The Humanist Association of Orange County ( HAOC) is a chapter of the
American Humanist Association.
Please visit our website at http://www.ochumanists.org
HAOC Board
President: Pete Anderson
Vice President: Dave Silva
Treasurer:.Harry Becker
Secretary: Jerry Parks
Member at large: Carl Mariz
Member at large: Benito Franqui
Next
Meeting - June 20, 1:30 P.M.
The June meeting
will be an open forum in which attendees will have a unique opportunity to
suggest ways in which HAOC can better serve the membership’s interests.
REMARKS
ON POSTMODERNISM
By Juan Bernal, worker in the field
As I noted in my May 16th presentation, there are a variety of styles in art, literature and philosophy that go under the label of ‘postmodernism’; and they do not all easily fit one definition of “post-modernistic philosophy.” However, for purpose of discussion we can make some general statements about post-modernistic thought.
Here are two working “definitions, a simple one:
Postmodernism: Most generally, abandonment of Enlightenment confidence in the achievement objective human knowledge through reliance on science and reason. In philosophy, postmodernists typically express grave doubt about the possibility of universal objective truth.
And a slightly more complex one:
Postmodern philosophy is the criticism and analysis of Western philosophy. It is heavily influenced by existentialism, and by the philosophers Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche, and the later Ludwig Wittgenstein. It is generally skeptical regarding a stable metaphysics and humanism, and tends to reject the view originating in the Enlightenment that the world makes progress through the accumulation of stable, positive knowledge.
[An internet item states: “Although many critics characterize postmodern philosophy as a form of nihilism, postmodern philosophers themselves generally see their philosophy as a liberating philosophy. Some people have identified postmodern philosophy with relativism, although postmodern philosophy makes more claims than relativism.”]
In what follows I offer more statements and critical remarks on post-modernist philosophy by several writers who can be called adversaries of postmodernism, or at least people outside the post-modernist circle.
E.O.Wilson, the socio-biologist, sees post-modernistic philosophy “...as the polar antithesis of the Enlightenment; ...[whereas] enlightenment thinkers believed that we can know everything, radical postmodernists believe we can know nothing.” According to Wilson, “postmodernists challenge the very foundations of science and traditional philosophy. ... [They see] ...reality as a state created by the mind, not perceived by it. In the most extravagant version of this constructivism, there is no “real” reality, no objective truths external to mental activity, only prevailing versions disseminated by ruling social groups. (Wilson, Consilience, p. 40) According to Steven Pinker, this denial of objective reality also stems from a specific theory of human psychology (which Pinker calls the “Blank Slate” theory), and “.. a theory of perception .. [in which] the sense organs present the brain with a tableau of raw colors and sounds and that everything else in perceptual experience is a learned social construction.” (Pinker, The Blank Slate, p. 412)
Taner Edis in his book, The Ghost in the Universe, sees the philosophy as a critique of “basic presuppositions, that underlie any rational enterprise. He tells us that some debates, such as the one between evolutionary science and creationism, are “at the level of bedrock principles (Edis, p. 245). At this level, the post-modernist critic emphasizes that we cannot justify a choice of one basic presupposition over another. There is “no neutral standpoint outside of all communities and traditions from which we can judge differing ways of life.” This is why, according to Edis, “postmodernists tend to see all views of the world as ideologies rooted in the way of life of a community.” (Edis, p. 246) Thus, we have no grounds for favoring any one viewpoint over the others.
Matt Cherry, writing in the magazine Free Inquiry (Fall 1998), tells us that “postmodernism questions accepted standards and emphasizes how social context affects beliefs and theories. It therefore tries to “deconstruct” the assumptions underlying truth claims, and it encourages openness to the points of view outside the mainstream.” He also points out that “postmodernist thinkers go much further than simply stressing the difficulty of getting at the truth. They reject the very notion of “truth” itself. They argue that there is no “objective knowledge” and no “facts,” only personal interpretation, and that “reason” and “science” are no better than any other “myth,” “narrative,” or “magical explanation.” (Free Inquiry, fall 1998, page 20)
A view that questions scientific knowledge:
So, the post-modernist view is that there is no objective knowledge, only specific culturally conditioned ways of talking about reality and specific culturally-based theories of reality. Given this claim, it is obvious why postmodernists tend to hold that science is just a culturally-based perspective, not a universal form of knowledge. They stress that we cannot rationally justify the idea that science gives us a privileged access to reality. Edis tells us that they “portray Enlightenment science as one view among many, which stands out only in the power it commands to exclude other visions.” They contend that science “illegitimately claims privileged access to reality.” Edis adds that “postmodernists ..defend “other ways of knowing” ----intuition, feeling, mystical illumination, faith in the basic beliefs of one’s community..and that “privileging science over these other ways, they say, is nothing but an arbitrary commitment, since reason cannot justify itself.” (See Edis, pp. 248-249)
E.O. Wilson tells us that the “postmodernist posture toward science .. is one of subversion.” He adds that they appear to provisionally accept such things as “gravity, the periodic table, astrophysics and similar stanchions of the external world, but in general the scientific culture is viewed as just another way of knowing, and, moreover, contrived mostly by European and American white males.” (Wilson, p. 42)
Prominent in academia, welcomed by some religionists, and a needed corrective (?):
What has been the reaction to this post-modernistic view of things? To begin with, many in academia, mostly in the humanities and social science departments, have embraced postmodernism. Matt Cherry describes postmodernism as “the leading fashion in academia for the last two decades.” (Free Inquiry, fall 1998, page 20) E. O. Wilson tells us that, as political ideologies, ethnic diversity, gender dualism come into play, the varieties of academic postmodernism have multiplied. They tend to be leftist in political orientation and include such things as “Afrocentrism, constructivist social anthropology, “critical” (i.e., socialist) science, deep ecology, ecofeminism, ..and neo-Marxism.” (Wilson, pp. 42-43)
In addition, as Taner Edis points out, some religious apologists have found postmodernism a useful ally in their defense of religion doctrine. Religious people may not like the relativistic aspect of postmodernism, after all they usually proclaim God-given absolutes. However, they welcome post-modernistic criticism of the scientific enterprise. “By treating science as a kind of mental imperialism, postmodernists create intellectual space for religion.” (Edis, p .246) In other words, by raising doubts about the truth claims of science, some find comfort and reassurance for the religious outlook.
Some see postmodernists as presenting useful criticism of our rationalist approach. In this regard, E.O. Wilson offers a “salute to the postmodernists.” He tells us that they “enrich culture” and say to the rest of us, “maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.” Wilson says that we have “reason to think well of postmodernism, even as it menaces rational thought. . . John Stuart Mill correctly noted that teacher and learner alike fall asleep at their posts when there is no enemy in the field.” (Wilson, pp. 42-3)
Along the same line, Vern L Bullough remarks that “Postmodernism, ..is a necessary corrective to some of the past excessive claims made in the name of science.” He gives several examples such as the anthropologists who claimed that Africans were inferior to Europeans, or the Nazi “scientists” who made similar statements about the Jews. Other examples are claims that women were intellectually inferior to males, and homosexuality was a mental illness, made in the name of science. “The list could go on,” Bullough tells us. After noting the distinction between scientific method and specific claims by scientists, he adds that “some of those individuals who are members of groups damaged by “alleged” scientific proofs are among the most active in the propagation of postmodernism.” (Free Inquiry, fall 98, p. 27)
For some, the postmodernist critique points to a pragmatic conceptualization of science and truth. Taner Edis notes that “many milder postmodernists take a pragmatic view. They deny that science is objective, that it makes progress by formulating theories which increasingly correspond to reality. Instead, they portray science as a way of coping. Plumbing is a practical skill; similarly, science is useful dealing with many puzzles we face. (Edis, p. 248) In a similar vein, Daniel Dennett (FI, winter 99/00, pp. 40-3), brings out the pragmatic conceptualization of ‘truth’ while referring to Richard Rorty:
“[Rorty] concedes that there is indeed a useful concept of truth that survives intact after all the corrosive philosophical objections have been duly entered. This serviceable, modest concept of truth, Rorty acknowledges, has its uses: when we want to compare two maps of the countryside for reliability, for instance, or when the issue is whether the accused did or did not commit the crime as charged.” (Free Inquiry, winter 99/00, p. 42)
Criticism of postmodernism:
Naturally, there has been plenty of critical response to postmodernism, especially from scientists and scientific-minded philosophers. In some cases it is simply viewed as another brand of academic nonsense.
In 1996, Alan Sokal, professor of physics at New York University, shook up academia by submitting a parody of postmodernist thinking on natural science to the leading North American journal of cultural studies, Social Text. The parody, rife with nonsense disguised as profundity, was accepted as a serious article and was published in the spring/summer 1996 issue. (From Free Inquiry, fall 98, page 23). Jean Bricmont explains that he and Sokal intend to expose postmodernism as “an extreme form of intellectual abuse” and that in their view so-called post-modernist scholars were “academics trying to impress a nonscientific audience with abstruse scientific jargon that academics themselves do not understand very well.” He adds that his and Sokal’s “goal was to show that, in some sense, the “emperor is naked” and that generations of students who had to struggle in order to understand obscure texts were sometimes right to suspect that they were wasting their time” (From Free Inquiry, fall 98, page 23)
Steven Pinker agrees; he refers to the legacy of postmodernism as giving us “pretentious and unintelligible scholarship.” (Pinker, p. 416)
Some hold that post-modernistic thought reduces merely to another “literary fashion,” called “deconstruction,” which may be an interesting piece of literary theory, but hardly counts as a new philosophy. E.O. Wilson, for example, refers to deconstruction as “a technique of literary criticism,” in which each author’s meaning is unique to himself.” This implies that we can say “nothing of his true intention” nor say anything about “its connection to objective reality.” According to Wilson, any reading or review of the author’s meaning is itself unique and “solipsistic,” i.e. reveals nothing but a “solipsistic world in the head of the reviewer.” He notes that this is probably what Jacques Derrida meant when he stated “there is nothing outside the text.” (Wilson, p. 41) Wilson suggests that all this verges on the nonsensical.
Another criticism is that postmodernism does not stand up to its own “deconstruction.”
For example, Steven Pinker charges that postmodernism does not apply its most vaunted ability, deconstruction or the “stripping away pretense,” to itself.” According to him, contemporary artists and theorists have failed “to deconstruct their own moral pretensions.” Pinker notes that artists and critics assume that an appreciation of elite art is ennobling and contributes to social reform, and that postmodernists hold to this “affectation of morality and social reform. ” However, as Pinker says, “there is no reason to think that the elite arts are a particularly good way to instill morality and social reform. (Pinker, p. 416)
Another common criticism of postmodernists is that they exhibit ignorance about the methods and results of science. E. O. Wilson notes that many postmodernists are “blissfully free of existing information on how the mind works.” Steven Pinker also points out that postmodernist theorist appear to be woefully ignorant of the relevant theories and results of the contemporary sciences. Daniel Dennett, referring to a post-modernistic viewpoint, tells us that “this opinion, far from being sophisticated, is the height of sheltered naivete, made possible only by flatfooted ignorance of the methods of scientific truth-seeking and their power.”
( See Dennett’s article, “Why Getting it Right Matters: Postmodernism and Truth” in Free Inquiry, winter 99/00, pp. 40-43)
Jean Bricmont refers to the misuses (and misunderstandings) of science by non-scientists. . . In their book, Intellectual Impostures, Alan Sokal and Bricmont offer numerous quotations from postmodernist authors demonstrating “sloppy thinking,” scientific ignorance, and impressive but meaningless prose. They refer to this post-modernistic culture as “fraudulent work,” and warn that
“skepticism and hostility to science and reason, if unchecked, will ultimately lead to cultural disasters. Pure skepticism won’t last, and religious fundamentalism or other forms of deep irrationalism will take its place.” (Free Inquiry, fall ‘98, page 25)
Philosophical Rejoinders to Postmodernism:
One philosophical objection is that post-modernists assume a faulty theory human psychology and perception. According to Steven Pinker, postmodernism is “based on a false theory of human psychology, the Blank Slate. He argues, in his book by the same name, that “postmodernism clings to a theory of perception that was rejected long ago; that the sense organs present the brain with a tableau of raw colors and sounds and that everything else in perceptual experience is a learned social construction.” (Pinker, p. 412)
Another objection is that postmodernism does not support moral progress and can be exploited to bolster dominance of the powerful. Steven Pinker observes that the theory of postmodernism is not especially progressive. “A denial of objective reality is no friend to moral progress, because it prevents one from saying, for example, that slavery or the Holocaust really took place.” (Pinker, p. 416). Later in his book, Pinker elaborates on this anti-progressive side of postmodernism:
“It is ironic that a philosophy that prides itself on deconstructing the accoutrements of power should embrace a relativism that makes challenges to power impossible, because it denies that there are objective benchmarks against which the deceptions of the powerful can be evaluated.. Without a notion of objective truth, intellectual life degenerates into a struggle of who can best exercise the raw force to “control the past.” (Pinker, pp.426-427)
Moreover, some philosophers have argued that the relativism, which underlies post-modernistic thought, is problematic and is refuted by human’s evolved, truth-seeking nature and culture of truth-telling. Contemporary philosopher John Searle says the following regarding the postmodernist antipathy toward the idea of objective truth:
“..it is ridiculous. The difficulty is that most of our discourse, and indeed most of our life, presupposes that we are dealing with an objective real world. If you ask me how to get to the next town, or what time the plane leaves, or ask the doctor if you have cancer, or just ask me to pass the salt, there’s no way that any of these utterances are intelligible without the presupposition that there is a real world.” (Free Inquiry, fall 98, page 38)
Harvey Siegel argues that philosophical relativism (the underlying philosophy of postmodernism) is incoherent or self-refuting.
The assertion and defense of relativism requires one to presuppose neutral standards in accordance with which contentious claims and doctrines can be assessed; but relativism denies the possibility of evaluation in accordance with such neutral standards. Thus the doctrine of relativism cannot be coherently defended. (Free Inquiry, fall 98, p. 37)
Finally, Daniel Dennett, in his Free Inquiry article cited above, that our evolutionary history, in which “getting it right” has been of paramount importance, our culture of truth-telling, and the development of science present clear refutations of the relativist, skeptical philosophies that deny that humans can ever access truth. As he states it, we humans
“..have been provoked by that epistemic itch to seek a remedy: better truth-seeking methods. Wanting to keep better track of our food supplies, our territories, our families, our enemies, we discovered the benefits of talking it over with others, asking questions, passing on lore. We invented culture. Then we invented measuring, and arithmetic, and maps, and writing. The point of asking questions is to find true answers; the point of measuring is to measure accurately; the point of making maps is to find your way to your destination . . In short the goal of truth is found in every culture.
We human beings use our communicative skills not just for truth-telling, but also for promise-making, threatening, bargaining, story-telling, entertaining, etc., but prince of these activities is truth-telling, and for this activity we have invented ever better tools. Alongside our tools for agriculture, building, warfare, and transportation, we have created a technology of truth: science. (FI, winter 99/00, p. 43)
SOURCES:
Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of
Human Nature, (Viking Penguin, 2002 )
Taner Edis, The Ghost in the Universe: God in the Light
of Modern Science,(Prometheus, 2002)
Edward O. Wilson, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, (Alfred
A. Knopf, Inc., 1998)
Daniel Dennett, “Why Getting it Right Matters: Postmodernism and Truth”
In Free Inquiry, winter 99/00 (pp. 40-43)
Articles in Free Inquiry, fall 1998:
Harvey Siegel “Why Everything is Not Relative,” (pp. 35-3); Matt Cherry “Truth
and Consequences”,(p. 20);
Jean Bricmont, “Exposing the Emperor’s New Clothes: Why we won’t leave
postmodernism alone” in (pp. 23-26);
Vern L. Bullough, “A Defense of the Absurd: We can learn a few things from
this anti-science trend” (p. 27);
Editor’s note, page 38: “John Searle on Postmodernism”
Postmodernism Revisited:
By Victor Tanious
My quest to understand Postmodernism started three years ago when I began to ponder the question of where/what role does philosophy play in modern society today? It is not a simple question to answer. For historically speaking, not a single philosophical idea has ever been successful in dominating the guidance of any one society at any given time in history. One would even offer, that those that did offer society a single idea for salvation by eliminating other valid ideas failed. As there are always more than one if not many ideological forces at play at any given time in history.
Philosophers however have been more successful in analyzing the dynamics of the spirit of an age through critical analysis and debate about the ideas that shape an age more than any other group I know of. And it is in that process of analysis and debate that an idea gets crystallized. In theory, all that hacking, debate, counter debate, and revisions have to produce something, wouldn’t you agree.
In order to understand Postmodernism one has to go a little bit back in history to understand the need, or the driving force behind postmodernism and I will start with existentialism. Why existentialism, because with existentialism the path that post romantic philosophers as Nietzsche and Schopenhauer charted in regard to man in control of his destiny and the link between philosophy, the arts, and culture continued to be closely linked in existentialism.
The new man under existentialism continues to take responsibility for his destiny and his choices. However, a new element has been added to the mix and that is the significance of the element of the absurd and having the individual get a grasp on the concept of the absurd in relationship to choice and destiny. What do I mean by the absurd? It is a condition, a circumstance, a situation, or the incidents in one’s life that is totally unreasonable and irrational yet it is occurring, and the individual, group, or society, tries to negate it, explain it away, rationalize it, or double-speak it so it can be absorbed or lived with.
To the existentialist the absurd should not be ignored away and it has to be understood as an integral component of the modern understanding of man in order for the individual and society to grasp and deal with it. Making the absurd real and understandable was existentialism answer to prevent hypocrisy and pseudo explanations from permeating modern man and modern society’s logic and rationalization. The existentialists want you to understand that if a meteor hit the earth today and wiped all of humanity, and all evidence of our existence ( that’s absurd, but it happened to the dinosaurs before us ) nature and the universe will be indifferent to what happened. That’s the way it was and likely will always be. And now that you know this fact, take courage young lads and seize the day, make life most meaningful to you and others but don’t forget to keep that thought in the back of your head. If it happens on your clock take it with irony and celebration. For you understand your place in the universe. Existentialism and the absurd were made evident in the writing and plays of Kafka, Camus, and Bernard Shaw, as well as others who made the absurd evident and prominent for the culture at large.
Well, how can you top that? Welcome to Postmodernism. Postmodernism takes the element of the absurd from existentialism and breaks it up. It peels the added layers of analysis and rationalization within ideas and institutions so that you and get to the bottom of an idea rather than its metamorphosis. It leaves humanity with a fresh understanding about ideas or a first base to start anew. My single line definition for it “It calls for the reinvention of the wheel but this time it will be through consensus”. Postmodernism wants to give us the ability to get ideas from all contributing venues and give them equal time and value. But in order to do that some existing ones have to be deconstructed.
Who, where can we see it in action? As a philosophy, Postmodernism is evident quite widely in popular culture. To name a few, the films of Woody Allen and the Wachowski brothers and the large independent movie tradition of late, in addition to a large number of European directors; the writings and essays of Noam Chomsky and the new independent media movement in politics; the emergence of the authentic instrument movement in folk and classical music; the historical revisionist movement as exemplified by Howard Zinn and Gore Vidal. And finally, the philosophical works of Michel Foucault and Jean Baudrillard (the French do it better in this case). And for the kid at heart, the “Simpsons” as Lisa plays the role of the philosopher in all of us deconstructing the absurd in every episode.
DEISM
by James Gable
( adapted from the Random House Unabridged
Illustrated Dictionary )
Deism n. The belief that the truth of the existence of God can be discovered only by the individual human through the evidence of reason and nature without resort to any particular church or to revelation.
( I added human because I wanted to link the definition of deism with my definition of humanism. )
Book Reviews about:
One With Nineveh: Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future
by Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich
Review by Publishers Weekly:
The Ehrlichs' provocative and eminently readable look at current environmental
trends takes its title from Rudyard Kipling's poem "Recessional,"
which contrasts the pomp of the 19th-century British empire to the faded glory
of Nineveh, the ancient capital of the Assyrian empire. The Ehrlichs (Betrayal
of Science and Reason), both members of Stanford's department of biological
sciences, look at the global problems of overpopulation, overconsumption, and
political and economic inequity that threaten to make the world into a new
fallen Nineveh. Each of the book's nine chapters analyzes one area in detail
(using current research in ecology, demographics, migration, economics,
biodiversity, ethics, climate, politics and globalization) and then suggests
measures "that might allow humanity in general, and the world's sole
remaining superpower in particular, to alter course and work towards achieving a
sustainable world." The prognosis is sometimes depressing: about
three-fifths of all important oceanic fish stock has been seriously depleted
since 1994; today's global population of six billion is about three times what
Ehrlich considers to be the "optimal" number for the world; profligate
consumption threatens to use up nonrenewable natural resources such as oil while
governments inhibit the development of renewable sources such as solar power.
The current Bush administration is the target of cogent criticism about how it
has aided a culture "dominated by short-term greed," but Europe and
various Third World countries receive their share of criticism as well. A
concluding section embraces the philosophy of Martin Luther King Jr. to argue
that idealism and individual action can still save the world from massive
environmental disaster. Although wide-reaching in range, this is a direct and
levelheaded presentation that should get, and deserves, wide readership.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All
rights reserved.
Review by a reader
from California:
I'm a biologist, and I have long been aware of the basic problems
that the Ehrlichs clearly summarize in "One with Nineveh".
Nonetheless, I loved having the issues reviewed for me, bringing me up to date.
I found the book compellingly written and full of interesting examples. I was
grateful it made clear why we're fighting in Iraq (not the excuses our
government has broadcast), and tied it to our patterns of overconsumption. And
there was a lot that was new to me. For instance, the question of the reform of
corporations has been one of my concerns, but I was not fully aware of the
growing discussion of what can be done about it. The Ehrlichs not only summarize
the arguments well, but also provide references that are now allowing me to
pursue further my interest in what can be done to limit corporate misuse of
power. Indeed, placing the environmental situation in a context of power abuse
is the major service of the book. Scientists are aware of the deep trouble
civilization is in, but the public and politicians are not. This is a book to
buy, read, and recommend (or give) to friends and anyone running for public
office. The stakes are high, and the Ehrlichs give us hope that even in these
dismal times we may win through to a decent and stable society.
Review by a reader
from USA:
The Ehrlichs and their scientific colleagues have been trying to
alert humanity to its long-term perils for decades. Thirty years ago they were
warning that unless steps were taken and nuclear powers lived up to the
non-proliferation treaty, we'd face outlaw nations and possibly even terrorist
groups with A-bombs. Welcome to 2004. In the 1968 "Population Bomb"
Paul Ehrlich discussed the threat of novel diseases like AIDS, which have since
materialized, and the failure to adequately feed all of humanity, which
continues. He wrote of the perils of "using the atmosphere as a garbage
dump. This book revisits such issues and focuses more strongly on the
little-understood problems flowing from excessive consumption, a failed media,
and the excessive concentration of wealth and power. But more than that, it
contains many path-breaking suggestions for ways to change world views and
institutions to steer society away from what the World Scientists' Warning to
Humanity described as a "collision course" between humanity and the
natural world. It puts the moral corruption of the Bush administration into the
"big picture" of the human predicament, especially the
administration's insane behavior in Iraq, its failure to deal appropriately with
terrorism, its assault on the environment, and its distortion of science. As
such, "One with Nineveh" is by far the most important current events
book of 2004.
Small wonder the right wing hates it - it's amusing to see a review that claims that Ehrlich's ideas are supported by "junk economics." A jacket blurb contains strong praise from Sir Partha Dasgupta, past-President of the European Economic Association, and the acknowledgments thank other of the world's top economists (and other social and natural scientists) for reviewing and contributing to the manuscript, including Nobel Laureate in Economics Kenneth Arrow. If you want a very thoughtful, well-documented description of the state of the world, one written by leading scientists that is also a no-holds-barred good read, this is the book for you. If you think atomic bombs are "nucular" weapons, or are waiting for the rapture, you won't like it.
Review by a reader from
Bethesda, MD:
This book should be required reading for anyone eligible to vote, and
is even more of a "must read" for anyone in a policymaking position.
Many of us are aware that there are serious environmental problems and that the
Bush Administration is only exacerbating them, but the Ehrlichs lay out in
chilling detail the many-fronted assault on the environment being perpetrated in
the name of "progress." For that matter, they make it clear that if we
don't make major changes to the structure of incentives across the board in our
society, we will be leaving our grandchildren to deal with a nightmare. While
some of the suggestions thrown out in the final chapters may be radical,
thinking outside the box is long overdue. It is my hope that this book will
stimulate a debate that will at long last lead to real change so that we can go
forward to a sustainable society.
ON THE LIGHT SIDE
( contributed by Harry Becker )
Seems an elderly gentleman had
serious hearing problems for a number of years. He went to the doctor and the
doctor was able to have him fitted for a set of hearing aids that allowed the
gentleman to hear 100%.
The elderly gentleman went back in a month to the
doctor and the doctor said, "Your hearing is perfect. Your family must be
really pleased that you can hear again."
To which the gentleman said,
"Nope, haven't told them yet. I just sit around and listen to the
conversations. So far, I've changed my will three times!"
CARTOON OF THE MONTH
HAOC APPLICATION FORM
NAME______________________________________________________________DATE______________
ADDRESS_____________________________________________________________________________
PHONE________________________ E-MAIL_________________________________________________
To receive three free issues of the HAOC monthly newsletter,
please check here: ______
To join HAOC or renew your membership, please attach a check ( payable to HAOC ) for the proper
yearly dues:
Regular = $15 Couple = $20 Student = $10 Sustaining = $35
Sponsor = $100
Please hand this application to an HAOC board member, or
mail to:
Harry Becker
420 Sonoma Aisle
Irvine, CA 92618
NEXT MEETING:
On Sunday, June 20, at 1:30 P.M., at the Irvine Ranch Water District
building located at 15600 Sand Canyon Ave. in Irvine.
NOTICE :
The Irvine Ranch Water District neither supports nor endorses the
causes and activities or organizations which use the District’s meeting rooms, which are made available
as a public service.
HAOC
2609 Fernside St.
Orange, CA 92865
Your membership expiration date is shown at the end of your
address label.