Skip to content

Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Government-in-Exile and Instilling Democratic Norms and Processes: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (4)

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 27.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (22)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: July 22, 2021

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 1,796

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

PM Salih Hudayar is the Prime Minister of East Turkistan (Government-in-Exile) and the Founder of the East Turkistan National Awakening Movement. He discusses: governments in exile and democratic norms.  

Keywords: China, Chinese, democracy, East Turkistan, government-in-exile, Prime Minister, Salih Hudayar, Turks, UN Charter, Uyghurs.

Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Government-in-Exile and Instilling Democratic Norms and Processes: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (4)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

*Interview conducted October 20, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The United Nations recognizes 193 Member States in the world today. In regards to your election as the prime minister, the formal title includes a “Government-in-Exile.” For those who don’t know, what does it mean in regards to a government when it is in “exile”? And why this is important for the historical and ongoing contexts for East Turkistan?

Salih Hudayar[1],[2]: So, the government in exile is essentially a government which claims sovereignty over a territory and it has been forced into exile. It doesn’t see whatever is the current government there, as the legitimate government. It seeks to represent that specific country or a region as its own as the representatives. In our case in December 22nd, 1949, our former country, East Turkistan, formerly known as the East Turkistan Republic, was overthrown. This is not something that we voluntarily gave away, our independence, or voluntarily agreed to be a part of China. Because if you look at Chinese government documents from 1949 to 1954, they killed, according to Chinese state media, 150,000 enemies of China. So, obviously, our people resisted this.

To this day, we have continued to resist Chinese occupation of our country. Some of our leaders were able to escape into the Soviet Union and just general political pressures from the Soviets. They weren’t able to create an actual exile government. They were able to create a national committee, but they weren’t able to create a government in exile. Others fled into Turkey. Even there, because of political pressure, we weren’t able to engage in political advocacy. We were just there. You can’t engage in any political advocacy. You should be happy that we were here very much like that. It’s only after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 that we regained our hope for independence.

Not that we have never lost hope of it, it continues. We struggled for it. There are numerous historical uprisings over the past seventy years. The last armed uprising was in 1990, in April 1990 in which we had several hundred people take up arms to advocate and struggle for East Turkistan in the present. The only reason they took arms was because in that town, 200 women forcibly have their babies aborted. I saw our people tried to go to the local government buildings and shortlist grievances. So, seeing what happened in Afghanistan, a guy who was only 27 at that time, 26 years old.

He was inspired by what happened in Afghanistan. He said if he was trying to buy time. He said like if we were able to resist; maybe, we’ll get support from the international community. Maybe, they will help us. Unfortunately, the world didn’t even hear about this massive uprising until months later after the Chinese government arrested over 7,000 people in connection to this. But with the independence of the Central Asian countries, we had to advocate for our independence more openly because from 1960s up until really late, until 1990, everything had been underground. Because the Chinese, they executed a lot of leaders. In prison a lot of people, and so everything was just underground, everyone’s like, “Hey, we should do something.”

But we weren’t able to do anything because there was no real external support. But starting in the 1990s, our people started to go out of Central Asia and into Europe and out of Turkey, into Europe and into the United States. In 2004, September 14, 2004, that is when the pre-existing East Turkistan organizations like East Turkistan National Congress, East Turkistan Freedom Center and the East Turkistan revolutionary branch, the East Turkistan Committee, all these different leaders of the different East Turkistan organizations came together here in Washington, D.C. to declare the East Turkistan government in exile. Since then, we have been based in D.C. I got involved in early 2019, in April, not seeing my success raising awareness and getting the US Congress and others to move on the East Turkistan issue.

The government in exile, they reached out to me and said, “Hey, we’d like you in November 2018,” when they initially reached out to me. At that time, I politely declined because I didn’t want to be; I just wanted to be responsible for other things. Because I was able to get a lot of popular support within our own community, our diaspora getting a petition of 100,000 signatures. On a petition, it might not be a big deal for people in the way. For the rest of the world, it might not be a big deal. But for us, that’s something very difficult to do. To get a 108,000 of our people to agree on one thing and say, “Hey, I want to. I agree with this.” It is very different and it’s very difficult. Because in our diaspora, we number at maximum about a million.

And in the Central Asian countries, advocacy on East Turkistan is prohibited even in Turkey advocacy. Turkistan is limited. So, not only giving us the limited external Western diaspora community to really focus on our issue. Our petition to the White House got over a hundred and eight thousand signatures in more than one month. The only reason I made this petition was that there was a previous petition made by a different organization, human rights organization. They used the Chinese terminology for our country. They just call us human rights abusers. They referred to our people as an ethnic minority, which we are not. We don’t see ourselves as minority because we are still the majority in East Turkistan. They just asked the U.S. government to just condemn the human rights abusers.

And it came to my attention and I was being asked by our people, “Should we sign this?” And I said, “No. Because if we sign this, China’s going to use this.” Let’s say it gets 100,000 signatures and it gets into the White House. China is going to use that to go down our face and we’d be like, “It’s just a few a bunch of people that they don’t want, East Turkistan.” The leaders are happy and China. Yes, there’s a little bit human rights problems, but we can work with that. We have accepted that we were the moral minority. We would have accepted the Chinese colonial term for our country, which means we would have accepted Chinese rule. And we have absolutely have not accepted historically. But I said, “No, we need to – let me put out a different petition.”

So, I filed a petition, condemning China’s 21st century Holocaust in occupied East Turkistan. I have the same thing we’ve been pushing for sanctions on Chinese officials on the Magnitsky Act and passed the Uyghur Act, to recognize the genocide in East Turkistan. Despite the other pre-existing organization, the human rights organization is a large human rights organization. In spite of them pushing against this petition, accusing me of being a suffragist, accusing me of dividing our community, etc., at the end, our people, I told them, “You are human rights activists. How are you going to get it? How are you going to get human rights? If you don’t have a country, if you don’t have a government, if you don’t have a chance to elect your own people, how are you going to get that human right?”

Yes, there are some human rights, written on a piece of paper. Just like under Chinese law, we have human rights. Under Chinese law, we have autonomy on a piece of paper. But you need your own independence to achieve that. I made a video message with tens of thousands of views and people all across the world are in our community. They’re like, “What?” Let’s sign on their petition. So, 108,000 versus 12,700 on the WC petition. So, you get a lot more respect and support. You wonder. If I ask people to do something in our community… which I did, I said, “We need to organize demonstrations in your own country.”

Your governments, parliaments, etc., you need to engage in grassroots activism. We can’t just rely on a few organizations here and there to do it. We need to use the correct terminology. We need to emphasize that this is what our people want. By now, a majority of our population in the diaspora – I would say – prior to me coming out and creating some of this. There was about 60% or 70% who advocated, who wanted independence. But now, it’s over 95%. In fact, right now, it has gotten to the point where if you’re in the community, people ask, “Do you want independence?” You can’t even answer, “No.” Because in our community’s perception, if you answer, “No,” then there’s a problem. There’s a problem with you. Unfortunately, this is the way it has to be.

So, seeing that the government in exile wanted me to represent them because I was appearing at important events, I think the university is talking about our issue meeting with members of Congress and raising our issue, meeting with the State Department and raising our issue. So, they asked me to represent them as their ambassador to the U.S., which I didn’t accept until April of 2019. Then the government in exile, though it was created in the US and based in Washington, the leadership was still in Turkey and they were heavily under Turkey’s influence. They would make a lot of anti-Semitic and anti-Western statements. That’s because Turkey’s pressure has influenced and has been on a leash.

So I began to push back against that within our own government and then, ultimately, a parliament had to choose sides. Then I also said, “We need to get these people in the grassroots. We need to get grassroots elections done.” I tried to push for grassroots elections and tried to get them to allow to change the constitution, which would allow the people to directly vote for the president, the prime minister, and so forth. But I wasn’t able to do that. Before it was only three representatives. They can only vote three representatives in each nation. But I said, “No.” We need to do it to where they can elect ten and then have those ten decide amongst themselves and narrow it down to three.

Because we need to be democratic. We need to run it in a more democratic fashion. We have to teach our people democratic process, because I genuinely believe that we will regain our independence much closer than many people think. We have to be prepared for that. In order to be prepared for that, we have to focus on democratizing the various institutions that we have here in exile.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Prime Minister, East Turkistan (Government-in-Exile); Founder, East Turkistan National Awakening Movement (ETNAM).

[2] Individual Publication Date: July 22, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-4; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Government-in-Exile and Instilling Democratic Norms and Processes: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (4) [Online]. July 2021; 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-4.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2021, July 22). Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Government-in-Exile and Instilling Democratic Norms and Processes: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (4). Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-4.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Government-in-Exile and Instilling Democratic Norms and Processes: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (4). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A, July. 2021. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-4>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2021. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Government-in-Exile and Instilling Democratic Norms and Processes: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (4).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-4.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Government-in-Exile and Instilling Democratic Norms and Processes: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (4).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A (July 2021). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-4.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Government-in-Exile and Instilling Democratic Norms and Processes: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (4)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-4>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Government-in-Exile and Instilling Democratic Norms and Processes: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (4)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-4.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Government-in-Exile and Instilling Democratic Norms and Processes: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (4).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 27.A (2021): July. 2021. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-4>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Government-in-Exile and Instilling Democratic Norms and Processes: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (4) [Internet]. (2021, July 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-4.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links June be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and June disseminate for their independent purposes.

Conversation with Alisha Graves on Girls’ Education and Rights, and the Global Education Summit: Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 27.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (22)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: July 22, 2021

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 2,775

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Alisha Graves, MPH is the Co-Founder of the OASIS Initiative. She discusses: the Sahel region; the Global Education Summit; the organizations that are getting involved; girls who lose out on the access to education earlier in life; the keynote speakers; high levels of population growth typically associated with lower rights for women and girls; fundamentalist religion; freedom of choice at all levels of life; and Oasis.

Keywords: Alisha Graves, education, girls, Global Education Summit, National Institutes of Health, OASIS Initiative.

Conversation with Alisha Graves on Girls’ Education and Rights, and the Global Education Summit: Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

*Interview conducted July 21, 2021.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, today, we are here with Alisha Graves. We are talking about the Global Education Summit. In particular, it is focusing on girls’ education and family planning in the Sahel region. Its growth rate is among the highest in the world. This comes from a number of factors. However, with these societies that are in this region and this growth rate, what are the risk factors for girls not getting proper education? And what are the indicators of girls having that access to education? Noting, of course, that this is fundamentally a human right for all children, including girls.

Alisha Graves[1],[2]: Ok, so, related to risk factors for not staying in school, there are many. We started our work with a grant from the NIH, the National Institutes of Health here in the US to look at maternal mortality and morbidity. So, women dying from pregnancy and childbirth in northern Nigeria, which has one of the highest rates of maternal death in the world. Actually, through the really careful, ethical, logical work of a colleague of mine, Daniel Perlman, he and his research team found that early marriage and childbearing is one of the great risks of maternal death. so then, they began asking the communities, “Well, what alternatives are there to marriage and childbearing?” And they heard, over and over again, that the alternative is – in fact, the only viable alternative is – school. then they looked around and noticed that most of the girls were leaving school around the same time puberty started and in early adolescence, 12 or 14. So, they asked the families; this education was so important: Why are the girls not in school? And they found that consistently, the parents said, “The first daughters go to school, a great opportunity cost.” And they finished doing that for 6 years and barely read or write. So, it wasn’t worth sending their other daughters to school.

So that points to the importance of the quality of education. It also goes back to a question about risk factors. There are tremendous risks when girls leave school early and are more likely to be married and more likely to become pregnant. There is a tremendous risk to the girls’ health, which also precludes her from developing. The girl was taken out of school early, very early, is not really able to get a sense of self and a feeling of what she wants in life and ability to be able to express her own wishes and desires and form them in the first place and then express them to the people in their family and community.

So, it precludes girls from leading a full life and girls who marry and start bearing children early in addition to the health risks to them. Their own children are less likely to be educated. Their own children are less likely to have good nutrition. There’s just a lot of detriments at the household level when girls don’t complete school. then conversely, there are a lot of benefits when they do so, both in terms of girl’s self-expression, obviously literacy, numeracy and interest in that ability to work outside of the home. So, you can get a wage-paying job, should be more likely to be connected to social services, including health, health care and just generally more able to contribute to society and to the development of her community and her nation.

Jacobsen: What was the starting point of the Global Education Summit focus on girls’ education and family planning in the first place?

Graves: So, this summit itself is an international meeting to try to increase funding for education worldwide. It really is focused on education. Our event is a side event at the summit. We have been calling for increased funding, especially for girls’ education in the Sahel, for many years. So, we took advantage of this larger summit to offer a platform to make the case for really focusing on keeping girls in secondary school, because now, it’s happening in Africa. The country has changed a lot. The primary education rates have increased a lot over the last couple of decades. Secondary education, especially in the poorer countries of the region is still really low. So, we’re making the case that by keeping a focus or getting focused on girls’ secondary education.

There will be all of these other benefits, not just to the individual girls, but on a demographic level as well, because those girls are likely to get married and start bearing children later and they’re more able to negotiate with their partners about using family planning. They’re more likely to desire a smaller family and be able to achieve both with and through better communication with their partners, but also better access to health services, because that’s something that doesn’t come easily. so there are these regional and demographic benefits that will be reached by changing the demography of the region and in particular, changing the structure. So, we put the girls’ education and family planning together because, through family planning, the demographic benefits are achieved.

Jacobsen: So, the organizations that are getting involved here. What are some of the prominent ones that people can look forward to in terms of their becoming involved in this particular summit? And what are people hoping as some of the takeaways, what have been some of the takeaways in the past?

Graves: And so, we’re organizing this event. I am the co-founder and director of research and started as a project at the University of California, Berkeley. We’re also a nonprofit, also registered as a charitable organization in Canada. That’s the latest initiative in Canada and our partners are UC Berkeley. The partnership coordination unit, which is the Family Planning and Women’s Rights and Girls’ rights organization in West Africa. We have a partnership with the Center for Girls Education, which is a partner in northern Nigeria. It has had tremendous success keeping girls in school. They’ve shown a two-and-a-half-year increase in the age of marriage with girls who participated in the program. So, this is a partnership that we’re organizing this event. In terms of what we can hope for there, we’re really hoping to see a commitment from donors, especially donor agencies and the governments on how to increase aid and increase available programs for girls’ secondary education and for her reproductive health and rights in the West African Sahel.

Jacobsen: For girls who lose out on access to education earlier in life, what happens to them?

Graves: Everybody has a different story, but we know from surveys, demographic and health surveys and national-level surveys; we know that the less educated girls, again, are likely to marry earlier. They’re less likely to have access to health services. That includes reproductive health services, counselling. They’re less likely to have decision-making power in the household. So, that could be regarding household resources like money and making decisions about their own ability to leave home. So, this goes on in terms of how empowerment decision-making/power is correlated with education. So, importantly, there’s a virtuous circle that happens, which is that mothers always want to see their children as educated or better educated than they are. To the one, we can keep girls in school. We know that there’ll be benefits to their own children in terms of what the mom expects and can be able to navigate for her children’s education.

Jacobsen: Now, who are going to be the keynote speakers at this particular summit?

Graves: And so, I feel like I need to clarify this. Our event is a side event at the larger summit. We are an official side event, but ours is a half-day conference. Next Tuesday in the larger summit is full day, next Wednesday and Thursday, I believe, and possibly Thursday and Friday. So, I’m not sure who the keynote speakers at the Global Education Summit are. We have a few very high-profile speakers that were mentioned. One of them is Professor Nicolas Meda, who is a special advisor to the President of Burkina Faso and also a former minister of health. Another is the high commissioner to the Sahel coalition. He’s the former minister of agriculture of Chad. It’s interesting with the conference dedicated to education and training of West African women. But these are two of the most… I don’t know if they describe themselves as feminists, but I know them personally and they’re very active and in a position to influence education and rights in the region. So, we’re hoping to get a special guest, but I know it’s not confirmed and that person is a very high-profile education advocate. So, I’ll let you know if that changes in the next day or two. Another person to mention is one of the key speakers, Habiba Mohammad, who is the director of the Center for Girls Education or a partner in northern Nigeria. She, for 15 years, has been dedicated to helping to keep girls at school and really changing social norms and expectations of girls and in the state, actually. But now, we have seen ripple effects throughout northern Nigeria.

Jacobsen: Are high levels of population growth typically associated with lower rights for women and girls?

Graves: Very good question. My guess is, “Yes.” But I think the probably more careful answer would be to say that we know high rates of population growth generally correspond to an age structure that used to be very young. There is a lot of evidence that shows that a youthful age structure of the country is more associated with greater civil unrest. So, I think in the context of the Sahel, which is a very young population, the regional population is very, very young. There been as long as I’ve been paying attention to it – for about 12 years now. There’s just increasing unrest and violence. So, I think that compromises women’s and girls’ rights. It compromises the well-being of the people in the region at large. But women and girls tend to be more affected by violence in terms of their own safety, facility to move around places and so forth. So, I think that’s part of the relationship there.

One of the things I would say about this relationship is we know when it easier it is for girls or women to access family planning services, which includes counselling and contraceptive methods, the more likely they are to uptake it. So, it’s an obvious thing to say. But I think there are so many barriers to accessing reproductive health services in the Sahel that there’s a relationship between the ability to access, usage rates, and contraceptive prevalence rates, and then that in turn contributes to high fertility and the population growth. One last thing I would say about that is it’s true that there’s generally a preference for large families in West Africa. However, there are more women who want to space or limit their pregnancies, but are not using any contraceptives. There are women who are current users. So, there’s this latent demand for family planning. That’s something that’s there.

Jacobsen: In southern Nigeria, it’s majority Christian. In northern Nigeria, it’s majority Muslim. With northern Nigeria, how is fundamentalist religion associated with exacerbating violations of girls’ rights or with assisting them come to fruition?

Graves: I don’t feel qualified to answer that directly, but I would say our colleagues at the Center for Girls Education have done a really amazing job developing a community approach to get the community members engaged, including, oftentimes, conservative and religious leaders to get them on board with girls’ education because is supported in the Islamic texts. So, for the girls’ education, I think it hasn’t been our experience in working with our partner there hasn’t been negatively affected. In fact, I think they’ve been so successful in getting religious leaders on board that it has contributed to the overall success of keeping girls in school. I think we are now piloting safe space groups. So, that’s like a group of girls who meet with a mentor and develop life skills. Often, they can also help literacy and numeracy equivalents to now piloting with the Center for Girls Education for married adolescent girls, including good spacing of lessons. So far, we’ve been going very carefully because of the things that you just described. So, far, we haven’t met with any resistance.

Jacobsen: For freedom of choice at all levels of life, how will having a higher level of educational access for a girl when she becomes a woman help her become financially independent, and so on?

Graves: That’s a good question, and the truth is: Because it’s such a youthful population, because of the sort of high levels of poverty, the job market looks very, very different. Lots of highly informal work there. So, that’s very different from what most of your readers would be familiar with. That said, I mean, there are a few ways that there’s a promotion of women in the workforce through our service that keeping the girls from school. First of all, through the safe spaces approach that we offer, we are actively promoting girls’ literacy and numeracy improved much more than it was just through the traditional education system. So, they’re more likely to be literate and more likely to be able to do the math and so forth. So, they have the skills. We’re also testing vocational approaches for girls who are out of school and want to learn skills. So, in northern Nigeria, where this is still a relatively small pilot, but so far they’ve been very successful, teaching girls poultry farming, poultry rearing, tailoring, shoemaking, cell phone and small electronics repair. But those are giving girls concrete skills to go into the workforce. It’s still, like I said, a pilot. I don’t know. It’s been a year or two. We’ll have more concrete results. But they’re moving towards opportunities for working outside the home.

Also, I think you’re asking, ‘How is education contributing to them being able to work outside the home?’ One other thing I’d say is: The norms for girls in the communities where we’ve been working have changed radically over the years. When it was just a handful of teenage girls who were in school, families would gossip about those guys sending the girls and putting them at risk. Now that the majority of girls are going to school, the families are gossiping about those families who are keeping girls from going to school. So, expectations for girls have really changed. in northern Nigeria, the culture for a long time now; it’s hundreds of years that families have practiced seclusion until a woman, once she’s married or a girl and she’s married, generally is not allowed to leave the home without the permission of her husband. If we have a cascading mentorship program whereby the girls who go through this program can become mentors, after a few years, given the spaces, the spaces for other girls, those cascading mentors are usually married and they’re usually the first in many, many generations to be allowed by their husbands to work outside the home. So, I find that pretty amazing.

Jacobsen: How can people find out more about Oasis?

Graves: So we just were established as a Canadian charity earlier this year, so we don’t have a Canadian. The website is “www.oasissahel.org.” We as Oasis Canada charity will be fundraising for girls’ safe spaces in Nigeria and Niger. So, Canadians could make tax-deductible gifts to Oasis initiative Canada, that we would pass through without any overhead charges to our partners in northern Nigeria and Niger.

Jacobsen: It’s fabulous.

So different from the US, yes, I think so, too. I think it’s awesome. I have through my Canadian husband; I have some connections in Canada, so I hope to later this year really to get fundraising for that. Because ultimately we want to see this approach. I want to see all girls staying in school for secondary school and being able to make important life choices. Part of our contribution to that will be to continue to offer these safe programs, especially in northern Nigeria and Niger. So, to do that, we need partners in the region and we’re raising as much funding as we can raise.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your opportunity and the time today, Alisha.

Graves: Thank you, Scott. I enjoyed talking to you, taking your questions, and hopefully answered them sufficiently.

Jacobsen: Thanks so much.

Graves: Ok, have a nice day.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative.

[2] Individual Publication Date: July 22, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/graves; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Alisha Graves on Girls’ Education and Rights, and the Global Education Summit: Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative [Online]. July 2021; 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/graves.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2021, July 22). Conversation with Alisha Graves on Girls’ Education and Rights, and the Global Education Summit: Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/graves.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Alisha Graves on Girls’ Education and Rights, and the Global Education Summit: Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A, July. 2021. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/graves>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2021. Conversation with Alisha Graves on Girls’ Education and Rights, and the Global Education Summit: Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/graves.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Conversation with Alisha Graves on Girls’ Education and Rights, and the Global Education Summit: Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A (July 2021). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/graves.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Alisha Graves on Girls’ Education and Rights, and the Global Education Summit: Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/graves>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Alisha Graves on Girls’ Education and Rights, and the Global Education Summit: Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/graves.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Conversation with Alisha Graves on Girls’ Education and Rights, and the Global Education Summit: Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 27.A (2021): July. 2021. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/graves>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Alisha Graves on Girls’ Education and Rights, and the Global Education Summit: Co-Founder, OASIS Initiative [Internet]. (2021, July 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/graves.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links June be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and June disseminate for their independent purposes.

Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on International Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Contextualization within the 21st Century: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (3)

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 27.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (22)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: July 15, 2021

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 1,165

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

PM Salih Hudayar is the Prime Minister of East Turkistan (Government-in-Exile) and the Founder of the East Turkistan National Awakening Movement. He discusses: similar cases; and international law and rights.

Keywords: China, Chinese, East Turkistan, government-in-exile, Prime Minister, Salih Hudayar, Turks, UN Charter, Uyghurs.

Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on International Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Contextualization within the 21st Century: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (3)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

*Interview conducted October 20, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: And other than Tibet and some of the concerns about Taiwan or Hong Kong, what are other similar cases or ongoing cases that the Chinese government is working towards enacting similarly to the case for East Turkistan and its peoples?

Salih Hudayar[1],[2]: So East Turkistan has been, since 1950, used as a base for literally everything from nuclear weapons to military software to surveillance systems to new political programs that China wants to test programs, ethnic programs, so, in Tibet, they started with us. They started locking us in concentration camps. They started taking away our language. The international community didn’t respond. Nobody responded effectively. Now, you have half a million Tibetans sent to similar concentration camps. But China is saying that it’s ‘labour camps.’ So, now, China is admitting they’re sending them to labour camps. Half a million Tibetans have been sent to labour camps for ‘labour and training.’ This is one of those in 2020. So, all the national security laws and all the stuff like that, what they did in Hong Kong they just recently passed a national security law. They passed similar laws in East Turkistan and they were kind of gauging the international community to see how the international community would respond.

Between 2014 and 2016, they rounded up 200,000 people, men between the ages of 15 and 45 in East Turkistan. They were the first ones to go into the concentration camps and prisons on the basis that they were prone to become radicalized. They did it so publicly just to see the kind of gauge how the international community would respond and once the international community just completely ignored it. Then that’s when they started locking up millions of people and targeting them regardless of their age, whether they’re male or female, whether they’re religious or not.

Jacobsen: Now, under international law or international fundamental human rights, can you give the audience when they do read this, some of the layouts of the series of human rights violations on the level of the individual right? I’m speaking of, for example, things like forcible sterilization or even coerced or forced marriage to Chinese civilian men. These forms of violations of freedom of choice in a variety of domains. These individual human rights.

Hudayar: Yes. So, from the individual human rights perspective, they are being eradicated. Essentially the UN Charter, it guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of…, even to engage in their own political views, etc. all is guaranteed under it: a right to live, a right to worship, a right to learn their language, a right to engage in their cultural practices. These are all guaranteed. In fact, even China’s constitution guarantees people the right to practice our religion, to practice our culture, to speak our language, all these things. It’s all on paper. But effectively, what’s happening is, they are being violated.

We can’t even speak our own language in schools or in public places. Our language is no longer being taught. Women and men can’t even wear scarves because if you wear a scarf then you must be an extremist. That’s one reason why you get sent to a concentration camp. If you are male, and if you have a beard, and if you’re under 65, “Oh, then you must be an extremist. Therefore, you have to go to a concentration camp.” If you own matches, that’s illegal. You must be a terrorist, sent to a concentration camp. If you work out, and this is one of another reason, if you physically like to work out, e.g., just doing push-ups, going to a gym, you’re a security threat because you’re training to be a terrorist. You have to go to the concentration camp. If you have travelled overseas, you have to be sent to a concentration camp.

If you believe in any religion, whether it’s Christianity, whether it’s any other religion, you’re probably becoming radicalized. You have to be sent to a concentration camp. All rights are being violated. Children are being separated from their families, half a million children. This is something that the Chinese government has acknowledged. It’s to promote education, to educate and train loyal Chinese citizens. So, what they’re doing is, they’re taking away our children from pre-K up until college, teach them to be loyal Chinese citizens, teaching them to not speak their language, teaching them to hate their own people to be like, “No, these are a bunch of barbarians.” We are actually Chinese people. They were brainwashed into thinking that they were different.

To hate religion, to worship the Chinese state, these are things that are happening: Forcing our women to marry Chinese men, coercing them, in most cases by saying, “If you don’t marry Chinese men, we’re going to send you or your family to the concentration camps.” Many of the people in diaspora countries, in neighbouring countries, even in the diaspora, many of them, even here in the US, a few of them went back, bullishly went back because what the Chinese government did was they arrested their parents and then have them call those children or those relatives outside of the country and told them to come back, “When you come back, they will let you go.” When those people went back, neither those people nor their parents were ever heard from again.

The same thing happened to numerous members of my own family. In Central Asia, I told them, “Don’t go back, don’t be stupid,” because I know they got my mom. I had a cousin. They got my mom and dad. They made my mom call us and said, “They have agreed to let us go if you come back.” None of them are heard from again. There’s so much individual violation like they force DNA collection. They force the collection of DNA and biometric information. Forcibly, a Chinese official lives in your home to ensure your loyalty to promote “ethnic unity” as the Chinese government called it. It is to ensure that you speak Chinese at your home and that you don’t have any or are not engaging in religious practices or anything.

They offer you, “You’re a Muslim.” They’ll offer you drinking. They’ll bring some pork. They’ll be like, “Eat it.” If you don’t eat it, then, you’re an extremist and, therefore, you have to be sent to a concentration camp. In many cases, if you’re a woman, they’ll offer to sleep with you. They’ll be like, “Oh, let’s sleep together.” If you refuse, if you refuse that sexual harassment and the rape that follows afterwards, you’re an extremist and your whole family has to be sent to a concentration camp. There’s no type of oppression like this that is comparable anywhere in the world in the 21st century. The humiliation from the individual basis all the way through the suffering as a national. It’s not visible in any other part of the world at this scale.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Prime Minister, East Turkistan (Government-in-Exile); Founder, East Turkistan National Awakening Movement (ETNAM).

[2] Individual Publication Date: July 15, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-3; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on International Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Contextualization within the 21st Century: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (3) [Online]. July 2021; 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-3.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2021, July 15). Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on International Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Contextualization within the 21st Century: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (3). Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-3.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on International Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Contextualization within the 21st Century: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (3). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A, July. 2021. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-3>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2021. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on International Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Contextualization within the 21st Century: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-3.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on International Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Contextualization within the 21st Century: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A (July 2021). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-3.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on International Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Contextualization within the 21st Century: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (3)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-3>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on International Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Contextualization within the 21st Century: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (3)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-3.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on International Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Contextualization within the 21st Century: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 27.A (2021): July. 2021. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-3>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on International Human Rights, the UN Charter, and the Contextualization within the 21st Century: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (3) [Internet]. (2021, July 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-3.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links June be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and June disseminate for their independent purposes.

Conversation with Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., on Background, Academics, Intelligence, Science, and Philosophy: Academic Physician; Member, Mega Society (1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 27.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (22)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: July 8, 2021

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 1,492

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Professor Benoit Desjardins, MD, PhD, FAHA, FACR is an Ivy League academic physician and scientist at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a member of the Mega Society, the OlympIQ Society and past member of the Prometheus Society. He is the designer of the cryptic Mega Society logo. He is member of several scientific societies and a Fellow of the American College of Radiology and of the American Heart Association. He is the co-Founder of the Arrhythmia Imaging Research (AIR) lab at Penn. His research is funded by the National Institute of Health. He is an international leader in three different fields: cardiovascular imaging, artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. He discusses: growing up; extended self; family background; youth with friends; education; purpose of intelligence tests; high intelligence; extreme reactions to geniuses; greatest geniuses; genius and a profoundly gifted person; necessities for genius or the definition of genius; work experiences and jobs held; job path; myths of the gifted; God; science; tests taken and scores earned; range of the scores; ethical philosophy; political philosophy; metaphysics; worldview; meaning in life; source of meaning; afterlife; life; and love.

Keywords: academic physician, Benoit Desjardins, intelligence, Mega Society, science, University of Pennsylvania.

Conversation with Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., on Background, Academics, Intelligence, Science, and Philosophy: Academic Physician; Member, Mega Society (1)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you were growing up, what were some of the prominent family stories being told over time?

Dr. Benoit Desjardins[1],[2]*: Nothing interesting. A very ordinary family, trying to stay afloat financially. I found out on my wedding day that my father was adopted, which added mystery to the family for the first time in my life. But I chose not to investigate further out of respect for his wishes.

Jacobsen: Have these stories helped provide a sense of an extended self or a sense of the family legacy?

Desjardins: No, not much of a legacy. My family history did, however, make me prioritize financial stability as one of my main goals in life.

Jacobsen: What was the family background, e.g., geography, culture, language, and religion or lack thereof?

Desjardins: French Canadian, catholic, I grew up in Montreal. I was a first-generation college student, although I never really attended college and was fast-tracked directly to medical school and graduate school. We were not a very religious family. A priest had cursed my mother to get a physically disabled child when she was pregnant with me because she missed mass, and my parents then dissociated from the church. I was fortunately not born with any handicaps.

Jacobsen: How was the experience with peers and schoolmates as a child and an adolescent?

Desjardins: Not great. I was not good with human interaction. I was a bit of a recluse, although I did attend school but did not have many friends. I went to an all-boys high school. I only became comfortable interacting with girls a few years after high school. Now I have a wife and kids. Happily married for 34 years.

Jacobsen: What have been some professional certifications, qualifications, and trainings earned by you?

Desjardins: My path was unusual. I was fast-tracked to medical school in Canada because of my exceptional intellectual abilities, skipping college. But medical school did not satisfy me intellectually. So, after medical school, I received a very prestigious Award to pursue four simultaneous graduate degrees in the US, combining Pure Mathematics, Artificial Intelligence, Formal Philosophy (Logic), and Theoretical Physics. I called this my “intellectual interlude”. I then completed the medical curriculum (internship, residency, fellowship) to earn a living as an academic physician. So, I have an MD degree, a PhD degree, half a dozen Masters, and medical post-graduate training certificates. I also completed several additional certifications on the side, like recent certifications in hacking and cybersecurity. I love to learn new things, and these certifications force me to learn new fields very thoroughly.

Jacobsen: What is the purpose of intelligence tests to you?

Desjardins: Their purpose is to attempt to evaluate intelligence. I just take those tests for fun as I love to solve complicated problems.

Jacobsen: When was high intelligence discovered for you?

Desjardins: It was in high school since I was pretty much a recluse before that.

Jacobsen: When you think of the ways in which the geniuses of the past have either been mocked, vilified, and condemned if not killed, or praised, flattered, platformed, and revered, what seems like the reason for the extreme reactions to and treatment of geniuses? Many alive today seem camera shy – many, not all.

Desjardins: It usually depends on the mindset of the society in which they live. If it is not open to new ideas or non-traditional ideas, geniuses get vilified, sometimes imprisoned (e.g., Galileo), or killed (e.g., Socrates). On the other hand, if it values new ideas and risk-takers, geniuses get praised or platformed (e.g., Gates, Jobs, Musk).

Jacobsen: Who seem like the greatest geniuses in history to you?

Desjardins: One hundred billion humans ever lived on Earth, so out of those, there were quite a few geniuses throughout history. Here are a few: Socrates, Galileo, da Vinci, Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Aristotle, Turing.

Jacobsen: What differentiates a genius from a profoundly intelligent person?

Desjardins: Extreme creativity and long-term focused effort characterize genius. Profoundly intelligent people are much more common, and most don’t amount to much in life.

Jacobsen: Is profound intelligence necessary for genius?

Desjardins: Profound intelligence is usually a left-brain process. Extreme creativity is usually a right-brain process. So no, it’s not necessary.

Jacobsen: What have been some work experiences and jobs held by you?

Desjardins: The main path I followed is that of an Ivy League academic physician and scientist. But I have always pursued multiple sidelines in parallel. For example, one of my current sidelines is being a hacker and a cybersecurity specialist.

Jacobsen: Why pursue this particular job path?

Desjardins: Early in my life, I sought an intellectually challenging career, which generated good financial security income. However, I quickly realized that such a career did not exist or was very difficult to find. So, I decided to pursue two careers in parallel. I picked academic medicine to generate income and pursued many other activities in parallel to provide an intellectual challenge.

Jacobsen: What are some of the more important aspects of the idea of the gifted and geniuses? Those myths that pervade the cultures of the world. What are those myths? What truths dispel them?

Desjardins: There are many myths. For example, the myth that gifted people always do well in school. But, unfortunately, the structure of the education system is not always appropriate for many geniuses, who either do poorly in school or drop out (e.g., Einstein).

Jacobsen: Any thoughts on the God concept or gods idea and philosophy, theology, and religion?

Desjardins: God was an invention of prehistoric man to explain what he could not understand. Eventually, science explained more and more and made God and religion irrelevant. As for philosophy, it is a field that helps sharpen critical thinking, analysis, and writing. Therefore, everyone should take courses in philosophy, unless one aims for a job not requiring much thinking, like a farmer or a US congressman.

Jacobsen: How much does science play into the worldview for you?

Desjardins: I earn a living as a physician and scientist, so much of my worldview is based on science.

Jacobsen: What have been some of the tests taken and scores earned (with standard deviations) for you?

Desjardins: I took the Mega test and Titan test in the mid-1990s for fun. My scores on those were good enough to qualify for membership to the Mega Society. Whether they are appropriate tests to measure very high IQs is still an open question, but all similar tests face the same problems. I probably have taken other tests as a kid, but I don’t remember much. I also do puzzles and quizzes whenever they come up, such as Tim Roberts quizzes, and I usually finish first at most of them.

Jacobsen: What is the range of the scores for you? The scores earned on alternative intelligence tests tend to produce a wide smattering of data points rather than clusters, typically.

Desjardins: High enough to qualify for membership in the Mega Society. Narrow range, around five-sigma.

Jacobsen: What ethical philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Desjardins: I take a little bit from each of the main ethical philosophies, depending on the context. Deontological ethics mainly guides physicians, but a utilitarian approach often makes more sense to me.

Jacobsen: What social philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Desjardins: I value the “Live and let live” social philosophy with a set of practical constraints. As long as people’s behavior does not harm others, does not harm the environment, and does not harm the social fabric, let people do what they want to do. If they’re going to hurt themselves, it’s their choice. You can always provide them with the best possible advice to help them realize the consequences of their actions, but in the end, it’s their choice. Physicians use that approach a lot. For example, we inform patients who drink too much or do drugs about the consequences of their actions, and if they chose to continue, it’s not our role to forcibly stop them from harming themselves.

Jacobsen: What economic philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Desjardins: Well, I cannot tolerate the cruelty and exploitative nature of predatory capitalism in the US. I instead value any economic system that provides people with the means to achieve their goals in life and reap the benefits of their hard work while at the same time providing a robust social net to prevent people from falling through the cracks. Canada, where I grew up, is a social democracy that provides all these features and makes sense to me from an economic perspective.

Jacobsen: What political philosophy makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Desjardins: I oscillate between social liberalism and social democracy, depending on the context. Their basic policies are often the same. I value the power of the state but do not value as much the power of unions.

Jacobsen: What metaphysics makes some sense to you, even the most workable sense to you?

Desjardins: I have a purely atheistic scientific view of the world, and I do not need metaphysics.

Jacobsen: What worldview-encompassing philosophical system makes some sense, even the most workable sense to you?

Desjardins: As a scientist, post-positivism is the worldview philosophical system that makes the most sense to me. Reality is accessible through careful observation and scientific reasoning. Scientists make theories that can evolve, and they use observation to support or disprove a theory, knowing that all observations have a certain amount of error in them. Thus, science makes steady progress towards understanding reality.

Jacobsen: What provides meaning in life for you?

Desjardins: Three elements provide meaning to my life: my wife and kids, job and research work, and achievements. For the past few decades, I undertook a series of Grand Challenges outside work for personal growth and achievement. Each new Grand Challenge had to meet three conditions: (1) be something I had never done in my life, (2) enable me to grow as a person, and (3) have a well-defined end goal. I have pursued many such grand challenges, such as getting a Black Belt at Tae Kwon Do, earning a Wood Badge with Boy Scouts of America, becoming a pilot, becoming a competitive master marksman, etc.

Jacobsen: Is meaning externally derived, internally generated, both, or something else?

Desjardins: It’s both. In my case, my grand challenges are purely internally generated. However, other aspects such as wife and kids are externally generated.

Jacobsen: Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, why, and what form? If not, why not?

Desjardins: We either get cremated or eaten by worms and get recycled, currently into dirt, but eventually possibly into Soylent Green.

Jacobsen: What do you make of the mystery and transience of life?

Desjardins: Life is a beautiful thing. It appeared by itself out of nothing billions of years ago. It kept evolving until it produced Homo Sapiens, which could colonize and change the planet, and might eventually become interstellar. Science has taught us more and more about the mechanisms of life, so it’s becoming less mysterious with time. The transience of life is a good thing, as otherwise there would be 100 billion people living on Earth, 94 billion of them living in old people’s homes.

Jacobsen: What is love to you?

Desjardins: Love is an emotion that binds people to each other. I never thought of it more deeply or philosophically. But I express it regularly. For example, I’ve bought roses for my wife every month since we started dating, and I have not forgotten any monthly roses in the 37 years we have been together.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Academic Physician; Member, OlympIQ Society; Member, Mega Society.

[2] Individual Publication Date: July 8, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/desjardins-1; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., on Background, Academics, Intelligence, Science, and Philosophy: Academic Physician; Member, Mega Society (1) [Online]. July 2021; 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/desjardins-1.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2021, July 8). Conversation with Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., on Background, Academics, Intelligence, Science, and Philosophy: Academic Physician; Member, Mega Society (1). Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/desjardins-1.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., on Background, Academics, Intelligence, Science, and Philosophy: Academic Physician; Member, Mega Society (1). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A, July. 2021. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/desjardins-1>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2021. Conversation with Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., on Background, Academics, Intelligence, Science, and Philosophy: Academic Physician; Member, Mega Society (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/desjardins-1.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Conversation with Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., on Background, Academics, Intelligence, Science, and Philosophy: Academic Physician; Member, Mega Society (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A (July 2021). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/desjardins-1.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., on Background, Academics, Intelligence, Science, and Philosophy: Academic Physician; Member, Mega Society (1)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/desjardins-1>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., on Background, Academics, Intelligence, Science, and Philosophy: Academic Physician; Member, Mega Society (1)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/desjardins-1.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Conversation with Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., on Background, Academics, Intelligence, Science, and Philosophy: Academic Physician; Member, Mega Society (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 27.A (2021): July. 2021. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/desjardins-1>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Dr. Benoit Desjardins, M.D., Ph.D., on Background, Academics, Intelligence, Science, and Philosophy: Academic Physician; Member, Mega Society (1) [Internet]. (2021, July 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/desjardins-1.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links June be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and June disseminate for their independent purposes.

Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Human Rights, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Turkic Peoples, and Politically Motivated Racism: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (2)

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 27.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (22)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: July 8, 2021

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 1,376

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

PM Salih Hudayar is the Prime Minister of East Turkistan (Government-in-Exile) and the Founder of the East Turkistan National Awakening Movement. He discusses: human rights; concentration camps and re-education camps; politically motivated racism.

Keywords: China, Chinese, colonialism, government-in-exile, Prime Minister, Salih Hudayar, Turks, Uyghurs.

Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Human Rights, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Turkic Peoples, and Politically Motivated Racism: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (2)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

*Interview conducted October 20, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: With regards to human rights in some of the major human rights organizations in the world today, what has been some of their commentary? What has been some of the work that they have done in regards to these issues around the order of the Kazakhs and other Turks or people who have been locked up in those camps?

Salih Hudayar[1],[2]: So many human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, have raised the issue to the human rights as a political one. From the human rights perspective, engaging in atrocity, I think the world and the ambassador need to call for sanctions. However, with sanctions, even the terminology that is used is very important, whether referring our people or referring to our country as Turkistan, a lot of these organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, incorrectly refer to us as Chinese Muslims or Muslims in China, because we always – and other Turkic people, are Turkic people in that context because we don’t see ourselves as Chinese. We are not Chinese. We don’t have any cultural, historical, linguistic ties to China or the Chinese people.

So, that’s something that needs to be corrected. This is something that we have been pushing them to do. Another issue is the term “Chinese,” which they used to describe our homeland in a Chinese colonial term, meaning “territory” or the meaning “frontier.” It’s a humiliating term. Nobody refers to Tibet as “Chinese.” Nobody except China, like China renamed “Tibet” to “Tibet Autonomous Region,” nobody uses that term but China. But you see, most of the governments across the world and human rights organizations and media incorrectly referred to our country as “Chinese.” Therefore, in a way, supporting the Chinese narrative is supporting Chinese colonial efforts, we have been urging people to recognize or refer to our country as “Turkistan” because that’s what we call it.

And whether you look at historical map, if you pull up a map from a hundred years ago of China or surrounding areas or of Asia, you will clearly see that it’s written “East Turkistan.” We were an independent country up until December 22nd, 1949. We were known as the East Turkistan Republic. It was short lived and we lasted for about five years before the Chinese communists came. Previous to that, we had declared independence in 1933 as the Turkistan Republic, and that lasted six months into Soviet intervention. But before 1884, we were known as East Turkistan.

Jacobsen: I also want to focus on some of the terminology around some of the actions, human rights violations or abuses, that have been happening in these particular cases. So, the one that stands out probably for most people in a lay person’s perspective would be “concentration camps.” For those who make the association, they will make the association to the National Socialists in Germany in World War Two. What is the overlap here in terms of the terminology of “concentration camps “in Nazi Germany, in World War Two, and in the cases here of “genocide” ongoing in East Turkistan?

Hudayar: So, the overlap is that the purpose of why these people are being put in the. For example, the Nazis, they demonized the Jews and sent them to these concentration camps, like the same way the Chinese government is demonizing the Uyghurs and sending them to the concentration camps. The structure of the concentration camps, there is barbed wire fencing blocked by watchtowers. These are all things with high walls. In some cases, these things are prevalent. You can’t get out of it. You’re not formally charged with a crime. So, it’s not a prison, where you’re actually charged with a crime and being sent there. The only crime that you have is that your status as an Uyghur.

And just like under the Nazis, the only crime is that where you were, or in most cases you are, Jewish and, in some other cases, you were sympathetic to Jews or you were homosexuals or you were something else – enemies of the Nazis. Just the terminology that China uses, calling them “enemies of the people,” “enemies of the state and the people,” this is the way China portrays our people as we’re the enemy of China and its people. So, therefore, we have to be destroyed. We have to be, as one Chinese official stated, “eradicated.” To this day, they’re continuing to build more and more camps. The Chinese government claims that it’s for re-education; that we’re receiving political language education. The same thing that the Nazis did to reprogram them. Even the propaganda that they showed to the Western world during World War Two, what they said when people heard of these reports, the Nazis set up the stage camps to have the Jews working as in building, working in factories, looking like a productive member of the society, were happy and singing and dancing and playing sports.

And these concentration camps, the same thing that China has done with taking them to specific locations that they created purposely for propaganda purposes and literally having our people sing and dance and clap hands. While clapping their hands, they were saying, “If you’re happy… clap your hands,” in English; by using words like we’re just a bunch of circus monkeys, every time they put out these videos of dancing and clapping and singing and saying, “Hey, we are happy.” This is the same propaganda that the Nazis did as well to dissuade the world from to hide the atrocities that it was committing.

Jacobsen: If you have this case of more than a million Uyghurs, Kazakhs, and Turkic people, basically, having to undergo these kind of actions and ‘re-education,’ in the concentration camps, it’s Chinese citizens on the other side or military personnel. This is a very explicit form of politically motivated racism.

Hudayar: Absolutely. For a long time, since 1954, the Chinese government, because initially when they took over our country, our top leaders including our president, defense minister, general, chief of staff, our secretariat, foreign minister, we don’t know if they actually died in a plane crash or if they were executed and then that was staged like a plane crash. But they were killed. Then the Chinese and the Soviets, they forced the remaining leaders to sign a five-year treaty, which the Chinese communists would help us develop and modernize our country and withdraw their forces. In 1954, when the five-year mark came, the Chinese government now set up the paramilitary, Xinjian Production and Construction Corps. A paramilitary force to colonize, to secure the borders and colonize East Turkistan.

But since then, they’ve been spreading this. They’ve been revising history, stating that East Turkistan has been a part of China since ancient times and that our people are a Chinese people who were invaded by foreign barbarians and brainwashed into thinking that we were different people. So historically, the Chinese have viewed us as barbarians. The way that they’ve been portraying it. Even the shooting of the Mulan, the story of Mulan in East Turkistan near a concentration camp, that’s not coincidental. If you look at the story compared to the original film and the film that was produced this year, you can see that it’s clearly targeting our people, the Uyghur as a bunch of barbarians, because the name of the guy.

The antagonist in the movie is Barbarian, who is called their leader: Bora Khan. Bora in our language means “wolf.” Khan means like “the king.” The king of wolves, historically, in ancient Chinese texts, we were referred to as the wolf people because that was our totem. In fact, that was our imperial flag, like it symbolizes us. So, it was targeting that. the fact that the antagonist in the movie Bora Khan he’s trying to get revenge because the Chinese they killed his father and they took over their lands. This is the political message in there that the American and the Western audience doesn’t get. But, the Chinese audience, they understand. They get the political message. So, it’s a deep rooted historical issue. It’s not something that just happened starting in 2017. This goes back to 1949, even beyond that.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Prime Minister, East Turkistan (Government-in-Exile); Founder, East Turkistan National Awakening Movement (ETNAM).

[2] Individual Publication Date: July 8, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-2; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Human Rights, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Turkic Peoples, and Politically Motivated Racism: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (2) [Online]. July 2021; 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-2.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2021, July 8). Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Human Rights, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Turkic Peoples, and Politically Motivated Racism: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (2). Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-2.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Human Rights, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Turkic Peoples, and Politically Motivated Racism: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (2). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A, July. 2021. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-2>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2021. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Human Rights, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Turkic Peoples, and Politically Motivated Racism: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-2.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Human Rights, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Turkic Peoples, and Politically Motivated Racism: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A (July 2021). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-2.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Human Rights, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Turkic Peoples, and Politically Motivated Racism: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (2)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-2>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Human Rights, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Turkic Peoples, and Politically Motivated Racism: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (2)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-2.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Human Rights, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Turkic Peoples, and Politically Motivated Racism: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (2).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 27.A (2021): July. 2021. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-2>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Human Rights, Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Turkic Peoples, and Politically Motivated Racism: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (2) [Internet]. (2021, July 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-2.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links June be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and June disseminate for their independent purposes.

Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Background to East Turkistan, Uyghur Muslims, and China: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (1)

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 27.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (22)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: July 1, 2021

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 1,500

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

PM Salih Hudayar is the Prime Minister of East Turkistan (Government-in-Exile) and the Founder of the East Turkistan National Awakening Movement. He discusses: background, persecution, and the context for Uyghurs now.

Keywords: China, government-in-exile, Muslims, Prime Minister, Salih Hudayar, Uyghurs.

Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Background to East Turkistan, Uyghur Muslims, and China: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (1)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

*Interview conducted October 20, 2020.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, let’s start from the beginning, naturally, in terms of some of the upbringing for you and some of the family background, what was some of the family history told to you as a youngster, or even as you discovered a little bit later in your life?

PM Salih Hudayar[1],[2]: So, my first interaction with the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party was a very unfortunate interaction. I was four years old at the time. It was 1997. Months after the Chinese government had crushed the Ghulja uprising or the Ghulja protests, which we call the aftermath of the massacre. In February of 1997, thousands working people in Georgia, the former capital of the former Soviet republic, went out into the streets to protest the Chinese government execution of those independence activists. This resulted in the massacre in which the Chinese government killed hundreds of people and arrested thousands just in Ghulja, and then engaged in a massive security lockdown across the entire area in which Amnesty International estimated that they came around 100,000 people during that year.

One of those people that were detained – in the northwest, in my hometown – was my uncle, who was only 17 years old at that time. His crime was that he had read a book, a legal political book, and one of our neighbours followed and someone followed. We don’t know if it was one of our neighbours, but someone found it and they reported him, then were arbitrarily detained by the Chinese government. They came in knocking on our doors with two truckloads of soldiers armed with automatic weapons, shovels. They were trying to find the book. Because if you have any illegals things, you bury them, even if it’s a book. The Chinese government knows about it. They were able to find the book. Then they were trying to get my uncle to confess to being part of a political organization. My uncle refused because he was not a part of any organization.

Then they woke everyone up in the hall. I was the youngest one at that moment. I was four years old, and they pointed a rifle to everyone’s head including mine, and threatened to kill us if my uncle didn’t confess his crimes. My grandmother, my father had fled in 1995 after a demonstration. My grandmother said, “This is your older brother’s trust to us. He needs to survive. You tell them what they wanted to hear.” So, he confessed to being part of some political organization. He spent ten years of his life in prison. So, that was my first interaction, and growing up four years old. In my hometown at that time, there weren’t any Chinese civilians. The only Chinese civilians there. There were Chinese security forces, custom patrol, which you see to this day.

So, hearing from the older generation, they want to talk openly about it. I would hear them talking about the force. I didn’t know that the Chinese, mostly the Russians, because they talked about how we had a country and it was the Russians. So, I thought for a long while. So, I came to the U.S. I thought that the Chinese were actually the Russians. Then I fled in the US with my family and political refugees. My father was able to obtain refuge here in the U.S. in 1997. We came to the U.S. in 2000, on June 14, 2000. My father was the most influential person in terms of informing me about the fact that we were an independent country before. I knew we weren’t Chinese. I knew they were foreigners. I knew that they were occupying our land.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, I mistakenly thought they were Russians. But I have this desire to resist and to regain our freedom, because, again, no four-year-old in any part of the world should have a gun pointed at their head for political reasons or being carried out by – I wouldn’t call it a mistake, but – reading a book by one of their relatives. My father, when we came to the U.S., the first thing he taught me was he told me, “I thought that you can come here and live and forget about your relatives, your country. But I brought you here so that you can become educated and you can take the opportunity and the education that we learned from here to help free our country.”

My older brother was enrolled in a civil air patrol program. Now, he’s in the Navy, the U.S. Navy, for a little over a decade. I tried to go to the military academy, at West Point Military Academy. But, at the time, I was in the U.S., but because of the medical issues; I had emergency appendectomies with this problem, which led to a medical discharge. So, that questioned my whole military career. But again, I was like, “No, there have to be other ways that I can help. Let me study politics. Let me do something, struggle for my people to freedom and our country’s independence.” In the summer of 2017, right after I finished my bachelor’s, I started the East Turkistan National Awakening Movement with like-minded young leaders and came back here in the United States advocating for not just our human rights, but our political rights.

Because if we don’t have political rights, there’s no way that we can ensure our human rights. The last time that I was able to communicate with anyone inside East Turkistan was when they started locking up people in the concentration camps. My grandfather from my mother’s side, who told me in July 2000, “Don’t call us anymore. I’m too old to go to school, so stop calling.” “School” is a sick euphemism. A code word for “concentration camp,” which China calls the “education camp.” So, we found ETNAM. We began to lobby for the Uyghur Act, which recently was signed into law. We were in the right with the Uyghur Act. We organized a massive demonstration in front of the U.S. Capitol for over a month and every day, Monday through Friday from 9:00 to 5:00, to get their attention to pressure Congress to accept our proposal for the Uyghur Act, to recognize and sanction the Chinese officials for their crimes, we wanted the U.S. Congress to recognize Turkistan as an occupied country like Tibet.

We want the US government to recognize four objectives that we have put to the Chinese officials sanctioned and to get the Uyghur Act passed, to get recognition of the genocide and recognition of our occupied countries that we have. We have achieved two of those goals so far, and we are continuing to push for the other two goals, because at the end of the day, without our own independent state like we had before; these atrocities and oppression, it just shows that the pressure will not ever end. No country is going to guarantee our human rights more than China will claim it. But we have the best China. In fact, that we have the best human rights in the world. But I think of millions of our people are suffering from sterilizing our women, separating millions of children from their families, executing people, stealing their organs, forcing our women to marry Chinese men, forcefully collecting the DNA of over 36 million people, and imprisoning more than three million people in concentration camps and prisons.

I personally, myself, have over 100 relatives that have been detained. Four of them, the ones that I was lucky enough to get information out through other contacts in Central Asia. I discovered; I found the four of them were killed as of April 2019. The others, I don’t know if they are dead. I don’t know if they’re alive. That’s how many of us are in the West, many of us in the diaspora. We don’t even know if our family members, any in Turkistan, are alive, really don’t know if they are alive or if they are dead. In some cases, we find out a year or two years later that they died inside the concentration camp, but China says they die from pneumonia or they die from health conditions. It’s not okay. People are going in and dying.

So, this is a genocide in the 21st century. That’s why independence is the only way to ensure our people’s survival is the only way to ensure our people’s basic human rights. Governments around the world, people talk about human rights all the time. Have they done anything? They have actually done anything to stop the atrocities. The governments know what’s going on. They have more information than we do about what’s going on. The number of people that are dying; the number of people that are in the camps; all the intelligence agencies, they know it. But they are keeping silent on this because most of them; it’s not in their interest.

So if other governments can’t guarantee our human rights, the only government that will be able to do that is our own government once we regain our independence. This is why it’s necessary for our people’s survival. When we were an independent nation, no foreign power, no government was able to come in and start sending us into concentration camps, separating families, pointing guns at four-year-old’s head. No one was able to do that.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Prime Minister, East Turkistan (Government-in-Exile); Founder, East Turkistan National Awakening Movement (ETNAM).

[2] Individual Publication Date: July 1, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-1; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Background to East Turkistan, Uyghur Muslims, and the Chinese: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (1) [Online]. July 2021; 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-1.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2021, July 1). Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Background to East Turkistan, Uyghur Muslims, and the Chinese: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (1). Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-1.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Background to East Turkistan, Uyghur Muslims, and the Chinese: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (1). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A, July. 2021. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-1>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2021. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Background to East Turkistan, Uyghur Muslims, and the Chinese: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-1.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Background to East Turkistan, Uyghur Muslims, and the Chinese: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A (July 2021). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-1.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Background to East Turkistan, Uyghur Muslims, and the Chinese: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (1)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-1>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Background to East Turkistan, Uyghur Muslims, and the Chinese: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (1)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-1.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Background to East Turkistan, Uyghur Muslims, and the Chinese: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (1).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 27.A (2021): July. 2021. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-1>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Prime Minister Salih Hudayar on Background to East Turkistan, Uyghur Muslims, and the Chinese: Prime Minister, East Turkistan – Government-in-Exile (1) [Internet]. (2021, July 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/hudayar-1.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links June be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and June disseminate for their independent purposes.

Ask Dr. Robertson 18: The Web of Life, and Mind: Unweaving Its Rainbow

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Interviewee: Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson

Numbering: Issue 5: The Age of Experts

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: Question Time

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: June 26, 2021

Issue Publication Date: January 1, 2022

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: One Time Per Year

Words: 555

Keywords: counselling psychology, culture, life, Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson, mind virus, psychology, Roman Catholic Church.

Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson is a Registered Doctoral Psychologist with expertise in Counselling Psychology, Educational Psychology, and Human Resource Development. He earned qualifications in Social Work too. Duly note, he has five postsecondary degrees, of which 3 are undergraduate level. His research interests include memes as applied to self-knowledge, the evolution of religion and spirituality, the aboriginal self’s structure, residential school syndrome, prior learning recognition and assessment, and the treatment of attention deficit disorder and suicide ideation. In addition, he works in anxiety and trauma, addictions, and psycho-educational assessment, and relationship, family, and group counselling.

Here we talk about the web of life.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You characterize life as a web. New weaves added while others removed or changed in the web of life. To a more general point, why does psychological writing rely so heavily on metaphor? Does this reflect, in a way, the amount known while the huge amount not known about the human mind’s dynamics while also the importance of immediate conveyance in meaning in spite of it? Do psychotherapy and counselling amount to controlled-environment, systematic rituals for clients with therapists?

Dr. Lloyd Hawkeye Robertson: Metaphor is a kind of mental scaffolding that allows us to explore new concepts using more established, well understood ones. Metaphor predominates in psychology because it is a new science playing catch-up. We might blame Rene Descartes and his Faustian bargain with the Roman Catholic Church for this. Cartesian dualism held that the natural world could be understood by science and reason, but the mind or soul could only be understood from divine revelation. This dualism likely contributed to Descartes avoiding the censorship and imprisonment faced by his contemporary, Galileo, but the notion that the study of mind was beyond the ken of science set back psychology by about 200 years.

In the newspaper column you cited I said each of us builds a mental structure of significant others that supports our self definition as a person. This structure can be compared to a spider’s web with each foundational thread representing a significant other. When a foundational person dies, our mental web collapses and we must re-weave it in accordance with this new reality. Such a metaphor is useful in understanding the purpose and task of grieving, but it is not as useful in understanding who we are in other contexts. In mapping the self more recently (Robertson, 2016Robertson and McFadden, 2018), I have shown that who we are is more than the relationships we have established. I have also shown how complexes of memes that initially exist outside our selves can appropriate our resources after becoming attached (mind viruswoke virus). Metaphor helps us to understanding new phenomena by scaffolding new information on concepts that are already understood, but we need to be cognizant of the probability that the new phenomena also differ from the metaphoric concept in some ways. While mind viruses are like physical viruses in that they can only propagate from inside a host, as non-physical agents they avoid the limitations of proximity required by their natural world cousins.

With respect to your second question, I hope that psychologists do not descend to prescribing set piece rituals. While I believe that we as human beings benefit from ritual, and we may suggest clients consider enacting a meaningful ritual in a given situation, it would be unethical to prescribe any specific ritual. Grieving, in this example, is not the ritual; it is the culturally mandated practices associated with grieving that are ritualized. Psychologists need to be able to transcend such practices. For example, I have helped individuals who have been unable, for psychological reasons, to attend funerals of loved one by assisting them to identify individualized alternatives. Our project is to transcend both ritual and culture where necessary for the well-being of the individual by helping our clients choose from menus of new possibilities.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Dr. Robertson.

References

Robertson, L. H. (2016). Self-Mapping in Counselling: Using Memetic Maps to Enhance Client Reflectivity and Therapeutic Efficacy. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 50(3), 332-347.

Robertson, L. H. (2017). The infected self: Revisiting the metaphor of the mind virus. Theory & Psychology, 27(3): 354-368.

Robertson, L.H., & McFadden, R.C. (2018). Graphing the Self: An Application of Graph Theory to Memetic Self-mapping in Psycotherapy. International and Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1), 34-58. doi: 10.17583/rimcis.2018.3078

Citation: Robertson, L. H. (2021). Year of the virus: Understanding the contagion effects of wokism. In-sight, 26(B). Retrieved from https://in-sightjournal.com/2021/02/22/wokism/

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing and Question Time by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and https://medium.com/question-time

Copyright 

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and Question Time 2012-2022. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and Question Time with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.  All interviewees co-copyright their interview material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Indian Logics, Nāgārjuna, Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach, and the PNC and the PEM: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 27.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (22)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: June 22, 2021

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 1,073

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

From the professional website for Professor Priest: “Graham Priest grew up as a working class kid in South London. He read mathematics and (and a little bit of logic) at St. John’s College, Cambridge. He obtained his doctorate in mathematics at the London School of Economics. By that time, he had come to the conclusion that philosophy was more fun than mathematics. So, luckily, he got his first job (in 1974) in a philosophy department, as a temporary lecturer in the Department of Logic and Metaphysics at the University of St Andrews. The first permanent job he was offered was at the University of Western Australia. He moved to Australia when he took up the position, and has spent most of his working life there. After 12 years at the University of Western Australia, he moved to take up the chair of philosophy at the University of Queensland, and after 12 years there, he moved again to take up the Boyce Gibson Chair of Philosophy at Melbourne University, where he is now emeritus. While he was there, he was a Fellow of Ormond College. During the Melbourne years, he was also an Arché Professorial Fellow at the University of St Andrews. He is a past president of the Australasian Association for Logic, and the Australasian Association of Philosophy, of which he was Chair of Council for 13 years. He was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities in 1995, and awarded a Doctor of Letters by the University of Melbourne in 2002. In 2009 he took up the position of Distinguished Professor at the Graduate Center, City University of New York, where he now lives and works. Graham has published in nearly every leading logic and philosophy journal. At the last count, he had published about 240 papers. He has also published six monographs (mostly with Oxford University Press), as well as a number of edited collections. Much of his work has been in logic, especially non-classical logic, and related areas. He is perhaps best know for his work on dialetheism, the view that some contradictions are true. However, he has also published widely in many other areas, such as metaphysics, Buddhist philosophy, and the history of philosophy, both East and West. Graham has travelled widely, lecturing and addressing conferences in every continent except Antarctica. For many years, he practiced karatedo. He is a third dan in Shobukai, and a fourth dan in Shitoryu (awarded by the head of style, Sensei Mabuni Kenei in Osaka, when he was training there). Before he left Australia he was an Australian National kumite referee  and kata judge. Nowadays, he swims and practices taichi. He loves (good operajazz , and 60s rock … and East Asian art.” He discusses: Indian logics; Buddhist tradition; against dialetheism; Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach; the traditional splits between realists and the anti-realists, and the idealists and the constructivist; most significant developments from this challenge to the Aristotelian logic; upcoming projects.

Keywords: Dialetheism, Gottlob Frege, Graham Priest, logicians, Nāgārjuna, paraconsistency, Peter Geach, philosophy, Principle of the Excluded Middle, Principle of Non-Contradiction.

Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Indian Logics, Nāgārjuna, Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach, and the PNC and the PEM: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (4)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In ancient Indian logics, there were four possibilities: true, false, both true and false, and neither true nor false. How does this mesh well with the dialethetic approach to knowing?

Professor Graham Priest[1],[2]: Well, it’s not quite as simple as that. Views on the truth values differed an Ancient India. The Hindu Nyāyā philosophers held that there were just two (true and false), as did some of the later Buddhist philosophers, such as Dharmakīrti and Dignāga. Earlier Buddhist philosophers held that there were four (true, false, both, and neither). (This is the catuṣkoṭi.) Jain philosophers held that there were seven! (This was the saptabhaṅgī.) One of these was indescribable. Whether this was a form of both or neither is unclear.

However, any view which holds that some things are both true and false accommodates dialetheism.

Jacobsen: The Mahayana Buddhist tradition through Nagarjuna states all is real and not real, both real and not real, and neither real nor not real. Why is this a statement about the world rather than a mystical incantation about some ineffable property?

Priest: Well, interpreting Nāgārjuna is a vexed question—both within Buddhist traditions and amongst modern scholars. And it is not clear how this passage is best interpreted. But it is standard in Buddhist thought that there are two realities (satyas). There is the conventional reality of the world as we actually experience it, and the ultimate reality of how things actually are. Probably the best interpretation of this passage is that some thing can be real (conventionally), not real (ultimately), both real (conventionally) and not real (ultimately), and neither real (ultimately) nor not real (conventionally). All rather mundane, I’m afraid.

Jacobsen: Why are arguments against dialetheism focused on negations? Any examples?

Priest: Well, a dialetheia is a pair of statements of the form A and ~A. There isn’t much to focus on except negation! Some people have argued that the truth of ~A rules out the truth of A, as a matter of definition. Clearly, such an argument is question-begging and worthless.

Jacobsen: How would you properly respond to them?

Priest: See the previous question. More generally, how negation works and what properties it has been controversial throughout the history of Western philosophy/logic—and no more than now.

Jacobsen: Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach argued, I think, the rejection of X means the acceptance of ~X. Why is the adjoining not necessarily correct or so obvious to bring together?

Priest: Yes, they did, though note that rejection is not the same as negation. Negation is on operation that applies to a sentence and delivers a sentence with different content. Assertion and denial are actions you perform with a sentence. But even without worrying about dialetheism, the Frege/Geach view is clearly false. One often finds that one’s views are inconsistent in a way that one hadn’t realised. (It’s common in a discussion of any complexity.) One discovers that one asserts A and ~A. In the second assertion, one is clearly not denying A. That is, after all, what one accepts (until one changes one’s views). Once one brings dialetheism into the picture, matters become even more obvious. I assert that the liar sentence is true and I assert that the liar sentence is not true. In the latter assertion I am obviously not denying that it is true; for that is exactly what I think it is.

Jacobsen: Given some of the prior commentary, how do paraconsistent thinkers – ahem – think about the traditional splits between realists and the anti-realists, and the idealists and the constructivist?

Priest: Well, dialetheism is neutral on this question. It says that some contradictions are true. It says nothing about whether truth is to be construed realistically or anti-realistically. As far as paraconsistent logic goes, there are many of these. Perhaps some are more realism-friendly, and some are more antirealism-friendly—though this depends on how you think these metaphysical views play out logically. Thus, for example, suppose you think (misguidedly, I believe) that the Principle of Excluded Middle is characteristic of realism, and its failure is characteristic of anti-realism. There are both paraconsistent logics with and paraconsistent logics without the PEM.

Jacobsen: What have been the most significant developments from this challenge to the Aristotelian logic notions or interpretations of meaningfulness, validity, rationality, and truth?

Priest: Well, oddly enough, this changes virtually everything, and virtually nothing. Because the PNC is a principle that has tightly circumscribed nearly everything in Western philosophy, removing it opens up a wide vista of new possible positions on nearly everything; from metaphysics to ethics to the philosophy of mind, to philosophical hermeneutics, to aesthetics. Actually, I think this is a rather exciting development in philosophy.

On the other hand, one thing we have learned is that giving up the PNC changes virtually nothing. All the old theories of meaning are still possible; validity can still be defined in terms of truth preservation, or specified in terms of a bunch of rules of inference; to be rational is still to ‘apportion your beliefs according to the evidence’ (as Hume put it); and all the old theories of truth are still available and viable—to whatever extent they were before. In a way, this all makes it even more puzzling as to why so many philosophers have felt that the sky would fall in if some contradictions were permissible.

Jacobsen: Finally, any upcoming projects or books, or other paraconsistent philosophers for others to look into – plug, plug?

Priest: The book I currently in the process of writing is on socio-political philosophy, and has nothing to do with paraconsistency or dialetheism (or, more generally logic and metaphysics). After that, I have in mind a book on nothingness, which will certainly deploy paraconsistency and dialetheism.

There is so much written on paraconsistent logic now, that it is a long time since I have been able to keep track of it all. Even the literature on dialetheism is now so large that I’m not aware of all the things that are happening. So let me just flag one book in press. This is coming out with Oxford University Press, hopefully later this year. It’s written by Yasuo Deguchi, Jay Garfield, Bob Sharf, and myself. It’s called Whereof one Cannot Speak, and it’s on dialetheism in East Asian philosophy—mainly Chinese and Japanese Buddhism.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Professor Priest.

Priest: You’re welcome.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, Graduate Center, City University of New York (2009-Present).

[2] Individual Publication Date: June 22, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-4; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Indian Logics, Nāgārjuna, Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach, and the PNC and the PEM: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (4) [Online]. June 2021; 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-4.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2021, June 22). Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Indian Logics, Nāgārjuna, Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach, and the PNC and the PEM: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (4). Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-4.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Indian Logics, Nāgārjuna, Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach, and the PNC and the PEM: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (4). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A, June. 2021. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-4>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2021. Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Indian Logics, Nāgārjuna, Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach, and the PNC and the PEM: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (4).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-4.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Indian Logics, Nāgārjuna, Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach, and the PNC and the PEM: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (4).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A (June 2021). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-4.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Indian Logics, Nāgārjuna, Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach, and the PNC and the PEM: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (4)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-4>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Indian Logics, Nāgārjuna, Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach, and the PNC and the PEM: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (4)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-4.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Indian Logics, Nāgārjuna, Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach, and the PNC and the PEM: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (4).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 27.A (2021): June. 2021. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-4>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Indian Logics, Nāgārjuna, Gottlob Frege and Peter Geach, and the PNC and the PEM: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (4) [Internet]. (2021, June 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-4.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links June be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and June disseminate for their independent purposes.

Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Paraconsistency and Dialetheism, Explosion, Aristotelian Laws of Logic, and Explosions Reframed: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 27.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (22)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: June 15, 2021

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 2,163

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

From the professional website for Professor Priest: “Graham Priest grew up as a working class kid in South London. He read mathematics and (and a little bit of logic) at St. John’s College, Cambridge. He obtained his doctorate in mathematics at the London School of Economics. By that time, he had come to the conclusion that philosophy was more fun than mathematics. So, luckily, he got his first job (in 1974) in a philosophy department, as a temporary lecturer in the Department of Logic and Metaphysics at the University of St Andrews. The first permanent job he was offered was at the University of Western Australia. He moved to Australia when he took up the position, and has spent most of his working life there. After 12 years at the University of Western Australia, he moved to take up the chair of philosophy at the University of Queensland, and after 12 years there, he moved again to take up the Boyce Gibson Chair of Philosophy at Melbourne University, where he is now emeritus. While he was there, he was a Fellow of Ormond College. During the Melbourne years, he was also an Arché Professorial Fellow at the University of St Andrews. He is a past president of the Australasian Association for Logic, and the Australasian Association of Philosophy, of which he was Chair of Council for 13 years. He was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Humanities in 1995, and awarded a Doctor of Letters by the University of Melbourne in 2002. In 2009 he took up the position of Distinguished Professor at the Graduate Center, City University of New York, where he now lives and works. Graham has published in nearly every leading logic and philosophy journal. At the last count, he had published about 240 papers. He has also published six monographs (mostly with Oxford University Press), as well as a number of edited collections. Much of his work has been in logic, especially non-classical logic, and related areas. He is perhaps best know for his work on dialetheism, the view that some contradictions are true. However, he has also published widely in many other areas, such as metaphysics, Buddhist philosophy, and the history of philosophy, both East and West. Graham has travelled widely, lecturing and addressing conferences in every continent except Antarctica. For many years, he practiced karatedo. He is a third dan in Shobukai, and a fourth dan in Shitoryu (awarded by the head of style, Sensei Mabuni Kenei in Osaka, when he was training there). Before he left Australia he was an Australian National kumite referee  and kata judge. Nowadays, he swims and practices taichi. He loves (good operajazz , and 60s rock … and East Asian art.” He discusses: Classical logic; the Laws of Logic; the contemporary dialetheic movement; Western philosophy; a dialetheism situation; a dialetheist view; dialetheism and paraconsistency; paraconsistent thinking; a paraconsistent logician and a classical logician come to common ground; and both classical logics and paraconsistent logics.

Keywords: Aristotle, Dialetheism, Explosion, Graham Priest, logicians, paraconsistency, philosophy, Principle of Non-Contradiction.

Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Paraconsistency and Dialetheism, Explosion, Aristotelian Laws of Logic, and Explosions Reframed: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (3)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Thank you for the first and second parts to the interview. Let’s begin on some of the more substantive areas of analysis for the paraconsistent logicians. It appears to be a minority position within the professional philosophical community, but it is growing for 40 years, as you noted. Although, it may garner some more attention in form within other domains of discourse and representation, where “representation” comes to mean “modes of thought, i.e., without systematic presentation.” Something akin to the logic one might see in some Buddhist philosophy, not an original point. In Part Two, you mention the “high orthodoxy in Western philosophy.” How was this orthodoxy of Western philosophy with the Principle of Non-Contradiction locked into the Western philosophical tradition? Who are the culprits?

Professor Graham Priest[1],[2]: Well, ‘culprit’ is not really the right word, and you need to distinguish between paraconsistency and dialetheism. A logic is paraconsistent if, according to it, it is not the case that everything follows from a contradiction (The principle that everything follows from a contradiction is now usually called by the name Explosion.) As anyone familiar with the history of logic knows, theories of what follows from what have appeared and disappeared in Western philosophy. The earliest such theories were produced by Aristotle and the Stoics. Aristotle’s logic (Syllogistic) was paraconsistent. (He points this out himself.) And as far as we can tell, so was Stoic logic. (We have less documentary evidence of that.) Again as far as we know, Explosion surfaces in Western logic in 12th Century France. Thereafter it appears in various guises in Medieval theories of logic. Virually all of Medieval logic is forgotten with the rise of Humanism, and we are back to Aristotelian logic (and so Paraconsistency) for about the next 400 years. Matters change again around the turn of the 20th century when so called classical logic was invented by Frege, Russell, and others. According to this logic, Explosion is valid. Classical logic became, and still is, the orthodox logical theory of our day. But from its inception, various of its aspects were regarded by a number of logicians as problematic. So we have seen the flourishing of many so called non-classical logics. Modern paraconsistent logics are one kind of non-classical logic, and were developed independently in several different countries (indeed, continents) around the 1960s and 1970s. Since then, they have been developed and studied intensively by many logicians

Dialetheism is quite different. Dialetheism is the view that some contradictions are true. A number of philosophers before Aristotle were dialetheists. We know that because Aristotle himself tells us so. In a famous passage in his Metaphysics, he takes them in his sights, and defends the claim that no contradictions are true—the Principle of Non-Contradiction (PNC). That text really entrenched the PNC in Western philosophy—so much so that no philosopher after him seems to have felt the need to argue for it. There have been some dissenting voices—Hegel is the most obvious; but it is fair to say that the PNC has been high orthodoxy since Aristotle. That’s rather strange, because Aristotle’s arguments are pretty bad. The longest is so tangled that it is hard to know how it’s supposed to work, let alone that it works. And the others are clearly arguing for something else. (Aristotle appears confused.) This, incidentally, is pretty much the standard view of modern Aristotle scholars. The success of Aristotle’s arguments seems to have been more the result of his magisterial authority in the Middle Ages, than of their cogency. Of course, nearly everything Aristotle wrote has been rejected, or at least seriously problematised, since he wrote. The PNC is something of the last bastion of Aristotle’s thought, and it is only in the last 40 or 50 years, with the development of modern dialetheism, that its shaky grounds have finally been exposed.

Jacobsen: Why have Western philosophers, almost as a matter of course or even of faith, taken on the patrilineal intellectual descent of Aristotle on the Laws of Logic? Is it convenience, not questioning, the way education has developed over centuries, etc.?

Priest: As I explained in the previous question. Aristotelian logic was overthrown when classical logic replaced Syllogistic. The question is better asked about the PNC. As I observed in the last answer, Aristotle’s view about everything else have now been overthrown, or at least seriously challenged. Why is the PNC the last of these? I don’t know. Something has to be last. In general, philosophers, as a collective body, are pretty good at challenging each other’s views. Though there is always a tendency to interpret historical philosophers in such a way as to make them fit in to current ideas. This tends to engender conservativity.

Jacobsen: What sparked this revolution 40 years ago as a formal departure, in larger numbers rather than with a single thinker, from more than 2,000 years of philosophical history and thought about the principles of thought seen in the Laws of Logic inclusive of the Principle of Non-Contradiction?

Priest: You have to understand the revolution that occurred in logic at the turn of the 20th century. This was not just a time when classical logic replaced Syllogistic. It was a time when the tools of mathematics (algebra, formal rigor, etc) had developed to a point where they could be applied to logical theorising. For some time, it was simply assumed that the applications of these techniques delivered classical logic. They do not: they can be equally applied to develop a whole host of non-classical logics, including paraconsistent logics. And the viability of paraconsistent logics undercut many of the conservative knee jerk reactions against the LNC. Without these developments in logic, I don’t think the contemporary dialetheic movement would have been possible.

Jacobsen: On Explosion or ex falso sequitur quodlibet, the paraconsistent nature of the statements, as shown or given in Part Two. What does this mean for centuries of Western philosophical and, in fact, religious-theological thought, by which I mean systems of thinking applied to their standard domains? How might paraconsistent theories begin to envelope more and more of science, e.g., areas of emerging science and mathematics?

Priest: Well, for the most part of the history of Western philosophy, logic has been taken to be paraconsistent, as I explained. Dialetheism is a different matter. It has been assumed that contradictions are always unacceptable. That assumption has to go. That certainly opens up new possibilities, but not as much as one might think. In many cases, to accept an area as contradictory would be entirely ad hoc, and not rationally justified.

If inconsistent theories ever come to be accepted in science, I think it will be because a piece of paraconsistent mathematics (of which there are now many, and a growing number, of kinds) seems to give exactly the right predications. This does not mean that the predictions themselves are contradictory. The contradiction could be buried deep in the heart of theory, or about things which are entirely unobservable.

Jacobsen: Are there any examples in American legal history in which a dialetheism situation came forward to amusing effect, in hindsight? For a South African example, one “Coloured” (South African term for mixed black-and-white race person) comedian, Trevor Noah, notes being “born a crime” because of mixed-race heritage in Apartheid South Africa.

Priest: I’m afraid I don’t know enough about the legal history of the US (or of any other country, for that matter) to answer this question.

Jacobsen: To the implied question in the statement, “Of course, the truth if these particular contradictions depends on the philosophical views in question being correct.” Are these aforementioned philosophical views correct?

Priest: Every philosophical view is contentious—almost by definition. In that way, dialetheism is no different from any other philosophical view. And one may hold a dialetheic view about many different subjects: the paradoxes of self-reference, motion, law, vagueness, the limits of language, the ground of reality. One might well be a dialetheist about some of these things and not others. I have argued for a dialetheist view about all of these things, so I take these views to be correct. But I think it is fair to say that dialetheism about any topic is still a minority view.

Jacobsen: Why is the shift in thinking about logic second and a theory first important when considering dialetheism? The theory of dialetheism as a motivator for paraconsistent logic to evolve, naturally, for reasons apart from the dialetheism itself. Is this more a sensibility and a philosophical approach than something formal and rigid? Alan Watts’ goo compared to prickles.

Priest: Well, dialetheism and paraconsistency are both theories. One is a theory about truth; the other is a theory about validity (what follows from what). In truth, all we ever have are theories about these things. Some theories may achieve consensus for periods of time; but all are fallible, and what is accepted can change over time. As I have said, contemporary dialetheism would not have got off the ground without developments in paraconsistent logic. But dialetheism also provides a reason for taking a paraconsistent account of validity seriously. There is, then, a dialectical interplay between the two. In fact, if one’s eyes are open to it, one can see that such a dialectical interplay between logic and metaphysics is a feature of the history of Western philosophy.

Jacobsen: Could “Reasoners,” perhaps, be more aptly stated as “Parareasoners”? In that, human beings, given forms of paraconsistent thinking, are more naturally leaning on paraconsistent theories (and the subsequent logic) than classical logic and classical thinking.

Priest: Well, ordinary reasoners don’t tend to accept that a contradiction entails everything; and as experimental philosophy has shown, many “ordinary people” are quite happy to accept contradictions sometimes—for example about situations in the borderline area of a vague predicate. But we also know from studies in cognitive psychology (if we didn’t know this anyway!) that people often reason badly; and indeed, that they make systematic mistakes. So nothing much follows from that. Logic is not about how people actually reason. That’s a topic for psychologists. Logic is about the norms of correct reasoning, and what those are has to be fought out in philosophical debate.

Jacobsen: When can a paraconsistent logician and a classical logician come to common ground with a reductio ad absurdum? Can you give an example?

Priest: There are many different paraconsistent logics. However, for the most part, they agree on the fact that classical logic (as expressed with its usual connectives) is correct in consistent situations. Thus, for example, no one has every found it plausible to suggest that Euclidean Geometry, or Group Theory is inconsistent. So classical logic seems fine there

Reductio ad absurdum can be formulated in many different, and sometimes non-equivalent, ways. Here is one standard form: Assume A, together with some other things. Establish that a contradiction follows. Conclude that ~A, whilst maintaining the other things. This is a valid classical form of inference. Hence a paraconsistent logician may be quite happy with it in consistent contexts/theories

The crucial question then becomes: when is it reasonable to suppose that a context/theory is consistent? Much philosophical discussion has gone into that question. But assuming that consistency is pretty much the norm, it seems plausible to accept that a theory/context is consistent unless and until one has specific reason to doubt this. If one is found, then one may have to go back and reevaluate matters; but that is nothing that would seem unreasonable if one is, quite generally, a fallibilist.

In fact, this whole idea can be used to frame formal non-monotonic paraconsistent logics which coincide with classical logic in consistent situations. (An intensive study of such logics has been made by the Belgian logician Diderik Batens and his school in Gent. He calls them Adaptive Logics.) This is not the place to go into the technical details.

Jacobsen: Do philosophical theories or logics exist incorporative of both classical logics and paraconsistent logics?

Priest: Yes, this may be done in different ways. In answer to the last question I explained one way.

Another is as follows. Paraconsistent logics and classical logics tend to agree with each other (though not invariably) when it comes to logical operators other than negation. So one may have a logic which behaves as usual for these, but which has two negation symbols. One behaves classically (“Boolean negation”); one behaves paraconsistently. Such logics can be used for many paraconsistent purposes, but not, for example, for handling the paradoxes of self-reference. Standard semantic and set-theoretic principles deliver a contradiction which uses Boolean negation, and so everything follows.

The question then becomes: which is the “real” negation?  It is not at all clear what this question means, or how to go about answering it. There has been a good deal of debate amongst logicians—paraconsistent and otherwise—about this matter. But, again, here is not the place to go into the matter.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, Graduate Center, City University of New York (2009-Present).

[2] Individual Publication Date: June 15, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-3; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Paraconsistency and Dialetheism, Explosion, Aristotelian Laws of Logic, and Explosions Reframed: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (3) [Online]. June 2021; 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-3.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2021, June 15). Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Paraconsistency and Dialetheism, Explosion, Aristotelian Laws of Logic, and Explosions Reframed: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (3). Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-3.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Paraconsistency and Dialetheism, Explosion, Aristotelian Laws of Logic, and Explosions Reframed: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (3). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A, June. 2021. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-3>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2021. Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Paraconsistency and Dialetheism, Explosion, Aristotelian Laws of Logic, and Explosions Reframed: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-3.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Paraconsistency and Dialetheism, Explosion, Aristotelian Laws of Logic, and Explosions Reframed: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A (June 2021). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-3.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Paraconsistency and Dialetheism, Explosion, Aristotelian Laws of Logic, and Explosions Reframed: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (3)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-3>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Paraconsistency and Dialetheism, Explosion, Aristotelian Laws of Logic, and Explosions Reframed: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (3)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-3.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Paraconsistency and Dialetheism, Explosion, Aristotelian Laws of Logic, and Explosions Reframed: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (3).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 27.A (2021): June. 2021. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-3>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Distinguished Professor Graham Priest on Paraconsistency and Dialetheism, Explosion, Aristotelian Laws of Logic, and Explosions Reframed: Distinguished Professor, Philosophy, City University of New York (3) [Internet]. (2021, June 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/priest-3.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links June be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and June disseminate for their independent purposes.

Conversation with Anthony Sepulveda on Abortion, Relational Ethical Quandaries, and Mothers: Member, World Genius Directory (10)

Interviewer: Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Numbering: Issue 27.A, Idea: Outliers & Outsiders (22)

Place of Publication: Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Title: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightjournal.com

Individual Publication Date: June 8, 2021

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021

Name of Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Frequency: Three Times Per Year

Words: 858

ISSN 2369-6885

Abstract

Anthony Sepulveda (Brown) is a Member of the World Genius Directory. He discusses: abortion; the 20th and 21st century; ethical views; ethical premises about abortion; the father; religion and abortion; and secular worldviews and religion.

Keywords: abortion, Anthony Sepulveda, mother, relationships.

Conversation with Anthony Sepulveda on Abortion, Relational Ethical Quandaries, and Mothers: Member, World Genius Directory (10)

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Abortion, what is it, historically?

Anthony Sepulveda (Brown)[1],[2]*: The act of terminating pregnancy.

Jacobsen: What is it now, in the latter 20th century and early 21st century?

Sepulveda (Brown): The same act, if conducted under significantly safer conditions.

Jacobsen: What ethical views seem the most relevant for this subject matter?

Sepulveda (Brown): For many, abortion is no different from murder. Made all the more heinous because they equate the fetus to a healthy, living child. They are mistaken insofar as a developing fetus is not so different from any other arrangement of human cells. If anyone is so passionate about the sanctity of such minute issues, they’d have to express themselves towards all behaviour that could be considered sadistic or masochistic if they didn’t want to seem hypocritical.

Jacobsen: What ethical premises seem the most important to consider regarding the gamete cells of the father, the mother, then the zygote, the blastocyst, and the foetus?

Sepulveda (Brown): It’s most important to reduce the overall suffering of all parties involved once aborting the pregnancy has been deemed necessary. Often, abortions are conducted well before the infant is capable of living outside the womb or even feeling pain. In those cases, the only ones who truly suffer are the parents involved. Once the pregnancy has developed beyond a certain point, the birthing process is induced and the child is put into protective custody.

In Tango’s case, there was one major complication – her husband. He is not a rational man and there’s no way she could hold everything together with him in the picture. Years ago he threatened my life for simply speaking to her. So I could only imagine how far he’d go if he learned someone else had impregnated her.

It was so hard for me to tell her to, in her eyes, kill her child. I knew how hard she was willing to work to give it a good life. But I knew she’d never consider cutting her husband out of their child’s life; that’d be to cruel an option in her eyes. So, I told her the truth – either everyone suffers or just the three of us will (Tango, myself and the photographer). Thankfully, she chose the latter.

Jacobsen: What ethical premises seem the most important to consider regarding the father, whether part of a relationship with the mother or a sperm donor?

Sepulveda (Brown): Most consideration is given to the mother as she has to physically carry the child and her role as parent is certain. In comparison, fatherhood can be doubted for obvious reasons. There are some arguments that men should have some say in what happens. But while it would be fair to let them voice their opinions, I believe that the final decision should be up to the mother.

In the case of sperm donors, they should have absolutely no say in what happens.

Jacobsen: What ethical premises seem the most important to consider regarding the mother?

Sepulveda (Brown): Her highest priorities are her health and safety.

Jacobsen: What ethical premises seem the most important to consider regarding the type of relationship status of the mother?

Sepulveda (Brown): Any consequences to someone’s relationships shouldn’t matter in comparison to the suffering of those involved. To love someone is to want them to be happy, no matter what it takes. It requires you to be humble enough to accept your position in their life and pursue what’s best for them anyway.

To those reading – please don’t judge anyone you know who’s either been through or is going through this process. Rarely is it a casual option. So just keep your mouth shut and support them as much as you can.

Jacobsen: How do different religions view abortion?

Sepulveda (Brown): Many consider the act to be an abhorrent sin for which those who’ve committed it will be punished for eternity.

Tango is one such person. And when she expressed that belief, there was nothing I could do to disprove her religious views. Which I wouldn’t have done if I could because I knew how important her faith is for her. Instead, I tried to assure her that no loving God or reasonable person would judge her unfairly. And I promised her that every year we’d take some time to pray to her child and tell it how things were going so that if our day of judgement comes, God and her child could make an informed decision.

Despite how things went, I intend to keep that promise.

Jacobsen: What about secular (agnostics, atheists, humanists, etc.) people who are “Pro-Life,” so the same or similar views minus the transcendent justification or argument for the views?

Sepulveda (Brown): Their arguments are more reasonable, insofar as they’re grounded here in objective reality. But their views aren’t as logically valid as they think. Beyond the argument about suffering I made above, Judith Jarvis Thomson developed an excellent counterargument that I recently learned about in the video Abortion and Ben Shapiro by Philosophy Tube. It would take me longer to explain here than watch, so I’d highly recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Member, World Genius Directory.

[2] Individual Publication Date: June 8, 2021: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/Sepulveda-10; Full Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2021: https://in-sightjournal.com/insight-issues/.

*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.

Appendix II: Citation Style Listing

American Medical Association (AMA): Jacobsen S. Conversation with Anthony Sepulveda on Abortion, Relational Ethical Quandaries, and Mothers: Member, World Genius Directory (10) [Online]. June 2021; 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sepulveda-10.

American Psychological Association (APA, 6th Edition, 2010): Jacobsen, S.D. (2021, June 1). Conversation with Anthony Sepulveda on Abortion, Relational Ethical Quandaries, and Mothers: Member, World Genius Directory (10). Retrieved from http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sepulveda-10.

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Conversation with Anthony Sepulveda on Abortion, Relational Ethical Quandaries, and Mothers: Member, World Genius Directory (10). In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A, June. 2021. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sepulveda-10>.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2021. Conversation with Anthony Sepulveda on Abortion, Relational Ethical Quandaries, and Mothers: Member, World Genius Directory (10).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A. http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sepulveda-10.

Chicago/Turabian, Humanities (16th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott “Conversation with Anthony Sepulveda on Abortion, Relational Ethical Quandaries, and Mothers: Member, World Genius Directory (10).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal. 27.A (June 2021). http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sepulveda-10.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Anthony Sepulveda on Abortion, Relational Ethical Quandaries, and Mothers: Member, World Genius Directory (10)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A. Available from: <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sepulveda-10>.

Harvard, Australian: Jacobsen, S. 2021, ‘Conversation with Anthony Sepulveda on Abortion, Relational Ethical Quandaries, and Mothers: Member, World Genius Directory (10)’In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 27.A., http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sepulveda-10.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 7th Edition, 2009): Scott D. Jacobsen. “Conversation with Anthony Sepulveda on Abortion, Relational Ethical Quandaries, and Mothers: Member, World Genius Directory (10).” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 27.A (2021): June. 2021. Web. <http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sepulveda-10>.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Jacobsen S. Conversation with Anthony Sepulveda on Abortion, Relational Ethical Quandaries, and Mothers: Member, World Genius Directory (10) [Internet]. (2021, June 27(A). Available from: http://www.in-sightjournal.com/sepulveda-10.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links June be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, and In-Sight Publishing and In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and June disseminate for their independent purposes.

%d bloggers like this: