time. The base is destroying the superstructure. The base’s existence is ultimately linked to the existence of the superstructure. Is the base’s destruction of the superstructure, and its consequent self-destruction, Marx’s vision of organic, evolutionary restructuring?
While I’m a true fan of the metaphysical worldview, I deeply love some aspects of the natural physical world. I am also fond of certain convenient, or enjoyable, manufactured objects. If the base keeps moving at its current pace, the physical realm will disappear. Only the metaphysical realm will remain.
If this is the practice of Marx’s theory, I think it requires an addendum.
"Why Work? Marxism and Human Nature "
Most of the time, what we say and do is a reflection of the way we produce. Society judges people by their productivity; people perceived as not productively contributing to society, have less value than producers do. Unfortunately, productively contributing to society is a subjective concept, standardized by the powerful elite of the society.
I agree that most individuals often regard society’s perception of them, as a true reflection of who they are, and what their value is. I think this is true all of the time for most people, and at least some of the time for everyone.
Caregivers of humankind’s offspring – homemakers, and educators, responsible for producing the next generation of producers, by proxy, are undervalued. Their manufactory relationship to incomplete, and therefore, substandard producers, i.e., children, and college students, renders their final products as insufficient. Relatively few professors become exceptions, usually because of influential works they publish, rather than the number of successful producers they manufacture. Then, society judges them as producers of particular works, not the next generation of producers. Their works may influence an aspect of the manufacturing process (education). Society now views the published work as their product. Society no longer evaluates them on their former product, students. Disassociated from society’s undervalued product, their position in the superstructure is raised.
This defies logic, even from the p.o.v. of the base. Children are a composite production of multiple factors of both nature, and nurture. From Marx’s p.o.v., it defies both logic and reason.
Those providing for people too old, or too incapacitated, to produce for Marx’s base, are, also by proxy, undervalued by society. I view caregivers, educators, children, and the disenfranchised, as victims of Marx’s base. This is my personal view of capitalistic societies, especially the U.S..
All those we would consider moral patients, are considered by Marx’s base as unvalued, disposable products.
I think this is the foundational concept supporting, legitimizing, and maintaining the dominance of the base over the superstructure and everything in the material.
I agree that most individuals often regard society’s perception of them, as a true reflection of who they are, and what their value is. I think this is true all of the time for most people, and at least some of the time for everyone.
Caregivers of humankind’s offspring – homemakers, and educators, responsible for producing the next generation of producers, by proxy, are undervalued. Their manufactory relationship to incomplete, and therefore, substandard producers, i.e., children, and college students, renders their final products as insufficient. Relatively few professors become exceptions, usually because of influential works they publish, rather than the number of successful producers they manufacture. Then, society judges them as producers of particular works, not the next generation of producers. Their works may influence an aspect of the manufacturing process (education). Society now views the published work as their product. Society no longer evaluates them on their former product, students. Disassociated from society’s undervalued product, their position in the superstructure is raised.
This defies logic, even from the p.o.v. of the base. Children are a composite production of multiple factors of both nature, and nurture. From Marx’s p.o.v., it defies both logic and reason.
Those providing for people too old, or too incapacitated, to produce for Marx’s base, are, also by proxy, undervalued by society. I view caregivers, educators, children, and the disenfranchised, as victims of Marx’s base. This is my personal view of capitalistic societies, especially the U.S..
All those we would consider moral patients, are considered by Marx’s base as unvalued, disposable products.
I think this is the foundational concept supporting, legitimizing, and maintaining the dominance of the base over the superstructure and everything in the material.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Education - Ollman/Marx Style
After reading Bertell Ollman’s “Excerpts from How to Take an Exam . . . and Remake the World,” and today’s class discussion, I feel it is time I “person-up” and raise a topic that has troubled me since I reentered the academic community.
How should students address professors?
With some professors, it is easy enough. They tell you to address them as Professor, Professor So and So, Dr., or Dr. So and So. Others give you those options, and the option of using their first name.
Here’s my personal discomfort zone. Some professors tell you to call them by their first name. Some sign their email to you with their first name. Some give you no name calling instructions whatsoever.
Now come the Marx/Ollman manifestos on alienation of students in academia.
I am student, in search of enlightenment, or at a minimun, opportunities for growth until enlightenment comes. I find myself in the midst of a philosophy course and a logic course. I want to perform the proper, Fight Student Alienation tact - just for me, of course, and the betterment of society, never because it is what the establishment expects, demands, or grades me on.
Here is where I’m seeking help from my community of mates, and should they be inclined, I’m willing to look at whatever helpful bones the academic establishment throws my way.
A long time ago, in the far away land of Massachusetts, I was raised in a male dominated, gender-segregating culture. I come from a generation taught to respect authority and our elders. It is very challenging for me to achieve a first name, comfort level with most professors, especially those professors who are not women.
My conundrum: Respect Authority and Respect Elders.
It so happens that I am older than all my professors this semester, alas, this is the norm in my current college career, to be older than that alienating, academic establishment.
I’ve been trained to respect authority. I’ve also been trained that everyone should respect his or her elders, that is me now, I am an elder.
Elder seeks help. Willing to listen. Send me your post. I promise to respond.
How should students address professors?
With some professors, it is easy enough. They tell you to address them as Professor, Professor So and So, Dr., or Dr. So and So. Others give you those options, and the option of using their first name.
Here’s my personal discomfort zone. Some professors tell you to call them by their first name. Some sign their email to you with their first name. Some give you no name calling instructions whatsoever.
Now come the Marx/Ollman manifestos on alienation of students in academia.
I am student, in search of enlightenment, or at a minimun, opportunities for growth until enlightenment comes. I find myself in the midst of a philosophy course and a logic course. I want to perform the proper, Fight Student Alienation tact - just for me, of course, and the betterment of society, never because it is what the establishment expects, demands, or grades me on.
Here is where I’m seeking help from my community of mates, and should they be inclined, I’m willing to look at whatever helpful bones the academic establishment throws my way.
A long time ago, in the far away land of Massachusetts, I was raised in a male dominated, gender-segregating culture. I come from a generation taught to respect authority and our elders. It is very challenging for me to achieve a first name, comfort level with most professors, especially those professors who are not women.
My conundrum: Respect Authority and Respect Elders.
It so happens that I am older than all my professors this semester, alas, this is the norm in my current college career, to be older than that alienating, academic establishment.
I’ve been trained to respect authority. I’ve also been trained that everyone should respect his or her elders, that is me now, I am an elder.
Elder seeks help. Willing to listen. Send me your post. I promise to respond.
Curious Cats - Free to Revel in Being Inexhaustively Inquisitive
Kate Berardo writes, “Curiosity creates an interest in learning and helps break down barriers between cultures and their differences.”
I think curiosity breaks down differences between individuals, as well as cultures. The class taught me about life without curiosity. Curiosity broke down the barriers of my limited paradigm, facilitated my understanding of the differences between individuals.
I disagree with Van Gogh, I personally find Nature to be more interesting than people. Maybe the class will restructure my paradigm once again? I can’t imagine how when it comes to this one.
My favorite quotes from this article:
"Curiosity, in this sense, is an essential stepping stone toward building awareness, appreciation, and understanding of other cultures. Through curiosity, people can gain new perspectives, unparalleled learning and growth, and a chance for interesting conversation and reflection at every interaction." - Kate Berardo
“We have a hunger of the mind which asks for knowledge of all around us, and the more we gain, the more is our desire; the more we see, the more we are capable of seeing.”- Maria Mitchell
“The possession of knowledge does not kill the sense of wonder and mystery. There is always more mystery." - Anais Nin
I think curiosity breaks down differences between individuals, as well as cultures. The class taught me about life without curiosity. Curiosity broke down the barriers of my limited paradigm, facilitated my understanding of the differences between individuals.
I disagree with Van Gogh, I personally find Nature to be more interesting than people. Maybe the class will restructure my paradigm once again? I can’t imagine how when it comes to this one.
My favorite quotes from this article:
"Curiosity, in this sense, is an essential stepping stone toward building awareness, appreciation, and understanding of other cultures. Through curiosity, people can gain new perspectives, unparalleled learning and growth, and a chance for interesting conversation and reflection at every interaction." - Kate Berardo
“We have a hunger of the mind which asks for knowledge of all around us, and the more we gain, the more is our desire; the more we see, the more we are capable of seeing.”- Maria Mitchell
“The possession of knowledge does not kill the sense of wonder and mystery. There is always more mystery." - Anais Nin
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Constructing Realities
I think individuals, like societies, construct their own realities. Society’s construct is the foundation from which the individual creates a unique worldview. The paradigm we build for ourselves then becomes the looking glass with which we view everything we perceive as “other” than, or separate from, ourselves. Our worldview, shaped by nurture (social relationships), and nature (genetic inheritance) is the tool we use to evaluate all individuals, groups, concepts, and the concrete; as well as ourselves. It can be our prison or our release.
I believe humankind’s greatest undeveloped and active potential lives within the possible communication between unique paradigms existing in a symphony of interdependent relatedness. This exchange of information flows via physical and nonphysical senses, verbally and intuitively, at least between human animals. Personally, I believe communication is possible between all sentient beings. I recognize this is not a widely shared construct for “modern” societies. My paradigm has some flexibility. Presentations of other worldviews could be opportunities for learning, growth, restructuring a limited construct, or reevaluating my present paradigm.
My mind meandered to these thoughts after classmates and DKJ very effectively communicated their constructs on the nature of curiosity. Because I found being curious as natural and essential as breathing, I was completely unable to understand how it could be that some people are not particularly curious, or might even dislike being curious. It was impossible for me to frame incuriousness in a manner that would allow me to relate to that concept, and then reframe it so I could integrate it into my paradigm. I could not understand how a life without curiousness would be worth living. I found it literally unimaginable, my life devoid of curiosity created a visual picture of my mind permanently imprisoned.
Sharing life experiences, classmates supplied concrete examples of incurious, but happy, passionate, people, who were capable of co-creative expression. Born from this free exchange of wisdom-based worldviews, I was able to reframe my beliefs, alter my worldview, and reconstruct reality.
Having said that, I still do not understand why DKJ said curiosity is dangerous. The claim that “curiosity killed the cat,” is completed by, “but satisfaction brought him back.”
Within each construct, potential limitlessness and imprisonment coexist in various states of latency.
I believe humankind’s greatest undeveloped and active potential lives within the possible communication between unique paradigms existing in a symphony of interdependent relatedness. This exchange of information flows via physical and nonphysical senses, verbally and intuitively, at least between human animals. Personally, I believe communication is possible between all sentient beings. I recognize this is not a widely shared construct for “modern” societies. My paradigm has some flexibility. Presentations of other worldviews could be opportunities for learning, growth, restructuring a limited construct, or reevaluating my present paradigm.
My mind meandered to these thoughts after classmates and DKJ very effectively communicated their constructs on the nature of curiosity. Because I found being curious as natural and essential as breathing, I was completely unable to understand how it could be that some people are not particularly curious, or might even dislike being curious. It was impossible for me to frame incuriousness in a manner that would allow me to relate to that concept, and then reframe it so I could integrate it into my paradigm. I could not understand how a life without curiousness would be worth living. I found it literally unimaginable, my life devoid of curiosity created a visual picture of my mind permanently imprisoned.
Sharing life experiences, classmates supplied concrete examples of incurious, but happy, passionate, people, who were capable of co-creative expression. Born from this free exchange of wisdom-based worldviews, I was able to reframe my beliefs, alter my worldview, and reconstruct reality.
Having said that, I still do not understand why DKJ said curiosity is dangerous. The claim that “curiosity killed the cat,” is completed by, “but satisfaction brought him back.”
Within each construct, potential limitlessness and imprisonment coexist in various states of latency.
Imprisoned Bodies, Imprisoned Minds
Nature versus Nurture
I found the level of the class’ energetic discussions of Nature versus Nurture, similar to the level of passionate participation elicited in our debates on Free Will versus Determinism. I find the relatedness between these schools of thought intriguing.
I believe there is no single primary determinant of human nature. Human nature is the result of multiple factors that manifest in individuals in differing ratios of predominance. Of the determinants in the reading, I consider genetics and social determinism to be the principal influences on human nature. Blending facets of nature and nurture provide the foundation for unique variations in individuals.
Nature, as expressed through our genetic patterns, uniquely configures both the potential limits, and strengths of a physical body. Manifestations of external factors affecting the range of potency include gender, height, body type, hair, skin, and eye pigmentation and muscle tone. In my opinion, the brain, the systems facilitating the five physical senses, and the endocrine system, are equally potent as determinate factors. Imbalances within these systems can limit or expand an individual’s capacity for psychological, biological, and mental activity. They affect memory, learning, communication, emotional regulation, receptivity of societal norms, development of “desirable” personality traits, and the competency necessary to relate societal constructs.
Genetics imprison the physical body, and then facilitate degrees of its freedom. Genetics might restrict the mind and the personality, or cast them off untethered, lacking the capacity to engage and relate.
I found the level of the class’ energetic discussions of Nature versus Nurture, similar to the level of passionate participation elicited in our debates on Free Will versus Determinism. I find the relatedness between these schools of thought intriguing.
I believe there is no single primary determinant of human nature. Human nature is the result of multiple factors that manifest in individuals in differing ratios of predominance. Of the determinants in the reading, I consider genetics and social determinism to be the principal influences on human nature. Blending facets of nature and nurture provide the foundation for unique variations in individuals.
Nature, as expressed through our genetic patterns, uniquely configures both the potential limits, and strengths of a physical body. Manifestations of external factors affecting the range of potency include gender, height, body type, hair, skin, and eye pigmentation and muscle tone. In my opinion, the brain, the systems facilitating the five physical senses, and the endocrine system, are equally potent as determinate factors. Imbalances within these systems can limit or expand an individual’s capacity for psychological, biological, and mental activity. They affect memory, learning, communication, emotional regulation, receptivity of societal norms, development of “desirable” personality traits, and the competency necessary to relate societal constructs.
Genetics imprison the physical body, and then facilitate degrees of its freedom. Genetics might restrict the mind and the personality, or cast them off untethered, lacking the capacity to engage and relate.
Family Traits – Nature versus Nurture
Stimulated by class discussions of Nature versus Nurture, I entertained myself on the drive home by attempting to ascertain the root cause of curiousness. Was it predominantly genetic, or societal in nature? Class input regarding the trait, informed me that my pre-class beliefs regarding the nature of curiosity were insufficient, and inaccurate for application to the class of humankind. My recently revealed, glaring ignorance regarding the absolute and profound necessity of this trait for one's very existence, demanded that my exploration of this topic be restricted to only my curiosity matrix.
GENETICS
ADHD - requires unusually high levels of stimulation to create and maintain focus.
Both parents also ADHD.
Two siblings ADD, only
One other sibling - also ADHD and dyslexic.
Dyslexia – necessitates constant review of data received and transmitted, especially in
social learning environments.
Lack of input causes malaise clinically known as Extreme Boredom.
Malaise causes physical and mental discomfort, with resultant manifestation of fidgety-ness.
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS
Both parents ADHD.
Two siblings ADD,
One other sibling also ADHD and dyslexic.
Both parents, and two siblings - highly inquisitive people.
Grew up in rural environment.
Exposure to others limited to school, church, family activities - first 13 years of life.
Both parents avid readers.
New books - educational and pleasure always entering home.
Limited TV, and phone time.
Reading, participation in family games, playing musical instrument - family requirements.
Father required high levels of stimulation. Started debates at supper table every evening, at conclusion of debate, he reversed his position for purpose of maintaining high level of stimulation.
Mom was always busy, sewing, reading, knitting, crocheting, embroidering, or doing needlepoint while “resting” and watching TV.
84-year-old mother still loves learning new vocabulary, and exposure to new learning experiences.
It appears to me that there is a high family overlap in genetic determinants and social determinants; many of the listings in the “social determinants” category could be how genetic determinants manifested within the family structure. After reviewing the family history, personality traits, and life choices, I concluded that nature and nurture are the root cause of my curiosity level. However, I continue to wonder if the “nurture” factor is truly based in societal influences, or the resultant creation of my famiy’s genetics.
GENETICS
ADHD - requires unusually high levels of stimulation to create and maintain focus.
Both parents also ADHD.
Two siblings ADD, only
One other sibling - also ADHD and dyslexic.
Dyslexia – necessitates constant review of data received and transmitted, especially in
social learning environments.
Lack of input causes malaise clinically known as Extreme Boredom.
Malaise causes physical and mental discomfort, with resultant manifestation of fidgety-ness.
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS
Both parents ADHD.
Two siblings ADD,
One other sibling also ADHD and dyslexic.
Both parents, and two siblings - highly inquisitive people.
Grew up in rural environment.
Exposure to others limited to school, church, family activities - first 13 years of life.
Both parents avid readers.
New books - educational and pleasure always entering home.
Limited TV, and phone time.
Reading, participation in family games, playing musical instrument - family requirements.
Father required high levels of stimulation. Started debates at supper table every evening, at conclusion of debate, he reversed his position for purpose of maintaining high level of stimulation.
Mom was always busy, sewing, reading, knitting, crocheting, embroidering, or doing needlepoint while “resting” and watching TV.
84-year-old mother still loves learning new vocabulary, and exposure to new learning experiences.
It appears to me that there is a high family overlap in genetic determinants and social determinants; many of the listings in the “social determinants” category could be how genetic determinants manifested within the family structure. After reviewing the family history, personality traits, and life choices, I concluded that nature and nurture are the root cause of my curiosity level. However, I continue to wonder if the “nurture” factor is truly based in societal influences, or the resultant creation of my famiy’s genetics.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Stuck on Torture and Terrorism
Impassioned by latest Daily Phlog posting - I am postponing my "Nature versus Nurture" postings to reflect my concerns created by current events.
I am troubled by more than a few aspects reported in Scott Shane’s November 1, 2007, New York Times article “Nominee’s Stand May Avoid Tangle of Torture Cases”
1. Who are the “legal experts” explaining the Central Intelligence Agency officers’ use of the waterboarding torture practice as “harsh interrogation practice?”
2. Since it is accepted and declared by government officials, that in 2002 and 2003, C.I.A. officers used waterboarding in “questioning” “at least three” high-level terrorism suspects:
a.) Why is it that in 2007, the torture victims are still referred to as “suspects?”
If torture in general, and waterboarding specifically, are effective intelligence gathering tools, why aren’t these torture victims currently acknowledged as “terrorists?” Or al-Queda? Or bombers? Or murderers?
How can they possibly still be described as “suspects?” Should not the waterboard torture of “at least three” human beings have yielded the C.I.A. officers with a less, nonspecific category, in which to place them, than “suspects?”
Even should you choose to set aside morality - innate or socially driven, ethics, and humanity - how could such an inefficacious technique become socially and nationally acceptable?
3. How do we quantify “at least three” human beings? Thirty? Three hundred? Three thousand? Thirty thousand? Three hundred thousand? Logically, don’t all these quantitative values qualify as possible equivalents of “at least three?”
4. Is there a global or national definition of “high-level” terrorism? What is it? What is the standard by which we measure low-level, mid-level, and high-level terrorism?
I surfed the web looking for a lucid definition of this term. I could not find one. I did find that Norm Chomsky used a definition of terrorism from a U.S. Army manual describing it as, "the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to inculcate fear; intended to coerce, or to intimidate governments, or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Chomsky used this definition to support his argument that the major sources of inter-national terrorism are the world's major powers – championed and led by the United States.
If we apply the U.S. Army manual definition of terrorism to life today in the United States, couldn't what the Bush-led government has done, and is still doing, qualify as terrorizing American society?
In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism, that, “On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. A word with intrinsically negative connotations it is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' quoting Brian Jenkins, "thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; ...if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.’ ...the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned.”
How can this country contemplate the nomination of any Attorney General prospect, who refuses to declare waterboarding illegal or prosecute any and all involved in these illegal actions, regardless of their rank, title, office or wealth?
How can the citizenry of this society express anything but outrage and revulsion at the perpetration of torture by government decree; compounded by the sanctioning and championing of these crimes by those sworn to represent us, and our constitution – Presidents, Attorney Generals, Senators, and Representatives all?
What I find most disturbing about the current debate concerning the issues of defining, legitimizing, criminalizing, sanctioning, or prosecuting acts of torture, is how can we, the society of citizens opposed to torture, affect change within our government, so that it reflects the true moral conscience of humanity.
I am troubled by more than a few aspects reported in Scott Shane’s November 1, 2007, New York Times article “Nominee’s Stand May Avoid Tangle of Torture Cases”
1. Who are the “legal experts” explaining the Central Intelligence Agency officers’ use of the waterboarding torture practice as “harsh interrogation practice?”
2. Since it is accepted and declared by government officials, that in 2002 and 2003, C.I.A. officers used waterboarding in “questioning” “at least three” high-level terrorism suspects:
a.) Why is it that in 2007, the torture victims are still referred to as “suspects?”
If torture in general, and waterboarding specifically, are effective intelligence gathering tools, why aren’t these torture victims currently acknowledged as “terrorists?” Or al-Queda? Or bombers? Or murderers?
How can they possibly still be described as “suspects?” Should not the waterboard torture of “at least three” human beings have yielded the C.I.A. officers with a less, nonspecific category, in which to place them, than “suspects?”
Even should you choose to set aside morality - innate or socially driven, ethics, and humanity - how could such an inefficacious technique become socially and nationally acceptable?
3. How do we quantify “at least three” human beings? Thirty? Three hundred? Three thousand? Thirty thousand? Three hundred thousand? Logically, don’t all these quantitative values qualify as possible equivalents of “at least three?”
4. Is there a global or national definition of “high-level” terrorism? What is it? What is the standard by which we measure low-level, mid-level, and high-level terrorism?
I surfed the web looking for a lucid definition of this term. I could not find one. I did find that Norm Chomsky used a definition of terrorism from a U.S. Army manual describing it as, "the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to inculcate fear; intended to coerce, or to intimidate governments, or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Chomsky used this definition to support his argument that the major sources of inter-national terrorism are the world's major powers – championed and led by the United States.
If we apply the U.S. Army manual definition of terrorism to life today in the United States, couldn't what the Bush-led government has done, and is still doing, qualify as terrorizing American society?
In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism, that, “On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. A word with intrinsically negative connotations it is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' quoting Brian Jenkins, "thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; ...if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.’ ...the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned.”
How can this country contemplate the nomination of any Attorney General prospect, who refuses to declare waterboarding illegal or prosecute any and all involved in these illegal actions, regardless of their rank, title, office or wealth?
How can the citizenry of this society express anything but outrage and revulsion at the perpetration of torture by government decree; compounded by the sanctioning and championing of these crimes by those sworn to represent us, and our constitution – Presidents, Attorney Generals, Senators, and Representatives all?
What I find most disturbing about the current debate concerning the issues of defining, legitimizing, criminalizing, sanctioning, or prosecuting acts of torture, is how can we, the society of citizens opposed to torture, affect change within our government, so that it reflects the true moral conscience of humanity.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Mohr report & Government Intimidation - personal reflections
Lively class again today - thanks! Looking forward to fun of Nature vs. Nurture, et al.
I decided to look at Lt. Colonel Jack Mohr. The last writing attributed to him was in 2001, he was born in Chicago, IL., January 1st, 1916, I didn't find the date of his passing. The link listed above leads to his site. I was stunned by the volume of writings that I would consider bigoted and intolerant in the extreme. Thought you guys might want to peek for yourselves. Here's a few tidbits about the man himself that I pulled from that site.
In November 1948 prewar Korea, Mohr was captured during an abortive coup attempt against president Sigmun Rhee. - (Isn't attempting to assainate another country's president and overthrow their government a "terrorist act?"
He was tried by a Communist People's Court and sentenced to be shot by a Red firing squad. (Color bigot!)
He holds the record for the most number of consecutive days on the front line combat duty, (276) from July 12, 1950 to May 5, 1951. North Korean was offering a reward of $250,000 in gold, for his capture "dead or alive."
In 1951, Mohr worked with American POWs returning from North Korea.
He wrote and taught the first lessons in the Military Code of Conduct at Fort Devens, Mass. (a bit incongruous with his terrorist/assain/coup activities?)
He was a well-known fundamental Baptist evangelist; for twelve years, he was in the American opinion speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society. He was known for his outspoken stand against liberalism and compromise in politics and religion.
Did an in-depth study into Judaism and the Anglo-Israel-Identity Movement.
He has suffered much harassment from government agencies such as the I.R.S. for warning against the dangers posed by Zionism in our government and the Christian church.
Published a Quarterly Intelligence Report - gives insight into things not revealed by the media. He is the author of 23 books and has an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree from Saxon University, and earned degrees in Doctor of Letters, and Master of Theology.
Col. Mohr has been a tireless patriot and Christian, faithful in preaching the truth, regardless of the cost. He has suffered financially as a result of his faithful witness; yet he continues on undaunted. Please pray for Col. Mohr, that God would continue to uphold him and bless him. Should God lead you to send a cash offering to Col. Mohr, his address is listed below.
(Since he and his wife have passed away, I'm not sure what benefit God sees in sending your cash to the deceased - I thought money had no value in heaven or hell. - If it is an oversight of the website, it has been an oversight of many years duration.)
Another note of interest - whoever is maintaining the site has an interesting take on how to best employ the english language.
DKJ mentioned reasons for government intimidation tactics, like wire-tapping. I too think it makes the public reluctant to speak out in opposition to those in postions of power. After I became aware of the computer programs the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security types had in play, to "red-flag" key words, phrases, etc., I did experience enough reluctance to pause and reflect on the possible negative consequences, and wisdom of continuing my cyberspace environmental activist activities.
After a period of uncomfortable reflection I realized there was a certain freedom that comes with assuming I had already been "red-flagged." I had previously sent off a number of email petitions addressed directly to G.W., asking him not to open the Tsongas to resource exploitation, same with Artic drilling, also on national lands, global warming, etc.; and then there were those 2 petitions that went off to Jeb Bush in Florida, asking him to undo the raise in boat speeds he had allowed, that led to an increase in deaths, maiming, and orphaning even more endangered manatees. I had done all this, and academic internet research - and I hadn't been hauled off - so I figured they had used some formulaic method to determine that I was not a "threat" to government security. Now I am less concerned, but still aware of the potential for uninvited eyes watching over the pathways of my exploration.
I decided to look at Lt. Colonel Jack Mohr. The last writing attributed to him was in 2001, he was born in Chicago, IL., January 1st, 1916, I didn't find the date of his passing. The link listed above leads to his site. I was stunned by the volume of writings that I would consider bigoted and intolerant in the extreme. Thought you guys might want to peek for yourselves. Here's a few tidbits about the man himself that I pulled from that site.
In November 1948 prewar Korea, Mohr was captured during an abortive coup attempt against president Sigmun Rhee. - (Isn't attempting to assainate another country's president and overthrow their government a "terrorist act?"
He was tried by a Communist People's Court and sentenced to be shot by a Red firing squad. (Color bigot!)
He holds the record for the most number of consecutive days on the front line combat duty, (276) from July 12, 1950 to May 5, 1951. North Korean was offering a reward of $250,000 in gold, for his capture "dead or alive."
In 1951, Mohr worked with American POWs returning from North Korea.
He wrote and taught the first lessons in the Military Code of Conduct at Fort Devens, Mass. (a bit incongruous with his terrorist/assain/coup activities?)
He was a well-known fundamental Baptist evangelist; for twelve years, he was in the American opinion speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society. He was known for his outspoken stand against liberalism and compromise in politics and religion.
Did an in-depth study into Judaism and the Anglo-Israel-Identity Movement.
He has suffered much harassment from government agencies such as the I.R.S. for warning against the dangers posed by Zionism in our government and the Christian church.
Published a Quarterly Intelligence Report - gives insight into things not revealed by the media. He is the author of 23 books and has an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree from Saxon University, and earned degrees in Doctor of Letters, and Master of Theology.
Col. Mohr has been a tireless patriot and Christian, faithful in preaching the truth, regardless of the cost. He has suffered financially as a result of his faithful witness; yet he continues on undaunted. Please pray for Col. Mohr, that God would continue to uphold him and bless him. Should God lead you to send a cash offering to Col. Mohr, his address is listed below.
(Since he and his wife have passed away, I'm not sure what benefit God sees in sending your cash to the deceased - I thought money had no value in heaven or hell. - If it is an oversight of the website, it has been an oversight of many years duration.)
Another note of interest - whoever is maintaining the site has an interesting take on how to best employ the english language.
DKJ mentioned reasons for government intimidation tactics, like wire-tapping. I too think it makes the public reluctant to speak out in opposition to those in postions of power. After I became aware of the computer programs the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security types had in play, to "red-flag" key words, phrases, etc., I did experience enough reluctance to pause and reflect on the possible negative consequences, and wisdom of continuing my cyberspace environmental activist activities.
After a period of uncomfortable reflection I realized there was a certain freedom that comes with assuming I had already been "red-flagged." I had previously sent off a number of email petitions addressed directly to G.W., asking him not to open the Tsongas to resource exploitation, same with Artic drilling, also on national lands, global warming, etc.; and then there were those 2 petitions that went off to Jeb Bush in Florida, asking him to undo the raise in boat speeds he had allowed, that led to an increase in deaths, maiming, and orphaning even more endangered manatees. I had done all this, and academic internet research - and I hadn't been hauled off - so I figured they had used some formulaic method to determine that I was not a "threat" to government security. Now I am less concerned, but still aware of the potential for uninvited eyes watching over the pathways of my exploration.
Monday, October 22, 2007
"Faces of the Enemy"
Thought folks might be interested in these articles - I found them relevant to film - how they illustrate prejudice, propaganda and the language of warfare. Here's the link for 1-3.
(1.) Racist Cartoon Targets Seminole Tribe
In Davie Florida, the mayor has denounced a cartoon as racist that a member of the town’s planning board circulated. Davie Mayor Tom Treux charged Karen Stenzel-Nowicki with sending around a cartoon depicting Seminole Leader Max Osceola as shirtless and banging on a drum as his canoe passes the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino. A local councilwoman is depicted at the other end of the boat, with the words “open space princess” tattooed on her arm and a cocktail in hand. Treux said Stenzel-Nowicki denied drawing the cartoon, but he is calling for her removal for circulating it. The town council postponed a decision last night on whether to remove her. Stenzel-Nowicki is defending her actions as her constitutional right to free speech. According to the Miami Herald, Osceola hasn’t seen the cartoon and he said he doesn’t need to. He said “They’re stereotyping natives. They think every native lives in a tepee and has drums as a musical instrument. That’s the uneducated nonnative trying to stereotype us.”
(2.) Confronting Stereotypes in "The New World", Shattering the Myth of Pocahontas - Camilla Townsend, Associate Professor of History at Colgate University. (February 2, 2006)
The film "The New World" attempts to retell the mythical story of Pocahontas and John Smith as a passionate love story, with the settlement of the Jamestown colony taking place in the backdrop.
Few reviews have criticized the film for perpetuating racist and sexist stereotypes, suggesting these ideas are so enmeshed in American culture that they are overlooked without protest. (found this intriguing)
(3.) On Indians and Patriotism - May 5, 2005 (Indian Country Today, April 28, 2005) Steven Newcomb is the indigenous law research coordinator at Kumeyaay Community College on the Sycuan Indian Reservation, co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, and a columnist for Indian Country Today.
After the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, millions of Americans became more fervent in their patriotism toward the United States. In this era of the Patriot Act, those who dare to question ''patriotism'' are made to feel that they may be ''treading on thin ice.'' One American Indian leader even suggested that you can tell who a ''real'' Indian is because a ''real'' Indian is patriotic toward the United States.
This made me wonder about my own thoughts on patriotism. After considerable reflection, I have decided that because of my spiritual beliefs, and because of all that our Native ancestors have suffered at the hands of the United States, I consider myself to be a ''matriot.'' A matriot is someone who loves, is loyal to, and promotes the interests of Mother Earth. I consider myself deeply matriotic.
As a result of those who had a patriotic dedication to promoting the patriarchal interests of the American empire, entire Indian nations no longer exist: their ancestral lands that made their way of life viable were taken over by an imperial country. Look east of the Mississippi River, where highly intelligent and vibrant Indian civilizations once thrived on hundreds of millions of acres of land, with their own languages, cultures, economies and spiritual traditions. How many of those Native civilizations still exist there?
Thanks to U.S. patriotism and the Indian Removal Act, relatively few Indian nations exist east of the Mississippi, on extremely small areas of their once-vast ancestral lands. Almost all Indian nations west of the Mississippi have been squeezed into smaller areas of land, the vast majority of their ancestral lands stripped from them.
Look at all the lands where my matrilineal and matriotic Delaware ancestors once lived, in what is now known as Manhattan Island, Delaware, New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania. With patriotic fervor, first European colonists and later the United States took over our lands, thereby destroying our traditional world and spiritual way of life.
Think of the many thousands of years in which our respective indigenous languages evolved, accumulating knowledge and wisdom over eons. And think of all the patriotic effort that U.S. government officials and Christian missionaries dedicated to destroying our respective Native languages, right down to their cognitive roots.
In their patriotic fervor, such people had no regard for our rich heritage, only contempt for our cultural and spiritual knowledge. Their patriotic work involved an ardent and greed-laden desire to destroy us in order to fatten and enrich themselves, as ''God's chosen people,'' on our lands and resources, to which they felt eminently entitled based on the ''promised land'' narrative of their ''good book.''
Because our indigenous languages reflect our own indigenous conceptual systems, which are rooted in our brains, the systematic abuse of American Indian children by the United States in an effort to destroy our Indian languages affected those Indian children to their core. Those children were our ancestors, our aunts and uncles, our mothers and fathers, our sisters and brothers - relatives of all the members of our respective nations.
One of the things U.S. boarding schools beat into American Indian children was patriotism toward the American flag and devotion to the Bible, in part by working to make Indian children ashamed of their own Native spirituality. As a spiritual matter and as a matter of conscience, how can I feel patriotic toward a political entity that worked so hard to destroy us as distinct nations and peoples that have existed in this hemisphere for thousands and thousands of years?
However, I am extremely matriotic toward Mother Earth. Matriotism is entirely consistent with our traditional cultural and spiritual way of life. I believe that a society dedicated to the values of matriotism would honor and respect motherhood and ''the motherland.'' It would acknowledge women as a source of life. It would support women and help them to thrive and excel by powerfully nurturing their innate intelligence. It would not abuse them emotionally, physically or sexually. A matriotic society would not regard women, or men, as a kind of property.
A society dedicated to matriotism - a sacred regard for the Earth and all living things - also would not allow poisons, such as pesticides, petroleum and toxic nuclear wastes, to leach into the veins of Mother Earth.
One example of Mother Earth being poisoned is found in the town of Moab, Utah, on the edge of the Colorado River where, according to a recent report in the San Diego Union-Tribune, some 58,000 gallons of radioactive liquid leach each and every day into sacred waters upon which animals, fish and millions of people rely.
Another such example is the Columbia River. For generations, highly radioactive liquid has been leaching from decomposing steel drums at the Hanford nuclear facility into the groundwater that runs into the Columbia River and the fish that live there. Now the U.S. government plans to bury 77,000 tons of radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain in the Western Shoshone territory.
Given such patriarchal desecrations, I am content to be matriotic like my Shawnee and Delaware ancestors. As they and all our indigenous ancestors knew, we only have one Mother Earth, and we are all her children.
(4.) "40 Years On, a New Call to Resist?" Laura Flanders is the host of RadioNation and the author of Blue Grit: True Democrats Take Back Politics from the Politicians.
Forty years ago, a handful of smart Americans had an idea how to end a war. They published a call for moral, political and financial support for those refusing to serve. Initially signed by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Grace Paley, Dr. Benjamin Spock, Marcus Raskin, and the Reverend William Sloane Coffin among others, eventually, 20,000 signed on and the indispensable RESIST foundation was formed.
Listening as it was read aloud at a 40th anniversary party this weekend, "Resist: A Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority" seems as relevant as ever. How about a second Call?
The Call:
1. An ever growing number of young American men are finding that the American war in Vietnam so outrages their deepest moral and religious sense that they cannot contribute to it in any way. We share their moral outrage.
2. We further believe that the war is unconstitutional and illegal. Congress has not declared a war as required by the Constitution. Moreover, under the Constitution, treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate have the same force as the Constitution itself. The Charter of the United Nations is such a treaty. The Charter specifically obligates the United States to refrain from force or the threat of force in international relations. It requires member states to exhaust every peaceful means of settling disputes and to submit disputes which cannot be settled peacefully to the Security Council. The United States has systematically violated all of these Charter provisions for thirteen years.
3. Moreover, this war violates international agreements, treaties and principles of law which the United States Government has solemnly endorsed. The combat role of the United States troops in Vietnam violates the Geneva Accords of 1954 which our government pledged to support but has since subverted. The destruction of rice, crops and livestock; the burning and bulldozing of entire villages consisting exclusively of civilian structures; the interning of civilian non-combatants in concentration camps; the summary executions of civilians in captured villages who could not produce satisfactory evidence of their loyalties or did not wish to be removed to concentration camps; the slaughter of peasants who dared to stand up in their fields and shake their fists at American helicopters; - these are all actions of the kind which the United States and the other victorious powers of World War II declared to be crimes against humanity for which individuals were to be held personally responsible even when acting under the orders of their governments and for which Germans were sentenced at Nuremberg to long prison terms and death The prohibition of such acts as war crimes was incorporated in treaty law by the Geneva Conventions of 1949, ratified by the United States. These are commitments to other countries and to Mankind, and they would claim our allegiance even if Congress should declare war.
4. We also believe it is an unconstitutional denial of religious liberty and equal protection of the laws to withhold draft exemption from men whose religious or profound philosophical beliefs are opposed to what in the Western religious tradition have be en long known as unjust wars.
5. Therefore, we believe on all these grounds that every free man has a legal right and a moral duty to exert every effort to end this war, to avoid collusion with it, and to encourage others to do the same. Young men in the armed forces or threatened wit h the draft face the most excruciating choices. For them various forms of resistance risk separation from their families and their country, destruction of their careers, loss of their freedom and loss of their lives. Each must choose the course of resistance dictated by his conscience and circumstances. Among those already in the armed forces some are refusing to obey specific illegal and immoral orders, some are attempting to educate their fellow servicemen on the murderous and barbarous nature of the wa r some are absenting themselves without official leave. Among those not in the armed forces some are applying for status as conscientious objectors to American aggression in Vietnam, some are refusing to be inducted. Among both groups some are resisting o penly and paying a heavy penalty, some are organizing more resistance within the United States and some have sought sanctuary in other countries.
6. We believe that each of these forms of resistance against illegitimate authority is courageous and justified. Many of us believe that open resistance to the war and the draft is the course of action most likely to strengthen the moral resolve with whic h all of us can oppose the war and most likely to bring an end to the war.
7. We will continue to lend our support to those who undertake resistance to this war. We will raise funds to organize draft resistance unions, to supply legal defense and bail, to support families and otherwise aid resistance to the war in whatever ways may seem appropriate.
8. We firmly believe that our statement is the sort of speech that under the First Amendment must be free, and that the actions we will undertake are as legal as is the war resistance of the young men themselves. But we recognize that the courts may find otherwise, and that if so we might all be liable to prosecution and severe punishment. In any case, we feel that we cannot shrink from fulfilling our responsibilities to the youth whom many of us teach, to the country whose freedom we cherish, and to the ancient traditions of religion and philosophy which we strive to preserve in this generation.
9. We call upon all men of good will to join us in this confrontation with immoral authority. Especially we call upon the universities to fulfill their mission of enlightenment and religious organizations to honor their heritage of brotherhood. Now is the time to resist.
(1.) Racist Cartoon Targets Seminole Tribe
In Davie Florida, the mayor has denounced a cartoon as racist that a member of the town’s planning board circulated. Davie Mayor Tom Treux charged Karen Stenzel-Nowicki with sending around a cartoon depicting Seminole Leader Max Osceola as shirtless and banging on a drum as his canoe passes the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino. A local councilwoman is depicted at the other end of the boat, with the words “open space princess” tattooed on her arm and a cocktail in hand. Treux said Stenzel-Nowicki denied drawing the cartoon, but he is calling for her removal for circulating it. The town council postponed a decision last night on whether to remove her. Stenzel-Nowicki is defending her actions as her constitutional right to free speech. According to the Miami Herald, Osceola hasn’t seen the cartoon and he said he doesn’t need to. He said “They’re stereotyping natives. They think every native lives in a tepee and has drums as a musical instrument. That’s the uneducated nonnative trying to stereotype us.”
(2.) Confronting Stereotypes in "The New World", Shattering the Myth of Pocahontas - Camilla Townsend, Associate Professor of History at Colgate University. (February 2, 2006)
The film "The New World" attempts to retell the mythical story of Pocahontas and John Smith as a passionate love story, with the settlement of the Jamestown colony taking place in the backdrop.
Few reviews have criticized the film for perpetuating racist and sexist stereotypes, suggesting these ideas are so enmeshed in American culture that they are overlooked without protest. (found this intriguing)
(3.) On Indians and Patriotism - May 5, 2005 (Indian Country Today, April 28, 2005) Steven Newcomb is the indigenous law research coordinator at Kumeyaay Community College on the Sycuan Indian Reservation, co-founder and co-director of the Indigenous Law Institute, and a columnist for Indian Country Today.
After the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, millions of Americans became more fervent in their patriotism toward the United States. In this era of the Patriot Act, those who dare to question ''patriotism'' are made to feel that they may be ''treading on thin ice.'' One American Indian leader even suggested that you can tell who a ''real'' Indian is because a ''real'' Indian is patriotic toward the United States.
This made me wonder about my own thoughts on patriotism. After considerable reflection, I have decided that because of my spiritual beliefs, and because of all that our Native ancestors have suffered at the hands of the United States, I consider myself to be a ''matriot.'' A matriot is someone who loves, is loyal to, and promotes the interests of Mother Earth. I consider myself deeply matriotic.
As a result of those who had a patriotic dedication to promoting the patriarchal interests of the American empire, entire Indian nations no longer exist: their ancestral lands that made their way of life viable were taken over by an imperial country. Look east of the Mississippi River, where highly intelligent and vibrant Indian civilizations once thrived on hundreds of millions of acres of land, with their own languages, cultures, economies and spiritual traditions. How many of those Native civilizations still exist there?
Thanks to U.S. patriotism and the Indian Removal Act, relatively few Indian nations exist east of the Mississippi, on extremely small areas of their once-vast ancestral lands. Almost all Indian nations west of the Mississippi have been squeezed into smaller areas of land, the vast majority of their ancestral lands stripped from them.
Look at all the lands where my matrilineal and matriotic Delaware ancestors once lived, in what is now known as Manhattan Island, Delaware, New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania. With patriotic fervor, first European colonists and later the United States took over our lands, thereby destroying our traditional world and spiritual way of life.
Think of the many thousands of years in which our respective indigenous languages evolved, accumulating knowledge and wisdom over eons. And think of all the patriotic effort that U.S. government officials and Christian missionaries dedicated to destroying our respective Native languages, right down to their cognitive roots.
In their patriotic fervor, such people had no regard for our rich heritage, only contempt for our cultural and spiritual knowledge. Their patriotic work involved an ardent and greed-laden desire to destroy us in order to fatten and enrich themselves, as ''God's chosen people,'' on our lands and resources, to which they felt eminently entitled based on the ''promised land'' narrative of their ''good book.''
Because our indigenous languages reflect our own indigenous conceptual systems, which are rooted in our brains, the systematic abuse of American Indian children by the United States in an effort to destroy our Indian languages affected those Indian children to their core. Those children were our ancestors, our aunts and uncles, our mothers and fathers, our sisters and brothers - relatives of all the members of our respective nations.
One of the things U.S. boarding schools beat into American Indian children was patriotism toward the American flag and devotion to the Bible, in part by working to make Indian children ashamed of their own Native spirituality. As a spiritual matter and as a matter of conscience, how can I feel patriotic toward a political entity that worked so hard to destroy us as distinct nations and peoples that have existed in this hemisphere for thousands and thousands of years?
However, I am extremely matriotic toward Mother Earth. Matriotism is entirely consistent with our traditional cultural and spiritual way of life. I believe that a society dedicated to the values of matriotism would honor and respect motherhood and ''the motherland.'' It would acknowledge women as a source of life. It would support women and help them to thrive and excel by powerfully nurturing their innate intelligence. It would not abuse them emotionally, physically or sexually. A matriotic society would not regard women, or men, as a kind of property.
A society dedicated to matriotism - a sacred regard for the Earth and all living things - also would not allow poisons, such as pesticides, petroleum and toxic nuclear wastes, to leach into the veins of Mother Earth.
One example of Mother Earth being poisoned is found in the town of Moab, Utah, on the edge of the Colorado River where, according to a recent report in the San Diego Union-Tribune, some 58,000 gallons of radioactive liquid leach each and every day into sacred waters upon which animals, fish and millions of people rely.
Another such example is the Columbia River. For generations, highly radioactive liquid has been leaching from decomposing steel drums at the Hanford nuclear facility into the groundwater that runs into the Columbia River and the fish that live there. Now the U.S. government plans to bury 77,000 tons of radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain in the Western Shoshone territory.
Given such patriarchal desecrations, I am content to be matriotic like my Shawnee and Delaware ancestors. As they and all our indigenous ancestors knew, we only have one Mother Earth, and we are all her children.
(4.) "40 Years On, a New Call to Resist?"
Forty years ago, a handful of smart Americans had an idea how to end a war. They published a call for moral, political and financial support for those refusing to serve. Initially signed by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Grace Paley, Dr. Benjamin Spock, Marcus Raskin, and the Reverend William Sloane Coffin among others, eventually, 20,000 signed on and the indispensable RESIST foundation was formed.
Listening as it was read aloud at a 40th anniversary party this weekend, "Resist: A Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority" seems as relevant as ever. How about a second Call?
The Call:
1. An ever growing number of young American men are finding that the American war in Vietnam so outrages their deepest moral and religious sense that they cannot contribute to it in any way. We share their moral outrage.
2. We further believe that the war is unconstitutional and illegal. Congress has not declared a war as required by the Constitution. Moreover, under the Constitution, treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate have the same force as the Constitution itself. The Charter of the United Nations is such a treaty. The Charter specifically obligates the United States to refrain from force or the threat of force in international relations. It requires member states to exhaust every peaceful means of settling disputes and to submit disputes which cannot be settled peacefully to the Security Council. The United States has systematically violated all of these Charter provisions for thirteen years.
3. Moreover, this war violates international agreements, treaties and principles of law which the United States Government has solemnly endorsed. The combat role of the United States troops in Vietnam violates the Geneva Accords of 1954 which our government pledged to support but has since subverted. The destruction of rice, crops and livestock; the burning and bulldozing of entire villages consisting exclusively of civilian structures; the interning of civilian non-combatants in concentration camps; the summary executions of civilians in captured villages who could not produce satisfactory evidence of their loyalties or did not wish to be removed to concentration camps; the slaughter of peasants who dared to stand up in their fields and shake their fists at American helicopters; - these are all actions of the kind which the United States and the other victorious powers of World War II declared to be crimes against humanity for which individuals were to be held personally responsible even when acting under the orders of their governments and for which Germans were sentenced at Nuremberg to long prison terms and death The prohibition of such acts as war crimes was incorporated in treaty law by the Geneva Conventions of 1949, ratified by the United States. These are commitments to other countries and to Mankind, and they would claim our allegiance even if Congress should declare war.
4. We also believe it is an unconstitutional denial of religious liberty and equal protection of the laws to withhold draft exemption from men whose religious or profound philosophical beliefs are opposed to what in the Western religious tradition have be en long known as unjust wars.
5. Therefore, we believe on all these grounds that every free man has a legal right and a moral duty to exert every effort to end this war, to avoid collusion with it, and to encourage others to do the same. Young men in the armed forces or threatened wit h the draft face the most excruciating choices. For them various forms of resistance risk separation from their families and their country, destruction of their careers, loss of their freedom and loss of their lives. Each must choose the course of resistance dictated by his conscience and circumstances. Among those already in the armed forces some are refusing to obey specific illegal and immoral orders, some are attempting to educate their fellow servicemen on the murderous and barbarous nature of the wa r some are absenting themselves without official leave. Among those not in the armed forces some are applying for status as conscientious objectors to American aggression in Vietnam, some are refusing to be inducted. Among both groups some are resisting o penly and paying a heavy penalty, some are organizing more resistance within the United States and some have sought sanctuary in other countries.
6. We believe that each of these forms of resistance against illegitimate authority is courageous and justified. Many of us believe that open resistance to the war and the draft is the course of action most likely to strengthen the moral resolve with whic h all of us can oppose the war and most likely to bring an end to the war.
7. We will continue to lend our support to those who undertake resistance to this war. We will raise funds to organize draft resistance unions, to supply legal defense and bail, to support families and otherwise aid resistance to the war in whatever ways may seem appropriate.
8. We firmly believe that our statement is the sort of speech that under the First Amendment must be free, and that the actions we will undertake are as legal as is the war resistance of the young men themselves. But we recognize that the courts may find otherwise, and that if so we might all be liable to prosecution and severe punishment. In any case, we feel that we cannot shrink from fulfilling our responsibilities to the youth whom many of us teach, to the country whose freedom we cherish, and to the ancient traditions of religion and philosophy which we strive to preserve in this generation.
9. We call upon all men of good will to join us in this confrontation with immoral authority. Especially we call upon the universities to fulfill their mission of enlightenment and religious organizations to honor their heritage of brotherhood. Now is the time to resist.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
“The Feds' War on the Animal Rights Movement: The Casualties of Green Scare.”
This article was written by Kelly Overton, Executive Director of People Protecting Animals & Their Habitat August 3, 2007
I found this piece relevant to a number of class discussions this week - and her take on rights vs. economics, and her conclusion deserving of consideration for our topics of animal and human torture. Wanted to share, hope you enjoy.
Late last year President Bush signed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) into law days after six young Americans began serving federal prison sentences on charges they caused economic damage to Huntington Animal Sciences, an animal-testing corporation. Sadly, jailing activists is the American way.
The imprisonment of the group, known as SHAC 7, is nothing more than history repeating itself. Those who first called for an end to slavery were imprisoned. Those who believed women should vote went to jail. Civil rights activists, supporters of gay and lesbian rights, and now animal rights activists have all been jailed. The only thing sadder than the imprisonment of animal rights activists is that they are fighting for a losing cause; for we now live in a society that slaps the wrist of a person who harms the neighbor’s dog yet subsidizes the systematic annual killing of billions of other animals for food, clothing, research and sport.
The recent allegations of both illegal wire-tapping and politically motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys by the Bush administration should set off an alarm regarding the legality of the green scare; the administration’s monitoring and imprisonment of environmental and animal welfare activists. – and AETA isn’t the only new tool corporations have to eliminate pesky activism.
The NYSE’s recent decision to trade Life Sciences Research (an animal testing corporation) on the ARCA exchange—an electronic platform that provides market makers anonymity—signals that financial markets have also joined the war against social activism. With help from the Bush administration and the NYSE, we may be nearing a day when all of our country’s flora, fauna, and public land will exist as little more than raw materials for corporate profit.
The reason nonhuman animals lack protection is simply due to the economic repercussions that would accompany such protection(s). Compassionately caring for animals is expensive and by demanding corporations treat food and research animals humanely activists are asking nothing less than a fundamental reworking of the world economy.
Sadly, any further success activists achieve at home will only expedite sending corporations that mistreat animals offshore where animal welfare regulations and activism can be made non-factors.
We no longer live in a society, we live in an economy where right and wrong is determined not by fairness, but by profitability – and where the law no longer dictates corporate behavior, but corporate behavior dictates the law.
AETA, Three Strike Laws and toothless environmental regulations protect profits – not people (or animals). A society would care if animal protection activists (including the SHAC 7) were right about corporate mistreatment of animals – but in an economy only the financial cost of activism matters.
The truth is that nonhuman animals don’t need rights or legal standing Such rights have done little to improve the lives of the majority of the world’s people. For it is not just nonhuman animals that are losing their habitats and their ability to live with dignity - the majority of the planet’s humans now live truly desperate lives.
Today it is not legal, but economic standing that protects a life - and it is not a lack of rights (human, civil or animal) but a lack of empathy that is the problem; a problem that promises lives of misery and despair for an overwhelming majority of the earth’s creatures. Instead of fighting to establish rights for animals, maybe activists should work to instill compassion in humans.
As a society we need to imagine others’ horrors as our own. What if the sex worker was our child? The homeless woman our mother? The research dog our family pet? The unjustly imprisoned activist our child?
Only when we decide the pain and humiliation of others is not worth economic gain will the need for rights, human and animal, disappear.
I found this piece relevant to a number of class discussions this week - and her take on rights vs. economics, and her conclusion deserving of consideration for our topics of animal and human torture. Wanted to share, hope you enjoy.
Late last year President Bush signed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) into law days after six young Americans began serving federal prison sentences on charges they caused economic damage to Huntington Animal Sciences, an animal-testing corporation. Sadly, jailing activists is the American way.
The imprisonment of the group, known as SHAC 7, is nothing more than history repeating itself. Those who first called for an end to slavery were imprisoned. Those who believed women should vote went to jail. Civil rights activists, supporters of gay and lesbian rights, and now animal rights activists have all been jailed. The only thing sadder than the imprisonment of animal rights activists is that they are fighting for a losing cause; for we now live in a society that slaps the wrist of a person who harms the neighbor’s dog yet subsidizes the systematic annual killing of billions of other animals for food, clothing, research and sport.
The recent allegations of both illegal wire-tapping and politically motivated firings of U.S. Attorneys by the Bush administration should set off an alarm regarding the legality of the green scare; the administration’s monitoring and imprisonment of environmental and animal welfare activists. – and AETA isn’t the only new tool corporations have to eliminate pesky activism.
The NYSE’s recent decision to trade Life Sciences Research (an animal testing corporation) on the ARCA exchange—an electronic platform that provides market makers anonymity—signals that financial markets have also joined the war against social activism. With help from the Bush administration and the NYSE, we may be nearing a day when all of our country’s flora, fauna, and public land will exist as little more than raw materials for corporate profit.
The reason nonhuman animals lack protection is simply due to the economic repercussions that would accompany such protection(s). Compassionately caring for animals is expensive and by demanding corporations treat food and research animals humanely activists are asking nothing less than a fundamental reworking of the world economy.
Sadly, any further success activists achieve at home will only expedite sending corporations that mistreat animals offshore where animal welfare regulations and activism can be made non-factors.
We no longer live in a society, we live in an economy where right and wrong is determined not by fairness, but by profitability – and where the law no longer dictates corporate behavior, but corporate behavior dictates the law.
AETA, Three Strike Laws and toothless environmental regulations protect profits – not people (or animals). A society would care if animal protection activists (including the SHAC 7) were right about corporate mistreatment of animals – but in an economy only the financial cost of activism matters.
The truth is that nonhuman animals don’t need rights or legal standing Such rights have done little to improve the lives of the majority of the world’s people. For it is not just nonhuman animals that are losing their habitats and their ability to live with dignity - the majority of the planet’s humans now live truly desperate lives.
Today it is not legal, but economic standing that protects a life - and it is not a lack of rights (human, civil or animal) but a lack of empathy that is the problem; a problem that promises lives of misery and despair for an overwhelming majority of the earth’s creatures. Instead of fighting to establish rights for animals, maybe activists should work to instill compassion in humans.
As a society we need to imagine others’ horrors as our own. What if the sex worker was our child? The homeless woman our mother? The research dog our family pet? The unjustly imprisoned activist our child?
Only when we decide the pain and humiliation of others is not worth economic gain will the need for rights, human and animal, disappear.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Torture and Morality
I couldn't agree more with Chris Hedges' quote addressing U.S. support for Egypt's dictatorship, and the U.S. policy of extraordinary rendition, and torture. "The cries that rise up from these fetid cells in Egypt condemn not only the Mubarak dictatorship but the moral rot that has beset the American state."
It is hypocritical for a society to employ actions it has legislated as illegal or immoral; and for which it punishes its citizenry.
It is illogical and unreasonable for a society to employ actions it has declared illegal, or morally criminal; and for which it punishes its citizenry.
It is well documented that torture is ineffective as a method of gathering information. All information garnered through torture is highly unreliable, and highly suspect. Innocent people have been needlessly, albeit sometimes, mistakenly tortured “for the greater good.” If torture continues, then more innocent people will be tortured. I believe the question of torture, for any purpose, is a moral question, and as such, it demands that we question our morality and reflect upon our humanity (or lack thereof).
I believe the arguments of Harlan B. Miller, presented in his essay, “Science, Ethics, and Moral Status,” addressing moral status, are applicable in questioning the use of torture - for any reason. Society unequivocally grants moral status to human beings, as agents and patients.
To define moral status, moral agency, and moral patience, Miller provided a candidate list of morally significant characteristics, endorsed by most moral philosophers. They are sentience - the awareness of sensation and the ability to enjoy and to suffer, memory, a sense of self, intelligence, ability to communicate, concern for conspecifics, playfulness, and possession of an immortal soul.
I support Miller’s belief that, “all conscious living things…are entitled…to consideration, respect, and justice. Torture involves awareness of sensation, suffering, one’s sense of self and others; it affects memory, a person’s ability to communicate, to play, and to empathize with others. Torture creates a reality where sentient beings are not entitled to consideration, respect, or justice. Torture dissembles the humanity of both the torturers (moral agents), and the tortured victims (moral patients).
In any scenario involving torture, the torturer, and the society that enables the practice of torture, are the moral agents; the tortured victims are the moral patients. Moral agents owe moral patients protection from harm. Moral agency inherently obligates the agent to protect the patient. Agency disallows permission to harm, or fail to prevent harm to those of patiency status. Permitting torture assaults our morality. It destroys our humanity. It ruptures the very fabric of the society of humankind. If we should possess immortal souls while living in a society permissive of torture, then I believe we have forever scarred those immortal souls.
Human beings are proclaimed different from other sentient beings by virtue of having immortal souls; the ability to reason, and using reason in their decision-making process; by linguistically communicating well with others; for possessing the capacity for self-reflection, and reflecting on their actions, as a means of understanding and improving themselves; for our ability to be compassionate and empathetic. For all these characteristics, human beings place themselves at the apex on the scale of moral status.
Torture denies opportunities for meaningful linguistically communication. It is an obstacle to self-reflection. It is an impediment to the willingness of a society of torture to reflect on themselves.
Permitting torture defies reason, and defiles our human souls.
It is hypocritical for a society to employ actions it has legislated as illegal or immoral; and for which it punishes its citizenry.
It is illogical and unreasonable for a society to employ actions it has declared illegal, or morally criminal; and for which it punishes its citizenry.
It is well documented that torture is ineffective as a method of gathering information. All information garnered through torture is highly unreliable, and highly suspect. Innocent people have been needlessly, albeit sometimes, mistakenly tortured “for the greater good.” If torture continues, then more innocent people will be tortured. I believe the question of torture, for any purpose, is a moral question, and as such, it demands that we question our morality and reflect upon our humanity (or lack thereof).
I believe the arguments of Harlan B. Miller, presented in his essay, “Science, Ethics, and Moral Status,” addressing moral status, are applicable in questioning the use of torture - for any reason. Society unequivocally grants moral status to human beings, as agents and patients.
To define moral status, moral agency, and moral patience, Miller provided a candidate list of morally significant characteristics, endorsed by most moral philosophers. They are sentience - the awareness of sensation and the ability to enjoy and to suffer, memory, a sense of self, intelligence, ability to communicate, concern for conspecifics, playfulness, and possession of an immortal soul.
I support Miller’s belief that, “all conscious living things…are entitled…to consideration, respect, and justice. Torture involves awareness of sensation, suffering, one’s sense of self and others; it affects memory, a person’s ability to communicate, to play, and to empathize with others. Torture creates a reality where sentient beings are not entitled to consideration, respect, or justice. Torture dissembles the humanity of both the torturers (moral agents), and the tortured victims (moral patients).
In any scenario involving torture, the torturer, and the society that enables the practice of torture, are the moral agents; the tortured victims are the moral patients. Moral agents owe moral patients protection from harm. Moral agency inherently obligates the agent to protect the patient. Agency disallows permission to harm, or fail to prevent harm to those of patiency status. Permitting torture assaults our morality. It destroys our humanity. It ruptures the very fabric of the society of humankind. If we should possess immortal souls while living in a society permissive of torture, then I believe we have forever scarred those immortal souls.
Human beings are proclaimed different from other sentient beings by virtue of having immortal souls; the ability to reason, and using reason in their decision-making process; by linguistically communicating well with others; for possessing the capacity for self-reflection, and reflecting on their actions, as a means of understanding and improving themselves; for our ability to be compassionate and empathetic. For all these characteristics, human beings place themselves at the apex on the scale of moral status.
Torture denies opportunities for meaningful linguistically communication. It is an obstacle to self-reflection. It is an impediment to the willingness of a society of torture to reflect on themselves.
Permitting torture defies reason, and defiles our human souls.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
"To Love or To Kill: Man vs. Animal"
This documentary exposed us to the world-wide torture of animals by humans; and the explicit nature of extreme brutality that sentient beings are subjected to by we humans. What can I say after such an utterly disturbing, visceral experience?
Leaving Friday's class, four-to-five of us formed a circle in the middle of the hall. It seemed to me that we were all stunned, shocked, and horrified; drawn towards each other in an attempt to support one another through a truly shattering experience. I believe the aftermath of exposure to this documentary had pushed me into a disassociated state. I thought my mates were adrift in similar condition. I experienced us as floundering in turbulent seas, fighting to touch bottom and ground ourselves. Struggling to put this horror into some kind of context.
For me, personally, the trap and the anguish lies hidden in all the brutality of which I was either totally ignorant; or culturally conditioned into a state of nonrelatedness, a type of "ignorance is bliss" mentality. Born from my ignorance and my unquestioning acceptance of cultural norms is my complicity, responsibility, and guilt for participating in this unspeakable brutality. Perhaps, my inability to come to terms with my complicity in this horror adds to my disassociate state.
I cannot imagine any human, or animal way, to place these immoral and inhumane practices into context. I have no language - human, spiritual, or otherwise for this. After our impromtu post-class support group dispersed, I wondered if anyone would blog about this. I see that Liz and Nicole did. Yesterday, I did not have the resources to address this at all. Today, I'm still not sure what to say.
I perceive myself as powerless in this struggle against the sacrifice, abuse and slaughter of animals. Abuse insidiously encroaches into our lives, even in my home town - there is a type of "canned hunt". Earlier this year, due to the death of the owner, 80 acres adjoining the Monroe State Forest was purchased by men from Pennsylvania. They stocked the land with various species of "game" birds, some of which are exotics, and posted it with "no trespass" and "game preserve" signs. There are pheasants, the vast majority being males (being prettier than females makes them better trophies), running amok outside the "preserve". They stop traffic, or become roadkill. We worry about them starving over the winter, or causing native birds to starve. I took a picture of an exotic bird on my friend's lawn . Not only are we worried about it surviving our winters, we know that devastation to native species always follows the environmental imbalance caused when exotic species invade native habitats. From a purely selfish perspective, for the last 3 years this was my favorite place to track and research moose activity in the winter. The dogs and I can no longer safely traverse these lands. I mourn the loss of both native and exotic species, and the chance to walk those lands again.
Like Nicole, I too, believe the manner in which people dress their dogs in human clothes is outrageous, and it's too un-doglike to be healthy for them (dogs and humans, too). Yet, on occassion, when I dress for more formal activities, I have put a white collar with a black tie hanging from it on my service dog as he accompanies me. Though it was a gift from a friend, I am the one who decides whether of not, and when to outfit him in "black tie."
Like Liz, I had a life-altering, animal abuse-related childhood experience. Mine was with an elephant suffering in filth and misery at a small traveling "circus." I have spoken out against them ever since. I added horse and dog racing, rodeos, and zoos to my boycott list. The only "zoos" should be the ones where the animals range free and the humans are confined in electric trams, trains or cars, where the habitat is so extensive, that the animals can choose whether to be in sight of the humans, or not. Zoos should exist only if necessary to preserve the species. I have always been anti- trapping, hunting, fur farms, canned hunts, cockfights, bullfights, dogfights, boxing, football, etc., - against any and all practices that were restrictive or harmful to animals, that I was aware of. My ignorance blocks my awareness, prevents the possibility of my participation in vanquishing the abuse. Hence, I am part of the problem.
Like Liz, I had no idea that such a large, world-known and accepted "civilized" religion tortured animals in sacrificial rituals - or for any purpose (outside of voodoo and ritualistic cult practices). Other than bullfights, I had never heard of communities employing rituals comprised of the violent slaughtering and murdering of innocent animals, for the purpose of creating "solidarity". I found it inconceivable that a community of Americans wantonly massacre innocent animals as an expression of national identity - and that they force their chidren to participate in the suffering, mutilation, and murder of helpless victims. No words, no words.
My eyes were closed throughout all but literally, a few seconds total, of any torture shown in the film. At the first yowling of a cat, not only were my eyes closed, and my ears plugged, I also sang to myself the "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" song, down to 70 bottles - keeping the beat by tapping my foot. I thought of leaving the room more than a few times. Knowing "Pup" would get up and follow me, there was no way for me to exit without disturbing the class. I felt trapped and beyond miserable.
How can we make sense of this senselessness? I don't know. I do know, that like Liz, I would prefer to try without any more exposure to this film.
Leaving Friday's class, four-to-five of us formed a circle in the middle of the hall. It seemed to me that we were all stunned, shocked, and horrified; drawn towards each other in an attempt to support one another through a truly shattering experience. I believe the aftermath of exposure to this documentary had pushed me into a disassociated state. I thought my mates were adrift in similar condition. I experienced us as floundering in turbulent seas, fighting to touch bottom and ground ourselves. Struggling to put this horror into some kind of context.
For me, personally, the trap and the anguish lies hidden in all the brutality of which I was either totally ignorant; or culturally conditioned into a state of nonrelatedness, a type of "ignorance is bliss" mentality. Born from my ignorance and my unquestioning acceptance of cultural norms is my complicity, responsibility, and guilt for participating in this unspeakable brutality. Perhaps, my inability to come to terms with my complicity in this horror adds to my disassociate state.
I cannot imagine any human, or animal way, to place these immoral and inhumane practices into context. I have no language - human, spiritual, or otherwise for this. After our impromtu post-class support group dispersed, I wondered if anyone would blog about this. I see that Liz and Nicole did. Yesterday, I did not have the resources to address this at all. Today, I'm still not sure what to say.
I perceive myself as powerless in this struggle against the sacrifice, abuse and slaughter of animals. Abuse insidiously encroaches into our lives, even in my home town - there is a type of "canned hunt". Earlier this year, due to the death of the owner, 80 acres adjoining the Monroe State Forest was purchased by men from Pennsylvania. They stocked the land with various species of "game" birds, some of which are exotics, and posted it with "no trespass" and "game preserve" signs. There are pheasants, the vast majority being males (being prettier than females makes them better trophies), running amok outside the "preserve". They stop traffic, or become roadkill. We worry about them starving over the winter, or causing native birds to starve. I took a picture of an exotic bird on my friend's lawn . Not only are we worried about it surviving our winters, we know that devastation to native species always follows the environmental imbalance caused when exotic species invade native habitats. From a purely selfish perspective, for the last 3 years this was my favorite place to track and research moose activity in the winter. The dogs and I can no longer safely traverse these lands. I mourn the loss of both native and exotic species, and the chance to walk those lands again.
Like Nicole, I too, believe the manner in which people dress their dogs in human clothes is outrageous, and it's too un-doglike to be healthy for them (dogs and humans, too). Yet, on occassion, when I dress for more formal activities, I have put a white collar with a black tie hanging from it on my service dog as he accompanies me. Though it was a gift from a friend, I am the one who decides whether of not, and when to outfit him in "black tie."
Like Liz, I had a life-altering, animal abuse-related childhood experience. Mine was with an elephant suffering in filth and misery at a small traveling "circus." I have spoken out against them ever since. I added horse and dog racing, rodeos, and zoos to my boycott list. The only "zoos" should be the ones where the animals range free and the humans are confined in electric trams, trains or cars, where the habitat is so extensive, that the animals can choose whether to be in sight of the humans, or not. Zoos should exist only if necessary to preserve the species. I have always been anti- trapping, hunting, fur farms, canned hunts, cockfights, bullfights, dogfights, boxing, football, etc., - against any and all practices that were restrictive or harmful to animals, that I was aware of. My ignorance blocks my awareness, prevents the possibility of my participation in vanquishing the abuse. Hence, I am part of the problem.
Like Liz, I had no idea that such a large, world-known and accepted "civilized" religion tortured animals in sacrificial rituals - or for any purpose (outside of voodoo and ritualistic cult practices). Other than bullfights, I had never heard of communities employing rituals comprised of the violent slaughtering and murdering of innocent animals, for the purpose of creating "solidarity". I found it inconceivable that a community of Americans wantonly massacre innocent animals as an expression of national identity - and that they force their chidren to participate in the suffering, mutilation, and murder of helpless victims. No words, no words.
My eyes were closed throughout all but literally, a few seconds total, of any torture shown in the film. At the first yowling of a cat, not only were my eyes closed, and my ears plugged, I also sang to myself the "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" song, down to 70 bottles - keeping the beat by tapping my foot. I thought of leaving the room more than a few times. Knowing "Pup" would get up and follow me, there was no way for me to exit without disturbing the class. I felt trapped and beyond miserable.
How can we make sense of this senselessness? I don't know. I do know, that like Liz, I would prefer to try without any more exposure to this film.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Andean cosmovision - an invitation to enter the world?
From Friday's class discussion, I wonder how this Andean peasant culture view human intuition, morality, or moral status. The article speaks to their crops, with a mention of their breeding alpacas. I did not find any reference to meat in their diet - and unfortunately, since the article appeared in a 1997 Journal - I haven't been able to access more details online. I'm particularly interested in their understanding of themselves as unified with nature, and that everything is sentient. And whether or not they are vegetarian.
Curious if we might apply concepts of morality to them - and what that might look like.
Excerpts from "Counter-Development in the Andes" by Frederique Apffel-Marglin, The Ecologist, Vol. 27, No. 26, 1997,
pp. 221-224.
"Andean peasants do not experience themselves as being apart from the rest of the inhabitants of the world.... Openness, attentiveness, receptivity and respect are the attitudes that foster conversations. The senses are not apprehended as limiting or distorted. With the beginning of experimental science, the senses were seen as "infirmities," as obstacles to correct understanding. These "infirmities" were to be remedied and enhanced by the use of experimental devices and instruments. Such denial of the senses in pursuit of knowledge can only arise in a world-view that has already separated humans from the natural world. In the Andes, rivers, mountains, lakes and rocks have eyes and ears: everything is sentient. Some mountains, lakes...animals and plants are huacas (deities). (P.223)
"What happens between the Andean communities of humans, deities, and nature is reciprocal dialogue, a relationship that does not assume any distancing and objectification between those dialoguing...Such dialogue does not lead one to a knowledge about the other, but...to emphasize and attune oneself with its mode of being...It is a dialogue... that leads [not to knowledge but] to wisdom" (p. 224)
Would we consider them philosophers and this their philosophy?
According to the author, the Andean world-view assesses modern Western knowledge from a native Andean point of view. They find Western cosmology based on a rejection of basic assumtpions about nature, the nature of humans, of knowledge, etc. The Andean peasants have been in existence for over 10,000 years, could their cosmological p.o.v. be a significant or insignificant factor in the longevity of their culture?
Curious if we might apply concepts of morality to them - and what that might look like.
Excerpts from "Counter-Development in the Andes" by Frederique Apffel-Marglin, The Ecologist, Vol. 27, No. 26, 1997,
pp. 221-224.
"Andean peasants do not experience themselves as being apart from the rest of the inhabitants of the world.... Openness, attentiveness, receptivity and respect are the attitudes that foster conversations. The senses are not apprehended as limiting or distorted. With the beginning of experimental science, the senses were seen as "infirmities," as obstacles to correct understanding. These "infirmities" were to be remedied and enhanced by the use of experimental devices and instruments. Such denial of the senses in pursuit of knowledge can only arise in a world-view that has already separated humans from the natural world. In the Andes, rivers, mountains, lakes and rocks have eyes and ears: everything is sentient. Some mountains, lakes...animals and plants are huacas (deities). (P.223)
"What happens between the Andean communities of humans, deities, and nature is reciprocal dialogue, a relationship that does not assume any distancing and objectification between those dialoguing...Such dialogue does not lead one to a knowledge about the other, but...to emphasize and attune oneself with its mode of being...It is a dialogue... that leads [not to knowledge but] to wisdom" (p. 224)
Would we consider them philosophers and this their philosophy?
According to the author, the Andean world-view assesses modern Western knowledge from a native Andean point of view. They find Western cosmology based on a rejection of basic assumtpions about nature, the nature of humans, of knowledge, etc. The Andean peasants have been in existence for over 10,000 years, could their cosmological p.o.v. be a significant or insignificant factor in the longevity of their culture?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Implications for nonhumans after assigned moral status
Complex issue, I can't find a simple or encompassing solution - will there need to be multiple scales or degrees of application of moral status, even after designating moral patient status to nonhuman animals?
We know there are numerous cultures/societies living in extreme environments whose existence is dependent on the consumption of nonhuman animals. Some of these people are citizens of the United States, others are citizens of other Western societies.
If the Western world assigns moral patient status to nonhuman animals, how would they enforce the protection of these moral patients in their own countries? Would it be through legislation? Would there be exemptions for those who live in environments that are climatically/environmentally insufficient or prohibitive for the production of alternative food sources? How do we judge the needs of those whose cultural identity is tied to consumption of animal flesh against the need to protect those animals to whom we have assigned moral patiency?
Given ease of global communication and travel, if "civilized" Western cultures assign high moral status to nonhuman animals - what would the protocol be when intersecting with "primitive" cultures - who do not assign similar moral patient status to these nonhuman animals?
If we assign moral patiency to all animals equally, predators and prey species alike - and we come across a predator "attacking" its natural prey - are we morally obligated to intervene on behalf of the "weaker" prey species - knowing that our action could accelerate the death of the predator species?
We know there are numerous cultures/societies living in extreme environments whose existence is dependent on the consumption of nonhuman animals. Some of these people are citizens of the United States, others are citizens of other Western societies.
If the Western world assigns moral patient status to nonhuman animals, how would they enforce the protection of these moral patients in their own countries? Would it be through legislation? Would there be exemptions for those who live in environments that are climatically/environmentally insufficient or prohibitive for the production of alternative food sources? How do we judge the needs of those whose cultural identity is tied to consumption of animal flesh against the need to protect those animals to whom we have assigned moral patiency?
Given ease of global communication and travel, if "civilized" Western cultures assign high moral status to nonhuman animals - what would the protocol be when intersecting with "primitive" cultures - who do not assign similar moral patient status to these nonhuman animals?
If we assign moral patiency to all animals equally, predators and prey species alike - and we come across a predator "attacking" its natural prey - are we morally obligated to intervene on behalf of the "weaker" prey species - knowing that our action could accelerate the death of the predator species?
Monday, October 1, 2007
Ethics and Moral Status in relationship to Nonhumans
After today's discussion, I think that like many of my classmates, my perspective on animals is primarily the result of personal subjective experience, interwoven with familial and cultural constructs. What I found most enriching were the discussions re:meta-cognition and moral reflection as criteria for determining moral status for nonhumans and humans. If I am interpreting correctly - adding further complexities to determing moral status are "Intuitions" (H. Miller style). Intuitions as attributes shared by humans and nonhumans arising out of inherent sociality, which in term arises out of a biological imperative for sociality (as a specie-specific survival mechanism) is also common to humans and some nonhumans.
As a result of this class I am reflecting more on my pre-existing and personally-conceived assumptions. My biases are grounded not only in my subjective experiences, but also on what "feels good to believe" - like faith or religion. Grounded in metaphysics and supernaturalism - not empiracally based in Western science.
I am unsure how to factor in some profoundly affective inter-specie encounters I consider myself blessed to have participated had with "wild" animals, "pets," and other domesticated animals. I will try to download a picture I took of a moose last Febuary, sniffing my hands and camera, he touched his muzzle to my fingers. He was so close you can clearly see his beautiful eyelashes.
Classmates shared experiences of their pets seeking to comfort them, of cats and dogs having healing effects for them. I chose to rehab from hip surgery at home rather than a nursing home, where my dogs and cats were active, integral aspects of the healing process.
Focusing on the nonhumans, I can see and admit, the possibility of these actions as biologically driven instincts, or learned behavior - via reward/punishment - or even learned through intelligent (cognitive) observation (by the nonhumans) as discussed within today's class. Still, I am not convinced, nor am I able to admit, that is the only explaination for nonhumans' capacity for inter-specie experiences. Is this purely a metaphysical attachment on my part? I think not.
Is our science too incomplete, too exclusionary in assigning meta-cognition and therefore moral status to nonhuman species where they do not share a common capacity for communication? Do humans over-rely on verbal-based language to assign competency and sufficient status to nonverbal nonhumans? Remember that movie "Nell" starring Jodi Foster? What if nonhumans could teach humans how to communicate their way? Would they then be obligated to assign the humans moral status?
I don't think nonhuman animals normally operate that way. Not that they can't be what humans commonly define as jealous, or greedy, or needy or pushy. I think it has been well established at least with dogs, that there are biologically based survival mechanisms determining those behaviours humans interpret negatively.
I thought that in moral terms, nonhumans do not suffer from non-survival related attachments the way humans do. Are they operating that way because they are morally and metaphysically superior to humans? Do they innately know or intuit the nature of the Universe. Or can it be that because they do not perceive or consider themselves as separate from the Universe - that they do not meta-cognate like humans - because they already know?
This course keeps making my mind change directions. I thought I knew and was comfortable in a paradigm that worked well for me. This course keeps fracturing my paradigms, and I can't restructure them fast enough. Not comfortable but stimulating.
l like to keep my bases covered - the old - "there are gi-normous mega-species out there who can't perceive humans because we're such mini, insignificant-to-them Beings" syndrome. If there are humans and bacteria, then why not mega-beings and humans? I like to think in terms of balance. Whenever possible I like to assign at least the possibility of mega-cognition and moral status to others, humans and nonhumans. But that criteria is tricky.
As a result of this class I am reflecting more on my pre-existing and personally-conceived assumptions. My biases are grounded not only in my subjective experiences, but also on what "feels good to believe" - like faith or religion. Grounded in metaphysics and supernaturalism - not empiracally based in Western science.
I am unsure how to factor in some profoundly affective inter-specie encounters I consider myself blessed to have participated had with "wild" animals, "pets," and other domesticated animals. I will try to download a picture I took of a moose last Febuary, sniffing my hands and camera, he touched his muzzle to my fingers. He was so close you can clearly see his beautiful eyelashes.
Classmates shared experiences of their pets seeking to comfort them, of cats and dogs having healing effects for them. I chose to rehab from hip surgery at home rather than a nursing home, where my dogs and cats were active, integral aspects of the healing process.
Focusing on the nonhumans, I can see and admit, the possibility of these actions as biologically driven instincts, or learned behavior - via reward/punishment - or even learned through intelligent (cognitive) observation (by the nonhumans) as discussed within today's class. Still, I am not convinced, nor am I able to admit, that is the only explaination for nonhumans' capacity for inter-specie experiences. Is this purely a metaphysical attachment on my part? I think not.
Is our science too incomplete, too exclusionary in assigning meta-cognition and therefore moral status to nonhuman species where they do not share a common capacity for communication? Do humans over-rely on verbal-based language to assign competency and sufficient status to nonverbal nonhumans? Remember that movie "Nell" starring Jodi Foster? What if nonhumans could teach humans how to communicate their way? Would they then be obligated to assign the humans moral status?
I don't think nonhuman animals normally operate that way. Not that they can't be what humans commonly define as jealous, or greedy, or needy or pushy. I think it has been well established at least with dogs, that there are biologically based survival mechanisms determining those behaviours humans interpret negatively.
I thought that in moral terms, nonhumans do not suffer from non-survival related attachments the way humans do. Are they operating that way because they are morally and metaphysically superior to humans? Do they innately know or intuit the nature of the Universe. Or can it be that because they do not perceive or consider themselves as separate from the Universe - that they do not meta-cognate like humans - because they already know?
This course keeps making my mind change directions. I thought I knew and was comfortable in a paradigm that worked well for me. This course keeps fracturing my paradigms, and I can't restructure them fast enough. Not comfortable but stimulating.
l like to keep my bases covered - the old - "there are gi-normous mega-species out there who can't perceive humans because we're such mini, insignificant-to-them Beings" syndrome. If there are humans and bacteria, then why not mega-beings and humans? I like to think in terms of balance. Whenever possible I like to assign at least the possibility of mega-cognition and moral status to others, humans and nonhumans. But that criteria is tricky.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Naturalism vs Supernaturalism
For me, Clark's essay raised issues of tolerance and intolerance. Where do we draw the line between Freedom of Speech, an essential element of a free, democratic, liberal society and the injury caused to certain members of society by this free and public expression.
Reading Clark's essay Imus' infamous misuse of the public air ways came to mind. Could/should his action/speech be interpreted as a hate crime - racist and gender based? I am conflicted about levels of tolerance of others' intolerance. What level of tolerance can a free society support before it ceases to exist as a free society? What is the maximum cost society can afford to pay for its ideological neutral public space. How does society create a balance between general tolerance of content of public expression for the good of society; versus the real and/or potential injury of some members of society by the content expressed by others. Clark illustrates areas where our current political system has failed to maintain the balance between the faith-based and science-based ideologies.
Clark's peaceful coexistence between naturalism and supernaturalism - can it exist successfully outside of all humans being of equally sound psychological and emotional states; with approximately equal I.Q.s, - with equal access and exposure to shared knowledge; and sharing common environmentally, biologically, racially, and culturally compatible worldviews?
Is Clark professing the possibility of perfection existing in an unperfect world? Do we dare hope to believe in its possible existence - or am I just stuck in a supernaturalistic rut?
The more I learn, the more I can conceptualize how indeterminately vast my ignorance is. Infinitely so, one could say, were it possible for one to conceptualize infinity.
Reading Clark's essay Imus' infamous misuse of the public air ways came to mind. Could/should his action/speech be interpreted as a hate crime - racist and gender based? I am conflicted about levels of tolerance of others' intolerance. What level of tolerance can a free society support before it ceases to exist as a free society? What is the maximum cost society can afford to pay for its ideological neutral public space. How does society create a balance between general tolerance of content of public expression for the good of society; versus the real and/or potential injury of some members of society by the content expressed by others. Clark illustrates areas where our current political system has failed to maintain the balance between the faith-based and science-based ideologies.
Clark's peaceful coexistence between naturalism and supernaturalism - can it exist successfully outside of all humans being of equally sound psychological and emotional states; with approximately equal I.Q.s, - with equal access and exposure to shared knowledge; and sharing common environmentally, biologically, racially, and culturally compatible worldviews?
Is Clark professing the possibility of perfection existing in an unperfect world? Do we dare hope to believe in its possible existence - or am I just stuck in a supernaturalistic rut?
The more I learn, the more I can conceptualize how indeterminately vast my ignorance is. Infinitely so, one could say, were it possible for one to conceptualize infinity.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Article - Concepts re:mysteries
“..Puzzles can be solved; they have answers. But a mystery offers no such comfort. It poses a question that has no definitive answer because the answer is contingent; it depends upon a future interaction of many factors, known and unknown. A mystery cannot be answered; it can only be framed, by identifying the critical factors and applying some sense of how they have interacted in the past and might interact in the future. A mystery is an attempt to define ambiguities.” (p98)
Gregory F. Treverton, “Presence of Mind: Risks and Riddles,” Smithsonian Magazine, pp 98-102.
Treverton's article concerns methodologies he feels are relevant for successfully addressing the complexities of current global issues. I believe his theory that understanding the differences between puzzles - as methods we have been using unsuccessfully, and mysteries - as methods we need to employ for survival, as well as some of his concepts and definitions of puzzles and mysteries could be applicable to many of our class topics.
Gregory F. Treverton is the director of the RAND Corporation’s Center for Global Risk and Security.
Gregory F. Treverton, “Presence of Mind: Risks and Riddles,” Smithsonian Magazine, pp 98-102.
Treverton's article concerns methodologies he feels are relevant for successfully addressing the complexities of current global issues. I believe his theory that understanding the differences between puzzles - as methods we have been using unsuccessfully, and mysteries - as methods we need to employ for survival, as well as some of his concepts and definitions of puzzles and mysteries could be applicable to many of our class topics.
Gregory F. Treverton is the director of the RAND Corporation’s Center for Global Risk and Security.
Freedon to Reject Free Will
Is he only referring to humanity or Earth expressors?
Stepping outside of determinism - how do we know that could not be a possibility from an entity/entities so radically different as to be beyond our capacity to even initiate conceptualizing about their abilities?
Stepping outside of determinism - how do we know that could not be a possibility from an entity/entities so radically different as to be beyond our capacity to even initiate conceptualizing about their abilities?
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Continuing the “Free Will” versus “Determinism” discussion.
While I dislike admitting it, the reasons I listed to support my claim that I chose to read the essay assigned for Q & A #2 of my own free will, instead appear to support Determinism. I enjoy believing that I, and everything, everywhere, exist in a multiverse paradigm. That time is not linear, and in fact, like space does not exist outside of our desire/need for its existence to experience our/The Existence. My preference would be for everything, everywhere to be co-experiencing simultaneous existence.
Would this paradigm exempt us from The Purpose, and therefore from either/both Free Will and/or Determinism? Would it exempt us from “otherness” and classifications?
While driving, when I look into my rear view mirror, it appears that the car and I are continuing our forward movement. By choosing to glance behind me, did I lose my present? Did I lose a slice of my future? Did that alter my past? Did I lose my past, present and future? Or any combination of those three?
If past lives are an aspect of The Reality, and we choose to recycle ourselves into another embodiment (in lieu of experiencing existence in some other form), would this not support a Deterministic view? Some societies that embrace this philosophy believe that we choose our parents, siblings, friends, potential circumstances, and destinies. I like this paradigm; and I want it to be an aspect of my multiverse paradigm. This attachment extends the time it is taking me to evolve into a perfect expression of divinity; and, it appears to support the theory of Determinism!
Does Determinism explain certain paranormal phenomena like pre-cognition? Alternatively, like the paranormal ability to see “The Past,” are they better explained by a multiverse reality operating outside of the accepted time/space continuum? Are telepathy and telekinesis best explained by a multiverse reality? Can the Findhorn Gardens be successfully conceptualized as both deterministic and multiversal. Perhaps, logically, Determinism is compatible with the multiverse reality. There is a circuitousness to these posits.
Do philosophical pursuits exist simply to be the premier play station for the human brain? Or, as one of the best opportunities to make up new words? Or both?
How does Determinism or Free Will relate to nonhuman beings?
Input, need input!
Would this paradigm exempt us from The Purpose, and therefore from either/both Free Will and/or Determinism? Would it exempt us from “otherness” and classifications?
While driving, when I look into my rear view mirror, it appears that the car and I are continuing our forward movement. By choosing to glance behind me, did I lose my present? Did I lose a slice of my future? Did that alter my past? Did I lose my past, present and future? Or any combination of those three?
If past lives are an aspect of The Reality, and we choose to recycle ourselves into another embodiment (in lieu of experiencing existence in some other form), would this not support a Deterministic view? Some societies that embrace this philosophy believe that we choose our parents, siblings, friends, potential circumstances, and destinies. I like this paradigm; and I want it to be an aspect of my multiverse paradigm. This attachment extends the time it is taking me to evolve into a perfect expression of divinity; and, it appears to support the theory of Determinism!
Does Determinism explain certain paranormal phenomena like pre-cognition? Alternatively, like the paranormal ability to see “The Past,” are they better explained by a multiverse reality operating outside of the accepted time/space continuum? Are telepathy and telekinesis best explained by a multiverse reality? Can the Findhorn Gardens be successfully conceptualized as both deterministic and multiversal. Perhaps, logically, Determinism is compatible with the multiverse reality. There is a circuitousness to these posits.
Do philosophical pursuits exist simply to be the premier play station for the human brain? Or, as one of the best opportunities to make up new words? Or both?
How does Determinism or Free Will relate to nonhuman beings?
Input, need input!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)