From: Horse (horse@darkstar.uk.net)
Date: Thu Nov 11 2004 - 01:47:16 GMT
Thanks Arlo - best post I've read in quite a while.
Horse
On 10 Nov 2004 at 13:40, Arlo Bensinger wrote:
> 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.
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 - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 : Thu Nov 11 2004 - 02:02:25 GMT