Kuhn writes about paradigm shift in science and more or less gives the lie to the idea of progressively more satisfactory shifts. Paradigm shifts, he says, raise as many questions as they answer, and old ones fit as new as new ones. It only that the old ones are seen as obsolete and their fine details forgotten, while new ones tend to inspire new discussion of problems once thought solved and thus seem to 'spur' science on. I think he caused much more of stir in the social sciences than the hard sciences--no one wants to consider phloegiston or ethereality in chemistry anymore. I wrote in defense magical consciousness, which seems to be superstition. I brought in Carlos Castaneda, Charles Tart and Sue Blackmore, who all wrote about 'state-specific' or provisional knowledge or beliefs, i.e. belief-systems which last only as long as the individual practicioner need them to in order to utilize them in a desired way. Robert Anton Wilson is another example. The Christian viewpoint is that the beliefs we hold are personal, but when we die, we are judged against the 'truth' of one model. Thus, they often more or less dogmatically believe in an objective, righteous, model and are all too willing to become zealots... thus the antipathy between Christians and pagans.

And we all know who won that one. But for a long time 'western' anthropology (and history) held that same bias. In the 1970s, however, there began a shift to the postmodern view of cultural relativism... which actually demonstrates the pagan view that belief shapes reality (actually, it shapes the subjective experience of reality) and thus is a personal choice to be respected, not corrected.

Here in America, we're swinging back fast to fundamentalism and there's to be a showdown... probably the liberal view will go underground or seek refuge in the peripheral 'frontier' regions of the blue states (there is something about being on the edge that inspires multiculturalism--the Clatsop/Chinook tribe who lived here where I do before was one of the most adaptable, even seeking out strangers to adopt--it made the whole tribe better at trade network brokering, which was their very successful arena--no Chinook had to work or gather food if they didn't want to, and many had a separate plank house just to hold their belongings.

Greer isn't my favorite (too boring!), and you're right about her being petty... she called men 'subhumanly ugly'. But she also famously said: "I do think that women could make politics irrelevant. By a kind of spontaneous cooperative action, the like of which we have never seen; which is so far from people's ideas of state structure and vital social structure that seems to them like total anarchy. And what it really is, is very subtle forms of inter-relation which do not follow sort of hierachical patterns which is fundamentally patriarchal. The opposite to patriarchy is not matriarchy but fraternity. And I think it's women who are going to have to break this spiral of power and find the trick of cooperation."

In my opinion it isn't a simply that men dominate, its also a segregation into separate spheres. And here's where I think Dinnerstein is uniquely lucid: those 'complementary arrangements' give certain benefits (she expressly values her own marriage--to a biologist) few would give up. However, due to the insidious consequences of that choice, which perculates into our society and critically our treatment of the environment--that model of thinking is leading our species to ecocidal extinction. (The why of that I can't summarize here--Dinnerstein turns to Freudian psychology to explain why men tend to be ecocidal and why women look the other way about it)

And I think the argument that men might actually like the freedom equality offers is lost on most men, because men go through a life dynamic they don't appreciate until that spontaneous 'midlife crisis' or they actually adopt a more 'feminine' social role after retirement.

And Sang Su Kyi is symptomatic, not of simple inequality but of the mystique of a complementary division (I actually think her International fame is a factor--fascists secretly killed nuns in El Salvador who advocated liberation theology, but the point is still her symbolic mystique as a woman or her symbolic passivism as a woman). I don't have much truck for those who say 'kill all the men' or even feminists who condemn all men. I just don't think thats the true position of Greer, or even Mary Daly, who quit her post rather than admit men to her classes. Others, yes, but analytical, intellectual feminism as a general philosophy has much to offer men, whereas fascism is puerile antipathy to the other, thus feminism and fascism are intellectually opposite.

Back to work (I'm caught up, for now),

Vincent