Arlo and all. On 1 Feb. you spaketh.
> I've recently pulled off my shelf a copy of Dennis and Barbara > Tedlock's "Teachings from the American Earth, Indian Religion and > Philosophy", published in 1975. > In the Introduction, which I will include in a series of posts to > follow, I think you will see a lot of similarity between Pirsig's > exposition on Indians in LILA, as well as some groundwork for > considering the non-S/O culture (painted broadly) which draws Pirsig > to use the Indians as exemplars. What is all this about American Indians' culture being non-S/O supposed to prove? We know that the social level along with all levels below intellect are non-S/O. If it is to indicate that they had reached a Quality-like meta-level it's wrong, they were no different than any other "aboriginals" in this respect. Bo I am about halfway through the book, > and I do recommend it (your public library should be able to get you a > copy). I've made a few notes within the text, to point out specific > points of commonality or interest. (No, I did not type all this in, I > used a scanner, and its been known to produce a typo or two, I've > tried to catch all I could, but you know how that goes.) > > ======================== > > "The American Indian has already taught us a great deal, whether we > remember it or not. In the far north of this continent, life is still > dependent in part on the technology of the Eskimo and Indian, who gave > us among other things the parka, snowshoe, toboggan, and kayak. Maize, > potatoes, sweet potatoes, and manioc, which today make up more than > half the world's tonnage of staple foods, were first domesticated in > the New World. Most modem cotton, including that grown in the Old > World, is the long-staple cotton of the American Indian. Some 220 > American Indian drugs have been or still are official in the > Pharmacopeia of the United States of America or the National > Formulary. Even in these practical areas, we have sometimes been slow > to learn. As recently as thirty years ago, Indian oral contraceptives > were dismissed as mere magic; later, when these same botanical drugs > were found to suppress ovulation, they set medical researchers on the > road to "the pill." > > Although we have accepted a great deal of technology from the > American Indian, we have not yet learned his more difficult lessons, > lessons about the mind and spirit. Some of these lessons concern the > very things we have borrowed, as in the case of that most famous of > Indian stimulants, tobacco. For the Indian, tobacco always had a > sacramental meaning: the smoke was exhaled east and west, north and > south, above and below, and then the smoker blew smoke on himself. In > this way he joined the self with the cosmos. When we adopted tobacco > we turned it into a personal habit, and we have overused it to the > point where it has killed many of us. The final irony is that there > should be a righteous public campaign against this sacred gift of > America, as if there were something inherently wrong with smoking. > Beeman Logan, a Seneca medicine man, suggests that the trouble is with > ourselves: tobacco kills us, he says, because we do not respect it. > > An easy way of reading Logan's message is to say that the Indian has a > different relationship to the natural world than we do. If he can > "respect" a plant, he must be "closer" to nature than we are, and we > imagine ourselves more like him in our own distant past, before we > started to dominate nature. Those of us who are believers in material > progress see our task as elevating the Indian to our level by teaching > him how to make nature better serve material ends. If, on the other > hand, we are suspicious of material progress, we envy the Indian and > wish that we could somehow "return to nature," suspecting all the > while that there is really no way to recover our own innocence. The > trouble with both of these views is that they allow us to picture the > living Indian as a fossil from which to learn about the past. If there > are any lessons to be had about the present, we think they are ours to > teach him, whether we wish to initiate him into the present or to warn > him away from it "for his own good." > > There is quite another way to approach Logan's message, and that is to > defer the question of its meaning and call attention instead to a > supposed error in the thought process which produced it. "From the > point of view of Lucien Levy-Bruhl, it would be argued that the > Indian's characteristic participation mystique, his feeling of oneness > with the world, has here blinded him to the difference between himself > and the tobacco plant. If he only had a "logical" mind, he could see > that a plant is an inanimate object and is neither owed respect nor > able to punish [scare quotes on logic point towards S/Oism- Arlo]. > From the more recent point of view of Claude Levi-Strauss, the > supposed error is not in a lack of logic but in an overzealous and > premature application of it, which in this case seeks" to link facts > from the disparate realms of psychology (the attitude of "respect") > and biology (tobacco and death) in a single system of cause and > effect. ["... to be part of the world, and not an enemy of it", ZMM - > Arlo] > > All of the approaches presented so far permit us to sidestep the > possibility of learning directly from the Indian. It is true that > anthropologists sometimes describe themselves as students of the > Indian; they may indeed appear to be his students while they are in > the field, but by the time they publish their "results," it is usually > clear that the Indian is primarily an object of study [sound familiar? > -Arlo]. If anthropologists would seriously put themselves in the > position of being the Indian's students, they would have to take more > seriously what he considers to be important. But instead of learning > to experience respect for tobacco, for example, they simply wish to > find an explanation for why someone like Beeman Logan might respect > it, thereby keeping him and his lesson at arm's length. They may > listen to him, but they do not hear him. > > In order to become the Indian's students, we have to recognize that > some of what he has to teach transcends cultural or historical > boundaries. Paul Radin took precisely this position with respect to > American Indian religion, saying that we would never make any progress > in our understanding "until scholars rid themselves, once and for all, > of the curious notion that everything possesses an evolutionary > history; until they realize that certain ideas and certain concepts > are . . . ultimate for man. " Mircea Eliade, in his classic study of > shamanism, puts the matter this way: "The various types of > civilization are, of course, organically connected with certain > religious forms; but this in no sense excludes the spontaneity and, in > the last analysis, the ahistoricity of religious life." And the Sioux > holy man Lame Deer, fully aware of the diversity of external religious > forms among American Indians, says, "I think when it comes right down > to it, all the Indian religions are somehow part of the same belief, > the same mystery." [recognition of metaphoricity? -Arlo] > > moq_discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
