World-renowned anthropologist Paul Rabinow dies at 76
By Yasmin Anwar
—
Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, who died on August 1st 2017, at the age of 79, was a cultured and amusing but persuasive debater and writer: a good man to have at your side in an argument, but also a gentle yet effective interrogator. He was also an extremely distinguished zoologist: past President of the Royal Zoological Society of London (2004–2014), Biological Secretary of the Royal Society (1998–2003), and provost of Kings College Cambridge (1988–2003), where he took a particularly keen interest in the gardens.
But his greatest energies were spent on his studies of animal behaviour and within this area he was extremely influential both in our understanding of the development and neurobiology of learning and behavior and subsequently in assessment of animal welfare, where he developed measurements of pain and suffering and then the frameworks in which they could be applied. Initially his interest was in medical research, where “Bateson’s cube” shows us how to take into account the level of animal suffering a piece of research might cause, the certainty of medical benefit, and the quality of research performed (how certain is it that results will be found). Subsequently this expertise was applied to more general areas of animal welfare, so that he led an inquiry financed by the UK National Trust into stag hunting that caused the immediate banning of stag hunting with hounds on their property, and subsequently influenced a UK Government Inquiry whose recommendations led to the ban on hunting deer with dogs. Patrick’s methods were those of careful measurement and observation, minute dissection of the evidence obtained, and direct and simple presentation of his conclusions.
This expertise both in welfare and its measurement, and in development and biology made Patrick a natural choice to consider problems within dog breeding in the wake of the BBC documentary, “Pedigree Dogs Exposed”. After agreeing to a joint invitation from DEFRA, The Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust and their agreeing to his total independence to form and publish his own conclusions, Patrick set about this inquiry with the help of Heather Peck as administrator, ideas-tester and amanuensis. For him this took up the great part of his calendar year 2009. Although the resulting written report is only 41 pages long (excluding prefaces, summary and appendices) it covers a great deal of ground from the domestication events that may have initially influenced how breeds developed, through means of measuring welfare, the theoretical problems of inbreeding (including loss of hybrid vigour and enrichment for recessive diseases), and the real current problems of large scale commercial breeding including those of puppy mills, inherited health problems, and problems connected with exaggerated conformations. Each problem for dogs is described, and then methods for tackling it sought from experts both amateur and professional, road-blocks identified and recommendations made. He concluded with a number of recommendations: the formation of an “Advisory Council on Dog Breeding” to address specific issues both within individual breeds and in dog breeding practices; the collection of prevalence data; the revision of breed standards; the upgrading of the KC Accredited Breeder scheme; a shift in veterinary practice towards preventative medicine; upgrading of requirements for inspection of premises where breeders require licences, including inspection by veterinarians; the introduction of compulsory microchipping; compulsory extensions to DNA based testing for some diseases; and also public education campaigns on the buying and ownership of dogs.
So how successful has Patrick’s work been on behalf of dogs? Given that the publication took place in a world of newly tight money where successive Governments found other things preoccupying them, I think it has been pretty useful. Microchipping of all dogs is a reality. An advisory council did develop recommendations on specific reforms to commercial dog breeding conditions, reforms to some breed standards, and reforms to the KC’s Accredited Breeder scheme – these have been partially taken up, and the KC have adopted more expert advice. The need for more research has been answered by several of the welfare charities in their choice of projects to fund. The means for collecting prevalence data have continued to develop. There are many remaining problems with individual breeds but these are being chipped away at. An initial period where most in the field thought that the lack of funding meant public education was close to impossible, has been replaced by increasing optimism, as ways have been found to approach commerce directly, to use social media cheaply, and to interest broadcasting media without paying directly for the content. There is plenty still to do, but quite a lot to be positive about. So Patrick’s work on dogs has proved one of his many important legacies in a life exceptionally well-lived.
David Sargan 07.08.17.
12-4-16
To Patrick Bateson, Concerning the USA Presidential race, I wanted to pass on my personal interaction with the Clintons and then discuss the election of Trump (which has been compared to the BREXIT VOTE in the UK) and a movie recommendation, From Everette Hatcher of Little Rock on 12-4-16
I am currently the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE for District 2 of Saline County which is the 6th largest county in Arkansas and I just finished going through my 3rd election. I won my first election by 4 1/2% and my last two elections by double digit margins in probably the most Democratic leaning district in the whole county even though I am a Republican.
At the age of 21 in January of 1983 I moved from Memphis to Little Rock and I had never seen a politician in person. I suppose it was because Memphis is a large city and I lived in a suburb outside it. However, the first week I was in Little Rock I got to meet Governor Bill Clinton and I ran into both of our U.S. Senators and our Congressman in downtown Little Rock when I was dropping off a deposit at Worthen Bank and attending a meeting in a small meeting room at the State House Convention Center. In fact, I ran into them again and again often at restaurants, movie theaters and ballgames around town. After a while I didn’t really take notice anymore since it was so common. My uncle explained to me that Little Rock was a capitol city and since we worked downtown we could often run into politicians.
Our plant location was on 300 Industrial Road which is right next to the Arkansas River within a few hundred feet from where the Clinton Library stands today. In 1985 we moved to another part of Little Rock.
A quick couple of stories about my personal interaction with Bill Clinton. One of the first times I spoke with him was at the 1983 ARKANSAS INDEPENDENT GROCERY WHOLESALER MEETING and he came into our meeting tardy because he said there was a big emergency at the Capitol and that was Hillary wanted a private meeting with him. The amazing thing that day was that I noticed that he personally greeted the dozen or so elderly men that owned these grocery wholesale businesses and called them all by their first names. Since then the Krogers and large supermarkets of the world have completely run these wholesalers out of business in Arkansas.
A year later I was at a relative’s wedding and I was seated on the aisle and when the father of the bride began to escort her down the aisle I noticed that Bill Clinton was in the seat directly behind me. Being a politician he couldn’t resist shaking the father’s hand and Hillary promptly elbowed Bill and his face turned red. I am sure she has had to elbow him a few times since 1984!!!
I am an evangelical conservative so even though I was very upset that Donald Trump was the Republican Nominee, I did hold my noise and vote for him over Hillary Clinton. However, I DIDN’T HAVE A GOOD EXPLANATION WHY CLINTON LOST UNTIL I READ THESE WORDS A FEW DAYS AGO in the DAILY MAIL:
In the waning days of the presidential campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton had a knock-down, drag-out fight about her effort to blame FBI Director James Comey for her slump in the polls and looming danger of defeat….[Bill Clinton] got so angry that he threw his phone off the roof of his penthouse apartment and toward the Arkansas River.’
Bill has a luxurious penthouse apartment with an outdoor garden at the Clinton Presidential Library and Museum in Little Rock.
During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary’s top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign.
He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization.
_________
Are you buying Bill’s explanation?
I just saw the movie GREATER about the life of Brandon Burlsworth and there was a secularist farmer played by Nick Searcy that reminded me of you and when the DVD is released on 12-20-16 I would like to send you a free one.
Yesterday while in my attic I ran across a cassette tape labeled “April 1999” and it has the recording of my 12 year old son calling into a local radio show where he got to talk to Brandon Burlsworth who had just been drafted by the Indianapolis Colts to play in the NFL. Just a few days later Burlsworth was on his way to his Harrison, Ark., home from Fayetteville, where he received an SEC West title ring along with the rest of the 1998 Razorbacks on April 28, 1999. Every Wednesday, he returned to take his mom, Barbara, to church. The drive was supposed to take about 90 minutes.
He never made it.
The 22-year-old Burlsworth, who had been drafted by the Colts 11 days earlier after earning first-team All-America honors as a fifth-year senior, was involved in a head-on crash with a tractor-trailer about 15 miles outside Harrison and was killed. He was in the prime of his life and football career, and then he was gone.
There’s a great deal of Christian content in this film. It can perhaps best be summarized by saying that Brandon’s unwavering faith deeply informs everything he does, while his brother’s faltering faith after Brandon’s death is something he grapples with mightily.
Brandon has deep trust in God. At every step along his journey, when naysayers rise up to tell him that he’s being unrealistic, Brandon keeps moving forward in faith. Marty is more pragmatic, asking his brother things like, “You think God would give you D I [Division 1] dreams and a D III (Division III) body?” To Marty, the answer to that rhetorical, spiritual question is self-evident. Brandon, however, soldiers on, refusing to give up. “Have faith, Marty,” he says elsewhere. “This is my road.”
For his part, Marty struggles to cling to his faith in the wake of his brother’s death. That internal battle is depicted in a dramatic way through ongoing dialogue with a doubter named the Farmer. Marty’s trying to summon the courage to go into Brandon’s memorial service at Harrison High School. And the Farmer (played by Nick Searcy), depicted very nearly as a Satan-like tempter, repeatedly delivers soliloquies about the utter foolishness of faith. In one scene, the man (who’s whittling a portrait of Marty into a block of wood, almost as if he’s creating a voodoo doll) says, “Brandon did have faith. He believed if he worked hard and did everything he was supposed to do, God would make everything turn out for the best. Did everything turn out for the best, Marty?”
Elsewhere, the Farmer taunts, “There is no loving God, Marty. That’s ridiculous. There’s just a howling void. And a real man, an honest man, doesn’t get down on his knees to pray to it for his mercy. He stands up to it, and he looks it right in his face and he howls right back.”
But Marty also talks with his godly mother about how to process the randomness of Brandon’s death. She tells him that it’s only random when looked at from an earthly perspective. “If you assume this is all there is, you’d have a point, Marty. But that’s not true. This life is a drop in the ocean. One tick of eternity’s clock, and we’ll all be together again, Marty. And every trouble we had here will recede away like a dream.”
__
It has been a pleasure to send you these letters in the past and I hope you take me up on this offer to see this inspirational true story about Brandon Burlsworth who was truly one of the greatest rags to richest stories in sports history. Also I would encourage you to google FRANCIS SCHAEFFER THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher, cell ph 501-920-5733, P.O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221, everettehatcher@gmail.com
____
Brandon below with his brother Marty and his two nephews
XXXXXXXXX
__________
______
Linda Bloodworth-Thomason and Harry Thomason with the Clintons in the White House
___
___
Bill was on the phone at his luxurious penthouse apartment he keeps at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:
…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
Nick Gathergood, David-Birkett, Harry-Kroto
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
Arif Ahmed, Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael Bate, Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky,Alan Dershowitz, Hubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan Feuchtwang, David Friend, Riccardo Giacconi, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross, Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen F Gudeman, Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison, Hermann Hauser, Roald Hoffmann, Bruce Hood, Herbert Huppert, Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve Jones, Shelly Kagan, Michio Kaku, Stuart Kauffman, Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, George Lakoff, Elizabeth Loftus, Alan Macfarlane, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow, Yujin Nagasawa, Alva Noe, Douglas Osheroff, Jonathan Parry, Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse, Carolyn Porco, Robert M. Price, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Oliver Sacks, John Searle, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg, Lee Silver, Peter Singer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, Barry Supple, Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Neil deGrasse Tyson, .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and Lewis Wolpert,
In the first video below in the 22nd clip in this series are his words and my response is below them.
In the You Tube video “A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1),” Patrick Bateson asserted:
”I’m not a believer.”
Are you an agnostic or an atheist would you say?
“Well, that’s a good question, I think… Darwin’s response when he was asked whether he was an atheist was I don’t know, so I think agnostic. I think I’m actually an atheist when all is said and done, if I’m really honest about it, I really don’t believe in a God.”
Patrick Bateson (biologist, science writer and professor of ethology)
_________________________________
________
Related posts:
The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
__
—
Nature volume 548, page 394 (2017)
Biologist who unravelled how animal behaviour develops.
Rarely a day goes by without extravagant claims being made about whether some human characteristic — be it intelligence, violence or sporting prowess — is explained by genes or environment, biology or upbringing, ‘nature or nurture’. Patrick Bateson exposed the folly of such false dichotomies. In a 50-year career, he made seminal contributions to almost every topic in the science of animal behaviour, becoming a leading authority on behavioural development.
Bateson, born on 31 March 1938, decided at an early age to be a biologist. He was influenced by the legacy of his grandfather’s famous cousin, the geneticist William Bateson, and by a keen interest in birdwatching. Bateson was educated at Westminster School in London before beginning an undergraduate degree in natural sciences at the University of Cambridge, UK, in 1957. In 1963, he married Dusha Matthews, with whom he had two daughters. Apart from a two-year fellowship working with neuroscientist Karl Pribram at Stanford University in California, Bateson spent his whole career at the University of Cambridge in the Sub-Department of Animal Behaviour.
Bateson’s early research was influenced by two luminaries of ethology, Niko Tinbergen and Robert Hinde. Hinde supervised Bateson’s PhD on behavioural imprinting — the tendency of young birds, such as goslings, to latch on to and follow the first moving stimulus they see, typically their mothers. At the time, the mechanisms underlying imprinting were a mystery and hotly disputed.
Bateson defused the contention through decades of pioneering experimentation into the underlying genetic, neural, physiological and experiential bases of the phenomenon, largely in collaboration with neuroscientists Gabriel Horn and Steven Rose. As psychologists had argued, imprinting is a form of perceptual learning, whereas, as ethologists had maintained, it involves an unlearned predisposition to attend to the physical characteristics of the mother.
Bateson also studied mate choice, animal welfare, play, learning and memory, and the role of behaviour in evolution. He had an eloquent writing style and published influential books. These included Measuring Behaviour (Cambridge University Press, 1986), an introduction to the methodology of the field co-authored with ethologist Paul Martin, and Design for a Life: How Behaviour Develops (Jonathan Cape, 1999), also written with Martin. Some of the volumes edited or co-edited by Bateson, notably Growing Points in Ethology in 1976 and Mate Choice in 1983 (both Cambridge University Press), shaped thinking in these fields. He edited the influential Perspectives in Ethology series for 20 years, and for 5 years was editor of Animal Behaviour, the leading journal in ethology.
Bateson held exalted positions in British science, including provost of King’s College at the University of Cambridge (1988–2003), president of the Zoological Society of London (2004–14) and biological secretary and vice-president of the Royal Society (1998–2003). He proved a leader in other ways too, showing courage, integrity and sensitivity in tackling emotive topics, including dog breeding and the use of animals in medical research. Bateson was also commissioned by the National Trust, a UK conservation and heritage charity, to lead a review into the physiological effects of hunting in deer, which resulted in the trust banning the practice on its land.
Bateson was adept at helping others to develop a more nuanced understanding of tricky issues, such as overly simplistic adaptationism at a time when ‘gene for X’ language was rife. His calm and reasoned writings ensured that the whole organism and a systems perspective remained in sight during the heyday of genetic determinism.
Bateson maintained a keen interest in evolutionary biology, but envisaged a broader conception of evolutionary causation, one that eschewed gene-centricism and placed the organism centre stage. This led some biologists to view him as a maverick. Nonetheless, Bateson was ahead of the curve in recognizing the evolutionary significance of mate choice, sympatric speciation (when populations of a species in one habitat become reproductively isolated from each other) and developmental plasticity, which have since become mainstream concepts.
He also recognized the importance of ideas such as epigenetic inheritance and niche construction, which are now garnering increased attention. Behind the scenes, by organizing conferences and workshops and by promoting the work of progressive thinkers, Bateson helped to incubate ideas that are central to the emerging extended evolutionary synthesis.
An approachable and affectionate scientist, he insisted on being called Pat by everyone. He was open-minded, a good listener and curious about science. Bateson was dedicated to his students and collaborators, and made time for anyone who wanted to discuss their research. He was a loyal colleague, mentor and friend. Pat and Dusha were excellent hosts in their lodge at King’s College. They would warmly welcome all guests, whether graduate students or international dignitaries, introducing them to their collection of cats.
Patrick Bateson died on 1 August, aged 79. His death marks the end of a glorious era of behavioural research. His legacy will long be appreciated.
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:
…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
Nick Gathergood, David-Birkett, Harry-Kroto
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
Arif Ahmed, Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael Bate, Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky,Alan Dershowitz, Hubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan Feuchtwang, David Friend, Riccardo Giacconi, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross, Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen F Gudeman, Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison, Hermann Hauser, Roald Hoffmann, Bruce Hood, Herbert Huppert, Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve Jones, Shelly Kagan, Michio Kaku, Stuart Kauffman, Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, George Lakoff, Elizabeth Loftus, Alan Macfarlane, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow, Yujin Nagasawa, Alva Noe, Douglas Osheroff, Jonathan Parry, Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse, Carolyn Porco, Robert M. Price, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Oliver Sacks, John Searle, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg, Lee Silver, Peter Singer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, Barry Supple, Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Neil deGrasse Tyson, .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and Lewis Wolpert,
In the first video below in the 22nd clip in this series are his words and my response is below them.
In the You Tube video “A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1),” Patrick Bateson asserted:
”I’m not a believer.”
Are you an agnostic or an atheist would you say?
“Well, that’s a good question, I think… Darwin’s response when he was asked whether he was an atheist was I don’t know, so I think agnostic. I think I’m actually an atheist when all is said and done, if I’m really honest about it, I really don’t believe in a God.”
Patrick Bateson (biologist, science writer and professor of ethology)
_________________________________
________
Related posts:
The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
__
_____
Sir Patrick Bateson, who has died aged 79, was a scientist whose work advanced the understanding of the biological origins of behaviour. He will also be remembered as a man of immense warmth and kindness, whose success as a leader, teacher and administrator of science owed much to his collaborative spirit, generosity and good humour.
He was a key figure in ethology – the biological study of animal behaviour. As well as being a conceptual thinker who revelled in painting the big theoretical picture, he was an accomplished experimental scientist. He published extensively, with more than 300 journal papers and several books to his name.
His early research was on imprinting – a specialised form of early learning in which young animals rapidly learn about key features of their environment, such as the distinguishing characteristics of their parent or a desirable mate. He later worked with Gabriel Horn on unravelling the neurobiological mechanisms that underpin this learning. A related interest was the biology of mate choice, where he revealed how young animals could strike an optimal balance between outbreeding and inbreeding. His research achievements led to his election as fellow of the Royal Society in 1983.
Another scientific focus was the role of play behaviour in the development of the individual. Studies with monkeys, cats and other species showed how experiences that are actively acquired through playing in early life help to build the physical, cognitive and social skills that are vital in later life.
Latterly, his primary interest turned to the evolutionary basis of development and the role of behavioural plasticity in biological evolution. His last book, published earlier this year, was Behaviour, Development and Evolution, which summarised his thinking on the inter-relationship between behavioural development during the lifespan of the individual and biological evolution during the history of species.
The research and writing were combined with teaching and administration. Over the years, he supervised 23 PhD students and contributed to the life of numerous institutions. One undergraduate recalled being captivated by his engaging personality during an otherwise dispiriting field course, and deciding then and there that he wanted to become Pat’s research student.
The official appointments were legion, and included biological secretary and vice-president of the Royal Society from 1998 to 2003. Many honours and awards accrued, including visiting professorships at Rutgers, North Carolina Chapel Hill and Berkeley. He was knighted in 2003.
In addition to his mainstream scientific work, he made significant contributions to animal welfare and research ethics. His 1997 report on the effects of hunting on red deer caused controversy, and a man who would never have dreamed of pouring vitriol on others was shocked by the amount poured on him.
Pat had a deep and infectious enthusiasm for scientific ideas. He loved life and was also enormous fun to be around. A friend remembered dancing a Japanese version of the Conga with him at a conference in Tokyo. He was a great conversationalist and a sympathetic listener who seemed immune to the intellectual rivalries that can dominate academic circles. He was also a kind man. For instance, when he heard a rumour that a former colleague was being harassed for taking an ethical stand on a controversial issue, Pat immediately offered support.
He was born in Chinnor, Oxfordshire. Though quintessentially English in character, he was three-quarters Norwegian by birth. His mother, Sölvi (nee Berg), was Norwegian, the daughter of a wartime resistance leader, and worked for the Norwegian government in exile in London; and his father, Richard, a timber expert, was half Norwegian. Pat went to Westminster school in London in 1951 and from there to King’s College, Cambridge, in 1957. He was an athlete, whose tall frame lent itself to rowing.
After graduating with a first in natural sciences and completing a PhD, he went in 1963 to Stanford University on a Harkness fellowship, accompanied by his new wife Dusha (nee Matthews), whom he had met at Cambridge. He later talked fondly of making the journey in style on board the liner Queen Mary, and of the hospitality that greeted the newlywed couple on their arrival in the US. After a postdoc at Stanford, he returned to Cambridge in 1965 as junior lecturer in the zoology department and junior research fellow of King’s. He would later become head of both institutions.
His first scientific paper, published in 1957 while still a student, was entitled Notes on the Geographical Variation of the Ringed Plover. The subject illustrates his lifelong love of natural history and the observation of animals in their natural environments. Decades later, he would become president of the Zoological Society of London and champion of its Regent’s Park and Whipsnade zoos.
His career centred on two Cambridge institutions – the university sub-department of animal behaviour at Madingley, and King’s College. He was director of the sub-department from 1976 until 1988. It was an exciting place to work during this period. The laboratory, which was tucked conveniently behind the Three Horseshoes pub, housed scientists from around the world and from various disciplines including ethology, primatology, child development and neuroendocrinology.
The “animal people” worked alongside the “people people” of a unit under Robert Hinde, whose student Pat had been. Hinde’s unit was researching the development of behaviour in humans, with particular reference to interpersonal relationships. The “people people” used observational techniques that had been developed for studying the behaviour of animals in the wild, while the “animal people” imbibed the latest thinking on developmental psychology.
In 1988 Pat was elected provost of King’s College, a role that required qualities of diplomacy, patience and charm – all of which he possessed. The role was not one he had especially hankered after. Nonetheless, he embraced the challenge and was a much-loved figure during his 15-year tenure. The Batesons found themselves hosting a succession of famous guests, including the Dalai Lama, Mikhail Gorbachev, Princess Margaret and Salman Rushdie (complete with team of armed protection officers).
Pat and Dusha loved cats and bred generations of Russian Blues and Egyptian Maus. It was while watching his own cats playing that Pat first became interested in play behaviour and its biological role in development. A friend recalled visiting the couple at King’s shortly before Princess Margaret was due to arrive, and finding them both in a flap because one of their cats had given birth to a litter of kittens in the airing cupboard outside the princess’s room.
After Cambridge, Pat and Dusha moved to a delightful old house in Suffolk that had belonged to Dusha’s parents. The house and its gardens played host to numerous guests, cats and chickens.
Pat is survived by Dusha and their daughters, Melissa and Anna.
• Paul Patrick Gordon Bateson, biologist, born 31 March 1938; died 1 August 2017
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I wanted to ask if you would consider supporting the Guardian’s journalism as we enter one of the most consequential news cycles of our lifetimes in 2024.
From Elon Musk to the Murdochs, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.
And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media: the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. We always strive to be fair. But sometimes that means calling out the lies of powerful people and institutions – and making clear how misinformation and demagoguery can damage democracy.
From threats to election integrity, to the spiralling climate crisis, to complex foreign conflicts, our journalists contextualise, investigate and illuminate the critical stories of our time. As a global news organisation with a robust US reporting staff, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective – one so often missing in the American media bubble.
Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.
If you can, please consider supporting us just once from $1, or better yet, support us every month with a little more. Thank you.
September 28, 2015
Dr. Pat Bateson, President, Zoological Society of London, Outer Circle, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY,
Dear Dr. Bateson,
I must tell you how much I enjoyed your in-depth interview that you gave Dr. Alan Macfarlane. His series of interviews have been helpful to me and I wish more people would take time to ask questions as he does. Thank for you taking the time to do that interview.
Recently I had the opportunity to come across a very interesting article by Michael Polanyi, LIFE TRANSCENDING PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY, in the magazine CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS, August 21, 1967, and I also got hold of a 1968 talk by Francis Schaeffer based on this article. Polanyi’s son John actually won the 1986 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. This article by Michael Polanyi concerns Francis Crick and James Watson and their discovery of DNA in 1953. Polanyi noted:
Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of in
animate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry. Further controlling principles of life may be represented as a hierarchy of boundary conditions extending, in the case of man, to consciousness and responsibility.
I would like to send you a CD copy of this talk because I thought you may find it very interesting.It includes references to not only James D. Watson, and Francis Crick but also Maurice Wilkins, Erwin Schrodinger, J.S. Haldane (his son was the famous J.B.S. Haldane), Peter Medawar, and Barry Commoner. I WONDER IF YOU EVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RUN ACROSS THESE MEN OR ANY OF THEIR FORMER STUDENTS?
Below is a portion of the transcript from the CD and Michael Polanyi’s words are in italics while Francis Schaeffer’s words are not:
My account of the situation will seem to oscillate in several directions, and I shall set out, therefore, its stages in order.
I shall show that:
4. The structure of DNA, which according to Watson and Crick controls heredity, is not explicable by physics and chemistry.
5. Assuming that morphological differentiation reflects the information content of DNA, we can prove that the morphology of living beings forms a boundary condition which, as such, is not explicable by physics and chemistry (the suggestion arrived at in the third item).
…Now, from machines let us pass on to books and other means of communication. Nothing is said about the content of a book by its physical-chemical topography. All objects conveying information are irreducible to the terms of physics and chemistry.
I could throw the article away for some of you that understand what DNA is because Polanyi has shot Francis Crick’s theory through the head and its dead. The argument is: Suppose someone describes a book to you and they only describe it in terms of its physical and chemical properties. What then do you know about the information transmitted by the book? Zero!! Somebody could run a chemical analysis of the book but it would carry nothing about the information contained in the book. That is impossible. This is something added to the chemical and physical properties.
Might machines and machine-like aspects of living things not be shown one day to result from the working of physical or chemical laws?
We can exclude this for machines. Our incapacity to define machines and their functions in terms of physics and chemistry is due to a manifest impossibility, for machines are shaped by man and can never be produced by the spontaneous equilibration of their material. But morphological structures are not shaped by man, could they not grow to maturity by the working of purely physical-chemical laws?
So he says it is inconceivable for machines but what about the machine-like parts of man.
Such a highly improbable arrangement of particles is not shaped by the forces of physics and chemistry. It constitutes a boundary condition, which as such transcends the laws of physics and chemistry.
This of course is his big argument.
Laplace thought we would know all that can be known in the world if we knew the course of its atoms. But for this he required a complete map of atomic positions and velocities to start with. Physics is dumb without the gift of boundary conditions, forming its frame; and this frame is not determined by the laws of physics.
Polanyi says here you need to know these boundary conditions and without this physics is dumb and the frame is not determined by the laws of physics. There is something else in the structure of what is there. Thinking of my constant emphasis on Jean Paul Sartre’s statement “the basic philosophic question is not that something is there rather than nothing being there.”
Then Albert Einstein’s statement “the universe is like a well formulated word puzzle and only one word fits.” The world has a form but it is so definite that it is like a well formulated word puzzle. Two steps in the structure of the universe. First, something is there that must be explained. Second, the niceness of its form and its order.
What Polanyi is saying is if you are going to understand what is there you must not only understand merely the chemical and physical laws but you have to be faced with the boundary conditionswhich constitutes the form. Do you understand? For some of you this may be a little abstract but it won’t be abstract if you get into a discussion with your university friends if you can really get a hold of it.
The boundary conditions of the physical-chemical changes taking place in a machine are the structual and operational principles of the machine. We say therefore that the laws of inanimate nature operate in a machine under the control of operational principles that constitute (or determine) the boundaries. Such a system is clearly under dual control.
In the machine made by man you have a dual control.Firstly, the devices of engineering, that is how you are going to make it. For instance, your plans for making a bridge or watch. Secondly, the laws of natural science. The laws of physics and chemistry and the material you use to make the bridge or watch.
________
Thank you for your time. I know how busy you are and I want to thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher,
P.O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221, United States, cell ph 501-920-5733, everettehatcher@gmail.com
RESPONDING TO HARRY KROTO’S BRILLIANT RENOWNED ACADEMICS!! Part 92 Colin McGinn (use Feb 12, 2015 letter publish on 8-23-16)
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:
…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
Nick Gathergood, David-Birkett, Harry-Kroto
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
Arif Ahmed, Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael Bate, Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky,Alan Dershowitz, Hubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan Feuchtwang, David Friend, Riccardo Giacconi, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross, Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen F Gudeman, Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison, Hermann Hauser, Roald Hoffmann, Bruce Hood, Herbert Huppert, Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve Jones, Shelly Kagan, Michio Kaku, Stuart Kauffman, Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, George Lakoff, Elizabeth Loftus, Alan Macfarlane, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow, Yujin Nagasawa, Alva Noe, Douglas Osheroff, Jonathan Parry, Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse, Carolyn Porco, Robert M. Price, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Oliver Sacks, John Searle, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg, Lee Silver, Peter Singer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, Barry Supple, Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Neil deGrasse Tyson, .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and Lewis Wolpert,
In the first video below in the 22nd clip in this series are his words and my response is below them.
In the You Tube video “A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1),” Patrick Bateson asserted:
”I’m not a believer.”
Are you an agnostic or an atheist would you say?
“Well, that’s a good question, I think… Darwin’s response when he was asked whether he was an atheist was I don’t know, so I think agnostic. I think I’m actually an atheist when all is said and done, if I’m really honest about it, I really don’t believe in a God.”
Patrick Bateson (biologist, science writer and professor of ethology)
_________________________________
________
Related posts:
The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
__
Interview of Paul Rabinow, part one
Mailed Venter on 3-18-18
To Professor Rabinow, From Everette Hatcher, I enjoyed this book on the life of Craig Venter & thought it would interest you too since it is filled with the names of scientists who you probably know
I recently enjoyed reading about several of your friends in the book A LIFE DECODED BY J. Craig Venter. Venter talks about those who were involved with the Wellcome Trust, the Sanger Centre, Celera Genomics and the National Institutes of Health because they all were involved in the Human Genome Project. Venter started off the book with a quote from someone you hold in high esteem.
We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with
all his noble qualities . . . still bears in his bodily frame the indelible
stamp of his lowly origin.
—Charles Darwin
Did you know that Charles Darwin struggled his whole life attempting to get to a place where he was at peace with the idea that all this was a result of just time and chance, but he never was satisfied on that point.
Another person mentioned in that book is Ham Smithand I actually had the opportunity to correspond with him back in 1994 when I sent him a recorded message, and I have enclosed the letter Smith wrote back to me in 1994. Did you know that Ham Smith’s son is an evangelical? On the tenth anniversary of Francis Schaeffer’s passing, May 15, 1994, I sent out to several hundred prominent skeptics an evangelistic letter that told about Schaeffer’s life. This same letter included the audio recording entitled “Dust, Darwin, and Disbelief,” by Adrian Rogers and Bill Elliff. That recording started off with the song DUST IN THE WIND by the group KANSAS for the simple reason that if we accept that we are the result of chance then all we are is DUST IN THE WIND.
Let start off by quoting Francis Schaeffer from his talk In the spring of 1968 which centered on the Autobiography of Charles Darwin:
Darwin in his autobiography Darwin, Francis ed. 1892. Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters [abridged edition]. London: John Murray, and in his letters showed that all through his life he NEVER really came to a QUIETNESS concerning the possibility that chance really explained the situation of the biological world. You will find there is much material on this [from Darwin] extended over many many years that constantly he was wrestling with this problem. Darwin never came to a place of satisfaction.
Darwin, C. R. to Graham, William 3 July 1881:
Nevertheless you have EXPRESSED MY INWARD CONVICTION, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is NOT THE RESULT OF CHANCE.* But THEN with me the HORRID DOUBT ALWAYS ARISES whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
Francis Schaeffer comments:
Can you feel this man? He is in real agony. You can feel the whole of modern man in this tension with Darwin. My mind can’t accept that ultimate of chance, that the universe is a result of chance. He has said 3 or 4 times now that he can’t accept that it all happened by chance and then he will write someone else and say something different. How does he say this (about the mind of a monkey) and then put forth this grand theory?… But how can he say you can’t think, you come from a monkey’s mind, and you can’t trust a monkey’s mind, and you can’t trust a monkey’s conviction, so how can you trust me? Trust me here, but not there is what Darwin is saying. In other words it is very selective.
Evidently Darwin was telling his friends that he was an agnostic and that he did not think that God had anything to do with it but it was all left to the hands of chance. Is that the way you are reading this?
The answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted. The world is not a result of blind chance, but we all were put here for a purpose by God. If you want to investigate the evidence concerning the accuracy of the Bible then I suggest you read Psalms 22 which was written about a thousand years before the crucifixion events it described. Furthermore, when King David wrote those words the practice of stoning was the primary way of executing someone in Israel.
Sincerely, Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221, United States
Francis Schaeffer above
Charles Darwin
Adrian Rogers
Hamilton Smith above, and Craig Venter with Smith below
__
In other words I am not a believer or a theist, but I am not also a militant atheist. I think that debate leads into a range of different and diverse existential corners that I don’t want to go to and never felt the need to go to.
on religious belief – don’t believe in God; there are passages in Levi-Strauss’ ‘Tristes Tropiques’ on Buddhism which are relatively close to what I felt much more strongly as a younger person; this question is interesting because in recent years I have been working with a student who has just finished a degree in theology and is now doing a degree in anthropology; he is a practising Christian and we get along remarkably well, discussing ethics etc., but it is clear that the larger theist dimensions are radically disparate; this is an interesting anthropological dimension where ethically this seems to not cause any problem; I frequently related to people with strong but quiet religious beliefs; Michel de Certeau was a Jesuit and I had a number of other Jesuit friends; I think it is the fact that they care about the world and other people, are thoughtful, committed and concerned, and I don’t have to share other parts of their belief system while finding them worthy of friendship; I am uninterested in the Dawkins’ argument of science disproving religion, I am not a positivist, there is a big difference between this form of nineteenth century militant positivism and a Weberian position in which science does not answer ultimate questions; when science becomes a world view, a cosmology, it seems to part company with its deep critical functions; I may not be a believer or theist, but I am not a militant atheist; I also part company with people like Jurgen Habermas or Charles Taylor who feel that unless we have sure foundations for our ethical life that we flounder, which seems wrong; no one has ever proved the ultimate foundations of anything to everyone’s satisfaction yet ethical life and decent human relations seem to me not all that common, but not impossible either; I am not looking for ultimate stopping points, and there is some anthropological dimension to that through respect for the complexity of different commitments; cosmopolitan enlightenment sense that we have to live with difference which can be a good thing, and that intolerance –even in the name of tolerance — is not so admirable
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:
…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
Nick Gathergood, David-Birkett, Harry-Kroto
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
Arif Ahmed, Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael Bate, Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky,Alan Dershowitz, Hubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan Feuchtwang, David Friend, Riccardo Giacconi, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross, Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen F Gudeman, Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison, Hermann Hauser, Roald Hoffmann, Bruce Hood, Herbert Huppert, Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve Jones, Shelly Kagan, Michio Kaku, Stuart Kauffman, Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, George Lakoff, Elizabeth Loftus, Alan Macfarlane, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow, Yujin Nagasawa, Alva Noe, Douglas Osheroff, Jonathan Parry, Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse, Carolyn Porco, Robert M. Price, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Oliver Sacks, John Searle, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg, Lee Silver, Peter Singer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, Barry Supple, Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Neil deGrasse Tyson, .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and Lewis Wolpert,
His comments can be found on the 3rd video and the 118th clip in this series. Below the videos you will find his words.
___________________
In other words I am not a believer or a theist, but I am not also a militant atheist. I think that debate leads into a range of different and diverse existential corners that I don’t want to go to and never felt the need to go to.
on religious belief – don’t believe in God; there are passages in Levi-Strauss’ ‘Tristes Tropiques’ on Buddhism which are relatively close to what I felt much more strongly as a younger person; this question is interesting because in recent years I have been working with a student who has just finished a degree in theology and is now doing a degree in anthropology; he is a practising Christian and we get along remarkably well, discussing ethics etc., but it is clear that the larger theist dimensions are radically disparate; this is an interesting anthropological dimension where ethically this seems to not cause any problem; I frequently related to people with strong but quiet religious beliefs; Michel de Certeau was a Jesuit and I had a number of other Jesuit friends; I think it is the fact that they care about the world and other people, are thoughtful, committed and concerned, and I don’t have to share other parts of their belief system while finding them worthy of friendship; I am uninterested in the Dawkins’ argument of science disproving religion, I am not a positivist, there is a big difference between this form of nineteenth century militant positivism and a Weberian position in which science does not answer ultimate questions; when science becomes a world view, a cosmology, it seems to part company with its deep critical functions; I may not be a believer or theist, but I am not a militant atheist; I also part company with people like Jurgen Habermas or Charles Taylor who feel that unless we have sure foundations for our ethical life that we flounder, which seems wrong; no one has ever proved the ultimate foundations of anything to everyone’s satisfaction yet ethical life and decent human relations seem to me not all that common, but not impossible either; I am not looking for ultimate stopping points, and there is some anthropological dimension to that through respect for the complexity of different commitments; cosmopolitan enlightenment sense that we have to live with difference which can be a good thing, and that intolerance –even in the name of tolerance — is not so admirable.
______________
________
Related posts:
The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
__
—
Paul Rabinow dies at age 76, The Daily Californian, April 11, 2021
Paul Rabinow, UC Berkeley professor emeritus of anthropology and world-renowned anthropologist, died April 6 at the age of 76 in his Berkeley home.
Rabinow spent about 41 years at UC Berkeley between 1978 to 2019, serving as the director of anthropology for the Contemporary Research Collaboratory and as the former director of human practices for the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center.
[…]
Rabinow is most well-known for his commentary on the works of French philosopher Michel Foucault, with whom he worked while Foucault was in Berkeley in the early 1980s.
12-4-16
To Paul Rabinow, Concerning the USA Presidential race, I wanted to pass on my personal interaction with the Clintons and then discuss the election of Trump (which has been compared to the BREXIT VOTE in the UK) and a movie recommendation, From Everette Hatcher of Little Rock on 12-4-16
I am currently the JUSTICE OF THE PEACE for District 2 of Saline County which is the 6th largest county in Arkansas and I just finished going through my 3rd election. I won my first election by 4 1/2% and my last two elections by double digit margins in probably the most Democratic leaning district in the whole county even though I am a Republican.
At the age of 21 in January of 1983 I moved from Memphis to Little Rock and I had never seen a politician in person. I suppose it was because Memphis is a large city and I lived in a suburb outside it. However, the first week I was in Little Rock I got to meet Governor Bill Clinton and I ran into both of our U.S. Senators and our Congressman in downtown Little Rock when I was dropping off a deposit at Worthen Bank and attending a meeting in a small meeting room at the State House Convention Center. In fact, I ran into them again and again often at restaurants, movie theaters and ballgames around town. After a while I didn’t really take notice anymore since it was so common. My uncle explained to me that Little Rock was a capitol city and since we worked downtown we could often run into politicians.
Our plant location was on 300 Industrial Road which is right next to the Arkansas River within a few hundred feet from where the Clinton Library stands today. In 1985 we moved to another part of Little Rock.
A quick couple of stories about my personal interaction with Bill Clinton. One of the first times I spoke with him was at the 1983 ARKANSAS INDEPENDENT GROCERY WHOLESALER MEETING and he came into our meeting tardy because he said there was a big emergency at the Capitol and that was Hillary wanted a private meeting with him. The amazing thing that day was that I noticed that he personally greeted the dozen or so elderly men that owned these grocery wholesale businesses and called them all by their first names. Since then the Krogers and large supermarkets of the world have completely run these wholesalers out of business in Arkansas.
A year later I was at a relative’s wedding and I was seated on the aisle and when the father of the bride began to escort her down the aisle I noticed that Bill Clinton was in the seat directly behind me. Being a politician he couldn’t resist shaking the father’s hand and Hillary promptly elbowed Bill and his face turned red. I am sure she has had to elbow him a few times since 1984!!!
I am an evangelical conservative so even though I was very upset that Donald Trump was the Republican Nominee, I did hold my noise and vote for him over Hillary Clinton. However, I DIDN’T HAVE A GOOD EXPLANATION WHY CLINTON LOST UNTIL I READ THESE WORDS A FEW DAYS AGO in the DAILY MAIL:
In the waning days of the presidential campaign, Bill and Hillary Clinton had a knock-down, drag-out fight about her effort to blame FBI Director James Comey for her slump in the polls and looming danger of defeat….[Bill Clinton] got so angry that he threw his phone off the roof of his penthouse apartment and toward the Arkansas River.’
Bill has a luxurious penthouse apartment with an outdoor garden at the Clinton Presidential Library and Museum in Little Rock.
During the campaign, Bill Clinton felt that he was ignored by Hillary’s top advisers when he urged them to make the economy the centerpiece of her campaign.
He repeatedly urged them to connect with the people who had been left behind by the revolutions in technology and globalization.
_________
Are you buying Bill’s explanation?
I just saw the movie GREATER about the life of Brandon Burlsworth and there was a secularist farmer played by Nick Searcy that reminded me of you and when the DVD is released on 12-20-16 I would like to send you a free one.
Yesterday while in my attic I ran across a cassette tape labeled “April 1999” and it has the recording of my 12 year old son calling into a local radio show where he got to talk to Brandon Burlsworth who had just been drafted by the Indianapolis Colts to play in the NFL. Just a few days later Burlsworth was on his way to his Harrison, Ark., home from Fayetteville, where he received an SEC West title ring along with the rest of the 1998 Razorbacks on April 28, 1999. Every Wednesday, he returned to take his mom, Barbara, to church. The drive was supposed to take about 90 minutes.
He never made it.
The 22-year-old Burlsworth, who had been drafted by the Colts 11 days earlier after earning first-team All-America honors as a fifth-year senior, was involved in a head-on crash with a tractor-trailer about 15 miles outside Harrison and was killed. He was in the prime of his life and football career, and then he was gone.
There’s a great deal of Christian content in this film. It can perhaps best be summarized by saying that Brandon’s unwavering faith deeply informs everything he does, while his brother’s faltering faith after Brandon’s death is something he grapples with mightily.
Brandon has deep trust in God. At every step along his journey, when naysayers rise up to tell him that he’s being unrealistic, Brandon keeps moving forward in faith. Marty is more pragmatic, asking his brother things like, “You think God would give you D I [Division 1] dreams and a D III (Division III) body?” To Marty, the answer to that rhetorical, spiritual question is self-evident. Brandon, however, soldiers on, refusing to give up. “Have faith, Marty,” he says elsewhere. “This is my road.”
For his part, Marty struggles to cling to his faith in the wake of his brother’s death. That internal battle is depicted in a dramatic way through ongoing dialogue with a doubter named the Farmer. Marty’s trying to summon the courage to go into Brandon’s memorial service at Harrison High School. And the Farmer (played by Nick Searcy), depicted very nearly as a Satan-like tempter, repeatedly delivers soliloquies about the utter foolishness of faith. In one scene, the man (who’s whittling a portrait of Marty into a block of wood, almost as if he’s creating a voodoo doll) says, “Brandon did have faith. He believed if he worked hard and did everything he was supposed to do, God would make everything turn out for the best. Did everything turn out for the best, Marty?”
Elsewhere, the Farmer taunts, “There is no loving God, Marty. That’s ridiculous. There’s just a howling void. And a real man, an honest man, doesn’t get down on his knees to pray to it for his mercy. He stands up to it, and he looks it right in his face and he howls right back.”
But Marty also talks with his godly mother about how to process the randomness of Brandon’s death. She tells him that it’s only random when looked at from an earthly perspective. “If you assume this is all there is, you’d have a point, Marty. But that’s not true. This life is a drop in the ocean. One tick of eternity’s clock, and we’ll all be together again, Marty. And every trouble we had here will recede away like a dream.”
__
It has been a pleasure to send you these letters in the past and I hope you take me up on this offer to see this inspirational true story about Brandon Burlsworth who was truly one of the greatest rags to richest stories in sports history. Also I would encourage you to google FRANCIS SCHAEFFER THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher, cell ph 501-920-5733, P.O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221, everettehatcher@gmail.com
____
Brandon below with his brother Marty and his two nephews
XXXXXXXXX
__________
______
Linda Bloodworth-Thomason and Harry Thomason with the Clintons in the White House
___
___
Bill was on the phone at his luxurious penthouse apartment he keeps at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:
…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
Nick Gathergood, David-Birkett, Harry-Kroto
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
Arif Ahmed, Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael Bate, Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky,Alan Dershowitz, Hubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan Feuchtwang, David Friend, Riccardo Giacconi, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross, Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen F Gudeman, Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison, Hermann Hauser, Roald Hoffmann, Bruce Hood, Herbert Huppert, Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve Jones, Shelly Kagan, Michio Kaku, Stuart Kauffman, Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, George Lakoff, Elizabeth Loftus, Alan Macfarlane, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow, Yujin Nagasawa, Alva Noe, Douglas Osheroff, Jonathan Parry, Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse, Carolyn Porco, Robert M. Price, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Oliver Sacks, John Searle, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg, Lee Silver, Peter Singer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, Barry Supple, Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Neil deGrasse Tyson, .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and Lewis Wolpert,
His comments can be found on the 3rd video and the 118th clip in this series. Below the videos you will find his words.
___________________
In other words I am not a believer or a theist, but I am not also a militant atheist. I think that debate leads into a range of different and diverse existential corners that I don’t want to go to and never felt the need to go to.
on religious belief – don’t believe in God; there are passages in Levi-Strauss’ ‘Tristes Tropiques’ on Buddhism which are relatively close to what I felt much more strongly as a younger person; this question is interesting because in recent years I have been working with a student who has just finished a degree in theology and is now doing a degree in anthropology; he is a practising Christian and we get along remarkably well, discussing ethics etc., but it is clear that the larger theist dimensions are radically disparate; this is an interesting anthropological dimension where ethically this seems to not cause any problem; I frequently related to people with strong but quiet religious beliefs; Michel de Certeau was a Jesuit and I had a number of other Jesuit friends; I think it is the fact that they care about the world and other people, are thoughtful, committed and concerned, and I don’t have to share other parts of their belief system while finding them worthy of friendship; I am uninterested in the Dawkins’ argument of science disproving religion, I am not a positivist, there is a big difference between this form of nineteenth century militant positivism and a Weberian position in which science does not answer ultimate questions; when science becomes a world view, a cosmology, it seems to part company with its deep critical functions; I may not be a believer or theist, but I am not a militant atheist; I also part company with people like Jurgen Habermas or Charles Taylor who feel that unless we have sure foundations for our ethical life that we flounder, which seems wrong; no one has ever proved the ultimate foundations of anything to everyone’s satisfaction yet ethical life and decent human relations seem to me not all that common, but not impossible either; I am not looking for ultimate stopping points, and there is some anthropological dimension to that through respect for the complexity of different commitments; cosmopolitan enlightenment sense that we have to live with difference which can be a good thing, and that intolerance –even in the name of tolerance — is not so admirable.
______________
________
Related posts:
The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
__
—
Paul Rabinow est Mort: A Memoir
By Nancy Scheper-Hughes
April 12, 2021
I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask who I am
and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see
that our papers are in order.
—Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge
How is one to decide where one is? And where one is going? —Paul Rabinow, Marking
time. On the Anthropology of the Contemporary
On January 23, 2002, a few minutes after my Air France Airbus took off, the captain of
the ‘ship’ interrupted our thoughts with a message: “ I am grieved to tell you that Pierre
Bourdieu est mort’. There were gasps, and even some tears as the French passengers
discussed one or other of Bourdieu’s scholarly work but also his status as a public
intellectual. French citizens were proud of him, and even if they hadn’t read any of his
work they embraced him as their own, a French sociologist. His death mattered.
I am amazed that Paul Rabinow has not been given a proper obituary in The New York
Times as had Marshal Sahlins who died on April 5th two days before the death of
Rabinow< https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/marshall-d-sahlins-dead.html> or
months previously the death of David Graeber
<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/books/david-graeber-dead.html> Was it because
Paul was as much a historian of the contemporary, a philosopher , or a molecular
scientist as he was an anthropologist? Paul once told me that he felt alienated in the
2
department of anthropology and that he might be more comfortable in another
department. I told him that we all at various times feel that way. Anthropologists are the
lone strangers of social science. But Paul’s voluminous writings and interpretations of
Michel Foucault should have been enough to be on those NYT’s pages. His classic texts
are read around the scholarly world and his invitation to Foucault to give a series of
lectures in 2008 brought the house down and led to UC Berkeley briefly renamed,
‘Foucault U’.
Paul, I missed saying goodbye to you by a day and now it will be a multitude of days of
regret and sorrow.
AIDS Heretics: Comrades in Arms
In the fall of 1992 Paul and I decided to co-teach the first UCB undergraduate class on
AIDS. By then, AIDS was a disaster, having surpassed cancer, heart disease, and
accidents to become the leading cause of death among men ages 25 to 44 in California.
AIDS accounted for 24% of all such deaths at that time according to the first systematic
study of its kind by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Paul had begun
his research on DNA and molecular anthropology, while I was studying the much
criticized and reviled AIDS sanatorium in Havana. Our class was held in a large room in
Wurster Hall. A hundred students enrolled but just about anyone who wanted to come to
the class were welcome.
Some of our Berkeley students, faculty and other colleagues had died or were dying of
AIDS. For one, the Medical Director of then Cowell Hospital, Dr. Jim Brown had died of
AIDS following an early attempt to educate Berkeley students about the risks of condom-
free sex. Jim was a friend from our Peace Corps days in Brazil. I suggested that we pay
the local poster artist, David Goines, to create a visual message warning of condom-less
sex. The poster he produced and that the university paid for was immediately rejected as
an anti-sex poster complete with a Biblical snake [devil] tempting the ‘innocent’ to eat
the red apple (gay sex)
3
Paul Rabinow had begun his study of the HIV/ AIDS epidemic following Peter Deusberg,
then a still highly respected UC Berkeley Professor of Molecular Biology, who in 1991
released a report entitled “Everything You Know About AIDS Is Wrong”. As a member
of the National Academy of Sciences, Deusberg was one of the world’s foremost experts
on retroviruses and HIV is a retrovirus. However, Deusberg concluded that the
Immunodeficiency Virus—HIV— did not cause AIDS, thus dismissing the most
cherished hypothesis of the world’s AIDS experts. His alternative hypothesis was that
AIDS was caused by toxins in the form of cocaine, speed, and other drug substances that
were popular in the IV and gay communities, and which he said were destroying the
immune system. Going against the grain of medical science, Deusberg described HIV as
a harmless fellow traveler along for the ride. Paul Rabinow was initially intrigued by
Deusberg’s conclusions. Meanwhile I had recently returned from Cuba in 1991 where I
was totally convinced that HIV/AIDS was a global killer and that the Cuban government
was correct in its heretical approach to confining HIV patients to a well-structured
sanatorium that was not a hospital but a complex of residential houses and buildings
including art and recreation until there was a sound medical response to the AIDS virus.
Thus, in the fall of 1992 Paul Rabinow and I agreed to teach an Anthropology 119 class
on “AIDS: The Disease and its Doubles”. Paul covered the history of reason, life, and
science while I covered irrationality, unreason, denial, and death. When I opened a
lecture with Camus’s The Plague, Paul demolished Camus as a weakling intellectual and
brought Sartre into the dialogue.
Luckily, we brought many faculties across the disciplines to speak in the class from
Deusberg to Tom Laqueur. In one of our classes we invited two men from San
4
Francisco, one white an affluent from the Castro district and one Black from Bayview-
Hunters Point each of whom had been diagnosed with HIV. It was during their
conversation and the Q&A period that they compared each other’s T-cells and how these
had interfered in their lives that Paul came up with the idea of biosociality which he
quickly published as “Artificiality and Enlightenment: from sociobiology to biosociality”
in a Zone book.
In November 1992 as our AIDS class was winding down Paul and I co-organized a
special panel at the American Anthropological Association convention in San Francisco.
We sent a late letter to the President of the AAA asking permission to organize a special
event during the convention on December 5th in the Hilton Hotel on “AIDS and the
Social Imaginary”. It was not an official AAA panel but announced as a special event to
all the AAA members. We invited what some members of the AAA saw as an elite
‘celebrity’ panel—Jean Comaroff, Mick Taussig, Renato Rosaldo, Ralph Bolton, Paul
and me. Our purpose was to use whatever influence we might have in anthropology to
make AIDS as visible as possible.
Paul and I entered a tense and over-crowded conference room. We carried a poster that
read: “We All Have AIDS” meaning that we all had relatives, children, neighbors,
students, etc. who were suffering and dying from the virus. It was to be a sign of
solidarity. It did not work. To the contrary the room was over-crowded with protestors,
many from SOLGA, the Society of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists, now known as
AQA, the Association for Queer Anthropology (AQA) wearing T-shirts and waving
alternative posters: “These Natives Can Speak for Themselves” expressing their
dissatisfaction with the senior, presumably heterosexual anthropologists who would be
the speakers.
The room was a jumble, hot, loud and threating. People were pushing each other to get
inside the room. It felt like the beginning of an insurrection. I wanted to call the hotel
security. But the speakers began. Jean Comaroff discussed the racism associating the
origins of HIV with Black Africa (similar to today’s Asian origin of Covid-19). Mick
Taussig read a paper with extensive quotes from the book Closer to the Knives, an AIDS
memoir by David Wojnarowicz supplemented with four slides of artwork which may
have been painted or sketched by Taussig, but their relevance to the paper was
questioned. I spoke about AIDS and Brazilian women, transvestites, prostitutes and
street kids who had been infected with AIDS and left without any government health
support, which I contrasted to the medical success of the Cuban AIDS sanatorium albeit
at the cost of authoritarianism and individual freedom. Paul Rabinow spoke about AIDS,
ethics, activism and politics in AIDS research. He compared the work of Peter Deusberg
(the AIDS denier) and Robert Gallo, an American biomedical researcher who was once
known for his discovery of HIV as the agent responsible for AIDS. Gallo and his
collaborators published a series of papers in Science demonstrating that a retrovirus that
they alone had isolated, called HTLV-III, was the cause of AIDS beating the French
discovery. Both Rosaldo and Bolton were acutely aware of the situation and both stayed
in the audience in an attempt to show their support for the protestors. When Bolton was
called up to speak as the invited discussant he introduced a second uninvited discussant,
5
Steven O. Murray (who died in California in 2019 from an aggressive diffuse large B-cell
lymphoma) repeated Bolton’s “anti-elitist” and “anti-colonialist” accusation to the
panelists and demanded that all AAA panels must include sexual diversity.
The floor then opened for the audience to respond. One member in the audience, a UC
Berkeley visiting postdoc, rose and read a passage from Mein Kampf calling me a
Hitlerite for my visit to the AIDS sanatorium in Havana. Another protestor was swinging
a chain that had been wrapped around her body toward Paul and me. Time for tea? I
asked.
During the open questions Paul Rabinow tried to respond to some of the criticisms. He
began by saying that AIDS does not belong to one group or another, and that we all live
with the disease in some sense. But when he began to say “Back in 1984, when my dear
friend Michel Foucault died of AIDS.
”
— A loud hiss went up from the audience. Paul
took a step back, shocked. Why could he not talk about Foucault? In the pause someone
yelled out,
“Foucault was a closet case!” Another said; “He never went public with his
AIDS”. “ Foucault never said ‘queer’ he always referred to “homosexual’ another
commented.
But Paul ended the panel defending his right to speak in behalf of the man that he loved,
Michel Foucault, who had died in Paris in 1984. He feared that Foucault had contracted
HIV/AIDS in the bathhouses of San Francisco during his invited series of lectures at UC
Berkeley, in 1983. He felt that he was the cause of Foucault’s AIDS by telling him about
the bathhouses.
Paul Rabinow had this to say after the messy 1992 (AAA) AIDS panel:
“The pain, suffering, death, loss, bigotry, hatred and division brought forth by the AIDS
epidemic are a pressing source of concern to us all. I entered upon the study of AIDS and
co-organized this AAA session in an effort to make a simple statement of solidarity. That
it was not interpreted in this way by some is a source of sadness…AIDS can and must be
studied from different vantage points— from outside as well as from within the groups
that have suffered from it, from the point of view of experts as well as those whose
concerns arise from different perspectives…. There were many panels on the program
that dealt with diverse aspects of the AIDS epidemic. The only group of anthropologists
threatened with silence was we. Threats and attempts to muzzle others have all too often
been the first reflex of those who consider this horrible epidemic their own property.
ACT UP and others have courageously, imaginatively and constructively challenged this
stance. Surely we all know that silencing = death. … I studied the origins and identity of
the HIV strains in Robert Gallo’s Laboratory in 1983-4. Truth and Power are the main
focus of my study. In this epidemic, the scientific establishment has shown us too much
of the corruption of scientific norms, of attempts to silence their opponents, of abusive
ambition of some of its leaders, of endless turf wars, of the manipulative recourse to the
media, of bureaucratic maneuvering…One thing should be clear to all, once special
interest groups control (or attempt to control) the production of truth, science and
democracy are the losers.”
6
Epilogue
Years later Paul and I realized how naïve our early orientations to the AIDS epidemic had
been. For Paul it was his first acceptance of Professor Peter Deusberg’s denial of the
agency and power of the AIDS virus. Prof. Deusberg, now 80 years old, was still sitting
in the Roma café across from what was once Kroeber Hall, until the COVID shutdown. I
wonder what he thinks about the Covid-19 virus? But until 2020 Peter still refused to
accept that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Meanwhile, following the years of controversy
surrounding a 1987 out of court settlement between the National Institutes of Health and
France’s Pasteur Institute, Dr. Gallo finally admitted the virus he claimed to have
discovered in 1984 was in reality a virus sent to him from France the year before, thus
putting an end to a six-year effort by Gallo and his employer, the National Institutes of
Health, to claim the AIDS virus as an independent discovery of the United States.
Paul, of course, was a rational atheist and no believer in an afterlife. I was the irrational
sometimes believer that, whatever an afterlife might be, our spirits will meet again.
I love you Paul, wherever you are.
Reference
A collection of discussions between Foucault and Paul Rabinow in 1983 are available by
UCB archives.(The collection was generously donated to the Media Resources Center by
Paul Rabinow, Professor of Social Cultural Anthropology and digitized, corrected and
arranged by Gisèle Tanasse in 2009.
• Discusion of Biopower in Paul Rabinow’s Office, May 5, 1983
• Further Discussion of Biopower in Paul Rabinow’s Office, May 11, 1983
• Discussion with Michel Foucault in Paul Rabinow’s office, n.d.
• Rabinow-Foucault phone call (in French), May 21, 1983
September 28, 2015
Dr. Paul Rabinow, c/o Anthropology Dept, UC Berkeley, 232 Kroeber Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-3710,
Dear. Dr. Rabinow,
I must tell you how much I enjoyed your in-depth interview that you gave Dr. Alan Macfarlane. His series of interviews have been helpful to me and I wish more people would take time to ask questions as he does. Thank for you taking the time to do that interview.
Recently I had the opportunity to come across a very interesting article by Michael Polanyi, LIFE TRANSCENDING PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY, in the magazine CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS, August 21, 1967, and I also got hold of a 1968 talk by Francis Schaeffer based on this article. Polanyi’s son John actually won the 1986 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. This article by Michael Polanyi concerns Francis Crick and James Watson and their discovery of DNA in 1953. Polanyi noted:
Mechanisms, whether man-made or morphological, are boundary conditions harnessing the laws of in
animate nature, being themselves irreducible to those laws. The pattern of organic bases in DNA which functions as a genetic code is a boundary condition irreducible to physics and chemistry. Further controlling principles of life may be represented as a hierarchy of boundary conditions extending, in the case of man, to consciousness and responsibility.
I would like to send you a CD copy of this talk because I thought you may find it very interesting.It includes references to not only James D. Watson, and Francis Crick but also Maurice Wilkins, Erwin Schrodinger, J.S. Haldane (his son was the famous J.B.S. Haldane), Peter Medawar, and Barry Commoner. I WONDER IF YOU EVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RUN ACROSS THESE MEN OR ANY OF THEIR FORMER STUDENTS?
Below is a portion of the transcript from the CD and Michael Polanyi’s words are in italics while Francis Schaeffer’s words are not:
My account of the situation will seem to oscillate in several directions, and I shall set out, therefore, its stages in order.
I shall show that:
4. The structure of DNA, which according to Watson and Crick controls heredity, is not explicable by physics and chemistry.
5. Assuming that morphological differentiation reflects the information content of DNA, we can prove that the morphology of living beings forms a boundary condition which, as such, is not explicable by physics and chemistry (the suggestion arrived at in the third item).
…Now, from machines let us pass on to books and other means of communication. Nothing is said about the content of a book by its physical-chemical topography. All objects conveying information are irreducible to the terms of physics and chemistry.
I could throw the article away for some of you that understand what DNA is because Polanyi has shot Francis Crick’s theory through the head and its dead. The argument is: Suppose someone describes a book to you and they only describe it in terms of its physical and chemical properties. What then do you know about the information transmitted by the book? Zero!! Somebody could run a chemical analysis of the book but it would carry nothing about the information contained in the book. That is impossible. This is something added to the chemical and physical properties.
Might machines and machine-like aspects of living things not be shown one day to result from the working of physical or chemical laws?
We can exclude this for machines. Our incapacity to define machines and their functions in terms of physics and chemistry is due to a manifest impossibility, for machines are shaped by man and can never be produced by the spontaneous equilibration of their material. But morphological structures are not shaped by man, could they not grow to maturity by the working of purely physical-chemical laws?
So he says it is inconceivable for machines but what about the machine-like parts of man.
Such a highly improbable arrangement of particles is not shaped by the forces of physics and chemistry. It constitutes a boundary condition, which as such transcends the laws of physics and chemistry.
This of course is his big argument.
Laplace thought we would know all that can be known in the world if we knew the course of its atoms. But for this he required a complete map of atomic positions and velocities to start with. Physics is dumb without the gift of boundary conditions, forming its frame; and this frame is not determined by the laws of physics.
Polanyi says here you need to know these boundary conditions and without this physics is dumb and the frame is not determined by the laws of physics. There is something else in the structure of what is there. Thinking of my constant emphasis on Jean Paul Sartre’s statement “the basic philosophic question is not that something is there rather than nothing being there.”
Then Albert Einstein’s statement “the universe is like a well formulated word puzzle and only one word fits.” The world has a form but it is so definite that it is like a well formulated word puzzle. Two steps in the structure of the universe. First, something is there that must be explained. Second, the niceness of its form and its order.
What Polanyi is saying is if you are going to understand what is there you must not only understand merely the chemical and physical laws but you have to be faced with the boundary conditionswhich constitutes the form. Do you understand? For some of you this may be a little abstract but it won’t be abstract if you get into a discussion with your university friends if you can really get a hold of it.
The boundary conditions of the physical-chemical changes taking place in a machine are the structual and operational principles of the machine. We say therefore that the laws of inanimate nature operate in a machine under the control of operational principles that constitute (or determine) the boundaries. Such a system is clearly under dual control.
In the machine made by man you have a dual control.Firstly, the devices of engineering, that is how you are going to make it. For instance, your plans for making a bridge or watch. Secondly, the laws of natural science. The laws of physics and chemistry and the material you use to make the bridge or watch.
________
Thank you for your time. I know how busy you are and I want to thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Sincerely,
Everette Hatcher,
P.O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221, United States, cell ph 501-920-5733, everettehatcher@gmail.com
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
_____________
Page 253 of Volume 1
Francis Schaeffer michel foucault what foucault is finally against, however, is the authority of reason…In this Foucault represents an important tendency in advanced contemporary thought. In his despair of the transcendent powers of rational intellect he embodies one abiding truth of our time–the failure of the nineteenth century to make good its promises.” In other words, the heirs of the Enlightenment had promised that they would provide a unified answer on the basis of the rational. Foucault maintains correctly that this promise has not been fulfilled.
_______
Foucault was not too far removed from Aldous Huxley. He is not to be thought of as too isolated to be of importance in understanding our era,
Michel Foucault is talked about by Schaeffer a lot.
___________________________
on religious belief – don’t believe in God; there are passages in Levi-Strauss’ ‘Tristes Tropiques’ on Buddhism which are relatively close to what I felt much more strongly as a younger person; this question is interesting because in recent years I have been working with a student who has just finished a degree in theology and is now doing a degree in anthropology; he is a practising Christian and we get along remarkably well, discussing ethics etc., but it is clear that the larger theist dimensions are radically disparate; this is an interesting anthropological dimension where ethically this seems to not cause any problem; I frequently related to people with strong but quiet religious beliefs; Michel de Certeau was a Jesuit and I had a number of other Jesuit friends; I think it is the fact that they care about the world and other people, are thoughtful, committed and concerned, and I don’t have to share other parts of their belief system while finding them worthy of friendship; I am uninterested in the Dawkins’ argument of science disproving religion, I am not a positivist, there is a big difference between this form of nineteenth century militant positivism and a Weberian position in which science does not answer ultimate questions; when science becomes a world view, a cosmology, it seems to part company with its deep critical functions; I may not be a believer or theist, but I am not a militant atheist; I also part company with people like Jurgen Habermas or Charles Taylor who feel that unless we have sure foundations for our ethical life that we flounder, which seems wrong; no one has ever proved the ultimate foundations of anything to everyone’s satisfaction yet ethical life and decent human relations seem to me not all that common, but not impossible either; I am not looking for ultimate stopping points, and there is some anthropological dimension to that through respect for the complexity of different commitments; cosmopolitan enlightenment sense that we have to live with difference which can be a good thing, and that intolerance –even in the name of tolerance — is not so admirable
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:
…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
Nick Gathergood, David-Birkett, Harry-Kroto
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
Arif Ahmed, Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael Bate, Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky,Alan Dershowitz, Hubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan Feuchtwang, David Friend, Riccardo Giacconi, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross, Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen F Gudeman, Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison, Hermann Hauser, Roald Hoffmann, Bruce Hood, Herbert Huppert, Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve Jones, Shelly Kagan, Michio Kaku, Stuart Kauffman, Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, George Lakoff, Elizabeth Loftus, Alan Macfarlane, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow, Yujin Nagasawa, Alva Noe, Douglas Osheroff, Jonathan Parry, Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse, Carolyn Porco, Robert M. Price, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Oliver Sacks, John Searle, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg, Lee Silver, Peter Singer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, Barry Supple, Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Neil deGrasse Tyson, .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and Lewis Wolpert,
His comments can be found on the 3rd video and the 118th clip in this series. Below the videos you will find his words.
___________________
In other words I am not a believer or a theist, but I am not also a militant atheist. I think that debate leads into a range of different and diverse existential corners that I don’t want to go to and never felt the need to go to.
on religious belief – don’t believe in God; there are passages in Levi-Strauss’ ‘Tristes Tropiques’ on Buddhism which are relatively close to what I felt much more strongly as a younger person; this question is interesting because in recent years I have been working with a student who has just finished a degree in theology and is now doing a degree in anthropology; he is a practising Christian and we get along remarkably well, discussing ethics etc., but it is clear that the larger theist dimensions are radically disparate; this is an interesting anthropological dimension where ethically this seems to not cause any problem; I frequently related to people with strong but quiet religious beliefs; Michel de Certeau was a Jesuit and I had a number of other Jesuit friends; I think it is the fact that they care about the world and other people, are thoughtful, committed and concerned, and I don’t have to share other parts of their belief system while finding them worthy of friendship; I am uninterested in the Dawkins’ argument of science disproving religion, I am not a positivist, there is a big difference between this form of nineteenth century militant positivism and a Weberian position in which science does not answer ultimate questions; when science becomes a world view, a cosmology, it seems to part company with its deep critical functions; I may not be a believer or theist, but I am not a militant atheist; I also part company with people like Jurgen Habermas or Charles Taylor who feel that unless we have sure foundations for our ethical life that we flounder, which seems wrong; no one has ever proved the ultimate foundations of anything to everyone’s satisfaction yet ethical life and decent human relations seem to me not all that common, but not impossible either; I am not looking for ultimate stopping points, and there is some anthropological dimension to that through respect for the complexity of different commitments; cosmopolitan enlightenment sense that we have to live with difference which can be a good thing, and that intolerance –even in the name of tolerance — is not so admirable.
______________
________
Related posts:
The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
__
—
Paul Rabinow, a world-renowned anthropologist, theorist and interlocutor of French philosopher Michel Foucault, his former comrade, died from cancer at his home in Berkeley on April 6. He was 76.
A professor emeritus of anthropology, Rabinow joined the UC Berkeley faculty in 1978 after earning his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. He retired in 2019.
During his more than four decades at Berkeley, Rabinow’s scholarship and pedagogy traversed such diverse lines of inquiry as the anthropology of reason, medical anthropology and the ramifications of synthetic biology.
“Paul was a profoundly energetic survivor of 20 years of cancer, during which time he produced many of his most important works,” said UC Berkeley anthropology professor emerita Nancy Scheper-Hughes, Rabinow’s longtime friend and colleague.
His seminal Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco, published in 1977 , was considered a model for conducting ethnographies and fieldwork.
In the 1990s, Rabinow coined the concept of biosociality as the shared experience of sickness and suffering, particularly with respect to the AIDS epidemic.
“Paul was as much a historian of the contemporary, a philosopher, or a molecular scientist as he was an anthropologist,” Scheper-Hughes wrote in an online tribute to Rabinow .
“His classic texts are read around the scholarly world, and his invitation to Foucault to give a series of lectures brought the house down and led to UC Berkeley briefly renamed ‘Foucault U,’” she wrote. “Paul, I missed saying goodbye to you by a day and now it will be a multitude of days of regret and sorrow.”
Rabinow’s critically acclaimed writings include Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (1983), which he co-wrote with UC Berkeley philosopher Hubert Dreyfus; The Foucault Reader (1984); Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology (1993); Essays on the Anthropology of Reason(1996); French DNA: Trouble in Purgatory (1999); Anthropos Today: Reflections on Modern Equipment (2003); and Marking Time: On the Anthropology of the Contemporary (2007).
Known for his sharp intellect and urbane style, Rabinow could be alternately amiable, impish and petulant.
“Paul Rabinow was neither easy nor particularly nice, but the intellectual rigor he demanded from me, and the kindness he showed me, will be with me forever,” tweeted Minda Murphy, a researcher with a bachelor’s degree in anthropology from UC Berkeley.
Murphy’s was among dozens of online homages to Rabinow written by peers and former students around the world.
Gabriel Coren, a researcher at the Berggruen Institute in Los Angeles and one of Rabinow’s former doctoral students, recalled Rabinow’s brusque response to an incoming graduate student’s question about the department’s perks and resources, compared to those of rival institutions.
“’As with any university today, it has problems. Many problems,’” Coren recalls Rabinow telling the graduate student at a welcome reception in 2012. “’But this is Berkeley, a public institution, and that means something worth thinking about. Look, if you just want to make sure that the bathrooms have brand new toilets and fancy trashcans, you should probably just go to Chicago.’”
“That was Paul: frank, humorous, prone to cantankerousness, and a defender of the dignity of one’s place,” Coren recounts in his online tribute to his former advisor.
Paul Rabinow was born on a U.S. Army base in Florida on June 21, 1944, to Irving and Mildred Rabinow. His parents were social workers and the descendants of Russian Jewish immigrants. When he and his younger sister, Naomi, were young, the family moved to Queens, New York, and Irving Rabinow worked for the Jewish Child Care Association in Brooklyn.
In elementary school in the Sunnyside neighborhood, Rabinow befriended Paul Hyman, another boy whose parents had made the move from a Florida military base to New York. Right from the get-go, “Rab was a fighter,” recalls Hyman, now a New York-based photographer.
In a 2008 interview, Rabinow described a childhood in 1940s and 50s New York where anti-Semitism and McCarthyism loomed large: “As a child, I was passionately involved in sports, roller hockey in particular; a strange obsession as it was mainly played by Irish Catholics and the Jews played basketball,” he said. “I was the only Jew in a Catholic Youth Organization league.”
“I was brought up to believe that America was simultaneously probably the best place in the world to be for a Jew but also not very trustworthy and not very safe,” he continued. “I was of America but not fully American. My parents’ experience in the South and Midwest, when my father was in the army, of blatant racism and anti-Semitism, was foundational.”
After graduating from Stuyvesant High School, he gained admission to the University of Chicago and earned a bachelor’s degree in 1965 and a master’s degree two years later. At the University of Chicago, he met French ethnologist Claude Lévi-Strauss and learned about European perspectives. In graduate school, he spent a year at École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris, and honed his French.
In 1969, he traveled to Morocco, where he conducted ethnographic studies that resulted in his Reflections on Fieldwork in Morocco. While there, he invited Hyman to visit him, and bring his camera and lots of film. Hyman came and took hundreds of photographs, dozens of which were published in scholarly books, and several of which have since been exhibited in museums and galleries.
Rabinow completed his doctoral studies at the University of Chicago under the tutelage of philosopher Richard McKeon and anthropologist Clifford Geertz and earned a Ph.D. in anthropology in 1970.
After, he took a job at an experimental school in New York City. Then, by some fluke, he ran into UC Berkeley sociologist Robert Bellah, who let him participate in a National Endowment for the Humanities seminar at Berkeley.
“That was a major turning point,” he recounted in a 2008 interview. “Bellah helped me get ‘Reflections’ published. I met Hubert Dreyfus, and a whole range of other connections opened up. I discovered California, which seemed an exotic land; that led into my learning from Dreyfus about Heidegger and Wittgenstein; that set the scene for the entry of Foucault into the picture. I got a job at Berkeley.”
And he certainly made an entrance in the anthropology department in 1978.
“Rabinow brought a new sophistication and energy to anthropological inquiry that participates in broad conversations about contemporary modes of living and life forms,” wrote Aihwa Ong, a UC Berkeley anthropology professor emerita, in her tribute to her longtime friend and colleague.
In 1980, Rabinow was awarded a prestigious Guggenheim fellowship. It was around that time that he met Foucault, who had been been visiting Berkeley off and on since the mid-1970s. Their collaboration resulted in the 1983 publication of Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics , followed in 1984 by The Foucault Reader .
That same year, Foucault died in Paris from HIV/AIDS-related complications. Rabinow grieved the loss of his comrade, and went on with his life. He married Marilyn Seid, a Chinese-American San Francisco native who ran a language proficiency program for Berkeley graduate student instructors. They had a son, Marc, whom they raised in Berkeley to be bilingual in English and French.
Meanwhile, activism in the Bay Area was reaching a fever pitch in the face of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Grassroots activist groups like the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (Act Up) fought to destigmatize the disease and to build political support.
Scheper-Hughes convinced Rabinow to co-teach with her UC Berkeley’s first course about the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In one class, she said, two guest speakers from very different socio-economic neighborhoods in San Francisco compared their T-cell counts and explained how the virus had disrupted their lives.
“That’s when Paul came up with the idea of biosociality,” Scheper-Hughes wrote. The revelation led to his paper, “Artificiality and Enlightenment: from Sociobiology to Biosociality.”
At one particularly heated panel discussion in 1992, some audience members objected to Rabinow bringing up Foucault, calling the late French philosopher a closet case who did not go public with his AIDS diagnosis, Scheper-Hughes wrote.
“Paul ended the panel defending his right to speak on behalf of the man that he loved. He feared that Foucault had contracted HIV/AIDS in the bathhouses of San Francisco during his invited series of lectures at UC Berkeley,” Scheper-Hughes wrote.
Next, Rabinow turned his focus to the science and ethics of California’s burgeoning biotech industry. In addition to his research, teaching and mentoring at Berkeley, he served as director of the Anthropology of the Contemporary Research Collaboratory, which he founded with anthropologists Stephen Collier and Andrew Lakoff. He was also director of human practices for UC Berkeley’s Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center (SynBERC).
Among other honors, he held fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities and a professional training fellowship in molecular biology from the National Science Foundation. He also served stints as a visiting Fulbright professor at the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro and at the University of Iceland.
Now and then, he returned to Paris where he taught at École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales and, later, at École Normale Supérieure. So strong were his ties to the City of Light that the French government named him Chevalier de l’Ordre des Arts et des Lettres, and École Normale Supérieure awarded him the visiting Chaire Internationale de Recherche Blaise Pascal.
In its obituary for Rabinow , the French newspaper Le Monde dubbed him “the most Francophile of North American anthropologists.”
He is survived by his wife, Marilyn Seid-Rabinow, of Berkeley; son, Marc Rabinow, of New York; and sister, Naomi Landau, of New Mexico.
A campus memorial to celebrate his life and legacy is planned for this fall.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Emailed on 1-17-15
To Dr. Paul Rabinow, From Everette Hatcher, I thought you would like to see this movie Monday night in a theater near you!!
Dear Dr. Rabinow,
I really enjoyed your lengthy interview with Dr. Alan Macfarlane. He does the best in depth scholarly interviews on the internet. Thank you for agreeing to give him an interview. I think I have watched almost all of the interviews he has ever done and that is over 100 by now. I have even gone back and watched many of them over and over. I actually did a post on my blog about Alan Macfarlane.
I am in the process of posting a response on my blog to your comments on the film series RENOWNED ACADEMICS SPEAKING ABOUT GOD (which received over 300,000 hits on You Tube). I have already finished responding to some of your other fellow academics who also appear on the same film series such as David J. Gross, Frank Wilczek, .Alexander Vilenkin, Roy Glauber, Roald Hoffmann, Rebecca Goldstein, Noam Chomsky, Brian Greene, Marvin Minsky, Shelly Kagan, Hubert Dreyfus, Simon Schaffer, Marcus du Sautoy, Steven Weinberg, Barry Supple, Lawrence Krauss, Lord Martin Rees, Alan Dershowitz, Lewis Wolpert, Aaron Ciechanover, Leonard Mlodinow, Herbert Huppert, Leonard Susskind, Alan Macfarlane, Saul Perlmutter, Stuart Kauffman, Douglas Osheroff, Alan Guth, Sir David Attenborough, and Harry Kroto who started it all by promoting this video series in the first place. However, it has taken me a little longer to respond to your comments.
I thought of you when I heard about this film PATTERNS OF EVIDENCE: THE EXODUS, which is only showing one time this Monday night January 19, 2015 at 7 pm at a theater near you. You have contended you don’t believe in the Bible because you don’t have the scientific type evidence that you require. This film contains the findings of over a dozen academics who are experts in archaeology and here it is at a nearby theater to you.
You can get a ticket by going to this website at this linkand putting in your zip code to find a theater near you. It stars Israel Finkelstein, Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, and many more and they will be discussing if the Exodus took place or not with only scientific facts. I have posted several very good reviews of themajor motion picture on my blog.
Here are some theaters near you that are showing the film:
1. AMC BAY STREET 16, 5614 Bay Street Ste 220, Emeryville, CA 94608, 2. CENTURY SAN FRANCISCO CENTRE 9 AND XD, 845 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103, 3. CENTURY 14 DOWNTOWN WALNUT CREEK AND XD,1201 Locust St., Walnut Creek, CA 94596, 4. CENTURY 16 DOWNTOWN PLEASANT HILL AND XD, 125 Crescent Drive, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523,
Everette Hatcher, cell ph 501-920-733, everettehatcher@gmail.com, P.O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:
…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
Nick Gathergood, David-Birkett, Harry-Kroto
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
Arif Ahmed, Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael Bate, Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky,Alan Dershowitz, Hubert Dreyfus, Bart Ehrman, Stephan Feuchtwang, David Friend, Riccardo Giacconi, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross, Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen F Gudeman, Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison, Hermann Hauser, Roald Hoffmann, Bruce Hood, Herbert Huppert, Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve Jones, Shelly Kagan, Michio Kaku, Stuart Kauffman, Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, George Lakoff, Elizabeth Loftus, Alan Macfarlane, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow, Yujin Nagasawa, Alva Noe, Douglas Osheroff, Jonathan Parry, Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse, Carolyn Porco, Robert M. Price, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Oliver Sacks, John Searle, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg, Lee Silver, Peter Singer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, Barry Supple, Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Neil deGrasse Tyson, .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and Lewis Wolpert,
His comments can be found on the 3rd video and the 118th clip in this series. Below the videos you will find his words.
___________________
In other words I am not a believer or a theist, but I am not also a militant atheist. I think that debate leads into a range of different and diverse existential corners that I don’t want to go to and never felt the need to go to.
on religious belief – don’t believe in God; there are passages in Levi-Strauss’ ‘Tristes Tropiques’ on Buddhism which are relatively close to what I felt much more strongly as a younger person; this question is interesting because in recent years I have been working with a student who has just finished a degree in theology and is now doing a degree in anthropology; he is a practising Christian and we get along remarkably well, discussing ethics etc., but it is clear that the larger theist dimensions are radically disparate; this is an interesting anthropological dimension where ethically this seems to not cause any problem; I frequently related to people with strong but quiet religious beliefs; Michel de Certeau was a Jesuit and I had a number of other Jesuit friends; I think it is the fact that they care about the world and other people, are thoughtful, committed and concerned, and I don’t have to share other parts of their belief system while finding them worthy of friendship; I am uninterested in the Dawkins’ argument of science disproving religion, I am not a positivist, there is a big difference between this form of nineteenth century militant positivism and a Weberian position in which science does not answer ultimate questions; when science becomes a world view, a cosmology, it seems to part company with its deep critical functions; I may not be a believer or theist, but I am not a militant atheist; I also part company with people like Jurgen Habermas or Charles Taylor who feel that unless we have sure foundations for our ethical life that we flounder, which seems wrong; no one has ever proved the ultimate foundations of anything to everyone’s satisfaction yet ethical life and decent human relations seem to me not all that common, but not impossible either; I am not looking for ultimate stopping points, and there is some anthropological dimension to that through respect for the complexity of different commitments; cosmopolitan enlightenment sense that we have to live with difference which can be a good thing, and that intolerance –even in the name of tolerance — is not so admirable.
______________
________
Related posts:
The John Lennon and the Beatles really were on a long search for meaning and fulfillment in their lives just like King Solomon did in the Book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon looked into learning (1:12-18, 2:12-17), laughter, ladies, luxuries, and liquor (2:1-2, 8, 10, 11), and labor (2:4-6, 18-20). He fount that without God in the picture all […]
______________ George Harrison Swears & Insults Paul and Yoko Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds- The Beatles The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking […]
The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA Uploaded on Nov 29, 2010 The Beatles in a press conference after their Return from the USA. The Beatles: I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis […]
__________________ Beatles 1966 Last interview I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about them and their impact on the culture of the 1960’s. In this […]
_______________ The Beatles documentary || A Long and Winding Road || Episode 5 (This video discusses Stg. Pepper’s creation I have dedicated several posts to this series on the Beatles and I don’t know when this series will end because Francis Schaeffer spent a lot of time listening to the Beatles and talking and writing about […]
_______________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: _____________________ I have included the 27 minute episode THE AGE OF NONREASON by Francis Schaeffer. In that video Schaeffer noted, ” Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band…for a time it became the rallying cry for young people throughout the world. It expressed the essence of their lives, thoughts and their feelings.” How Should […]
Crimes and Misdemeanors: A Discussion: Part 1 ___________________________________ Today I will answer the simple question: IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN OPTIMISTIC SECULAR HUMANIST THAT DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? This question has been around for a long time and you can go back to the 19th century and read this same […]
____________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: __________ Francis Schaeffer has written extensively on art and culture spanning the last 2000years and here are some posts I have done on this subject before : Francis Schaeffer’s “How should we then live?” Video and outline of episode 10 “Final Choices” , episode 9 “The Age of Personal Peace and Affluence”, episode 8 […]
Love and Death [Woody Allen] – What if there is no God? [PL] ___________ _______________ How Should We then Live Episode 7 small (Age of Nonreason) #02 How Should We Then Live? (Promo Clip) Dr. Francis Schaeffer 10 Worldview and Truth Two Minute Warning: How Then Should We Live?: Francis Schaeffer at 100 Francis Schaeffer […]
___________________________________ Francis Schaeffer pictured below: ____________________________ Francis Schaeffer “BASIS FOR HUMAN DIGNITY” Whatever…HTTHR Dr. Francis schaeffer – The flow of Materialism(from Part 4 of Whatever happened to human race?) Dr. Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical flow of Truth & History (intro) Francis Schaeffer – The Biblical Flow of History & Truth (1) Dr. Francis Schaeffer […]
__