From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 10 2004 - 18:40:46 GMT
Greetings Platt,
>Your opinion about "intelligent design" is not shared by all biologists.
>You might want to read "Icons of Evolution" by biologist Jonathan Wells
>for an alternate view.
Again, I believe "intelligent design" is a worthwhile piece of a
comparative mythology, philosophy, or as MSH suggests a metaphysics course.
Since these (what I call) "orienting frameworks" guide one's approach to
not only biology, but to other fields as well, they need to be in a course
where approaches to "intelligent design" (and other mythologies) can be
discussed with ample time and consideration.
To this end, you'd have little disagreement from even the most liberal
academics I know (personally). But when it is done under the guise of one
particular approach (in this case an evangelical reading of occidental
scripture), it places one particular orienting framework above any possible
others. I can see you believe the intent here to be benign and on the
metaphysical level (above one particular cultural approach to ID), I am
perhaps more weary of this when the backing for this comes pretty straight
out of the evangelical agenda.
>What I find amusing is your insistence on teaching
>history from all points of view, no matter how controversial (including
>equating the morality of Communist Russia with the U.S.), but slamming the
>door on teaching controversies about evolutionary theory.
But reverse this. This is my point, Platt. You will say this to me, and
yet... "your insistence on teaching biology from all points of view, no
matter how controversial (including equating the morality of evolution with
occidental literal myths), but slamming the door on teaching controversies
about U.S. history".
You see, I am not arguing for ID to be censored, simply that in this
argument it is misplaced, it's place is in metaphysics. In history, I am
arguing for a refusal to accept nationalistic or ideologically
"unthreatening" revisions of history, and to teach from primary sources (as
much as possible) about what was happening at that time, (more on this
below) and on fostering critical thinking when approaching any version of
history.
>Since you don't want to mention the MOQ in a biology class, I take it you
>believe, like MSH, that the MOQ theory of evolution is imaginative poetry,
>and that Pirsig's answer to the question, "Why survive?" should not be
>taken literally.
The MOQ should be taught in a metaphysics course, and not be taught as a
literal and unquestioned explanation of "how things are". I'm sure you
agree. But let's be honest, the problem is that metaphysics itself has no
place in the schools, much less one of symbolic importance. Let's back away
from comparative mythologies and say that the schools should include
exposure to, and critical awareness of, theories of metaphysics (not just
the MOQ). I'm thinking here of Pirsig's talking on William James and his
desire to debate the "squirrel around the tree". In Pirsig's terms, this
course should be philosophy and not philosophology.
> > When you explain to them why Uncle Sam killed 10 million native American
> > Indians. Or why Uncle Sam enslaved, tortured and considered "blacks" (and
> > Indians) as sub-humans in their "All Men Are Created Equal" nation?
>
>Where on earth did you get 10 million Indians from much less killing that
>many? And have you explained to the kiddies that the horrible Christian
>white man abolished slavery many generations ago while black Muslims in
>Africa are currently slaughtering Christian blacks by the thousands?
Best estimates place the pre-Columbus populations of NA Indians at between
5-15 million (you can guess who says 5 and who says 15). Around 1900 the
populations was estimated to be around 250,000. Current census taking shows
a population around 2 million in 1990 (and estimates a huge population
growth since, placing the current estimate at around 4 million-- some
dispute this due to tribes taking in people claiming as little as 1/13
heritage). I took a middle ground with these figures, say a pre-Columbus
population of 10 million, which was reduced to a quater of a million by 1900.
Primary sources (records, diaries, transcripts, etc.) show deliberate
attempts to exterminate Indian populations through the use of pox-infected
blankets (a book of pilgrim prayers written at this time showed several
lines indicating praise to the lord for bringing pox to the indians, as
proof that white men were ordained to inherit the land, military records
indicate the military was fully aware of the pox blankets, and used them
deliberately to infect tribes). Soldiers accounts of the death marches
describe how indians were shot and left to bleed to death as they were
marched off their land and into the territories. Notebooks of the christian
missionaries describe how children were beaten if the spoke their native
language, one describes using a hot branding iron to sear the children if
they spoke any language but "god's".
You and I always fall back on strange dichotomies, so let me say upfront
that nowhere above do I claim the Indians to be without fault or utopic.
Nowhere do I suggest that Indian history should present their societies as
purely benign. That is myth. But so to is the belief that we were above
reproach and not despicable in our treatment and genocide against these
people. History should show how they were, and how we treated them. Neither
side should be allowed to censor history in the name of nationalistic pride.
> > Of course, I could always dismiss the genocide of Stalin by claiming it was
> > "conservative propaganda with the agenda of discrediting Marxism". Maybe
> > those 13 million people just killed each other in local disputes. Uncle Joe
> > simply inherited the land bereft of these murderous savages.
>
>Sounds like something a liberal would dream up.
>
Only to show that you do the same thing when the glorious white american
man is discredited as being wholly wonderous. Genocide is genocide is
genocide. Whether committed in the name of communism or democracy.
Attrocities do not affix themselves to any one particular ideology, they
occur everywhere bad people decide to use military force to ensure everyone
is "just like them". Whether it's racial (e.g. slavery), religious (e.g.
the holocaust), nationalistic (e.g. stalinism) or cultural (e.g. in china),
these horrible things are not just things that happen in other cultures,
they happen (and have happened repeatedly) in our own.
That is my point. That is what history should teach. The great and glorious
U.S. of A. is not above this, it is simply a nation-state, like other
nation-states, and thus engages in both good and evil actions, here and
abroad.
Once we get to this point, we can discuss, for example, American hegemony
from realpolitik perspectives and from the perspective of other cultures.
We can examine it for its relative benefits and evils, and not accept it as
the wonderful march of the benevolent white knight bringing freedom to the
enslaved world. But then we can also dismiss the horrible black-death force
spreading cultural enslavement across the world. It is this critical ground
I seek, not one tainted by nationalistic or ideological desires to portray
oneself as morally superior-- in all facets and all things-- to everything
and everyone else.
> > Nor am I. One of the strengths of his (Pirsig's) explanatory framework, and
> > why I
> > believe it will overcome static social patterns of thought.
>
>Is Pirsig's evolutionary theory explanatory or poetry in your view?
Both. Or rather, it unites the two. If I'm not mistaken, that was his goal
to begin with, wasn't it?
> > > If you can point to where I blasphemed liberals with those words I'll
> > > gladly apologize.
>
> > Aahhhh... you are a politician on the side? Your use of "liberal" as a
> > pejorative speaks for itself.
>
>Hmm. If it's such a pejorative, how come you apply to yourself, like when
>you wrote the following:
Because I don't consider it a perjorative. Nor do I consider myself a
strict "liberal" as defined in the current political landscape. I do
recognize that it was "liberals" who brought civil equality, women's
suffrage, workmen's compensation, and fair labor wages to the citizens. I
recognize that it is "liberals" who fight for environmental protections,
universal healthcare, improving access to higher education and equal public
schools for the poor, multi-cultural education, and equal state benefits
for all individuals. These are all things I am proud to support, and
consider quite moral.
> > But don't think I do not like America, Platt, I have much hope given that
> > 49% of the country, half of the population (of voters) not only voted
> > democratic, but voted for the ***most liberal member of congress***. All we
> > need is 1% to see through the veil of right-wing propaganda, and we'll not
> > only have a "liberal" president, but a very liberal president! Something
> > worth staying for!!!
>
>Obviously you are proud to be called a liberal. As for Hillary becoming
>president, lotsa luck. :-)
Sadly, I do not think we'll see a black, hispanic or female president (or
an openly non-christian) in even my daughter's lifetime. American white men
seem to harbor deep-seeded xenophobia. But I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Obama has my vote, unless I could vote for Jimmy Carter. Now there is a
man worthy of admiration. Sadly, he is too busy doing good work around the
globe to run, unlike Bill and H.W. who are spending their retirement
playing the political circuit or bedding the Saudis for their oil. I've
downloaded Carter's DNC speech of iTunes, and listen to it whenever I need
to be reminded that there are wise voices in America.
Hillary, intelligent woman, un-electable as president because of the "ad
hominem" hatred of her. Which baffles me. Her book "it takes a village" is
a sociocultural truism, children are shaped by their culture and others in
their towns, through discourse, involvement, social values and education.
They are shaped by their clergy, by their peers, by their access to
libraries and museums, sports programs, and extended families. They are not
a product of isolationist rearing. And yet the sentiment rankled cowboy
"individualism" and garnished such hatred. And yet everywhere you look,
strong communities turn out strong citizens. Parents are what we'd call a
keystone species in this ecology, but are not the only species in totality.
At any rate, I don't agree with all of Hillary's political stances, but I
hardly find her the epitome of evil the right-wingers make her out to be.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 10 2004 - 18:54:37 GMT