The Stewart Consortium

Well, my new-old site crashed... Not that I have written anything in quite awhile... Mostly because of time, work, and school.

Well, it took some doing, and it was hectic, and it resulted in the rest of my hair pulled out, but the final redesign of The Stewart Consortium is done. Now, all I have to do is get caught up on homework....

Labels: homework, moving site

There are times when science actually fascinates me, and I want to be scientist to make the great discovery that will change the face of the world forever. This is what I mean, when I was growing up in school, it had been pretty much accepted that asteroids had collided with the Earth to create mass extinctions.

Every school kid knew that, a massive rock from outer space had killed the dinosaurs. This was the practical answer, the oversimplified answer. In reading Peter Ward article, the explanation appears to be more complex. There appears to “geochemical” evidence from the geologic rock that some of the mass extinction came via the climate over long periods of time.

Peter Ward builds his case through graphs and assumptions that, along with those within his field, greenhouse emissions were may have been responsible for at least two of the mass extinctions: the Permian and the Triassic. Through scientific method, data collection, and fossil records the information appeared to skewed.

He weaves a compelling story of how some of the mass extinctions were a gradual process through carbon dating, fossilized materials, and new statistical protocols for analyzing the fossilized ranges. He then sets forth in proving his thesis forward. The critical analysis suggests that the mass extinction is recurring, more of a historic event than a random one like the extraterrestrial events.

In his modeling, of when the events are triggered, is up for much debate and research. However, in his clip notes he points out that:

• “More than half of all life on the earth has been wiped out, repeatedly, in mass extinctions over the past 500 million years.
• One such disaster, which included the dinosaurs’ disappearance, is widely attributed to an asteroid impact, but others remain inadequately explained.
• New fossil and geochemical evidence points to a shocking environmental for the largest of the mass extinctions and possibly several more: an oxygen-depleted ocean spewing poisonous gas as a result of the global warming.”

And similar types of ecological events have made his and others arguments compelling. His graphs and charts of the plausibility make the article more readable for the layperson.

Toward the end of the article, the article drags a bit with the accounting of volcanic, CO2, and H2S concentrations that common student eyes might roll back into their head. Nonetheless, the explanation of CO2 parts per million, and where possible greenhouse emissions by the end of the next century for the present day modernity seemed to be a bit convenient for global warming debate.

One final point, the author’s tone of the article seemed to be filled with an urgency to take notice. The overall tone was a warning for humanity to take better control of emissions. At the end of the article, there seem to be agenda blossoming. This bit of preaching concerns me, in that, there may have been some scientific dogma encroaching within the article itself—but nevertheless the excitement of discovery had me tweaked for discovery in the geologic record.

Labels: asteroids, greenhouse effects, science

I have spent most of holiday break from school reading books for the research of my thesis on how human’s perceive themselves individually and within groups to establish what is tangible and define the unexplainable with the evidence of science fiction and fantasy.

In the process of this discovery, I have come across several texts that tend to illustrate this process outside my predisposed genre of theoretical choice. One of those reading was by Vine Deloria, Jr. His reading has taught me: how human beings endeavor to find various ways to believe, perceive reality through idealism, faith, logic, and rationalizations. With that said, Vine Deloris’s book, Red Earth, White Lies, comes across as if he is lecturing a class full of snot nose; wet behind the ears; ethnocentric students; who can barely think outside of the box.

Thus, the reader and/or students are perceived as unable to think critically and unable to ask obvious questions and culturally ignorant of not only of native indigenous peoples—but also of their own civil, ethnic, and religious attitudes. For instance, Deloria says. “The bottom line about information possessed by non-Western peoples is that the information becomes valid only when offered by a white scholar recognized by the academic establishment; in effect, the color of the skin guarantees scientific objectivity (page 35).”

His point is well taken, for the most part, although, it is consumed with bias, bitterness, and vitriol. I concede that science should do a better job of cataloging data of past civilizations through the debris archaeology and geology; and, it has made implausible large and esoteric “statement of facts” of how a culture in era separated by time existed. Yes, one might be able to extrapolate from the present and “well” recorded cultures of the past 400 years or so ago—but, that does not necessarily mean that the past, or present, are accurately reported by the observer/s, or that they fully understood the language of the native peoples.

Admittedly, Deloria’s attack on academia and the “dogmatism” of the “scientific” expert and the extreme entrenched scientist plays well for his audience by deconstruction of them in order to invalidate and maybe even subvert the arguments of the institutions. Some one once said, “Translation is death.” Deloria pontificates that, the word “giant” has been mistook, mistranslated, oversimplified for the “taller than average,” or the “tall ones” that were taller than the “average us” of present “seems” plausible. Furthermore, Eurocentric folklore, whether told through theologians, historians, or oral traditions has been transmuted, transformed, and translated to the dearth of human compunction especially those of native peoples.

This is what I mean, Deloria castigates and derides his own native indigenous community for contributing to their own "invisibility," he says:

“These positive symbols of prosperous buckskin are not the whole story, unfortunately. Nothing is calm beneath the veneer of Indian country, and it may be that we are seeing the final absorption of the original inhabitants in the modern consumer society. The push for education in the last generation has done more to erode the sense of Indian identity than any integration program the government previously attempted. The irony of the situation is that Indians truly believed that by seeking a better life for their children through education, much could be accomplished. College and graduate education, however, have now created a generation of technicians and professionals who also happen to have Indian blood. People want the good life and they are prepared to throw away their past in order to get it (page 2).

Thus, his proclamation that some of his own brethren’s willingness to “educate” themselves at the hegemonic culture is a betrayal of sort; in that, the full assimilation of the Indian identity is close at hand. In so being that, the Indian identity is becoming “acculturated” as well as “socialized” into the ideal American hegemony representation and culture.

Moreover, to “accept” the hegemonic culture’s as sacrosanct becomes the final death nail of the Indian identity. This assumption by Deloria is a bit arrogant. Nevertheless, his point about the sciences’ overzealousness as to dismiss native folklore as irrelevant, insignificant, and “unreliable” is short sighted. Yet, if we are to rely on the hypothesis by academia, and yes the dogmatic views of scientists, then the perspectives of indigenous peoples must be included. Speculation without proper evidence, of scientific data, is cannon fodder. The dismissal of evidentiary data, and to assign it as possibly faulty, because it is not “convenient” to present day scholarly arguments is spurious. And, denies the ability to obtain the wealth of information.

Deloria’s thesis throughout his book is driven, compelling, heartfelt, even surreal as he tries to layout the case of dogmatism of academics and scientific community—but it abuses the totality of the groups. And to the extent of his argument, this is one of the by products of a hegemony. On the other hand, like the political extremes, there are those who “truly” believe that they are impartial not dogmatic. “True believers” (Hoffer) never do. It is the observers from without that are astutely aware of this sometime rigidity, pragmatism, and again sometime dogmatism of science. This endeavor is often on the verge of religiosity, yet, at the least, more willing to adapt.

The previous statement may seem accusatory, but in a recent special by Nova, in regards to Albert Einstein, in the culmination of his theory of E=mc2, and the basis for his work. The dispute within science, of his time, was between whether mass and energy as separate and distinct proves a point. “Culturally” the stubbornness of science to disregard women, or those “beneath” them in the social-strata, in bringing new ideas, “out of the box” thinking has slowed the progress of discovery. If not for the advent of war, the acceleration of modernity might have been furthered hampered today's post-modern world.

Nevertheless, Deloria’s overwrought thesis has me disconcerted how to proceed in receiving his view of the social sciences such as anthropology or geology, in regards to the machinations of native cultures that has passed its history orally—without the physical written scribes—has afforded science the ability to discount native peoples mythos and legends. This is unfortunate, and I understand the Deloria’s view of how research of these cosmology—and “perceived” histories that are “documented” by books and essays seems arbitrary.

Deloria’s description of a world of condemnation, intolerance, and condescension comes across heavy handed. Some of this criticism is warranted, however, one has only to see the history of the Maya codex as an example of the "long process of discovery" to understand its significance (see Breaking the Maya Code by Michael D. Coe). It is his tone, the lecturing in the fashion of GrandFather to his grandchildren as, as I perceive it, gives me pause. This means, of course, I have more reading, and, observation, study, in the verification of Deloria’s thesis and statements.

As for my own thesis, this is another affirmation of how humans behave, in that, they establish, displace, or set aside the items that once inconvenient; verify, narrate, and (re)deploy (my own acronym—DVND). Deloria’s view that, the world of science has “disappeared” a whole culture historical metaphors, and mythos underscores that the human condition “provides” the rationalization to feel victimized, or to be perceived as “worthy” to the reality of the hegemonic.

Deloria’s book is a clarion call for the social sciences that allege to “know” how civilizations existing thousands or millions of years ago (see the article of Dikka Baby in Scientific American as an example) as hypothesis grown as facts. And, then have those “postulations,” “speculations” as the popular and engrained as institutional theories into the halls of the education system as factual lore. This in turn thereby disregards other “plausible” explanations. I am not asking for native indigenous people’s cosmology or spiritual mythos to be as accepted as fact—far from it. But to be accepted or seen as another data point for correlative research, not to do so is irresponsible, arrogant, and ethnocentric.

The Red Earth, White Lies is agenda-ridden and can be viewed from a racial disparity perspective, but Deloria’s critical analysis, and overarching thesis scathes science for a good reason. To open up the dialogue, to shake them up, to wake up “the establishment,” for its inequity, at times, of viewpoints, of perspectives, and if this was his overall purpose—good job.

This past fifteen weeks, I have been taking a course called Cultural Diversity in the Modern World; and, throughout it, there have been four main themes: socioeconomics, race, culture, and ethnicity.

For clarification, ethnicity is shared and learned aspect of culture; therefore is a subset of it. This is the small “e” of ethnicity, the learned ethnocentrism of one’s parent. The behavior (learned) shapes the familial unit. The core and identity of the capital “E” of ethnicity originates from the cultural mores of the larger group beyond the family; such as school, church, and other larger community events.

Working backwards then, the overlapping template of ethnicity plays a role in the cultural diversity of an individual, in that, the perception of outside agencies, who bring their “own” baggage of perception”, sets one’s ideals, values, and beliefs juxtapose to the “other.” This otherness, if you will, soon becomes the “us” once the meeting of ideals are blended—thus integrated. One might say, is "the incorporation" of one’s ethnic group; no matter what one’s dominate group/s may be in charge of, or represented.

Example—If one is residing within the United States, for instance, one could be considered an “ethnic” group from the “others” perspective outside of the US—since ethnicity is more of a nationality than a race. Another example of ethnicity can be seen in the book, “In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in the Barrio” by Philippe Bourgois discourses on the state of Spanish Harlem—based on race ethnicity.

He points out the challenge of assimilation after the exodus of Puerto Rico, where the great immigration of Puerto Ricans nationals to New York aspires to the American Dream after War World II. He reveals a patriarchal dominated society of machismo identity from both female and male perspectives of their deconstruction of subsistence patterns inherited from their native land—essentially the transition of being farmers, mostly, to assembly factories workers, to only have them, their jobs for the immigrates, virtually disappear—“outsourced” within thirty years of immigration. During this transition the “work ethnic” that is usually attributed to immigrate becomes transformed. Education is revered and downplayed. A culture of dependency resulted; drugs, abuse—physical, mental, sexual—and alcoholism subverts and delays the full incorporation into the American ethos.

The core base of the work ethnic is instilled into the children of immigrates yet considered by their Puerto Rican youth as a foolish game of the overriding homogenic culture. They see themselves as a “ethnic group” subservient and oppressed by the dominating culture—thus their ethnicity, defined as arbitrary, of a group identity, real or imagined, social, cultural, and/or racial past has been relegated as insignificant. The youths see their culture under attack, which brings out their arbitrary and overstated sense of ethnicity in their culture.

Culture is defined as learned behavior that allows and explain a people’s way of life, it also includes the blueprint for survival, is adaptive is intangible, is shared, and is integrated, and that, the hegemonic “state,” in this case, culture sets and establishes cultural norms. The dreams, goals, and desires by both immigrant and hegemony become blended, and integrated. Again overlapping, sorting the details of behavior and the rule of law, both explicit and implicit. An example of this, again taking from the Bourgois book, is term he uses called “cultural capital.” In the book, one of the youthful protagonists has an office job, where he felt uncomfortable taking orders from a woman. His bitterness and disdain for her was only precluded by his lack of understanding of office politics and how corporations assess their economic value. Thus, his inability to achieve and understand “cultural capital” (Bourdieu 1973, and Bourgois 1995), defined as the general cultural background, knowledge, disposition, and skills that are passed form one generation to the next, within the dominating society, while underachieving prevented him from moving beyond recrimination of what he believed as hegemonic “state society”-defined as “the man.”

“The man” represents a particular faction of humanity, in this case, in the form of a race—Caucasians. Needless to say, this brings us to another component of cultural diversity, which is race. Race is defined as statistically significant phenotype (what is seen mainly—and unseen), and that, the official position of anthropology is that, racial categories are culturally determined, in so being that, they are arbitrary, in which, race is whoever, whatever, we (as a society) want it to be. And they sum up their with position as “we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances” (American Anthropology Association 1998).

An example of this arbitrariness, is within the United States itself, the category of Hispanic as a race is a culmination of an ethnic Spanish speaking peoples covered a swath of various ethnic differentially different group, whereas as outside of the US, race is, for the most part, separated from a native indigenous peoples and former Colonizers of European decent. Skin color is also factor. Collin Powell, considered a Black American, but outside of the US, he could be considered “white” (because of his features) or of European descent in countries such as Brazil, or in Latin America states. This reinforces the observation that race is arbitrary element as determined by the hegemonic culture or society. Furthermore, race is a biological concept that may have varying differentiation within a race, but in the entirety of the species does not.

And finally, socioeconomic defined as differential access to a society’s sources of wealth and/or prestige. As exemplified earlier, in the book by Philippe Bourgois, speaks of limited resources of Spanish-Harlem, in the sense that, minorities access to, or understanding thereof, to the dominate overlaying culture precepts of bureaucracy of city codes and regulations for opening a store—for instance—was hindered by their inability to read and comprehend culture capital moments.

In fact, invariably “culture capital,” and “socioeconomic factors” are integrated, shared, in that, the behavior of surrender coincides with accessibility to the hegemonic culture tools from the depressed group. Although, the group is often misrepresented and categorized as skin color, as minority access to the dominate culture resources are not the same. For instance, someone whose income in that of the middle class (no matter what race) does have the same access that of Ted Kennedy, or a George Bush family members. The ability to have the resources from a global perspective is far easier for these families than a middle-class citizen. The automatic entrance to Harvard or Yale, because of family name recognition alone gives an advantage over those who don’t. Pro Athletes, politicians, famous actors have the access that most don’t.

The culmination of the above points is to illustrate that cultural diversity and the study of it are complex. In that, cultural diversity is the causes and implications of the contact and interaction of different social and ethnic groups. Moreover, these various themes are part of the web of significance that overlay the modern culture of America. The globalization is created by the engine of competition, as a leveling mechanism, dysfunction, and therefore creating variety of vehicles as a complex structure that empowers and fuels modern diversification in the sense of culture, religion, technology, innovation, and creativity yet with this saturation and overpowering of states comes the resulted backlash of ethnicity and state societies trying to find normalcy and stability seeking to reaffirm their brand of cybernetics.

This backlash can be seen in the “culture wars,” immigration debate, and on the “war on terror.” In addition to these, the blending, sharing, integrating the world of modernity and cultural diversity with globalization as the overriding engine of creation for competition of resources will continue to subvert state societies (in all forms), cultures (in all forms), and religion (in all forms) for years to come.

Labels: backlash, cultural diversity, culture, culture capital, culture wars, ethnicity, globalization, immigration debate, race, socioeconomics

Editor Note:

It has been a challenge to pay the upkeep on this website. I have asked for donations to help the poor college student, who has been trying to make his way through school. I am approximately two years out from completing my master thesis, but three months behind in doing my research projects due to lack of funds. So, therefore, from time to time, there will be adveristing within my blog. I will discuss those I have experience directly, or experience within the field that I may have been exposed to indirectly. So, with no further ado--here is my first attempt.

Labels: advertising, pay bills

There is always a beginning, middle, and an end. Life is cyclical. In the book by Travis Hugh Culley, “The Immortal Class,” we observe his life through his eyes, at first as a child, which for him was quite extensive, then as a young adult trying to find his way into maturity; the world of uniformity.

Let me explain, Culley speaks of his observation of the “rhythm of the city” as watches “culture capital” of employers and employees perspectives each justifying their place within the social construct of daily life. He conveys the sentiment of the workplace environment, the daily politics of workers, of the temp, managers, and CEO’s.

In his youthful self, we find him defiant, struggling to find his way—and challenging authority of his parents, and the social control of neighborhood. His befriending of the “strange” neighbor and the “mythos” of the neighbor’s perceived mental capacity illustrates his rebellious attitude.

His personality of defiance resided within him well into his mid-twenties until the realization, the transformation of his sense of survival and very essence of subsistence was threatened. The “social control” from his mother begins to takes hold. Reminding him the only way a “mother” can, that he is responsible of taking care of himself in order for the world to “figure him out”—she simply says, “You’ll need to eat first…” This sly statement by his mother, reminded me of a cartoon from the 1990’s called Animaniacs, by Warner Bros. Studios, which had a pairing of two mice known as “Pinky and the Brain.” Brain, an oversized brained mouse and tiny body, was a genius (insanely so) that wanted to take over the world with his supported friend or sidekick—Pinky.

Pinky, in the cartoon, is supposed to be the insane one. He makes funny snarf noises, whistles, and faces. Pink seems to be brain damage; even might have a bit of Tourette’s Syndrome from all the inappropriate outbursts that come out at untimely moments. Pinky is Brain’s friend no matter what; or, how many times Brain fails in attaining his goal. The one time they do successfully to take over the world is when Pinky has been “cured”—the stunned look on Brain’s face is classic—filled with amazement and pain, which eventuates Pinky into sabotaging his own success and reverting to type. Pinky is the “true” genius and he uses “Superman II” type moment in order for Brain to forget. In a sense, Pinky’s role was to be a supportive role of a parent; unconditional love—and smaltzy. He, Pinky, listens to the schemes of Brain no matter how hair-brained, unconventional, or out of the norm they are. Pinky supports Brain’s mad-hatter type ideas—and let Brain fail ad nauseam to gain experience from his mistakes.

Pinky, in the four-quadrant political model, is upper left, individual emotional, while Brain is an over-the-top lower, authoritarian, and rule of law systems type. So, what does this have to do with Culley’s book?

On pages 85-87, Culley in an emotive episode; in a condescending attitude tone with his mother, when she asks:


Culley writes then, how his mother responds to his emotive state (upper left), “she took a deep breath and chuckled. ‘You’ll need to eat first.’” Although his mother may appear to be coming from the left quadrant of emotional concern, albeit there is some, she is actually coming from the space of lower left, group socialization, a form of system social control perspective, in that, coercion or silent ridicule is a used as a tool to correct an individual’s behavior. Culley through implication recognizes this.

On page 121, Culley begins to find his “consciousness.” Realizing that the world will move without him. He pontificates, “What would happen, if I were to be hit or disabled again? Having nothing, how could I recuperate? Is this what it feels like to have nothing left in the world? Is freedom the feeling of being prey to other people’s negligence? From the worker’s perspective, is freedom not failure? All this thinking; I had not surrendered.” Yes, he still a bit self-absorbed, Culley is beginning to express his version of self-awareness.

Knowingly aware that “action” is required, “movement is required,” and as he says, “If thought can catch you, so can language. If language can catch you, so can death…” In essence, from an upper left, intuitive emotional sense, Culley understands that his individual behavior, upper right, must take hold. He says, “If you question, you hesitate and that is dangerous… (p 125).”

Later on, Culley, crashes into a pedestrian, “a suit,” on his bicycle, and becomes “transformed.” To the extreme, Culley shows signs of being Bi-Polar from a laymen perspective, swinging from one extreme to another, are apparent. He is now on a high, from the accident with the “suit”—he is feeling invincible. Bicycle delivery infuses Culley’s ego and yet tempered to a certain degree. But as I purvey the travails of his misadventures, a nagging theme song underlies my thoughts—the theme music of “Pinky and the Brain” now becomes transmuted to the “Mighty Mouse” theme.

He tries to soothe us with antics as he battle with the natural environment of modernity. To import the sense of heroism throughout his text; somehow the world will be caught in his poetic trance as he tries to glide through as if he is the Roman god of Mercury—a deliverer of space, time, and chaos—if you will. His messenger status creates the view of spatiality; he sees the dance, and twirls before it. This begins a process for him, trying to embark on a category. He begins to think integrally as he describes the “congestion of a city.” He takes note of how harried life remains the same, even in slow motion. Culley’s reflection of how the pace of the city has remained unchanged despite the transition from horse and buggy to the horsepower of the metal machine is interesting to be sure. But the culmination of technology has always, in a sense, reverted within a city walls—no matter how much advancement been procured. After all, a city is the embodiment of the lower right governmental systems. It is essentially Platonic state of bureaucracy.

Invariably, with Culley we find him once again trying to convey a sense of community in the closing moments of his book with the death of a fellow bicyclist. His last chapter is the revelation and culmination of his green politics fully furled, in which, he invites environmental and ecological changes, and in turn, tries to redefine the subsistence of the socioeconomic classes. He asks, in a sense, the desire and the ambition of a people, of a nation actually, to return the hearth of Americana. To return to theme of community in order to reduce the stress filled world—and slow down. He counters his own words of staying in motion. He presupposes that such an active discourse can be possibly driven by Americans will be reborn from its isolationists flame of the Phoenix—and that the children of suburbia will return to the womb of the urban city.

He, Culley, has transformed himself from the individualist, upper right, with self-absorption to more of a emotional collectivist state—lower left—but has integrated to the quadrants of behavioral, psychological, governmental spaces, and yet even his integrated persona belies his megalomania of a mouse self shines, whether it is Brain or Mighty Mouse one cannot be sure.

Labels: bicycle, Book Review, Integral Politics