Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 > > ---->i recall having a similar discussion with some college friends > back...well...before you were born, come to think of it! LOL. in any case, i > believe in a paradigm in which human activity, be it destructive or > constructive or neutral (and anything in between) is viewed as natural, as i > think we are a part of nature, and by extension or actions are natural. > although i'm open to arguments against this logic. BUT, what i would argue > is that, while many activities of human beings are " natural " within this > context, they are sometimes *harmful* to the planet as a macrocosm. or you > could argue that certain activities are harmful to a specific geographic > area, or to a group of humans, or animals or whatever. i think mostly when i > see arguments agaist human activities because they are not " natural " what > the person actually means is that they perceive the action as being > *harmful* to the planet, or to a specific ecosystem, or to people, etc. so i > see " natural " as often being equated with *beneficial*. Very well said! I agree completely with this part. > i have had this weird idea for maybe the past twenty years that the life and > death of this planet is expressed best by the yin/yang symbol, ... I'm not as enthusiastic about your ying-yang, but then I guess that shouldn't come as any surprise. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 >i think mostly when i see arguments agaist human activities because they >are not " natural " what the person actually means is that they perceive the >action as being *harmful* to the planet, or to a specific ecosystem, or to >people, etc. so i see " natural " as often being equated with *beneficial*. Suze, One of my favorite people in the field of eco-psychology is Chellis Glendinning, author of My Name is Chellis and I'm in Recovery from Western Civilization. You might be interested in a piece she wrote speaking against the environmental movement's thrust to preserve wilderness by excluding humans. " The idea of wilderness we have been using is flawed. This flaw is never acknowledged when " white " or urban environmentalists gather. But whenever indigenous people join us, they quickly point out the problem. The notion of wilderness as terrain with no people is not how your ancestors or mine regarded things; it is a recent invention. " article at: http://tinyurl.com/tfsg - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 >as heidi said, death is an integral part of life and one day we may destroy >that which has given us life. is it " unnatural " ? no, imo, although i >personally would like to postpone it past my, my child's, my grandchild's, >etc lifetime. ah, there's no end, is there? Well, in the REALLY long run the sun will burn out. If you look to nature for a philosophy, you end up with something like flower arranging or the Song of -- we end up doing a lot of work that basically is for nothing, so you are left with the enjoyment (or not) of the moment. Sometimes I think the yang/yin is rather deep ... -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 3, 2003 Report Share Posted November 3, 2003 In a message dated 11/3/03 12:02:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > human life, which rose > up from the dust of the planet itself Sounds so biblical ;-) I agree with everything you said. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Suze: in any case, i > believe in a paradigm in which human activity, be it destructive or > constructive or neutral (and anything in between) is viewed as natural, as i > think we are a part of nature, and by extension or actions are natural. > although i'm open to arguments against this logic. BUT, what i would argue > is that, while many activities of human beings are " natural " within this > context, they are sometimes *harmful* to the planet as a macrocosm. or you > could argue that certain activities are harmful to a specific geographic > area, or to a group of humans, or animals or whatever. i think mostly when i > see arguments agaist human activities because they are not " natural " what > the person actually means is that they perceive the action as being > *harmful* to the planet, or to a specific ecosystem, or to people, etc. so i > see " natural " as often being equated with *beneficial*. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ unless this version of " natural " is vacuous (equivalent to " part of the universe " ), you would need to consider at least something unnatural. can you give an example of something unnatural in your conceptualization? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Suze: > i have had this weird idea for maybe the past twenty years that the life and > death of this planet is expressed best by the yin/yang symbol, with the seed > of destruction being present in the birth of life...human life, which rose > up from the dust of the planet itself and will ultimately destroy the planet > in some sort of natural cycle of creation/destruction...birth/death. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ I can't help myself, being somewhat vocationally involved with these general areas, but I have to respond with what is perhaps my all-time favorite quote, from Harvard philosopher Putnam: " Any philosophy that can be put in a nutshell belongs in one. " mike parker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2003 Report Share Posted November 4, 2003 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > Well, in the REALLY long run the sun will burn out. If you look > to nature for a philosophy, you end up with something > like flower arranging or the Song of -- we end up > doing a lot of work that basically is for nothing, so you are > left with the enjoyment (or not) of the moment. Sometimes > I think the yang/yin is rather deep ... > > -- Heidi @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ We don't necessarily end up with such; that's a narrow interpretation of nature. Keep in mind that our brains are part of nature, and even though we don't consider many *products* of our brains' interactions with the rest of nature to be natural, the range of cognitive possibilities allowed by our brains pre-dates unnatural technologies. This is critical distinction. Most folk philosophies (meaning just our everyday outlook on life and stuff, not formal theories) are largely based on an awareness of natural human phenomena like egos, goal-directed behavior, concern for future generations, etc, in addition to phenomena like enjoyment of the moment. So these philosophies are indeed based on nature, but can be incredibly varied and sophisticated. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.