Brian McAndrews wrote:
>
> I appreciate Brad McCormick's struggle to make himself clear. I believe the
> problem is language. We are forced to use it (language), as I am doing now
> to address the problem. I've had some success helping beginning English
> teachers wrestle with this. Most people seem comfortable with the word
> 'concept' until I present them with the introduction in Ruth Beebe Hill's
> novel "Hanta Yo". Hill states:
>
> >To the Reader
> >Admit, assume, because, believe, could, doubt, end, expect, faith, forget,
> >forgive, guilt, how, it, mercy, pest, promise, should, sorry, storm, them,
> >us, waste, weed- neither these words nor the CONCEPTIONS for which they
> >stand appear in this book; they are the whiteman's import to the New
> >World, the newcomers contribution to the vocabulary of the man he called
> >Indian. Truly the parent Indian families possessed neither these terms
> >nor their equivalents". Ruth Beebe Hill, Hanta Yo, Warner Books, 1979 --
> >**************************************************
>
> I ask each of you to try to imagine not having as part of your 'self' any
> or all of the 24 concepts that the Dakotah people did not have. Play with
> the idea of removing 'because' or 'guilt' from your way of thinking,
> feeling, speaking, being. Does western science depend on 'because'? How,
> beginning as a young child, did you begin to acquire these concepts? And
> how are they still changing as you age? Is 'guilt' the same for you now as
> it was when you were seven?
>
> What concepts might the Dakotah have had that we do not?
>
> Language, simple stuff, eh?
[snip]
Great imaginative exercise material!
Alternatively, one might try Julian Jaynes' notion that
pre-1000BC Greeks did not have "selves" and that they
acted based on commands given by "gods" (what we
would call auditory hallucinations). The title of Jaynes'
book is telling: The Origin of *Consciousness* in the
breakdown of the bicameral Mind -- imagine: "people" can
have minds without being conscious (esp.: without
having *self* consciousness!) -- they can treat
"themselves" as just aspects of the social collective that
metabolizes itself (from *our* perspective!) "in them".
Imagine what "our lives" would be like
if we lived in eternal fog, and could never see
"the heavens"!
Paradoxically, to realize: "We are determined by our
language and other unwitting social customs" seems to be the
beginning of *real* freedom.
Alas, it may be a rather "stoical" kind of freedom,
since thinking: "I am caught up in competition"
doesn't seem to accomplish much in freeing me from
that competition (maybe it would be like a fish
realizing: "I am in polluted water").
+\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
