TQ: 'Self-realization' is absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to deep ecology.

Can we try this discussion again, /without/ anyone reacting to:
"'Self-realization', 'ecosophy' - why use these terms? I don't need to read
Arne Naess to know what DE is about."

**  Just address the points that Tim Quick made, please. 

**  I hope he doesn't mind me re-posting it; after all it's public property
- it came up in an AltaVista search for my name.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://csf.colorado.edu/deep-ecology/may99/0018.html
  is:

From: Tim Quick (tquick@UVic.CA)
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 18:58:43 -0800 
Subject: Re: David MacClement's post

**  In:
http://csf.colorado.edu/deep-ecology/may99/0011.html
David said:
** There seems little discussion of the view of life that leads one to don
>the deep-ecology mantle. I was hoping to at least read such discussion. I
>don't share the spiritual/emotional life-view of most here (I think), but
>my opinions aren't incompatible with such views even though I'm more
>pessimistic than (say) Julie.
>
[Tim Quick: ]
Hey David, excellent post. I have been on the list for about a year now and
it has been disappointing to me as well. Lots of posts, yes, but perhaps
some are better posted to an environmental list with broader scope. How the
heck does some of this stuff connect with DE?

There has, unfortunately, been some, ah ... friction, on this list, which
of course, doesn't make it appealing for people to speak up. Further,
certain people don't really know exactly what DE is, but insist on using
the term to bolster their environmental battles. Preserving wilderness or
protecting whales doesn't automatically equal DE. There are many basic
principles articulated by Arne Naess that should keep this list in
discussions for the rest of our lives, yet they are rarely brought in.

For instance, I don't think I've ever seen the term 'Self-realization'
used, yet this term is absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to deep ecology. What gives
people? Has anyone read anything by Arne Naess? If you have, doesn't his
idea of the real Self (capital 'S') intrigue you? The entire philosophical
articulation of DE rests not on things, (which the scientific paradigm is
so fond of exploring), but on relationships. 'Things' are just the
convergence of relationships. Naess comes up with a 'relational,
total-field image' in place of the atomistic view the Western world has
held since the 1500's.

"Organisms [are] knots in the field of intrinsic relations" 
Naess: *Ecology, Community, Lifestyle* (*ECL*) p. 28.

That these relationships are intrinsic should raise a few eyebrows.

-------
No one has ever brought up intuitions either, yet again, this is where
Naess begins his articulations. Very curious for an entire movement that
has gained such popularity over the last 25 years to be based on
intuitions! What are these intuitions that Naess finds so compelling? 
Anyone?

"The platform of the deep ecology movement is grounded in religion or
philosophy." Naess, "The Apron Diagram", in *The Deep Ecology Movement: An
Introductory Anthology*, eds. Drengson & Inoue, p.11.

Everyone who purports to be supporters of the DE movement should have some
basic understanding of where these ideas have come from.

"As Aristotle said, it shows a lack of education to try to prove
everything, because you have to have a starting point. You can't prove the
methodology of science, you can't prove logic, because logic presupposes
fundamental premises." Naess, "Interview with Arne Naess", in *Deep
Ecology*, eds. Devall and Sessions, p. 75.

-------
Arne Naess is one of the most brilliant philosophers in our century. His
connections between gestalt psychology and the emerging ecological
worldview are simply amazing!! If we are to come to know 'wholes', we need
to think in 'wholes'. The Western mind is not very practiced at this.
This linking of gestalt psychology and ecological epistemology should have
more than a few people on this list turned on their ears.

"In our spontaneous experiencing of reality *what* we experience [a
gestalt] is more or less comprehensive and complex ... Gestalts bind the I
and not-I together in a whole." Naess, *ECL*, p. 60.

In *DEM: Intro. Anth.*, Naess will explain how joy is not something
subjective, but "is a feature of the *indivisible* concrete unity of
subject, object and medium. In a sense self-realization involves
experiences of the infinitely rich joyful aspect of reality. It is
misleading, according to my intuitions, to locate joy inside my
consciousness" p. 27.

WOW!! This was so amazing the first time I read it, and it still fills me
with wonder. Not only humans, but cats, whales, ferns, and entire
landscapes can feel joy! Does this not stike anyone else as fantastic, yet
somehow true, or at the very least, in need of more exploration?

-------
Naess' theories on communication would have come in handy a while back when
there was such uproar concerning words, clarity and meaning. What was
perfectly clear from those posts is that certain people simply don't have a
basic understanding of where DE has come from and where it is going.

"Communication... is not to be seen as a process of two or more individuals
making use of a completely 'shared language', but of each carrying out a
personal process of interpretation in their own directions of
precisations." Naess, *ECL*, p. 43.

Which is exactly why Naess has the platform principles. They are unifying
elements of the movement, and if one notices, they are relatively vague,
what Naess calls 'low precisation'. These statements must be vague in order
for any number of people to agree on them. A statement like, for example,
"Harmony with Nature!" would be heartily accepted by Naess, and perhaps a
great number of people. Everyone who agrees with "Harmony with Nature" will
make that statement into their own personal ecophilosophy, what Naess calls
'ecosophy', and the more details that come out of it, the more personal and
place specific it will get. This is becoming more precise, according to
Naess (higher precisation).

Naess has some great stuff in *ECL* especially pp. 40-103 (basically Chpt's
3 & 4). This book is one of Naess' classics, which is why it is one of the
select few to be translated into English. Anyone on this list who hasn't
read it really should, especially if you call yourself a supporter of DE.

And this is just Naess! There are some other amazing people doing work in
DE. Delores LaChapelle, Warwick Fox, Bill Devall, Stephanie Kaza, Freya
Mathews, Michael Zimmerman. John Livingston's classic essay *The Fallacy of
Wildlife Conservation* hits directly on DE without using the term itself.
It is eloquently written and masterfully argued. Anyone familiar with it?

-------
Well David, perhaps this will help stir the pot!! I'll be very interested
to see the responses to your Gaia question. I'll reply another time.

>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[David's first question: ]
>*<A>*
> If nature is Nature, or Gaia, and if there is any parallel with
>smaller-scale multi-cellular organisms (and even amoeba) in which an object
>recognised as foreign or a danger, when inside the organism is sealed off
>in a cyst (or vacuole) - could The Earth 'create' such barriers to humans'
>invasion, making it noticeably harder for us to get at the essential
>functioning parts of Gaia? If it's possible, how would such 'walling-off'
>show up? And is this defensive strategy not available to Nature because of
>the all-pervasive infection by humans?
>

     Previous message: David MacClement: "Deep-ecology list archives." 
http://csf.colorado.edu/deep-ecology/may99/0017.html
     Next in thread: eric + michiko: "[deep ecology] Re: Tim's post about
David's post": 
http://csf.colorado.edu/deep-ecology/may99/0024.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
sent by David.
(David MacClement) d1v9d@bigfoot.com 
www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/Pg1-AD11.html
 or better: http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/
****************************************************