I remember so many awful things that were completely senseless. Not being allowed into certain grocery stores, having a security guard block my entrance at Chapters, shouting through glass at the Pet Store and all because I refused to wear a mask. Being asked at the checkout of a small shop to put on a mask or leave. (I left) All of it was total and irrational insanity. But I also remember the places that let me shop unhindered, and for them I will always be so grateful.
Another great book to add to the list is: Turtles All The Way Down. So very full of useful information on the harms of vaccines and that absolutely none of them have ever been tested against a placebo thereby making none of them tested for either safety or efficacy.
Dr Crystal Luchkiw is yet another brave member of the physician honour roll. Exactly the kind of doctor you'd want tending to your elderly parents. I wrote about her here (pardon the self-promotion, but her story is a doozy):
Thanks so much for the reference, Donna. Interesting that the CPSO itself saw fit to take it down. And thank you for adding the name of Crystal Luchkiw -- I recall seeing her story at some point. I hope that others will add who was important to them.
Agreed! I am forever grateful to the physicians who at the risk of their reputations, careers, and livelihoods spoke out.
Excellent piece, Jodi. Thanks for highlighting the over-the-top moral dimension of COVID.
I find what you’re helping me understand through your writing is the different forms of power that we’ve been subjected to. We saw the brute force of the State with the Emergencies Act; the power of deception and propaganda through the one-sided narrative of mainstream media; and now the regime of COVID power-knowledge that depends on denying the basic science of immunology.
In another nod to Foucault, I find your example of Dr. Gill’s ongoing legal battles brings to mind another dimension of the COVID regime. How is the concentration of power accomplished if the state does not use brute force?
Foucault talks about the dispersal of power across a range of different institutional sites that produce and reproduce the language and actions of power. The dispersal of power: I find that helpful. I can see it; I can visualize the tentacles of power stretching outward, each institution with its specialized language, policies, and protocols for action, which then reverberate back along the tentacles, creating a web of interactions between institutions, enabling the concentration of state power.
With COVID I think of it this way: the power of COVID language/knowledge is not only in the pronouncements of public health “experts” delivered through the theatre of mainstream media to induce fear and moral panic. It’s also in the enabling power-knowledge of a whole range of other institutions: our legal and educational systems, our economic sectors, other public sectors and their unions, and the list goes on, as we learned through the testimonies of NCI witnesses. So fear and moral panic are also accomplished by the way these other institutions take on that regime of language, infusing it with power and life every day in our courts, our virtual classrooms, our workplaces, and in our religious, social, and recreational spaces.
That’s why, for me, your example of Dr. Gill’s legal battles is so revealing: the policing of scientific language and truth is accomplished when other institutions get in on the act. It’s there for all to see.
And that’s what our truth-telling physicians have been up against: the immense weight of institutions working together, from all corners, the world over.
Thanks so much for the brilliant extended comment, Margaret! You have it exactly right with Foucault. The Cooper and Navarro-Génie book make it clear that the power-knowledge (pouvoir-savoir) was dispersed across a whole range of institutions and did not require prior coordination per se to inflict on us. They call them "authorized knowers" in state institutions, and add that they very likely believed its content themselves (more or less) and hence became that much angrier at nay-sayers. The power-knowledge becomes true when it is uniformly enforced and all believe it together.
It's an excellent book -- often very funny too, strangely. Hard to do it justice here.
How can someone have a mind-independent access to reality? A researcher’s theory comes through that process which you describe, but how can that theory be compared or fitted to the reality that’s not attainable to us other than using our minds? Thus, we are stuck with comparing two theories of the real or two stories. By what criteria could these two mind-dependent stories be decided as truth?
To me, a couple things involved--entailed in both "exploration and discussion" aspects of science. The first independent point of access would be OTHER minds with their perspectives; hence the crucial element of free discussion and comparison. Which explanation seems more complete? The second would be watching the effects of experimentation. By intervening in some aspect of reality, the theorist tests a hypothesis and obtains results.
At times, reality "slaps back" in unmistakable way. I'd put the video in Aseem Malhotra's tweet above in that category.
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I understand the need for dialogue and debate; no problem there. The issue I raise is the fit of theory to reality. Let’s say that after healthy dialogue, differences are sorted out and then the theory is matched to reality in terms of ‘fit’ or best fit. To test for ‘fit’ we need to know that reality. How can we know reality without using our mental processes to know it?
Cause we're in it, part of it? Not just as mind, but as sensory and spiritual beings. A participatory aspect to it. Our theories are trying to get clarity on something we are embedded within but can also reflect on noetically.
This takes me WAY back but I think I got my understanding of consciousness/theories of knowing from studying Husserl, Santanaya, Aquinas, also political philosopher Eric Voegelin. Whitehead on science. Inspiring my little "what is science" photo caption.
Thanks again for your commitment to dialogue. Yes, agreed, mind includes body and our senses and also understandings, judgements and decisions. I see some of Francisco Varela’s work in your reply? Interesting that you mention Whitehead since I just finished reading about his coming to America. Also mentions Royce who was Santayana’s doctoral advisor. I’ve long admired Whitehead and quote him often. Yet few have ventured to his work. Was that your artwork with caption?
Thanks so much for the link that article, Laurent. Will check it out with interest. And also for your querying my sources. A few of my profs cited Whitehead, though I was in a particular vein of political theory.
I hadn't heard of Valera. Was never much of a philosophy student, though I did come to appreciate how important theories of knowledge are to the question: "how then shall we live?"
Jodi, This is another winner. Thank you.
I remember so many awful things that were completely senseless. Not being allowed into certain grocery stores, having a security guard block my entrance at Chapters, shouting through glass at the Pet Store and all because I refused to wear a mask. Being asked at the checkout of a small shop to put on a mask or leave. (I left) All of it was total and irrational insanity. But I also remember the places that let me shop unhindered, and for them I will always be so grateful.
Another great book to add to the list is: Turtles All The Way Down. So very full of useful information on the harms of vaccines and that absolutely none of them have ever been tested against a placebo thereby making none of them tested for either safety or efficacy.
Thanks so much, Anna. Sure did show us who's who.
I haven't yet read the turtles book -- good to know, will have a look!
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario statement was captured by Archive.org as well here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210430192106/https://www.cpso.on.ca/News/Key-Updates/Key-Updates/COVID-misinformation
Dr Crystal Luchkiw is yet another brave member of the physician honour roll. Exactly the kind of doctor you'd want tending to your elderly parents. I wrote about her here (pardon the self-promotion, but her story is a doozy):
https://thankyoutruckers.substack.com/p/massive-patient-harm
Thanks so much for the reference, Donna. Interesting that the CPSO itself saw fit to take it down. And thank you for adding the name of Crystal Luchkiw -- I recall seeing her story at some point. I hope that others will add who was important to them.
Agreed! I am forever grateful to the physicians who at the risk of their reputations, careers, and livelihoods spoke out.
Excellent piece, Jodi. Thanks for highlighting the over-the-top moral dimension of COVID.
I find what you’re helping me understand through your writing is the different forms of power that we’ve been subjected to. We saw the brute force of the State with the Emergencies Act; the power of deception and propaganda through the one-sided narrative of mainstream media; and now the regime of COVID power-knowledge that depends on denying the basic science of immunology.
In another nod to Foucault, I find your example of Dr. Gill’s ongoing legal battles brings to mind another dimension of the COVID regime. How is the concentration of power accomplished if the state does not use brute force?
Foucault talks about the dispersal of power across a range of different institutional sites that produce and reproduce the language and actions of power. The dispersal of power: I find that helpful. I can see it; I can visualize the tentacles of power stretching outward, each institution with its specialized language, policies, and protocols for action, which then reverberate back along the tentacles, creating a web of interactions between institutions, enabling the concentration of state power.
With COVID I think of it this way: the power of COVID language/knowledge is not only in the pronouncements of public health “experts” delivered through the theatre of mainstream media to induce fear and moral panic. It’s also in the enabling power-knowledge of a whole range of other institutions: our legal and educational systems, our economic sectors, other public sectors and their unions, and the list goes on, as we learned through the testimonies of NCI witnesses. So fear and moral panic are also accomplished by the way these other institutions take on that regime of language, infusing it with power and life every day in our courts, our virtual classrooms, our workplaces, and in our religious, social, and recreational spaces.
That’s why, for me, your example of Dr. Gill’s legal battles is so revealing: the policing of scientific language and truth is accomplished when other institutions get in on the act. It’s there for all to see.
And that’s what our truth-telling physicians have been up against: the immense weight of institutions working together, from all corners, the world over.
Thanks so much for the brilliant extended comment, Margaret! You have it exactly right with Foucault. The Cooper and Navarro-Génie book make it clear that the power-knowledge (pouvoir-savoir) was dispersed across a whole range of institutions and did not require prior coordination per se to inflict on us. They call them "authorized knowers" in state institutions, and add that they very likely believed its content themselves (more or less) and hence became that much angrier at nay-sayers. The power-knowledge becomes true when it is uniformly enforced and all believe it together.
It's an excellent book -- often very funny too, strangely. Hard to do it justice here.
Foucault and funny... a book to read!
How can someone have a mind-independent access to reality? A researcher’s theory comes through that process which you describe, but how can that theory be compared or fitted to the reality that’s not attainable to us other than using our minds? Thus, we are stuck with comparing two theories of the real or two stories. By what criteria could these two mind-dependent stories be decided as truth?
To me, a couple things involved--entailed in both "exploration and discussion" aspects of science. The first independent point of access would be OTHER minds with their perspectives; hence the crucial element of free discussion and comparison. Which explanation seems more complete? The second would be watching the effects of experimentation. By intervening in some aspect of reality, the theorist tests a hypothesis and obtains results.
At times, reality "slaps back" in unmistakable way. I'd put the video in Aseem Malhotra's tweet above in that category.
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I understand the need for dialogue and debate; no problem there. The issue I raise is the fit of theory to reality. Let’s say that after healthy dialogue, differences are sorted out and then the theory is matched to reality in terms of ‘fit’ or best fit. To test for ‘fit’ we need to know that reality. How can we know reality without using our mental processes to know it?
Cause we're in it, part of it? Not just as mind, but as sensory and spiritual beings. A participatory aspect to it. Our theories are trying to get clarity on something we are embedded within but can also reflect on noetically.
This takes me WAY back but I think I got my understanding of consciousness/theories of knowing from studying Husserl, Santanaya, Aquinas, also political philosopher Eric Voegelin. Whitehead on science. Inspiring my little "what is science" photo caption.
Here’s the brief article on Whitehead by Hocking.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2023185
Thanks again for your commitment to dialogue. Yes, agreed, mind includes body and our senses and also understandings, judgements and decisions. I see some of Francisco Varela’s work in your reply? Interesting that you mention Whitehead since I just finished reading about his coming to America. Also mentions Royce who was Santayana’s doctoral advisor. I’ve long admired Whitehead and quote him often. Yet few have ventured to his work. Was that your artwork with caption?
Thanks so much for the link that article, Laurent. Will check it out with interest. And also for your querying my sources. A few of my profs cited Whitehead, though I was in a particular vein of political theory.
I hadn't heard of Valera. Was never much of a philosophy student, though I did come to appreciate how important theories of knowledge are to the question: "how then shall we live?"
The artwork came from Pixabay. https://pixabay.com/