In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 Common Themes in American Indian Philosophy This chapter introduces the four common themes that are the focus of the interpretation of American Indian philosophy as a dance of person and place: relatedness and circularity as world-ordering principles, the expansive conception of persons, and the semantic potency of performance. It also offers a few clarifications and caveats that must frame the discussion, and explains why crafting a rational reconstruction of the “traditional” American Indian world version might be our best and only hope. Finally, it introduces the somewhat remarkable notion that an American Indian world version constructs a well-made, actual world from a culturally sophisticated constructivist perspective grounded in the philosophy of Nelson Goodman. First Introductions kiwaakomelepwa! nitesi␪o miyaa␪we natoke. saawanwa nilla no’ki ni m’soma peleawa.1 Greetings to you all! My name is Owl Listening. I am Shawnee and my clan is Turkey. The elder who dreamed my name, Michael Spivey, passed recently, and this work remembers him. I present one possible interpretation of American Indian philosophy as a dance of person and place by examining four important notions—common themes, if you will—that seem to recur across American Indian traditions: two world-ordering principles, relatedness and circularity, the expansive conception of persons, and the semantic potency of performance. My exploration views Native philosophy through the lens of a culturally sophisticated constructivism grounded in the work of analytic philosopher Nelson Goodman.2 This work, then, also remembers Jim Parmenter, the elder, colleague, and friend who first introduced me to the philosophy of Professor Goodman. I need to say something at the outset about the Western philosophical tradition—the tradition of Plato and Aristotle, Descartes and Hume, Quine and Goodman—and my place in it. The Western intellectual 1 2 The Dance of Person and Place tradition deserves a close political analysis from a Native standpoint, and contemporary American Indian critics are now beginning to take on that task.3 Indeed, I won’t be able to resist the occasional historical or political observation, pointing out Western prejudices or biases, in the reflections to come. My purpose, however, is not to critique the Western tradition, but to argue that—contrary to centuries of condescension and derision—an American Indian world version makes a legitimate world, even within a culturally sophisticated Western constructivist framework. As for my own history and bias, I am mixed-blood Shawnee and an enrolled member of the Piqua Sept Shawnee Tribe; but I am also well schooled in the concepts and methodologies of Western philosophy of mathematics and logic. I am not undertaking this project because I have some special expertise or clarity about issues in contemporary philosophy—the debate between realism and constructivism among them. Nor have I some special insight into and about Native world versions; I am neither an elder nor one with medicine. In fact, I know of others who have that special knowledge, expertise, and insight into each of these traditions. I am undertaking this interpretation of American Indian philosophy because I happen to be at a special place and time, where and when American Indian philosophy is on the verge of legitimacy within the discipline of philosophy; perhaps my efforts may be an “Open Door” for the Native philosophers who can do the better job. I speak for no one but myself, so any errors are mine alone; and there will be errors, for my understanding of the traditional American Indian worldview is evolving, perhaps as yours is. Know well that I will say nothing that a diligent scholar couldn’t find somewhere in print, for the rest belongs to the People, and it is not my place to share it. Before beginning my promised constructivist interpretation of American Indian philosophy, I must offer a few clarifications and caveats, some of which may be a bit sobering. The first is deceptively nontrivial: What is the appropriate way to refer to the indigenous people called Indians? Of course, it is currently trendy, especially within the academy, to use “Native American,” but I reject the label—perhaps shockingly—in favor of “American Indian,” despite the fact that “Indian” is a name imposed by colonial powers that recalls the disease, depredations, and dispossessions Native peoples have suffered at their hands. However, I know of no Indian who really appreciates being called a “Native American.” First, the name “Native American,” fashioned after “African American ” and similar labels, suggests that Indians are American citizens who just happen to...

Share