Linda Wiener

I have three main goals in this lecture. The first, and most important, is to inspire you to be more open to and aware of the animals all around you. The second is to give some history of a fascinating debate on animal color and behavior that began in the early twentieth century in the United States; this will illustrate how difficult it is to elicit any sort of Truth from the phenomena of nature. The third is to persuade you that, at least some of the time, animals engage in artistic expression for its own sake.

Ever since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, by far the most popular way of interpreting the appearance and behavior of organisms has been through the theory of natural selection.[1] According to this theory, if a mutation appears in an animal and that mutation helps the animal survive and reproduce better than similar animals in their environment, the mutation and the animals that carry it will be preserved while others will eventually decline and die out. But ever since this theory was published there has been dissent. The most well known dissents are from religious objectors, however there have always been some scientists, naturalists, philosophers, and others who work intimately with plants and animals who accept the theory of evolution through natural selection, but believe that it is not sufficient to account for all the phenomena of nature. I am one of this latter group.

Scott Buchanan

The first question is: Do you believe in and trust your intellect, that innate power that never sleeps? This is not a theoretical nor a dogmatic question, but rather one of experience. Do you recognize the action of this power as you live and learn? Many of you have gone on to graduate and professional learning, and, I happen to know, many of you have lived a lot in addition. You have fallen into the hands of scholars and into the grooves of practice. You have suffered the winds of doctrine, and have gotten lost in the jungle of ideologies. Latterly you have been stormed by scientific miracle and guess. In all these learnings and practices have you listened to the small spontaneous voice within that asks continually if these things are true? Have you allowed this voice to speak louder and remind you that you do not know, that you know you do not know, that you know what you do not know? Do you believe that knowledge is possible, that truth is attainable, and that it is always your business to seek it, although evidence is overwhelmingly against it? This is the first question; I shall not just now press for an answer. 

Jon Lenkowski

Fishing in general, like hunting, is fraught with uncertainty. There are many ways to increase your odds but the uncertainty remains. There's no guarantee you will bring up anything for your efforts. Also there's no sure way of knowing just what you'll catch. These uncertainties just multiply with deep-sea fishing. There is also the murkiness of the medium, which increases with the depth. If you do get a bite, you usually have to wait til the fish is at the surface to see if it is what you wanted of if you have to release it and send it back to the murk. So:  you enter a dark murky medium blind and hope for the best. You might call it a shot in the dark. Though you search blindly, you do  have a very specific quarry in mind.

The opening lines of the Iliad, performed in Greek by Katie Kretler