I love the irony of Natalie's question about why we need to know everthing. And tell me now! My very first thought was the place in _Pilgrim at Tinker Creek_ when the narrative "I" says she is apt to accost anyone at a party and say "did you know there are X number of muscles in the jaw of an ordinary catepillar moth?" Then she goes on (I'm paraphrasing from memory here): "I'm not just making conversation; I mean to change your life." Even though Dillard stubbornly separates her writing from any political agenda, clearly a politics is embedded in all her scrutinizing of the world of Tinker Creek: to know something is to invest it with a value we didn't grant it before we saw it. So yes, gathering knowledge can be a rape--a careless, objectifying violence. But it can also be a genuine (dare I say "spiritual") recognition of our connection to, yes, a catepillar moth. That kind of knowing I would classify as curiosity, something we humans share with every animal that I've ever met. But it isn't only an animal thing. Rachel Carson writes in _The Edge of the Sea_ about ocean currents and the movement of species from one locale to another: "And so transport and wide dispersal are a continuing, universal process--an expression of the need of life to reach out and occupy all habitable parts of the earth." If there is anything "essential" I would guess it's this life drive--to inhabit, to inspect. Back to Annie (who else do you need if you have Annie and Rachel?)--she makes much of the scientist as a sort of priest (Yes, I know those are inescapably masculinized figures, but...): seeking knowledge is just another way of trying to find God or the transparent eyeball or the oversoul or the cosmic poobah. speculatively yours, Sara >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Nov 14 12:04:50 MST 1994 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:08:12 -0500 (EST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Life's organizing principle James Roper gave his opinion that life is not teleological (purposive) and has no clear organizing principle. Of course, from inside, it is difficult if not impossible to see what the organizing principle is, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I am reminded of a parable of sorts from Kurt Vonnegut. He wrote about some yeast organisms, who ate sugar and excreted alcohol, and this was their whole existence, seemingly without purpose, never knowing that they were making champagne. How could we make any pronouncement about the purpose of life and the universe, we who are such small parts of the whole? It is the hubris of science to believe that having developed a few partially satisfactory theories (relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution) that we are near discovering all of the secrets. H.C. Ellis >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Nov 14 12:09:00 MST 1994 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 14:12:26 -0500 (EST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: anarchy First, I would like to say that I think the discussion of anarchy has relevance to ecofeminism, because those who wish to change the way things are done in the world today must decide whether that is best done within existing institutions, in different institutions, or without any institutions. I would then argue that the goals of ecofeminsm are not well-served by principles of anarchy. Brian gave this challenge: >What can government do better than individuals can? I answered: "1. Uncover and punish criminals." His response: >People do this better themselves in their communities. When cops >enter a neighborhood crime rates tend to go up, not down. We stop >looking out for each other. Have you ever lived in a place with inadequate policing? People are forced to devote inordinate amounts of resources (time and money) to protect themselves and their possessions. Anyone who has lived in poor neighborhoods knows that it is the refusal of police to enter the neighborhood that emboldens criminals. We can't always be looking out for each other and also go to work. How are the locals supposed to prove who actually committed the crime? How will they catch the culprit? How will they ensure the accused gets due process? In the long history of the world, citizen groups have resorted to vigilante justice to solve crimes. Are you seriously asserting that without a criminal justice system there would be less crime? How would you deal with a rape case when it's "he said, she said?" Would you ask the local citizens' group to develop corroborating physical evidence? Would they do DNA testing? Or would they simply dismiss the case since it can't be proven one way or the other? Who will deal with crimes for which the victim is not clearly ascertainable? Who will have the incentive to do anything about it? How, for example, will traffic rules be enforced? How will you ensure that products are not falsely advertised? There are so many problems with not having a criminal justice system. If you don't think so, spend some time in a country where the system is non-functioning. Do you really want a society of Charles Bronsons with their own "Death Wish?" I wrote: "3. Protect intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks)." Brian responded: >Who benefits from this protection--people or corporations? Everyone benefits, people and corporations. If the government didn't protect inventions, the small inventor couldn't protect her ideas from the big corporation that would want to steal them. Because the bigger entity has economies of scale making it a more efficient producer, it could produce the invention more cheaply than the inventor could, immediately putting her out of business. If the law didn't protect trademarks, consumers wouldn't know what they are buying without engaging in expensive search costs to ascertain the quality of the goods. We wouldn't know if what you bought from the "Body Shop" was made by a company that opposed animal testing or one that made its soap by rendering veal by-products. The manufacturer, whether corporate or not, benefits by being able to invest in its name or symbol knowing that it is worth the money to let consumers know that these goods have certain characteristics. Authors can be secure knowing that they will be paid for their works, and so they have the incentive to write. Would so many intelligent and gifted writers put finger to keyboard if they couldn't be sure they would be paid for their efforts? Is it better to let the publisher rip them off? I wrote: Brian responded: >Witness the european railroad system--very efficient, not >organized by any central authority, but cooperatively BETWEEN >independent states. I'll bet that virtually the entire system was built by government. Still, this is a non-answer. Certain goods won't be made in sufficient quantities unless government does it. Why should I help build a road when I can ride on it whether I helped build it or not? I happen to support limited government, but without government support for these "public goods" there will be a shortage. Those who can afford private schooling, roads, police,sewers, etc., will have them. No one else will. I wrote: "6. Protect the weak from the strong." Brian responded: >Who protects the people from the strength of the state? Who >protected the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by the state recently, >the millions in Indochina, the tens of millions killed by >states in WWII? States are fundamentally killing machines. True, there are bad states. I would be in favor of the world rising up and crushing the Iraqi government for what they have done and continue to do. It is not logical, however, to blame the idea of the state for what certain states have done. That is like saying that my first husband was a disaster so marriage must be wrong. The only way to protect people from each other is to have some kind of authority. The way to protect people from their own state is to have an authority that has the capability of keeping the state in line. True anarchy (by that I mean absence of authority) has never boded well for the weak. One of the best examples of what happens when anarchy prevails can be found in "Andersonville" by MacKinley Kantor. No one could read this and maintain a belief in abandoning authority in the naive hope that human nature will keep us safe and secure. H.C. Ellis
