On April 2, 1997, I entered what was essentially a final journal entry. The experiment consisted of entries that resulted from our readings and the discussions that followed. The results ran the full spectrum, as you can well imagine. This is my story.

The rain was falling. As a I looked out from the Simon Fraser Building, I could see the droplets caressing the glass. Another rainy Wednesday evening, I thought to myself. I made my way to the bus stop, tired - physically and mentally. Bus 17, the way home. Funny how the thoughts linger as you are trying to move from one mindset to another. You think to yourself about the multifaceted nature of your existence, the roles you play, the dreams you dream, the short and long term goals. You wish things were all nicely filed away. You think about why you actually push yourself to learn more, to be better. Now come the big questions. Similar to the ones asked in class. Who are we? In understanding who we are, is there anything we can do to make things better? Based on the history that thinkers have constructed it, where did we come from and where can we get to and how? Within the limits and capacity of reason, is there any hope?

Somewhat lost in my thoughts, I find myself finally at home. Soaked, hungry, tired yet eager to bring things together. I find myself envious of the mental gymnastics others are capable of. Will I ever achieve greater heights of learning? Will all these grand thoughts come together? With all these universals swimming in both my conscious and subconscious, I allow myself the pleasures to sliding into a much needed slumber. It must have been hours maybe minutes, who knows - I found myself in what seemed like a finely manicured garden. Hedges all around me, I am captivated by the cornucopia of colors from both flora and fauna. Roses in bright red bloom. Sunflowers in majestic yellow towering over a rather odd structure. The structure was four white pillars culminating in blue marble roof. Marble gave a strong sense of permanence. A party seemed to be in progress. There seemed to be a dozen or so people milling about, clad in togas. I thought to myself, this really must be just a bad dream. Anyway, I chose to play along and get to the bottom of all this. To my surprise, the guests seemed to be expecting me. I was greeted by these two forms. The hosts, along with all the guest were black forms of equal dimensions. Ironic it seemed that black forms would choose white togas and hang around drinking crimson colored drink. They seemed to be talking about nothing in particular. The hosts had particular marks. One was wearing, aside from a toga, glasses that seemed to stand out and accentuate colorless eyes (as all the forms had colorless eyes). The second host was wearing a dark vest over the toga. They both peered at me as if not sure why I was there and why I even cared to ask questions. The vested one was the first to speak. "So you want answers to the burning questions, Who are we? In understanding who we are, is there anything we can do to make things better? Based on the history that thinkers have constructed it, where did we come from and where can we get to and how? Within the limits and capacity of reason, is there any hope? I answered humbly but in the affirmative. The spectacled one handed me some books and said, "Here you go. The writers of these books are no dopes, they are in the party. They will answer your questions from their takes on history. The books are for posterity." Confused, I ventured deeper into the marble gazebo. As was custom, I hit the bar, that was when the story really began. I met a fellow named Alfred Crosby......

Crosby: Let me tell you what I think. You see, history and medicine, peoples and plagues, biological and cultural evolution, are still studied out of context. Separated, it is as if each module where static and that there is no interrelation between them. When we study history in this model, we sometimes don’t get as complete a picture as we should. We run the risk of deluding ourselves. Furthermore, In order to get a better picture of what went on before, we should take into consideration the biological and epidemiological aspects as part of a dynamic historical package. Hopefully, by taking all these items into consideration, it may shed light where once, there was none. Stay with me. How does all this lead to your question regarding "The Capacity and Limits of Reason." There are actually a few items I would like to explore:

Despite all our superior technology, we certainly do not understand or comprehend the effects of our actions.

Miguel: Gandhi once said something to the effect that, there is enough on this world for our needs but there will never be enough for our greed.

Crosby: In my book "Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900," I attempted to shed light on the very question of need and greed.

How did a few determined pioneers from a tiny continent, succeed in sailing the oceans, and later on, the takeover of the Americas and Australia? How did the Conquistadors, with few "good" men, bring down the mighty Aztec empire of Central America and plunder its treasures for Spain? How did the escape of a few pious Pilgrims lead to the eradication of the Red Indians? How did the Pilgrims open the New World for the European? The standard reply usually centers around the thesis that Europeans had overwhelming superiority in military might, science, and technology. It is the sexy reply, but in my humble opinion, they are wrong. Guns gave the invaders from Europe, the capacity to conquer. But the stunning success of European colonization depended on much more than guns. Its success ran along a deeper biological and epidemiological basis or disease. How did all this come about? Lets go back to the start, lets begins with the Pangea. The Pangea left a great divide which had left the New World extremely vulnerable. Isolation in this sense would be preferable, but the Europeans managed to create a bridge, cleverly fabricating ocean worthy vessels. The aboriginal, such as the Maoris, though often heavily populated, were stuck in the Twilight Zone of the Stone Age and could not compete with European technology and disease. Some others like the Guanches of the Canary Islands or the Tasmanian, disappeared almost entirely; others like the Aborigines of Australia, dwindled to become, virtually, a non-entity.

"These early humans were about to do something of the same magnitude as moving from earth to another planet. They were about to leave a world - the riven core of Pangea, Eurasia plus Africa - of life forms with which their ancestors had lived for millions of years and go to worlds where neither humans nor hominids nor apes of any kind had ever existed, worlds dominated by plants, animals, and microlife whose forms had often diverged sharply from the patterns of life in the Old World."

As early as 870 AD Scandinavians were trying out island travel. Europeans cautiously, at first, ventured out from their tiny and overcrowded continent and settled in such places as Iceland, the Americas and as far as new Zealand. They chiefly put down roots, as might be expected, not at the empty polar wastes or in deadly equatorial forests, but rather, in the user friendly open spaces of temperate grassland.

"The Neo-Europes all lie primarily in temperate zones, but their native biotas are clearly different from one another and from that of northern Eurasia."

"There is a striking paradox here. The parts of the world that today in terms of population and culture are most like Europe are far away from Europe, they have indigenous floras and faunas different from those of European. The regions that today export more foodstuffs of European provenance - grains and meats - than any other land on earth had no wheat, barley, rye, cattle, pigs, sheep, or goats whatsoever five hundred years ago."

The whole of North America, much of Middle America, the pampas of South America, the steppes of Siberia, the southern part of Africa, Australia and New Zealand were ideal for the picking. These locales offered Europeans an environment, very similar to the ecology to continental Europe. This being so, Europeans needed little, if virtually no, getting used to or modification of basic their familiar techniques of grazing and farming. These regions of "Neo-Europe" also afforded and ideal biological ecosystem for the invaders. "Perhaps the success of European imperialism has a biological, and ecological, component." There was no competition for the invading plants and animals.

"Weeds" depending on your perspective, spread like wildfire. The Americas and Australia did not have highly distinct ecosystem. Moreover, they specifically lacked powerful and predatory creatures. The pampas, with its flightless birds and Australia with its kangaroos were wide open and exceptionally hospitable to the horses, pigs, cattle and sheep the European brought on purpose, and to the rats and other vermin he brought by accident. European livestock, wild and domesticated, flourished in the Neo-Europes, and ensured settlers, a luxury seat at Natures’ cornucopia. What in conclusion, tipped the balance of power, was disease. The invaders and his beast marched into continents which were amazingly disease free. But with them they brought all the killer parasites and pathogens associated with urban Europe. The elite guard of the invaders were TB, typhus, whooping cough, measles.

Which Europeans had developed considerable immunity to. These microorganism, proved fatal to Aboriginals, who were exposed to them for the very first time. Smallpox destroyed the Amerindians in the pampas, the Aborigines, the indigenous of Siberia; syphilis ruined the Maoris. The advance team, so to speak, were the Old World pathogens. The New World pathogens where no match for the Old World "pestilence."

While great numbers were falling in the New World, little, if no reciprocation, was evident. As we look back, we see that the Europeans never really had a clue as to what kind of an effect they had on the New World. With the introduction of the European ways, there could be no way of knowing that the exported values, technology, animals and pathogens would have such devastating effect on the environment and people. The Europeans where driven by non other than the base longings of greed and where determined that nothing was going to stand in their way. With the help of the pathogens, they got it.

Can we learn and overcome some of our limits to the capacity of our reason? The challenge now, is to learn from those mistakes correct them and ensure that they never happen again

He motioned another being over. Calmly, yet firmly, he extended and shook my hand. "Good luck Miguel, I always admired a sincere desire for academic improvement. Let me introduce you to someone who has a really different take on thing. Robert Wright, allow me to present Miguel Llora. Miguel wishes to learn and expand his frame of reference. He has come from far away to hear what we have to say."

Wright: As much as that was a wonderful thesis by Alfred, and even better and most comprehensive explanation, there are more things to humans than a ecological determinism. Granted that there are things beyond our control, there are lots of things that are within our control. In terms of nature, maybe Neil Evernden has something to say about this. I will introduce you to him later.

As for me, I believe we can go beyond our biology. By following Alfred’s take on things that are beyond our control let me just add this: We have to go against that which is natural. We have to go beyond our biology.

"Darwin, on grounds such as this, believed that the human species is a moral one - that, in fact, we are the only moral animal. ‘A moral animal being is one who is capable of comparing his past and future actions or motives, and of approving or disapproving of them.’ he wrote. ‘We have no reason to suppose that any of the lower animals have this capacity.’ In this sense, yes, we are moral; we have, at least, the technical capacity for leading a truly examined life; we have self - awareness, memory, foresight and judgment. But the last several decades of evolutionary thought lead one to emphasize the word technical. Chronically subjecting ourselves to a true and bracing moral scrutiny, and adjusting our behavior accordingly, is not something we are designed for. We are moral animals - which is more than any other animal can say-but we aren’t naturally moral animals. To be moral animals, we must realize how thoroughly we aren’t."

By this time, I was sure I was in dire need of a drink. Not really a drinker myself, the crimson beverages had a taste of a fruit for which I have not had before. Part tropical, part continental, it nonetheless gave me lots of energy. The energy I needed to get through what was ahead of me.

Wright: "Neil Evernden, allow me to introduce Miguel Llora. Miguel has spoken to Alfred and myself over some questions he is seeking answers to - something about an end of term project. Anyway, I will leave him in your capable hands. Please make sure you don’t turn him into one of your human hating followers. The solution is not to jump over the ravine like the buffaloes of that country of yours."

Mr. Wright turned to me and said he understood the trail to higher learning is paved with good intention but rigged with Darwinian self interest. He warned me not to despair and wished me all the best.

Evernden: There is a reason why we affect nature the way Alfred mentioned, some sort of destruction counter destruction. We have somehow taken a wrong turn in history, we have defined nature as outside ourselves, a sense of "objectification." As much as I wish to share Robert’s sentiment. It seems that we have taken the wrong turn and we are somehow in some sort of self destruct mode. We are in essence a not just a moral animal but more importantly we have become a natural alien.

My thesis revolves around realizing and understanding the wrong turn we took. I share Robert’s and Alfred’s thesis that somehow by understanding what went on, maybe we might transcend our biological past. Somehow, I would like to entertain the notion that we can reverse the damage; however, I feel we are so far gone, there is no turning back.

Let me add my two bits.

I come from a perspective that speaks against nature as object, nature in terms of a cost-benefit analysis.

"What follows is a discussion of how we have tended to think about the world, and how else we might think about it. Moreover, he lays the foundation for what will later be his attack on the very institutions that shape this perspective. Our perceptions and expectations of environment are inseparable from our moral commitment to particular beliefs and institutions."

We begin with a socially constructed view of nature. It is this very social construct that separates each item in nature as an object. Objectifying beings, effectively removes us from the environment and allows us to evolve a "thick skin." We are aiding this paradigm along, through our formal training. Lets explore a Neo-romantic approach to nature. Numbers, my friends, is public enemy no. 1.

"The system will say all that needs to be said about the mountain - and say it with numbers."

By examining nature in terms of numbers, we have effectively "gone over to the other side."

"Therein lies the fatal weakness of the so-called ecology movement. In seizing arguments that would sound persuasive even to indifferent observers environmentalists have come to adopt the strategy and assumptions of their opponents."

I say that beings in nature should not even be seen in terms of dollars and cents. It takes away what is essential in living beings.

".....monetary evaluations distracts us from the fact that the values at issue are not economic in the first place."

Miguel: Mr. Evernden you actually articulated something that I have felt for a long time.

"It is one thing to say that the environmentalist should not have to justify the existence of each creature in economic terms, but quite another to try to protect wildlife here and now, without using every argument available"

Evernden: We can actually learn something from those Romantics.

"The Romantic was seldom the anti-science or anti-reason fanatic he is accused of being. He could comprehend the usefulness of the physicist’s assumptions within the strictly defined boundaries of the science. But he could not accept its projection beyond that realm. He made it his business to understand how a society comes to adopt a particular view of reality, and, as that process became apparent to him, he felt compelled to try to demonstrate the perils of constructing a needlessly restrictive world-view."

I needed some time alone to digest the goings on. I ventured into the garden to admire the scarlet colored Macaws and the plethora of Tulips. I guess I can see Mr. Evernden’s point. Mr. Evernden attributes the Cartesian structuralism as a coping mechanism. He tackles the notion of Phenomenology. Phenomenology is described as: the observation and description of phenomena, a method of arriving at absolute essences through the analysis of living experience in disregard of scientific knowledge. He mentions that all that is supposed to be admitted is experience. He introduced me to a person named Heidegger. Heidegger said that we took a wrong turn fundamentally as we return to our ‘thing-language.’ We see the world as a resource, by doing so we deny its character. We see the culmination of western metaphysics in our exploitive technology and the worship of objective science. We have to effect a paradigm shift. Somehow he has not dealt with his sense of pessimism. I can see Mr. Evernden’s point regarding the possibility that a shift can, and probably should, be made. In this sense he agrees with Alfred and Robert that despite the deterministic quality of nature, we can effect a change. Lets explore this issue of "Other" and maybe I can come to some sense of what can actually be done. It was time to rejoin the party. In the corner was a duo having a really strange interaction. One of them was quite while the other one was non-stop action. The former was spectacled just like one of the hosts. There was a difference in the eyes. The non-stop person, however, certainly had lots of ideas. I introduced myself. The spectacled one was Jean-Paul, the animated one was called Simone.

de Beauvoir: Neil, is a wise individual. It is interesting how Neil brought up the issue of the objectification of nature. As objectification allows us to do as we please with nature, a similar matrix has evolved in terms of how men treat women. By identifying women as the Other, men have, in effect, mismeasured women. I have to agree, we have taken a wrong turn. I am not too sure about how and when we may have taken the wrong turn but essentially, we have in terms of the relations of the sexes. In my work, I outline my thesis.

"Now, what peculiarly signalizes the situation of woman is that she - a free and autonomous being like all human creatures - nevertheless finds herself living in a world where men compel her to assume the status of the Other."

This comes from a long line of factors, that independently do not explain it but are part and parcel of the subjection of women. Darwin, Freud and Marx have formulated ideas about how the world works and to some extent how it should work. The "the division of the species into two sexes is not always clear-cut," and several species are able to perform "asexual propagation." The idea of "opposite sexes," created over the centuries by Western civilization, is not the result of biology, but rather a social construct with deep social roots. I espouse the existentialist view, that we create society and to assume any of it as given is "bad faith" in a gender perspective, one is not born, but rather becomes a woman. I said it before and I will state it again, "Biology is not enough to give an answer to the question that is before us: why is woman the Other? Our task is to discover how the nature of woman has been affected throughout the course of history; we are concerned to find out what humanity has made of the human female." Moreover, ".....the body of woman is one of the essential elements in her situation in the world. But that body is not enough to define her as a woman." which actually encapsulates the thesis of the Other, biology is not enough but does give us certain insights as to why woman has evolved into her current state. As the definition of woman is constructed (albeit wrongly) along psychological and materialistic lines as well, the role and definition of woman can be changed but in the meantime, women have to deal with even more limitations of her body, "As with her grasp on the world, it is again impossible to measure in the abstract the burden imposed on woman by her reproductive function." and "The bondage of woman to the species is more or less rigorous according to the number of births demanded by society and the degree of hygienic care provided for pregnancy and childbirth."

Certainly dated, I am not sure how relevant this is to western and developed countries. However, it certainly applies to places far removed, developing and marginalised. We have a remedy via, "division of labor."

In the Freudian context is seen some of the worst gender biases articulated, "He assumes that woman feels that she is a mutilated man." Here is more, ".....all the psychologists allot the same destiny to woman. her drama is epitomized in the conflict between her viriloid and her feminine tendencies, the first expressed through the clitoris system, the second in vaginal eroticism.

As a child she identifies with her father; then she becomes possessed with a feeling of inferiority with reference to the male and I faced with the dilemma: either to assert her independence and become virilized-which, with the underlying complex of inferiority, induces a state of tension that threatens neurosis-or find happy fulfillment in amorous submission, a solution that is facilitated by her love for the sovereign father. He it is whom she really seeks in lover or husband, an thus her sexual love is mingled with the desire to be dominated."

To the existentialist, to surrender to this state of affairs would be to forfeit life in all its transcendent possibilities. Here is somewhat of a capstone, "In our attempt to discover woman, we shall not reject certain contributions of biology, of psychoanalysis, and of historical materialism; but we shall hold that the body, the sexual life, and the resources of technology exist concretely for man only in so far as he grasps them in the total perspective of his existence. The value of muscular strength, of the phallus, of the tool can be defined only in a world of values; it is determined by the basic project through which the existence seeks transcendence."

In essence, Marx and Freud are bankrupt because they have limited their view of the woman and are very limiting (in all senses of the word). "And in order to comprehend that situation we must look beyond the historical materialism that perceives in man and woman no more than economic units." In closing, let me summarize. Firstly, there is no biological basis for the division between classes. Second, "What is still more serious, woman cannot in good faith be regarded simply as a worker; for her reproductive function is as important as her productive capacity, no less in the social economy than in the individual life." Lastly, and probably the most important, the oppression of women could not have occurred if the human consciousness had not included the original category of the Other and an original aspiration to dominate the other. Being that we are in the twentieth century now and all this is hindsight. Neil has somehow taken the objectification and "Other" concept and taken it a step further. I will stop now as all of you know about my history with Jean-Paul and the fact that we have promised to reveal all. I will let someone else have a say.

I would just like to close by saying that we have become the way we are through historical progression. We can however, make it the great human project to transcend this self imposed state of immanence and move on. Despite the limits and capacity of our reason, I place myself along with Robert, Neil and Alfred. We can change things. Robert actually makes a good point about changing our biological deterministic genes - and we should if we are to transcend the Darwinian definition of women. Neil’s point about objectification of course is near and dear to me. How else will we get past the Freudian limitations and get back to an even handedness and see women for who we are and not for how men have made us. Lastly, Alfred’s mind broadening attempt to show us elements of nature we did not know affected us, is wonderful in assisting us to reverse the materialistic tide and historical explanation. Let us all transcend and make our way to a more positive and victimless world.

There seemed to be chatter coming from the stairs leading up to the gazebo. There was this strong Scottish accent that had all the trappings of the old world. Funny how he permeated a sense of jocularity and a jovial nature. I was charmed by this individual. I got the feeling that this fellow would be less polemic then all the other people I met. The lack of color in the eyes and the uniform nature of the physiques lent an aura of an attempt at an egalitarian order. A sense that there was no difference based on gender, color or status. The environ permeated with a sense of community. A lot less me and a lot more we. Funny how everyone seemed to be from somewhere but not from anywhere. No place to call home, yet diverse culturally. No turf to fight for. No reason to quarrel.

Hume: Rumor has it, we have a guest in our midst. A lad seeking knowledge about how we have become what we are and whether there are limits and capacities to reason. Why certainly! Truth is, there are those who would set the world burning with the insensitive nature of the absolute. The world is diverse and morals should be set according to a common agreement.

Miguel: Does it not lend itself to some form of chaos, if and when we leave things to the randomness of the relative and not aim for an absolute?

Hume: I would have to say no, not really. Allow me to explain. Before I do, can I get you another drink. Simone and Jean Paul may have been talking your ear off, she always does and may have forgotten to keep your drink full. However, I must say that I do find her opinions on things truly interesting. She wishes relations to be equal, I am not sure that is at all possible. But before I continue, allow me to develop my argument. Here is a summary of things: All our ideas are derived from sense impressions. Since our beliefs are based not on reason but imagination, they cannot be rationally justified. We cannot establish the existence of an external, physical world. Causation must be explained subjectively rather than objectively. There are no minds distinct from the contents of consciousness. Ultimately, nothing can be known. Our moral convictions are based on feelings rather than reason. The question of God’s existence is an enigma; although the chief argument that attempt to establish that God exists are subject to telling objections, still they have residual validity. What I have just outlined needs some further explanation: "All perceptions of the human mind, resolve themselves into two distinct kinds, which I shall call Impressions and Ideas." Perceptions - anything of which we are conscious. Impressions - anything that involves the five senses and leads to feelings of pleasure and pain . Ideas - copies of impressions and not as forceful. With me so far? I wrote a book called the "Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals", you seem to have a copy. Let me summarize it for you.

From what he told me, I got the impression that Hume come from the thinking that there seems to be no definite. Later on, this impression was vindicated when I met Annette Baier, and she compared and contrasted Hume and Kant, but that is another story. So I sat in rapt attention, and this is what I got out of it.

Hume: Undoubtedly, this Enquiry is "incomparably the best." In the start of the book, I give a short confession of sorts, those "who have denied the reality of moral distinctions." I cannot understand how anyone would question such a notion. I delve further on to another controversial discourse, "concerning the general foundation of Morals; whether they be derived from Reason, or from Sentiment." Granting that there are solid arguments on both sides of the reason and sentiment side, I propose to settle the argument by delving in to something much simpler. I "analyze the complication of mental qualities, which from what, in common life, we call Personal Merit." Mental qualities, which lead us to lay blame or give praise to the holder. Since every language has a set of terminology by which we lay blame or give praise, we can easily look to language to guide us on this line of study. All we need to do is uncover the circumstance that govern the use of the terms by which we lay blame or give praise. What are these common features for which people are given to esteem or to shame? I insist, this is "a question of fact, not of abstract science," and all we have to do is follow the "experimental method deducing general maxims from a comparison of particular instances," we can expect to be successful with this enquiry.

Miguel: My impression is that science works on the notion of proving or disproving a theory before it becomes fact. Anyway, I digress. Please, go on.

Hume: I furthered my argument by focusing on two social virtues, benevolence and justice. It seems obvious to me, that our benevolent qualities are given praise or esteemed. To say that a person is "sociable, good natured, humane, merciful, grateful, friendly, generous, beneficient, ....." is actually "expressing the highest merit, which human nature is capable of attaining." We give them due merit because they have a "tendency to promote the interest of our species, and bestow happiness on human society." It is necessary that these forms of benevolence are useful to the society at large. If these forms of benevolence are not useful, they stop being esteemed. My analysis of justice leads him to conclude the genesis of justice can be traced back to its usefulness, and the existence is subjective to the circumstances of people.

Change the circumstances - e.g. people have all they need or there was nothing at all - if either one of these conditions existed, then justice would never have to be created. If one or the other should come to pass, our current rules would not apply. With the advent of scarce resources and the distribution of property, "the necessity of justice to the support of society is the sole foundation of that virtue," and it is this "circumstance of usefulness" that lead us to give praise and hold high those actions that give rise to a well ordered society. Why does usefulness please us? Why do we hold high qualities, at least on the surface, for the greater good?

In terms relating to human and not inanimate objects, my answer to the first question is twofold: a.) we see them as ultimately benefiting ourselves and b.)even is they give us personal benefit, human beings, recognize that the act benefits others and we take pleasure from that.

Miguel: As I see it, you are advocating the latter. You acknowledges that human nature is driven by self interest but you also show that this cannot be correct because it cannot account for other aspects of our behavior and experience.

Hume: The selfish theory cannot explain the competent use of moral language nor explain why we give credit to acts that are not directly in our personal interest. Utility is wonderful to us because we are to some degree other-regarding beings and utility contributes to the good of others. This leads me to a Universal Hedonistic Utilitarianism. Personal merit, provides the foundation for morality. Humans are not entirely selfish creatures, "there is some benevolence, however small, infused into our bosom; some spark of friendship for human kind." Even if it is weak, it is strong enough to set us on the journey that is "useful and serviceable to mankind, above what is pernicious and dangerous." We desire in essence what is beneficial to our fellow humans and we respond to approval or disapproval to the qualities and actions of others. We make moral distinctions when we call morally good those actions or characters that result in public benefit; those doing harm (at least in our minds) we call morally evil. The very idea of morality incorporates a "sentiment common to all mankind, which recommend the same object to general approbation." This sentiment sets the stage for "the foundation of any general system and established theory of blame and approbation" or "the foundation of morals." There is a sense of commonality and community. Herein lies the subjective "commonality." It is up to the community to determine (as written above) what is morally good or morally evil. Did this help at all?

Miguel: Certainly, I might have to stop and speak to the hosts. There are a few other folks I must speak to apparently, a Julian Jaynes, Fyodor Dostoyevsky and a Michel Foucault. Do you know these thinkers?

Hume: Being that we are all in this realm together, I have met them all, very interesting people. Julian uses much of the modern biology to lend credence to his rather interesting theories. Fyodor loves to write these very dramatic pieces - very religious fellow - talk to God lots. I am sure you will find him interesting. Michel is new to us, I am afraid you will have to cross that bridge when you get there. Good luck.

I once more found myself floating about. Not really sure where to go next. In the corner of the room where two intellectuals having yet another discourse. Funny, I just felt myself moved or drawn to the conversation. From the distance, all I could make out from what they were talking about was God. Mr. Hume did say that Mr. Dostoyevsky was religious and that his thoughts were interesting and worth considering.

Dostoyevsky: Hello young man, come over here, join the conversation. Ever since I have came to this place, my physical problems have disappeared. The only problem with this place is they have no real Russian Vodka. I hear you are looking for some information on the limits and capacity of reason. I have a few thoughts on that. Mr. Jaynes here will fill you with his atheistic and scientific notions. Personally, I would be compelled to call him a nihilist in lots of ways but that would be too strong.

Jaynes: Now Fyodor, I would be a little flattered to be called that. Funny things is Miguel, is that right, Miguel? Good. I mentioned to Fyodor that his notions of suffering and his embrace of Jesus was an antique notion and a carry over from what I call the end of the bicameral era. I will let Fyodor speak first and I, will hopefully get my two cents in.

Dostoyevsky: In my work, Crime and Punishment, I explored the complex workings of a person’s mind and eventually came to the conclusion that the character Raskolnikov’s only redemption was to accept suffering and be cleansed by it. The work covers a great many things but basically, I wanted to say that this move to pure reason is nihilistic and has no place in Russian and probably the world at large. I have character called Sonya Marmeladov. Sonya comes across as attractive and repelling. Raskolnikov is attracted to her deep sense of faith and compassion. She is, however, an enigma to him. He has created a philosophy or mindset that somehow is a misreading of utilitarianism. It has allowed him to take it to a logical conclusion. He is allowed to kill. Somehow, I don't think he is convinced that his model is redeeming. She is a contradiction. She represents an inner peace despite the suffering. He represents the lack of inner peace in the avoidance of suffering.

Sonya, moreover, does not conform to the ideation of his a world run by pure reason. In the scene where he questions her beliefs about god. Questions her belief in god. Finding it the ultimate irony that she a harlot, of all people, actually believes in god. Hunched over a bible the harlot and the murderer are, in their own way, looking for redemption. In the end, he embraces the very mindset that he had rejected to begin with. He begins to feel. Passion serves as a check on reason and vice versa. A world of pure reason could lack the compassion that makes us human. A world devoid of reason lacks for a sense of order and direction.

If one frames reason as a sense of order and passion as a sense of chaos, Sonya embodies as sense of order within chaos and Raskolnikov as a sense of chaos within order. Sonya, grounded on deep (some would argue un-reasoned position) faith, embodies a sense of order and is not seen to be irrational but has found "ground" and is centered. On the other hand, Raskolnikov in his conscious denial of faith, seems to harbour an unconscious need to find Sonya’s (although he has identified her as non-reasoned and non-intellectual) sense of inner peace.

Miguel: In this light, Sonya embodies once more, the passion of compassion, a redemption in faith. Not unlike Mary Magdalen’s situation, Sonya as well as Raskolnikov are sinners in need of saving. I would ask the question, would Sonya have the deep well of compassion if she did not have faith. Is her deep religious grounding or a real sense of self delusion? Is she addicted to the "opium of the masses"? Sonya, is then, to me a reconciliation of the dichotomy of the delusion of religion, and the freedom within limits that the judeo christian modality provides. She has saved the sinner. She has taught him to feel.

Jaynes: The basic premise with which you are working around Fyodor is interesting. However, to be perfectly honest, it is all based on religion and religion is based on my findings a set of superstitions designed to control us. Voices that control us when the head honcho is not around. Do we really have to suffer so much? Is this some sort of Russian thing?

Dostoyevsky: Funny you should say that. Allow me to enlighten Miguel a little more then you can fill his mind with that atheistic nonsense and let him decide what to take away with him. That very mindset that Julian mentions Miguel is the very danger I am speaking to. It creates Raskolnikov’s with no hope for redemption. Never mind him for now. Where was I? Oh yes, Sonya. Sonya is one-dimensional. She is a one dimensional but highly important character to the plot and my philosophy but not very developed as a character. Simone, god bless her soul has taken my character a step further and has shed some important information on her. She is observed by Dunya as "too good" or saint like in her humility, silence and submission. She was merely a metaphor and not a flesh and blood character. She embodies the redemption through suffering. Don’t you find it interesting that I decided to utilize a whore or prostitute as the means to the salvation.

Simone: I hear my name spoken in vain. Fyodor does have an interesting character in Sonya. May I cut in? Merci. It is an archetype that I examined my book the Second Sex - in the Dreams, Fears, Idols chapter around the section on Myth. I examines Sonya in the section "la fille perdue": "Since she is a kind of pariah, living at the margin of a hypocritically moral world, we can also regard the "fille perdue" as the invalidator of all the official virtues; her low estate relates her to the authentic saints; for that which has been downtrodden shall be exalted. Mary Magdalen was a favorite of Christ; sin opens heaven’s gate more readily than does a hypocritical virtue. Fyodor’s Raskolnikov sacrifices at Sonya’s feet the arrogant masculine pride that led him to the crime; he has aggravated by the murder that will to separation which is in every man: a humble prostitute, resigned abandoned by all, can best receive the avowal of his abdication."

Dostoyevsky: Exactly! Moreover, she embodies for Raskolnikov, the "irrevocable decision" The attraction/repulsion serves as the dynamic tension that springs back and forth to accept the suffering and to be redeemed by it. He wishes but is torn. She does not conform to his reason. She is mad! or is he? We don’t really meet Sonya until the end of Book 2. We begin to hear of her in the tragic tale from Marmeladov. We then here of Dunya’s impending prostitution. Raskolnikov then encounters the prostitute on the street. Funny, everyone who read the book tells me they anticipated her to be Sonya. Sonya is offered as an essential woman-as-redemption symbol. Sonya is a manifestation of what one possible scenario awaited the bourgeois woman of the day. When you finally meet her at her father’s death, she forgives him, foreshadowing the redemption she has to offer, to offer Raskolnikov and us all. She is accepted by Dunya. Raskolnikov’s mother would "gladly take her as my daughter." She then turns and saves the Siberian colony. She is Raskolnikov’s redemption, Russia’s redemption and our redemption.

When it comes to Raskolnikov, I have to say who is more dangerous to the "common good," the person who does evil (or at least in the David Hume’s sense, the consensus of what is evil), knowing it is evil or one who does evil thinking it is good. As simple as it sound, that I feel is Raskolnikov’s tragic flaw. This might sound primitive to Julian but the truth is despite the need to transcend, despite the need to be better than the common person, is the inherent delusion that we are doing good when we are actually doing harm or evil.

Miguel: That is all really interesting. To say that it is human nature is to be an essentialist and is simply avoiding the bigger questions. I agree that in certain times and places, the law serves to limit. Murder, in this case does not. There such things as unjust laws, unjust people and unjust situations. Power makes us so. The outright exploitation without recourse to human rights is a classic example, does it justify murder, I would be tempted to almost say yes. However, deep down in my heart, if I were sitting beside Gandhi, he would say no. I would have to ask him about Hitler - how do we stop him? In an event where reason is no longer an option, violence becomes an element of self defense, and that is where I draw the line. To say that Raskolnikov killed because he felt it was his duty to kill - he felt he was placed in a situation of self defense of the common good, that the pawnbroker was expendable. We can debate around this issue forever. However, she was in no way a direct threat to him physically - he did not have the right to kill. Was he an eagle? Was he better than all the rest? No on both counts. It was not a sense of transcendence that drove him to kill, it was reason gone awry. According to Mr. Dostoyevsky, the only way out it to recognize that redemption will only be found in suffering, The redemption he got by accepting responsibility for his action. The redemption he got from Sonya.

Dostoyevsky: Wonderful! Thank you as well, Simone for helping us out. I find Mr. Jaynes at a loss to add to this discourse.

Jaynes: That is indeed a brilliant but sentimental argument. However, I have to say that the problem is even deeper than that. The problem with your base Fyodor is that all this faith you put on religion is actually a remnant of an era past that placed this notion of faith in the hand of the power brokers. Allow me to build my argument. In my book I argue that human consciousness is a recent development - about three to four thousand years old. Prior to the origin of consciousness, according to human nature was ruled by a bicameral or two chambered mind. Half the brain told the other half, in the voices of gods (as evolved from dead kings or dominant creatures), what to do in times of stress. Consciousness is tied in with the development of language. The disciplines I employed are my findings in archeology and literature are primarily from the Iliad and the Bible.

Consciousness is not a thing but rather a process. Consciousness of self came with a shift in the relative functioning of the two hemispheres or two chambers. Consciousness does not affect human activities, as we can evolve whole civilizations without any self awareness. The decline from bicamerality happened somewhere toward the second millennium, a change in the brain physiology I believe. Lastly, there remains vestiges of the past in the persona of religious heritage, hypnosis and schizophrenia.

Miguel: Mr. Jaynes, the problems I am having with your work are many. First, as we evolved into this voice controlled mode, we had to evolve out of the hunter-gatherer mode over to a more sophisticated structure. As I read it, we evolved from hunter gatherers, who needed a mechanism for control. In response to this need for control, we evolved our metaphoric language, then we broke it down. Trying not to invoke the chicken or the egg argument, did we not need some sort of intellectual ability or self consciousness to create the hierarchy and gods to begin with. To say that the dominant man was the only one allowed to speak is quite a leap to make. Going on, on an assumption that is not really provable, the rest of the argument is somewhat weakened. Maybe that is just my unclear reading of your book, I guess my real question is, where did we get the sophistication to even dream up of leaders, leaders with voices and the need to "lay-down-the-law" so to speak. That is quite the leap from the grunting hunter gatherers you lead me to imagine. It is still a plausible theory. Analogies can be drawn to works of authors with plausible but non provable arguments like Erich von Daniken, whose concept that life evolved from extra terrestrials is plausible but not provable.

Jaynes: We are reading about nothing less than the origin of consciousness. That is a very big pill to swallow. How did we start to become aware of ourselves? I present you with the idea that the mind or consciousness as we know it is a cultural phenomenon. Language is the vehicle in the cultural arena.

Miguel: We are left with the question I had above about the development of civilization. How is civilization possible without self awareness or consciousness? The Achilles and Moses auditory hallucinations argument is somewhat plausible but very difficult to prove. According to you Mr. Jaynes, we were ‘noble automatons who knew not what they did.’ Just like Mr. Evernden, you seem to be invoking lots of ‘facts’ to prove a point he feels strongly about. I get the impression that Mr. Evernden feels very strongly about the environment and has strong opinions about it.

Not discounting the feelings he has and he makes good points, he uses lots of philosophy to explain his point. Along the same lines, I am getting a sense that you, Mr. Jaynes may feel strongly about your thesis that consciousness has evolved from language but you seem to be using disparate proofs to explain it. Did we behave like we drive cars and played tennis and when beset by stress, reach deep within for the God inside all of us? Maybe. When there where difficulties, the right side became confused? Conscious control began to evolve, it was a learned response. It remains with us in Schizophrenia. How does the new discoveries regarding schizophrenia’s genetic component work with your argument Mr. Jaynes’? If it evolved in and out and some remain, it might explain the inherited quality. I would need some kind of background to help me understand your sections regarding the neurological references. In order to actually analyze his proof, I would have to spend more time in analysis of your references and sources.

Jaynes: It would seem that you have given this issue much thought. That might serve as a good project for you. To subject my work to greater rigor will actually give me esteem in your eyes. It is a big pill to swallow. I won’t get into the details here as I will bore the company to tears but let me just add that there is compelling evidence in all the history and anthropology that proves my point. What is compelling is that even if the biology does not work, the theory that we evolved self awareness and away from the voices of the past is compelling and warrants examination. There are limits to reason. What do you think so far?

I did not really know what to make of all this, I thought to myself. I felt vulnerable, out of my element. It was an exciting time yet a dangerous time as well. I was hoping for a helping hand along the way but none was to be forthcoming. I have made my bed so now I must sleep in it (no pun intended). Don’t get me wrong, I have no regrets. However, A gentle nudge rather than a cold distancing was not what I expected. Who am I to ask to genuine caring? I am a naive, sincere searcher. Not adept at the mind games played in this dream, I am left to my own devices. The internal struggle had began. I felt a warmth as I personally engaged each of these great thinkers but the hallowed halls took a grim and cold ambiance as I felt myself so utterly alone. Gone was the festive atmosphere and abundant energy. There is no distinction between the ivory tower and the real world. I tried to examine where this change of heart came from, it is just fatigue I consoled myself. I found myself more determined than ever to stay the course, to learn from this dream as much as I can. As all dreams come to an end, some in the abrupt ringing of a bell others after a complete rapid eye movement sequence. I was determined to complete the cycle despite the bells of opposition and misunderstanding. I begin to relate to the marked, the silenced, the powerless and the misunderstood.

Sitting among what I felt was his set of groupies, an energetic being was discussing murder to this group of young students. I tried to be unobtrusive but was noticed and immediately invited to join in the conversation.

Foucault: Hello Miguel, I was expecting you. Simone and Jean-Paul mentioned you were joining us. Any fellow learner is welcome in this circle. Isn’t he? I am Foucault, Michel Foucault.

Miguel: Thank you Mr. Foucault, I have been so honored so far to be in such illustrious company. I have heard so much about you yet know so little. Please don’t let me interrupt.

Foucault: I was just discussing two of my works with my student. The red one you are carrying I Pierre Riviere.... and Madness and Civilization. As I was saying,.....

He proceeded to narrate the important elements of the story and his students each had their say. I busied myself taking as many notes as possible.

Foucault: Based on what you heard Miguel, what do you think about Pierre Riviere. Was it a crime of passion?

Miguel: I would have to agree with this statement. I see a person driven - driven by a very anti-social notion that what he was doing was in the best interest of the family and maybe even society. I spoke to Mr. Dostoyevsky about his character Raskolnikov, and I read him all over this incident. Funny thing is, he and the fictional Raskolnikov did know they were breaking the law, shades of "crossing the line." This is clearly an issue of a person with a warped sense of reality.

Foucault student: That’s wrong! Don’t you know anything? How stupid can you be!

Miguel: Excuse me learned sir. I was under the impression that this was a forum for free expression and all items were to be brought up as elements for discussion. I was asked a question and to the best of my limited knowledge - of which I am hoping to expand - I responded. It was neither a polemic or dogmatic statement. I thought we were trying to evolve a community of learning. What could possibly prompt you invoke such harsh words. Have you just taken a dislike to me and that authorizes you to treat me disrespectfully. Because you have the power, does not mean you should use it to destroy. I feel you should use your power to build. All I ask is that I be treated with respect.

Foucault: Well said. We will talk about the power relationships later, for now lets discuss Pierre Riviere. Hopefully you and I Miguel can spend some quality time alone and discuss Madness and Civilization. I will tutor you on some of the cruel realities. Based on what the way the insane people in the past where classified and tortured, believe me, you and I have it easy with all our detractors. Do you think Riviere was insane?

Miguel: With the evidence laid out before me, I would have to agree. His reasoning was flawed (which does not mean he is crazy) but to bring it to this conclusion certainly marks one for an anti-social pattern that is misguided. He goes out in a blaze of glory. I see images of Stendahl’s Napoleonic Sorel and Dostoyevsky’s also very Napoleonic Raskolnikov. Each wanting to change their station in life (not that that is a marker of insanity, but that is another issue) and somehow felt compelled to go beyond limits that where agreed upon by society. When is it right to break the law? To do something knowing that it is wrong is one thing, do something wrong thinking or rationalizing that it is good is clearly anti-social. The examples that I will layout below may waver in some areas but I am convinced he is not "normal". Having read part of Madness and Civilization....., I am compelled to feel something for Pierre Riviere. Yes, it was a crime of passion coupled with a limited and distorted reasoning.

Foucault: That is alright given your limited understanding of my take on history. I certainly don’t fault you for thinking this way but there is actually more to it than that. I am interested in your reading of it. We get into these discussions for the very reason of clearing up the ambiguity not to put people to the test to see how well they read the book. Lets not loose sight of why we are here. We are here to learn not to parade our wonderful intellect, even if we got here because we are all experts in our respective fields. Try this one Miguel, Was it a political crime?

Miguel: In terms of the mob, maybe. I have found what seems to be rather mysoginistic statements that point to the uncomfortable feelings that a woman in power gave the horde. In closing, it thought indeed it was all three. Pierre Riviere is clearly insane and has committed a crime of passion. Maybe, an argument could be made that he was somewhat motivated to kill out of a sense of responsibility to "liberate" his father. Certainly the reaction to it lends itself to an indirect political act. Mind you, I am judging him by what is the current standard. Moreover, I am not an expert in the field of psychology. Here is what I heard and how it affected me. Riviere wrote "I was good at learning to read and do arithmetic, but I did not get on so well with writing." I started to wonder if he really wrote the confession. he later wrote ".....I thought I would raise myself above my condition." and ".....carnal passion troubled me." Here he exhibits the need to transcend himself. Not that wanting to get better is a marker for insanity but it certainly paints a picture of a person not happy with his station in life. Probably having a few esteem problems. On the issue of incest, it is difficult to pin this to some psychosis as it cold spring from ignorance or misguided reading. Later in the confession he also wrote, ".....women they would not triumph,....." and ".....now it must be men who employ this mania, it is women who are in command now in this fine age which calls itself the age of enlightenment..... never have they debased strength, it has always the stronger in body who have laid down the law among themselves." Clearly a mysoginistic statement. Something I certainly do not agree with. ".....I die to restore them peace and quite." Is this some sort of "sacrifice" - symbolic of Christ as a redeemer (who had to die to save our souls), or am I reading too much into a manic that felt he had no reason to live. He certainly sound delusory. In the discussion, I heard "Never was distorted judgment carried to greater length....." Exactly what I was referring to above, justification of an act clearly marked as wrong. "one can imagine, " M. Orifila states, "that in such cases the fear of punishment, nonexistent at the time of the state of agitation, may very well succeed it." Somewhere, I am not sure, he mentions that he felt better than everyone else. Only now did he feel embarrassed to admit it.

Dr. Vastel identified a few things: 1. Suffered deficiency since childhood, 2. Madness is hereditary, and 3. Madness manifested in large number of acts previous. I am not too confident with their technique of diagnosis but I will follow along in that if there was a genetic link made, certainly a correlation would be cause to look twice. As science, I have a problem with this in that there is no mechanism to disprove this theory. There was talk of "Moral Shock" - felt it from the act - now he is "sane." There seems to be a belief that coherence and sanity are somewhat connected. He is coherent maybe but not sane. M. Loisel mentioned ".....that he was perfectly capable of knowledge of good and evil, that he had fully comprehended his crime and that he was not afflicted with pronounced madness or homicidal monomania....." In essence, Riviere was capable of forming intent. This is evidence by his clarity of thought in his diary and I agree. Somehow, I felt he was guilty of murder and must suffer to the full extent of the law. It was claimed that his constitution shows no brain damage. How did they come up with this? Furthermore, there was talk about his "state" cannot be "classified." Just because they are not looking for it, does not mean it does not exist. As if mental illness came about from a physical injury. Curious. Did they do this w/ everyone. How does it change the sentence for his crime. Despite the fact that he may not have hit his head, there is clear and present signs of delusion and anti-social behavior. I caution the reader that this is merely and opinion and certainly not proof positive. I have explored items that my first reaction has led me to deduce about this person. I would like to see the areas quoted for the opposite argument (that he is sane and this is merely a crime of passion). There might not be many takers for the opposite view. Two relations of his mother were "certified." Brings to mind the certification process. The genetic arguments for his insanity. it does not always come to pass that someone with the genotype tendency always manifests the phenotype. In this case, there would be a compelling argument that stress may have activated the already predisposed tendency. There is plenty of evidence that points to it. He wrote with order, clarity and precision. He was able to formulate intent. He should be held liable for murder. That he was able to justify in his mind that the killing was justified, through what is looking like to me as some form of self-defense. Like he had to defend himself and his father against his mother. " ‘I knew well’ he says ‘that killing my mother, my sister, and my brother I was infringing the law of man and laws of morality, but I knew too that my blood would flow to requite of society and I thought that when it was shed on the scaffold it would consecrate my filial devotion." One more time, he is forming intent. He was in complete control of his thought process but was marked by a sense of detachment from reality. He killed.

Foucault: Interesting, there is one major component present throughout the book but never explored in any depth, namely the story of the ‘primary victim’, Victoire Brion, wife of Pierre-Margin Riviere, mother of Pierre Riviere and woman described as the ".....everlasting canceller of contracts".

Miguel: From the very beginning, I noticed the clear absence of the mother’s voice. It would have been curious to see the transcripts of the case files to and from the father as well. Since they are the focus of this crime, this background information might have shed some light on the motive of this crime. She is called the "tyrant mother." How are we to deal with this out of context. Was she really as tyrannical as he paints her out to be? Was the father responsible for making things the way they were? Was she predisposed to act like a spoiled brat and the father the nudge she needed? As the ".....everlasting canceller of contracts" did she wield power that Pierre Riviere deemed threatening? Maybe the answer to the question is all of the above. Did is justify murder? No.

Foucault: Maybe I should jump in right now with Madness and Civilization and explain my take on history. After I explain some of my theories lots of things about Pierre Riviere will become clearer. All the items you brought up above are valid and worth examining. Lets shift the discussion. What I feel I provide by these examples, is a critique on modern society. I attack particular disciplines: the human or social sciences (psychology, criminology and sociology).

People somehow set up what is normal by defining the abnormal. There seems to be move from suppression to repression. Different sets of rules for knowing. Nostalgic, I have been accused of, but not that times where better but that certainly this time seems worse. The age of reason was actually the age of un-reason. The age of reason merely set up new set of rules. They were profoundly mistaken. All my work is fiction remember. In a sense I aim to deconstruct the "great systems" and "vital truths." All I am setting up is a free play for difference. A call for diversity. There is no one reading of his text.

There are essentially 4 themes I want to explain to you, which include: Discourse, Power Knowledge Relationships, Genealogical Inquiry and the Absence of the subject of history

First, there is the issue of discourse. Discourse is a system of possibility. How do we know what we know? What is the state and object of analysis. We set up rules. How de we classify? How does a society operate? We set up different sets of rules. This brings to the fore the discussion of what is essential as opposed to what is socially constructed. We develop a set of knowledge. We set up competing discourses. We set up classification. We are then locked in a particular discourse. We exclude other modes. Truth is simply an effect of discourse. In the discussion of crime, the act itself is a sign of classification. There is then a move from the crime to the criminal. This in effect turns our attention from the punishment to the treatment or reform. We then set up a preemptive action to avoid this "criminal mind." In this turn of events, things become pathologized and depathologized. I reject psychological determinism.

Second, there is the issue of power knowledge relationships. What determines a power relationship is when an agent affects another. to get an agent to do what he other would otherwise not do. This is an inherent feature in all social relations. This sets up patterns of domination.

Third, the is the issue of genealogical inquiry: The rediscovery of attack. One time in history, we talked to the insane. Now we no longer listen.

Lastly there is an absence of the subject of history: All history is fiction. All fiction can tell the truth. That is really just a readers digest approach to my philosophy.

What do you think?

Miguel: Well, after getting this explanation, I certainly have seen Pierre Riviere in a limited light. I was diagnosing him from what is effectively a 20th century discourse on what insanity is. I was essentialising madness. If that is brought under question then the very basis for my pop diagnosis comes under fire. There are other big picture issues I missed. It seems we should question a lot of our cherished tenets and asked what validates what we believe. If the world is full of power relations, then that would explain all the reactions against me. With each competing agenda, people could very easily perceive me as trying to champion my discourse and react in a certain way. It is too bad that the world functions that way, it certainly does not lend itself to open discussion. Please tell me more about Madness and Civilization.

Foucault: That is a good start. Is it clearer now that things are not always quite so simple. There are forces, historical forces that are not actually forming some sort of progression. This whole Marxist notion of history as a class struggle I reject. Lets get back to the book. I examined madness as it changes from a relatively harmless and accepted state to one of abject terror in the 18th century. The change of heart resulted in the confinement of the deranged under conditions of extreme brutality. The madmen came at this time to replace the leper as the pariah of society, in essence the madman has become in this case, the "other" or the abnormal. The mad were lumped with the poor, the destitute, in a word marginalized. The mad served no purpose in the mercantile era of production and was a threat to basic social values. They were confined, brutalized, but were also put up for public ridicule. As such, they were beyond morality. We issued a carte blanche to do with these madmen as their keepers pleased. This effect came about only after they had identified them as such. It was the manifestation of a power matrix that allowed man to brutalize man. In the 19th century, society began to take a moral attitude towards the insane, not one of compassionate but one of abject dejection. The changes that took effect during the industrial revolution changed the status of the downtrodden making them the bedrock from which all wealth was cemented. As long as the poor knew their place and remained there, they eventually were established as a class to be identified and utilized. It was from within demoralizing situation that madness evolved its persona. The mad were considered unnatural and disorderly and were now viewed as moral defects. It was with this preparation that the modern definition of madness that I saw its genesis. Mental illness took on a medical personage. Suddenly, with this classification came the authorization for not only new contact between doctors and patients but altogether new paradigm between insanity and medical thought. When before the physician played no role in the life of confinement, he is suddenly the main player in this new game with a new set of rules. The entry of the doctor onto the scene is not out of an inherent skill but is a result of the power he possesses. The physician is now validated by a body of "objective knowledge." The medical profession does not stop there.

The ultimate sanction of this authorized body of knowledge is the eventual entry into the lives of healthy individuals who were deemed healthy enough to function on their own yet not trusted to make any autonomous judgments. As the medical establishment has become more extensive so that the distinction between medical and moral has eventually become confused. In effect, he challenges us to examine why we have evolved this cherished tenet. Why we have placed the power in the hands of establishments such as the medical profession.

Miguel: It seems that much like Emile Zola, Pierre Riviere has become your Dreyfus and through both your icons of the damned, both you and Zola have moved us to examine our vital truths. This is certainly a challenge that cannot be ignored. Any new examination of the vanguard is certainly welcome. This whole discussion, leaves me with this totally relative, non objective mindset. When do we act? Are all things relative? Is there an objective state?

Foucault: Society defines madness and that definition changes within the context and framework of the times. In order to define sanity, we had to have insanity. The definition of the other, outside the mainstream. The age of reason systematized insanity. A dichotomy of poles evolved: Reason vs. Unreason, Sane vs. Insane, and Normal vs. Abnormal. In a bygone era, actually the middle ages, we were allowed to listen to our town fools and wise men. Today, we incarcerate them. When it seemed like the Age of Reason was going to emancipate us, we are once again presented with another dominate discourse. A discourse is a set of rules for knowing. Knowledge is linked then to the power relations. The age of reason compels us to "treat" or "cure" the other. In essence, it legitimizes people who have to become like us. Madness is a social construct, a definition of the times. People like Pol Pot in my world would not be crazy. Much like Pierre Riviere, we would transform these individuals as crazy. Riviere mentioned that he was not crazy and wanted to be dealt the full extent of the law. Based on his admission it was assumed that he was crazy. Guilt then is ascribed by a dominant social discourse. I am guilty by what definition you made me.

Miguel: If Mr. Nietzche walked in to a modern day hospital, we would treat him for possibly delusional behavior. If we did this to him, we would not be able to hear what he was saying. In the middle ages, when the mad spoke, we listened. In the age of reason we separate, silence and incarcerate. In your explanation above, the test of reason was work. My question revolved around the critique posed by post structuralism. After we have identified the "structure," what do we do? Where do we take it. It seems that the post structural mechanism begins to break down, there is no alternative. All is relative and nothing is pinned down to some form of understandable concrete. Reason was to free us from the constraints of superstition. We have simply used it to reconstruct another discourse. To my mind, what else will there be. The post structuralists do not offer an alternative. If the efficacy of this mechanism is the ultimate critique of the power structure than all the more power. However, the advocates of this "system" decide that it is one, then at least present a direction. To break it down (like Nietzche does) is to leave the solution to the chaos theory. If my read on your work, Mr. Foucault is correct and history is series of dominant discourses in dynamic tension with each other, then there seems to be something lacking. What could I possibly mean by this. Yes, post structuralism does show us the limit and capacity of reason via a critique on the age of reason. Reason as an alternative to passion, I hear, is bankrupt. So too, however, is the alternative you provide or actually do not provide.

There were lots of issues looming for me. I was getting a sense that Foucault with his theme that history is nothing but a series of dominant discourses centered around a power relation between the mainstream and the fringe (the in and the out). My question did include the smaller question of the classification of a mental disorder and the symptoms associated with it as opposed to the bigger question of labeling a disease as such.

My question that centers around the broader questions include action. I am curious what you think Foucault would say if I asked him where we draw the line and take action. Alright, I can take this all the way with him. Although not defined, there is a dominant discourse. It has evolved through a power struggle and somehow has established itself as such. We (the ones who bought in to the dominant discourse) have license to do with as we please to a fringe group who has not bought in (i.e. the "mad" as we define them, the "work challenged" as the middle class pigeon holes "them" etc.) I see the benefit of examination of the rubric that has evolved but am stuck for an alternative. I am stuck in some existentialist cycle of rolling the rock up the hill and seeing it roll down again. Sisyphus would laugh at me trying to get out of the cycle of empowered / disempowered. Stuck in some sort of existentialist void (although the existentialist challenge us out of our state of immanence via the proverbial project. Somehow I see Foucault asking us to change something - I am not sure what and how?

I can see the looming threat of a Foucault groupies telling me that my search for the elusive Phenotype standard for Tourette Syndrome is nothing but an exercise in futility. For that matter I can see them and him saying this about all maladies. If someone came into a clinic and asked for help regarding a condition, I am somewhat confident that a physician won't be telling the anyone that their loved on is suffering from some socially constructed condition. I do believe (and this is part of my argument for a call to get a standard phenotype) that treatment and feedback loop regarding its efficacy can only be accomplished if there is a mechanism in place to do both based on some form of common classification. Despite the anti Foucault tendency, I don't see anyway out of the dilemma.

Somehow I see that this approach is great for the big picture issues and asks us to question why things are the way they are. Maybe some things are they way they are because they work and would be better left alone. If Foucault wishes to contest the benefits of classification, no problem. I would like to see him get sick and see what he does when the physician diagnoses and treats him and he even actually gets better. How would Foucault handle being told he has cancer. Would he say, "Gee, I am dying of a social construction."? I don't see how they can get around the need for classification and treatment.

At this time, hosts decided to accompany me for a walk around the garden. One of the hosts said: "Of course, I agree with you. Theory takes you only so far and often nowhere helpful, but it does remind us of the tentative nature of many of our conclusions. BUT, it should never stop us from acting or, more important, from trying to relieve distress."

Suddenly things began to change. The hosts disappeared as if to blend with the mist. Colorless forms joined the opaque hue that pervaded the landscape. The fog faded, exposing a placid lake. With the structure behind me, the noise faded to nearly nothing. I was in quite repose, in a state of much needed contemplation. As if out of nowhere, a log raft appeared. Its captain, non other than the Grim Reaper. Clad in white, he cut an ominous figure. As if by understanding alone, I knew my place was across the lake. I stared into his colorless eyes and like Siddhartha before me, this Hessian experience called me to go across the lake and resolve what had just come to pass. The raft began to move. I was thinking to myself how profound an experience I had just been through.

It turned to me and asked if my visit was good and if I learned anything profound. I told it, I did not wish to trivialize the great thoughts by essentialising them into quick sentences. Somehow I knew that it would be inevitable as would try to make sense of it all. I had engaged some of the greatest minds in history. I could not pick one over the other. Each had a peculiar take on history and a portion of the truth. What I was profoundly struck with was a sense that each had opened my eyes to an alternative way of looking at things. In an age of reason, we can use reason to come to realizations but we must realize that there are limits. We are passionate beings and the denial of which is futile. To denounce our passions would be to deny our humanity. A healthy compromise between the two is essential.

It was quite for the rest of the trip, and so was I. I took the opportunity to think.

I got the sense that there were three major themes that were thrown around during that dream. Everyone spoke to a certain deconstruction, a look at the Other and the limits of reason.

An argument could be put forward that Alfred Crosby spoke of the New World as the other world. A world of the disempowered. A land to be conquered and changed. A land destined to become a copy of the conqueror. Evernden spoke to the objectification of nature. Once we made nature and object, in our eyes it lost value. Nature was not part of us. For him we effectively alienated ourselves from it. A dichotomy was created when we took the wrong turn. Jaynes, well that is a bit harder to place the sense of the other. Perhaps an argument could be made in terms of those who are the remnants of the bicameral era, those who have remained in his historically constructed bicameral era. Simone de Beauvoir is the queen of the sense of the Other. She in effect coined the phrase for the discussion. Her treatment of the historical development of the mismeasure of women is pegged to this sense of other. We have done it with nature, women were the next natural progression. We have certainly done them a great disservice and it is time to turn the tide. Even I have been molded to refer to women as "them." and that is the problem. What in essence de Beauvoir is saying is that we have done a great disservice to humanity by the category of the other. Hume, at least to me does not represent the other so much as to speak to a certain co-existence. In Hume is a seed of a tendency to deconstruct to study the social institutions we create, somewhat a fore shadowing of Foucault. In Wright is the personification of the other. We view each other apparently as objects for the preservation of our species. Wright does suggest that we transcend our basic humanity to become a moral animal by realizing this limitation. Dostoyevsky spoke to a sense of redemption through suffering. The alienation is felt through Raskolnikov. His entry back was through Sonya. By choosing to be the odd man out, he would never be redeemed. he had become the other. Foucault is the king of both the deconstruction and the identification of the disempowered as the other. The mad, the leper, the work challenged, they have become the members who have opted out of the dominant discourse. Foucault critique on the need to reexamine the power rubric of the day, I feel is his call to examine who we alienate and why. He calls us to in effect deconstruct the world we have made by asking who and what validates what is all around us.

While Foucault is the king of deconstruction, Crosby was the first in a series to examine a major paradigm. Crosby showed us that the old school of thought of our romantic notions of conquest where somewhat wrong. While we believed (or maybe wanted to believe) that we swashbuckled our way to conquest, it was in fact pathogens that paved the way. This represents a major breakdown in our traditional paradigms of history. We are affected by things we do not understand. We delude ourselves. Break down the self delusion and move to understand and minimize the damage, maybe even reconstruct. Evernden certainly wants us to see that the current mindset of both the user and the protectors is all wrong. he makes a long argument for what has effectively alienated us and asks us to reconstruct a move back to nature. Jaynes shoves the pie in our face with the whole notion that one of the very bedrock of our societal interrelations is all simply superstition and serves those ho have found a voice to speak. The notion that religion is abusing its power is certainly not new. The forces have battled for eons concerning the architect of the universe and certainly more have pondered the notion of the middle way as opposed to the rigid context of caste. While the battle rages on, Jaynes sets out for us a comprehensive look at his historical evolution of what he calls our bicameral mind and how it breaks down. I see him trying to make us see the construction in order for us to realize what we have created and to work on understanding it. If religion is the voices of the powerful ruling over us, the realization of it must certainly be the genesis of our freedom from it. De Beauvoir certainly wishes us to destroy the notion of the Other and to formulate a new and improved mode of action. We are challenged to move from our immanent state to effect a project of deconstruction of the Other. Hume is the epitome of the jovial sociologist. Asking us to examine how we interact is the beginnings of a breakdown of it. The re-examination will come full circle with Foucault, however, Hume does give us a picture of our social interaction and allows us to use it against the ultra right forces which manifest themselves in the eventual criticism by Kant. Wright is a critique of the rational. By his work the Moral Animal, we are thrust back to Crosby. While we would like to believe that we are in total control, we are not. We are subject to pathogens and drives that are outside us and inside us respectively. Dostoyevsky spoke out against nihilism and the complete trust of reason. By constructing Raskolnikov as the reason centered outcast, he has shown me, at least, that total reliance thereto will lead to an alienation. There is more to life than pure reason. He certainly does not discount the power of reason. Total adherence to it will result in the Raskolnivkov in us all. By understanding it, we are hopefully warned not to repeat it. We come full circle to Foucault. Question all things.

As an attack from all fronts is a necessary and helpful exercise, theory leaves us with the tools to analyze, deconstruct and reconstruct. The limits however come in the form of different takes on history, incomplete solutions and more dangerously inaction. While each thinker does an analysis that represents his or her take on history, each does come up with a truth. Although it is incomplete, it certainly does give us food for thought. A dangerous result is that once we have seen the theory, we will be paralyzed by inaction as action will seem to contradict a new paradigm. Transcending theory and moving to action can be modified by the presentation mad by each thinker. They can enrich our lives.

Suddenly as if from midst of Hades, the tranquillity ceased and my whole world began to spin. Violence mixed with color. Pain mixed with joy. Angst shattered confidence. Wishing to release the primal scream. I heard nothing.

Awakening. I find myself challenging the difficulty of the Saharan mid-day sun. Anyone who has been in the desert can empathize with the loss of energy and sense numbing heat. I walked for what seemed to be forty days and forty nights. I climbed the side of the mountain to seek shelter from the heat. In utter exhaustion, I collapsed. Gently, I felt a nudge. "How long was I out of it?" I asked this naked form. He mentioned that time had no bearing in this dream world. He mentioned to me that nothing was more compelling as the first light. We sat together. We understood. His name was Zarathustra and it was time for us to come down from the mountain. He said to me, "You have come to the end of a long journey, only to begin anew." He looked at me and with the understanding of the pain that knowledge beings, a solitary tear rolled from his eye. A blinding light flashed and a quickly as began it was over. I opened my eyes to the familiar surroundings of home.

I got up and dressed. Bike shorts on tight, helmet on, I rode across the Burrard Bridge and found myself by English Bay. I sat on a one of the benches and soaked in the scent of ocean breeze. I gazed at the ships and enjoyed the gentle caressing of the waves. From that moment on, I knew that the truth is out there and that I would never look at things the same way again.

-oOo-

Kindly click here to return to Academic Interests
Please click here to return to Additional Information