Historical Pace, Cognitive Rhythms, Ethical Time of the Heart-&-Mind

My research questions on the above-formulated multifariously intertwined topic(s) revolve around Cycles of Human History or, more precisely, of Humans dynamically Co-constituted with the World (Dewey, 1916). We project ourselves, consciously and, equally importantly, non-consciously by and in (shaping) the evolution of (more or less formally expressed) explicit as well as tacit human understandings (drawing on aspects of Jungian and Gestalt psychology). The overarching query, thus, is: What guides social change, and in the scholarly context in particular, what the discerningly considered, conscious actions involved should be, especially as undertaken by academic actors both within and outside academia.

I touch on the trajectory of more or less significantly fluctuating power imbalances from Antiquity to the Present, noting what today might be called the “global status” of peoples/countries: think of then-and-now Israelites/Israel, Egypt, Ancient Rome/Italy, Saxons/Anglo-American complex, Slavs/Eastern (cf. Western) “Bloc”, etc. I then highlight cases of human societies that, for sufficiently long “known” periods in their history, have on the whole been reprieved from larger, and even smaller-scale (violent) conflicts. The peaceable Balinese are a case in point, notably on scholarly record thanks to Bateson & Mead’s anthropological “photographic portrait” of them in the early/mid-20th century (Bateson & Mead, 1942). To that I add the established sustainability of many a “pre-contact” society around the world, where prior to “civilization”s advent epidemics were virtually unknown (David Peat, 2002, a.o.), and federalism in governance and loyalty to treatied relationships were actual practices (Scott Pratt, 2002; Wab Kinew 2015, a.o.).

Addressing the mainstream-licensed, and in the final analysis perpetuated, “social Darwinist” determinism of “survival of the fittest”, i offer a discerning philosophical appreciation of the Production of Social Change through evolution in comparison with revolution, factoring in variously mediated violence (military action, law, mass media, last but not least, academic discourse) in maintaining/resisting/overcoming power imbalances from the scale of the family to that of the planet. I then reference the 20th century social experiment of Eastern Europe and similarly socioeconomically restructured countries elsewhere (cf. Zhelju Zhelev’s banned Fascism, 1967/1982; preface to 1989 edition), and the modes of retreating from what had transpired as the application of the promises of Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist ideology. This helps me to position as a smaller and larger-scale (in)formal (self)educative endeavour my own cognitive-philosophical understandings, seeking in the process justification, based on Lived (!) Philosophical Principles.

I propose a renewal of Indigeneity for Un-Colonization as a preventive in addition to corrective process/measure, which i see as paving the way for enduring Equitable and Fulfilling Peace. This is conceived as a broad public (self)educative project, leveraging off ancient and more recent/current wisdom traditions. It comprises academic as well as meta-academic experience/expertise, and in the case of academics ourselves in particular, learning (what i propose to name) “academic citizenship”, predicated on “humane intelligence knowing’s”.

[and academic as well as meta-academic experience (learning “academic citizenship”), as far as effecting the desired Rationalized/Internalized change (Nicomachus’s Aristotle on virtue; possibly older traditions per Indigenous sayings/proverbs) in Human Attitude and Action.]


Hide-and-Seek No More – Canada’s Truth(-fulness) in School and Society [March 26, 2016]

“Truth” – judging by the presumed cognitive extremes of religious/spiritual and epistemological/scientific contexts (Rorty, 1979, 2005) – can be seen, across the board, as the goal of inquiry and the highest distinction awarded in/for understanding and knowing well. This is because truth (best knowledge) potentially serves (in Deweyan terms) the “betterment of life”, which is why human societies have had, in one form or another, a special place for education. When it comes to the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Residential Schools (TRC, 2015), extending the work of RCAP (1996) and mandated by the ensuing IRS Settlement Agreement (2006), we face the asymmetric truths of a colonial history and present, and the urgent-discomfiting imperative of making space for these in knowing about the past and for the future. I see this as a long-term (in)formal educating-for/by-doing enterprise, attuned to the TRC’s 94 calls-to-action.

TRC’s truths exceed the analytic philosophy mould, descended from the Kantian tradition of “philosophy as epistemology” (per Rorty’s, 1979 diagnosis), whereby mental representation and apodicticity reign supreme. Instead, in their robust social/power situatednesses and investments, said truths demand a composite epistemological-ethical examination, as proposed by Miranda Fricker (2007) for “epistemic injustice” in gendered legal contexts, and earlier pursued more comprehensively by Donna Haraway, Lorraine Code, among many other feminist/revisionist epistemologists. I direct my similarly multimodal discursive lens toward a shared (non)Indigenous future for Canada. My emphatically public-cum-academic educational philosophy project, informed by TRC’s 94 calls-to-action (op.cit.), openly engages the country’s foundational colonial dichotomy to map past-current-future cognitive relationships within and across (non-)Indigenous spaces, along socio-psychological, political-economic, etc. dimensions.

I will argue that there is no direct, neat and easy, causal link between truth and reconciliation. Truth-finding/telling will be politically, educatively, and profoundly humanly vacuous, unless it effectively informs the consistent, continual creation and exercise of upgraded social habits/action. I take up the symbolic revision of “Canada’s Origin Story”, per law professor Kathleen Mahoney’s SSHRCC keynote (November 27, 2015), as a shorthand for the actual re-constituting of Canada. Namely, accepting Indigenous peoples (First Nations, Inuit, Metis) as “co-founding” nations to reinstate them on a par with the currently constitutionally recognized British and French European settlers (in truth, colonizers). This means being/becoming – today, just as in the fur trade that birthed Canada (Innis, 1962; Ray, 1975, 1990), or in the French and Indian Wars (Tehanetorens, 1999) – partners of co-equal epistemic/economic/political agency. Hence, truly confederate – peaceful – nations.

The above, I propose, necessitates a comprehensive, transformative (self)educational project throughout the school-society continuum. It is to re-tune the ways in which and the reasons for which (non)Indigenous actors generate and engage with socially situated, thus ethically charged knowledges about/by/for self and each other, which have been, far too long, conspicuously discrepant. By conducting a hybrid epistemological inquiry, I project the conditions for a likewise multidimensional Canadian past-to-future “truth” of mutual inclusivity. Hide-and-seek need no longer be a colonizer/colonized tactic to circumvent reciprocally problematic truths of the past 500 years. Instead, Canada re-constitutes itself, by and for, the ethical-epistemic-pedagogical truthfulness of strategic mutuality.

501 words

REFERENCES

Fricker, Miranda (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (May 8, 2006) www.residentialschoolssettlement.ca/settlement.html

Innis, Harold Adam (1962) The Fur Trade in Canada: An Introduction to Canadian Economic History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Mahoney, Kathleen (2015) “Canada’s Origin Story”. SSHRCC keynote, Victoria, BC, November 27, 2015.

Ray, Arthur J. (1974) Indians in the Fur Trade. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

———- (1990) The Canadian Fur Trade in the Industrial Age. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Rorty, Richard (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. NJ: Princeton University Press.

———- (2005) Anticlericalism and Atheism. In Richard Rorty & Gianni Vattimo, The Future of Religion, pp. 29-42. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Vols I-V. Canada.

Tehanetorens [Ray Fadden] (1999) Wampum Belts of the Iroquois. Summertown, Tennessee: Book Publishing Company.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015a) Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Winnipeg, Manitoba: TRC. www.trc.ca

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. Winnipeg, Manitoba: TRC. www.trc.ca

Hide-and-Seek No More – Canada’s Truth(-fulness) in School and Society

 

“Truth” – judging by the presumed cognitive extremes of religious/spiritual and epistemological/scientific contexts (see Rorty, 1979, 2005) – can be seen, across the board, as the goal of inquiry and the highest distinction awarded in/for understanding and knowing well. This is because truth (best knowledge) potentially serves (in Deweyan terms) the “betterment of life”, which is why human societies have had, in one form or another, a special place for education. When it comes to the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Residential Schools (TRC, 2015), derived from the work of RCAP (1996) and the ensuing IRS Settlement Agreement (2006), we face the asymmetric truths of a colonial history and present, and the urgent-discomfiting imperative of making space for these in knowing about the past and for the future.

These truths exceed the analytic philosophy mould, descended from the Kantian tradition of “philosophy as epistemology” (per Rorty’s, 1979 diagnosis), whereby mental representation and apodicticity reign supreme. Instead, in their robust social/power situatednesses and investments, said truths demand a composite epistemological-ethical examination, as proposed by Miranda Fricker (2007) for “epistemic injustice” in gendered legal contexts, and comprehensively pursued earlier by Donna Haraway, Lorraine Code, among many other feminist/revisionist epistemologists. I direct my similarly multimodal discursive lens toward a shared (non)Indigenous future for Canada. My emphatically public-cum-academic educational philosophy project, informed by TRC’s 94 calls-to-action (op.cit.), openly engages the country’s foundational colonial dichotomy by examining cognitive relationships within and across (non-)Indigenous spaces, along socio-psychological, political-economic, etc. dimensions.

I will argue that there is no direct, neat and easy, causal link between truth and reconciliation. Truth-finding/telling will be politically, educatively, and profoundly humanly vacuous, unless it informs the consistent and continual creation and exercise of upgraded social habits/action. I take up the symbolic revision of “Canada’s Origin Story”, per law professor Kathleen Mahoney’s SSHRCC keynote (November 27, 2015), as a shorthand for the actual re-constituting of Canada. Namely, accepting Indigenous peoples (First Nations, Inuit, Metis) as “co-founding” nations reinstates them on a par with the European settlers (in truth, colonizers) from Britain and France. This would mean being/becoming – today, just as in the fur trade that birthed Canada (Innis, 1962; Ray, 1975, 1990), or in the French and Indian Wars (Tehanetorens, 1999) – partners of co-equal epistemic/economic/political agency. Hence, truly confederate nations.

In sum, I have launched a comprehensive, transformative (self)educational project throughout the school-society continuum. It is to re-tune the ways in which and the reasons for which (non)Indigenous actors generate and engage with socially situated, thus ethically charged knowledges about, by and for self and each other, which have been, far too long, conspicuously discrepant. By conducting an epistemologically hybrid inquiry, following Haraway, Code, Fricker, a.o., I have projected the conditions for a likewise multimodal Canadian past-to-future “truth” that is inclusively heartminded. Under the imagined conditions, hide-and-seek need no longer be a dual colonizer/colonized tactic to circumvent reciprocally problematic truths of the past 500 years. Instead, Canada is empowered to re-constitute itself, by and for, the ethical-epistemic-pedagogical truthfulness of strategic mutuality.

499 words

 

 

REFERENCES

Fricker, Miranda (2007) Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (May 8, 2006) www.residentialschoolssettlement.ca/settlement.html

Innis, Harold Adam (1962) The Fur Trade in Canada: An Introduction to Canadian Economic History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Mahoney, Kathleen (2015) “Canada’s Origin Story”. SSHRCC keynote, Victoria, BC, November 27, 2015.

Ray, Arthur J. (1974) Indians in the Fur Trade. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

———- (1990) The Canadian Fur Trade in the Industrial Age. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Rorty, Richard (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. NJ: Princeton University Press.

———- (2005) Anticlericalism and Atheism. In Richard Rorty & Gianni Vattimo, The Future of Religion, pp.29-2. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (1996) Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples Vols I-V. Canada.

Tehanetorens [Ray Fadden] (1999) Wampum Belts of the Iroquois. Summertown, Tennesee: Book Publishing Company.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015a) Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Winnipeg, Manitoba: TRC. www.trc.ca

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. Winnipeg, Manitoba: TRC. www.trc.ca

 

+++++++++++++++++++
Canada 150 or 101: “Traditional Ecological Knowledge” the (non)Indigenous Way

philosophy; systems theory/social systems, cultural imperialism, post-colonialism, policy, ethics, environmental journalism

On the eve of Canada’s 150th anniversary an equitable relationship between First Peoples and “settlers”/“newcomers” is still out of reach (cf. findings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, 2015, and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996, twenty years apart). Extending law professor Kathleen Mahoney’s “Canada’s origin story” SSHRCC keynote (November 2015), I propose to postpone the “Canada 150” graduation until we’ve taken a make-up “Canada 101” course, addressing whose-ecological-knowledge-counts as a top-priority topic.

I submit that, in conceptualizing the future of this country alternatively to its ongoing, if chronically unacknowledged, colonialism, practice-justified Indigenous knowledges – at their philosophical core – are well worth employing on a par with re-examined(!) European-descended knowledges. Drawing on the work of Indigenous scholars Winona Laduke (1999), Deborah McGregor (2005, 2008), Richard Atleo (2011 & elsewhere), a.o., I compare (non-)Indigenous environmental philosophies in search of coalitional yet diversified, non-colonial thinking and action. “Traditional ecological knowledge” (TEK), a notion introduced by the mainstream for the Indigenous eco-epistemological orientation, but predictably eschued by Indigenous scholars (discussed in McGregor, 2005), is given a two-way upgrade, allowing Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledges to cross-pollinate or specialize, depending on the case, in informing environmental policy-making.

The study explores the correspondences between epistemological issues of paradigm (in)commensurability (per Kuhn’s “scientific revolution” model) and actual lived experiences of environmental injustices, notably in Canada’s “fourth world” and the global “third world” (see Shiva 1989/2010, a.o.), largely perpetrated by Canada et al.’s “first worlds”. Given the increasingly visible global-scale ecological crisis, which has come to be recognized as related to the industrialized-technologized lifestyle of the (ironically) “developed” world, attention is directed to lessons to be gained from the historically proven sustainable practices of “pre-contact” societies, and their persisting present-day descendants. I, moreover, insist on also looking at Europe’s own pre-Industrial ways of life and underlying worldviews (see, e.g., Lorimer’s 1998 edited volume), from which Western modernity, and even more so current free market economy, have drastically, and ultimately (self-)destructively, departed.

This allows me to argue, on some level critically/pedagogically and on another post-dichotomously/coalitionally, that the notion of TEK is not precluded from reference to what Europe “knew” (no different than world-wide wisdom traditions) and chose to sidestep through its double-edged values of “progress”/“civilization”/“development”. Sampling 25 centuries, there is a record of reverence for nature and “paradigmatic rebellions” (Rorty, 1979) against its subjection in the thought of … Sophocles,… Hildegard von Bingen,… Goethe,… Hans Jonas…

The educational philosophy message is that an up-to-date “Canada 101” epistemology informing public/personal decisions would invite the traditional knowledges of a re-emerging Indigenous North America, while heeding the wake-up calls of contemporary science (Hansen 2009, Schneider 2009, Weaver 2009 on climate) and concurring theoretical stances, without ignoring nature-mindful European (and, likewise, world-wide) legacies. Rather than denying “[economic] growth” (Jackson, 2009), wellbeing (cf. Anishinaabe minobimaatisiiwin “right/good living”) would entail growing together in (ecological) wisdom as far as economy, technology, and overall way-of-life. By ecosystemic interconnectedness, the blueprint for an equitably knowledgeable Canada that is yet to be born calls forth a similarly upgraded Earth.

logically predicts an epistemically co-constituted Earth.

 

Atleo, E. Richard [a.k.a. Umeek] (2004) Tsawalk: A Nuu-chah-nulth Worldview. Vancouver, Toronto: UBC Press.

———- (2011) Principles of Tsawalk: An Indigenous Approach to Global Crisis. Vancouver, Toronto: UBC Press.

Haraway, Donna (1988) Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3), pp. 575-599 (Autumn 1988). Appears in S. Harding, ed., The Feminist Standpoint Theory

Reader: Intellectual and Political Controversies. pp. 81-101. New York & London: Routledge.

Carson, Rachel Silent Spring

Code, Lorraine (2006) Ecological Thinking: The Politics of Epistemic Location. Oxford, UK: Oxfod University Press.

Laduke, Winona (1999) All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life. Cambridge, MA: Southend Press.

Lorimer, David, ed. (1998) The Spirit of Science: From Experiment to Experience. Edinburgh, Scotland: Floris Books.

McGregor, Deborah (2005) Traditional Ecological Knowledge: An Anishnabe Woman’s Perspective. Atlantis 29(2), Spring/Summer 2005, pp.103-109.

———- (2008) Linking Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Science: Aboriginal Perspectives from the 2000 State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies XXVIII, 1(8):139-158.

Rorty, Richard (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Shiva, Vandana (1989/2010) Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed. Republished in 2010 by

South End Press.

———- (1997) Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge. Boston, MA: South End Press.

 

recall the unfulfilled recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP report 1996) or the daunting distance from truth-finding to reconciliation that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on residential schools brought home (TRC, 2015)

The large-scale sociopolitical change blueprint by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (see five-volume RCAP Report, 1996) is nowhere near completion, or even commensurable launch, and the “truth-finding” of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Residential Schools (see TRC Report Summary, 2015) has clearly testified to histories that confound “reconciliation”. In all evidence, the juxtaposition of Indigenous and European life worlds and worldviews that started a few centuries prior to Confederation (1867) has maintained evolving asymmetries that anything but absolve Canada of its habitually unacknowledged ongoing colonialism.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reserve Break-Throughs:
A P.S. to “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor”

Reserves relentless,
yo, it’s what I gotta contend with,
sundance the rez demented,
genuine arson of lessons
from beneath the ground sentence
to blessed with four elements.
This mic, this light, this rez, this life,
I represent my residents.

From “Feeling Reserved” video remix by WarParty

Prompted by WarParty’sviral “Feeling Reserved” video, this paper sets out to imagine what it might take to properly divest parties on either (perhaps “any”, more appropriately) side of the Canadian colonial barrier(s) of their/our respective literal and metaphorical “reserve/ations”. The analysis developed here takes Eve Tuck and Wayne Yang’s article “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor” as a starting point. It then brings to the table literature in addition to the main streams in social justice theorization that according to the authorsfall short, and may even be structurally-systemically at odds with the project of “repatriation of land (and life)” (2012, passim), as they define non-metaphoricaldecolonization.
The study reaches back in time and – the intent and hope is — forward in thought to reconstructions/descendants of pre-contact Indigenous philosophy and science, importantly, as presented by Indigenous scholars as well as scholars perceived/situated as settler descendants. Among these are: Richard Atleo, who believes that the Nuu-chah-nulth worldview, including the principle of tsawalk “one [ontological unity]”, can inform current policy making; Scott Pratt, who formulates a “Native pragmatism” predicated on interaction, pluralism, community and growth, thereby reassigning to First Peoples credit for the “first properly American” philosophical perspective; and David Peat, whoclearly contrasts Indigenous and Western science, but also draws significant paradigmatic parallels, especially with contemporary fundamental physics.
The thesis is confirmed that neither imposed nor self-imposed “reserve/ations” are unavoidable,given social-political will towisely negotiate and implementlong-overdue actual equitable practices. In this view, “decolonizing” heart-mind-bodyon Indigenous land (as much asthe land) is not a metaphor.But, land“repatriation” (returning [a prisoner, esp. of war] to acountry of origin) could be the operative metaphor for – using US census ratios Tuck and Yang report –100% US (before contact, Indigenous-inhabited) land being cared for, not propertied-denaturalized, by 99.1% non-Indigenous in addition to 0.9% Indigenous population. The Idle-No-More call, then, originally issued in Canada by a group of Indigenous women, or “Indigenize the academy, K12 curricula, etc.” projects,in the final analysis would apply – granted, in crucially distinct ways, yet, it is hoped,ultimately with an overallmulti-leveldecolonial impact – to First Peoples as well as to co-located thus co-responsible(non)settler descendants and (im)migrants of any (post)colonial connection or “colour”. The skeptic willfind caring, capable participants among the latter groups as well, in the same way that previously “reserved” humans may, in time, find themselves properly equitably, even felicitously related to (non!)humanothers.

References

Tuck, Eve and Wayne Yang (2012) Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1(1), 2012, PP. 1-40.
* * *
Atleo, E. Richard a.k.a. Umeek (2004) Tsawalk: A Nuu-chah-nulth Worldview. Vancouver and Toronto: University of British Columbia Press.
———- (2011) Principles of Tsawalk: An Indigenous Approach to World Crisis. Vancouver and Toronto: University of British Columbia Press.
Peat, F. David (2002) Blackfoot Physics: A Journey into the Native American Universe. Boston, MA: Weiser Books.
Pratt, Scott L. (2002) Native Pragmatism: Rethinking the Roots of American Philosophy. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

+++++++++++

“Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor” — but, how and why?

Tuck and Yang (2012) articulately and critically reveal the numerous channels through which seemingly decolonizing agendas in actuality veer off of and may completely subvert, whether intentionally or not, the long-overdue project of “repatriating indigenous land and life” (per the authors’ definition of decolonization, p. 1). Importantly, among the professed, and, at least in some cases, in one way or another implemented, well-meaning declarations are educational advocacy discourses issuing “calls” to decolonize “our” (mostly US in the article, which can easily extend to Canadian) schools, to employ decolonizing methods, or to decolonize students’ thinking, and, for starters, one would think, that of their teachers and educational administrators/policy makers.

The study revisits the question of what the role of education 1) could be (socio-historically) and 2) should be (ideologically-politically) in stripping decolonization of its self-defeating “metaphoricity” so that both indigenous people and their others can break free from, to quote pop group WarParty and project beyond their intended meaning, “feeling reserved”. In looking for answers, the analysis mavigates between institutional and informal, university and K12, family and life-long contexts of learning, and importantly, acting as well. In the process, criteria are conceptualized for knowledges that need to be recalled or newly developed and wise and discriminate actions that need to be undertaken. On the understanding of neocolonization as foreclosing of equitable/fair opportunities for sustaining and sustainable Indigenous knowledges and for the human actors embodying them, ways are considered and envisioned that can prevent the furthering of oppressive settler neo-colonialism in the ever more complex web of relationships between Indigenous populations and various “others” such as (per Tuck and Yang’s taxonomy) white, non-white, immigrant, postcolonial and oppressed groups.

Helpful in the process is the decolonization/anticolonization research – and especially the theorized educational (in the broader sense adopted here) implications – of scholars like Taiaiake Alfred, Jeff COrntassel, Gregory Cajete, Glen Coulthard, Vine Deloria Jr., Dwayne Donald, who identify as Indigenous, others identifying with African or New Zealand Indigeneity like George Sefa Dei or Linda Smith, and still others, situated and/or perceived as settler descendants, like Scott Pratt or James Tully.


Love-of-Wisdom Un-colonized:
Mobilizing Old/New Convergent Views on Human (Eco-)Sociality

The “data” for the present qualitative project come from sampling various “Western” and “Indigenous” (epistemological) traditions for views on 1) human sociality and 2) the human-nature relationship.The correspondingliteral and metaphorical geographies are traditionally assumed to correlate withthe two sides of acolonizer/colonized dichotomy(see discussions in e.g. Dei, 2011). Building on that, the analysis reveals through world-travelling (Lugonez, 198?)an expanded typology of ways of “knowing-being”. It cuts across cultural-historical paradigmatic boundaries,and complements, Gadamer-style,the potentially generalizable with the irreducibly different, the scientific with the artistic, the intellectual with the affective and spiritual. Based on the findings and their experientially-conceptually justified interpretation, humanity’s current potential is estimated for attaining a peaceful, eco-socially sustained world through a process of “un-colonization”, bringing the West and the Rest to our shared relational archetypes. To properly dissolve rather than equally dichotomously reversemultiply exposed, and avoidable, oppositions, the challenge, nay the healing power, of complementarity is advanced as an implementable alternative to winning/losing the ongoing wars of bodies, minds, and technologies and the belief is expressed that we humans can own our valorized rationality along with exonerated affectivity and reinstated spirituality for an eco-social world that may be as realistically glocally achievable as it is logically naturally conceivable.
Dei, George Sefa, ed. (2011) Indigenous Philosophies and Critical Education. A Reader. With a foreword by Akwasi Asabere-Ameyaw and Introduction by G.S. Dei, pp. 1-13. Peter Lang Publishing Inc.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg ([1960] 1975) Truth and Method. New York. (Originally published in German in 1960).
Lugonez, Maria World Travelling
Lorimer, David, ed. (1998) The Spirit of Science: From Experiment to Experience. Edinburgh, Scotland: Floris Books.
Lorimer, David (1998) Introduction: From Experiment to Experience. In Lorimer, ed. (2008), pp. 17-29.
Rorty, Richard (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Nature< Lorimer
Plotinus
St Thomas Aquinas 13 c
Meister Eckhart
Renée Weber Dialogue Scientists and Sages – same drive – unity at heart of universe, is knowable

What has been forgotten or has been/is being silenced or at best grudgingly acknowledged in either case reveals enduring knowledges that arein agreement rather than being mutually exclusive. Taking on the challenge of world-travelling, across cultural and historicalparadigmatic boundaries, the analysis reveals an expanded typology of ways of “knowing”, that reveals like-mindedness between Western “paradigmatically rebellious” (in Rorty’s 1979 terms) movementsand spiritual traditions, as well as long-silenced or marginally recognized Indigenousphilosophies on this continent and elsewhere. On the one hand, it looks atthe classical pragmatism of Peirce, James, and Dewey/the feminist take on humans and eco-social systems going back to figures like Rachel Carson or Jane Addams and also . On the other hand, it features the“Native pragmatism” of S. Pratt (20)/the Native science of G. Cajete (1999), as well as Asian traditions of thought. seeks to triangulate a space of negotiation that that can open up venues for world-wide co-creativity and cooperation, importantly, not despite but enriched by our numerous differences.


On the Neutrality of Scholarship:
Moral-Epistemological Choice in Serving the Public

Adopting the premise that (largely) publicly funded science should be viewed as a knowledge medium par excellence, and moreover one in service to the public, if society is to be properly knowledge-governed, this study looks at the question of the so-called “(non)neutrality” of scholarship in two respects: 1) choosing what research venues to pursue and 2) choosing what research results to communicate, how, when and to whom. Taking a comparative approach, the analysis looks at 1) climate science and 2) contemporary fundamental physics as two “case studies” to help explore some epistemological and moral dimensions of the choices defined above. The thesisis advanced that academic freedom is a subtly graded value, and while no black-and-white rules can bindscientists, in a principled way, on any given occasion, the scholar-as-citizen bears both moral and epistemic responsibility for his/her choices.
The study examines in particular communications aimed at a general audience, including print books/articles as well as media alternative to the standard peer review [ones] like interviews, documentaries, blogs. On the side of climate science are [three 2006 or 2009?] books by Canadian climate scientist Andrew Weaver () and his American colleagues James Hansen and Stephen Schneider.On the side of fundamental physics are excerpts from the writings of the “philosophical” scientists Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, and more recent explorations by Lee Smolin (2006) and especially Brian Greene’s 1999-2011 books and PBS documentaries based on them.
Taking epistemologist Lorraine Code’s theorizations of epistemic responsibility as responsibility “to and for the evidence” (2006 and earlier works cited there),the analysis sets out to explore what it would take for a scientist to act as a public intellectual, true to their epistemic obligations as (true) knowledge seekers and citizens having a crucial voice in the way society is run. The public intellectual thus has three audiences: colleagues, general public, and governance agencies responsible for policy making. It is thus important to be morally alert to the social situation outside the proverbial ivory tower of academia and subject oneself to moral considerations that may force one to depart from the (allegedly Humboldtian) ideal of “knowledge for its own sake”.
A case in point is provided by Werner Heisenberg in his lecture on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Nicolaus Copernicus, where he stresses that one main reason for scientific experiment (and applications of science in general), for example, is for the scientist to be able to find empirical proof about whether nature works the way he/she (or the hypothesis, whether intuitively or mathematically supported)expects it to. Heisenberg mentions a conversation he had with Fermi about the pros and cons of detonating a hydrogen bomb in the ocean. He had reservations because of environmental concerns, while Fermi reportedly exclaimed “But it is such a beautiful experiment!” (p. 6).In that talk, as elsewhere, Heisenberg underscores that scientists were disappointed that the(perhaps) earliest application of nuclear [atomic???] physics was for military purposes. At the other end is the case of Nikola Tesla, who reportedly (like other colleagues of his) discontinued research on high-power energy sources for fear of being responsible for new and deadly weapons of mass destruction.
In the case of climate science, the case is somewhat in reverse – rather than discontinuing experimentation and industrial (or military) applications, the call humanity has to make, and science on our behalf, is to engage in informed, wise decision making about policy making and ensuing industrial and broadly social action. Lest we should face a beyond-“tipping-point” moment when we obliterate ourselves and other life (and perhaps more) on our planet.
Heisenberg, Werner. 1973. “Tradition in Science”. Lecture given on the occasion of the 500th anniversary of Copernicus at the Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC, April 24, 1973. Reprinted in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dec 1973, pp. 4-11.


Hablamos Canadianés? Or, the Value of Cultural-Disciplinary Voice

With the overpowering advent of ICTs, media theorizations tend to overlook the mediatory function of language, which was theorized precisely in this respect by scholars from the so-called Toronto School of Communication (think of Innis, Frye, McLuhan). This study brings into the spotlight the loss/reclaiming of voice in processes of (im)migration of multiply “accented” mind-bodies. For the purpose, we recruit an adaptation of the Wittgensteinian notion of “language game” and an extension of Maria Lugones’s “world-travelling”. Thus, “voice” functions as a dual heuristic, combining the senses of a by-now standardized political-participatory metaphor and of literal linguistic quality, the latter feeding into the former.Relying on autoethnographic glimpses of the lifeworlds of a former professor of English from Europe and a mining engineer from Chile, we tack the (im)possibilitiesof participatory communication along the industrial/power and affective/poeticaxes in an English Canadian context.
We advance the argument that an accented voice is as capable of bringing its own special value to a community as it may conventionally seem to be a taken-for-granted barrier to being accepted as someone moving out of the cocoon of Otherness and into a space of potential for “recognition” and “achievement”.In other words, when learning new language games one need not forget previous ones, and a confident voice can show the merit of translating instead side by side with replacing the latter with the former. By travelling to another world one brings into itone’s own. This is equivalent to insisting “See me; Make room for me”, whichcan be met with the full range of responses from welcoming to commiserating to hostile that thereby reflect locally asymmetries and tensionsobtaining transnationally. In turn, whatever worth (of one’s contributing “accent”) one may be able to make intelligible to a narrower or broader audience locallymay then, at least in part, reflect back on the above-noted transnational relations.Negatively as well as positively — which is what invites glo-cal intervention in support of the latter through (reversing the expression) communicative participation.
Recruiting the notion of “mutual cultures” (based on Mary Jo Hinsdale’s “mutual subjectivity” reconceptualising “dialogic subjectivity”, employed by Charles Taylor and others) — culture being comprehensively used as scoping national, ethnic, disciplinary, etc. contexts — we show how language games between self and other can evolve toward reciprocal listening-understanding-appreciation, so that the fusion of worlds can enrich rather than collide those embodying and en-minding them. We thus propose that countries like Canada, which are the hubs of dynamic (im)migration processes, can also serve as a test ground for intercultural mutuality that, given the (proverbially difficult to generate)required political will, can be transposed to the global scale for a move toward properly relational micro-meso-macro sociopolitical change.
In sum, by bringing language explicitly into the media-of-communication fold,our analysisjustifies the benefit of turning language gamesinto inter-language games, and world-travelling into world-connecting. Lifeworld as cultural-political context and voice as worldview expression would thus jointly and interactively mediate truly participatory communicationgenerating as much as being generated bymutually enriching coexistence.