Re: "defense of wilderness" (wasRe: lexicon)

Quoting J Y S Czhang <czhang23@...>:

> In a message dated 2003:06:04 02:20:34 AM, Andreas quotes & writes:
>
> >>     The [ . . . ] statement [ . . . ]"antithetical to human
> existence" -
> still partakes of >>the Human versus Nature conflict/dichotomy.
> >
> >If I only understood how. It's the same for any living being - and
> you're
> >not going to say that I partake of the Wolf verse Nature
> conflict/dichotomy,
> >of the Fruit Fly versus Nature conflict/dichotomy, of the E coli
> versus
> Nature
> >conflict/dichotomy, ... etc, are you?
>
>     No no. What I am referring to is a well-defined philosophical
> conceptualisation and historical/cultural undercurrent in European,
> American and
> EuroAmerican-influenced cultures. It is a conflict and dichotomy
> inherent in the very
> being and "fabric" of these societies - one can even say it is the
> chief
> character flaw or the core-issue of the damaged psyche of "Western
> Civilisation."
I wondered how my above statement "partook" of this "conceptualization".

I'm of course aware of the tendency in western thought to see humans as very
much apart from other animals.

[snip]
> > But the drive put it off as long as possible appear to unify most
> >living beings.
>
>     Yes I agree - to a certain extent. This simple generalisation does
> not
> take into account individual insanity, suicide, mass hysteria, war and
> heroic
> acts of altruistic suicide or suicide-as-protest. Or even consider the
> few truly
> mystical people who have actually willed themselves to physical death
> -
> "release", "liberation."
I did say "most". It's, of course, not too hard to find altruistic suicide
among non-humans either.

> >> that natural processes can _not_ be controlled, avoided or
> defeated.
> >
> >This appears to boil down to determinism. Is that intended?
>
>     AFAIK there is a very thin grey area between determinism and
> fatalism.
> Determinism strikes me as being more of a mechanistic and "Western"
> conceptualization while fatalism is more of indeterminate, "organic" and
> "non-Western"
> worldview.
>     Determinism IIRC has its roots in the theistic idea of God being
> "the
> Absent Watch-Maker" which has evolved into the late19th-early20th
> Century
> atheistic idea of the Universe-as-Vast-Clockworks. Determinism is very
> obsessively
> cause-&-effect "locked", i.e. the nature versus nurture
> conflict/dichotomy
> (perhaps the old Reformation-era Lutheran influence has some vague
> influence on
> this outlook).
>     Fatalism on the other hand is less prescriptive in its belief that
> one's
> totality (including possible past lives) and one's current actions
> interact to
> create one's fate. Compounding this complexity is one's interactions
> with
> other humans (and animals), one's interactions with one's situation or
> environment, one's interactions with God(s), etc..
>     So one could say that determinism is a clockwork mechanism while
> fatalism
> is a roll of many many-sided dice, a pachinko pinball machine or a cycle
> of
> water - from rain to creek to river to sea and back to rain or from rain
> to
> earth to vegetation to... ya get the ruff idea, yeah?
No. Now you're saying that "one's current actions" help to "create one's
fate", which rather does suggest that one can influence one's future - ie,
avoid (certain) natural processes.

[snip]
> >>     The Asian askes, "The aspects of the universe - existence - you
> see
> >> as dangerous, hostile and other than yourself _just are_ the universe
> -
> >> are part-and-parcel of existence."
> >
> >Yes? It would seem to go without saying that any aspect of the
> universe
> >is part of it ... ?
>
>     For the longest time in Western societies - in the historical past
> -
> considered anything dangerous, hostile and Other/Alien as being not
> being "good"
> but "evil."
Yes, but this is rather another kettle of fish, isn't it? Also, one strong
undercurrent in western thought is to consider this world fundamentally evil,
or in the grip of evil, and therefore goodness as something alien.

[snip]
> >Actually trying to avoid dangerous things is, of course, optional,
> but
> >it seems to be what animals, including Asian humans, normally opt
> for.
>
>     Well, yes, naturally... like in the martial arts - in which we
> Asian
> humans imitate animals, the best Gung Fu is the art of running away...
> very FAST
> (hehe, fight later when one has total advantage). But if cornered or
> surrounded... well, conflict and possible injury and/or death is
> possible and
> _un_-avoidable. But that's life.
Now you seem to be speaking my line ...

>     Animals are wiser than us Higher Primates when it comes to certain
> issues
> of life-or-death.
And this is exactly the kind of remark I'd expect and be annoy by from an
animal-rightist. If you'd only supply an "other" before "animals" ...

[snip]
>     Risks, dangers... they are all around us. UN-avoidable. IMHO to
> think
> otherwise is to live in fear. Shit Happens. Roll with the Punches. Go
> with the
> Flow.
>     You or I can be hit by a drunk driver (or we react fast enough &
> walk
> on), a whole city can go up in fire (or not), a meteor can hit the
> Pacific Ocean
> and wipe out 1/2 the world's population (or not)... some idiot down my
> street
> can be celebrating his son's birthday by shooting his gun in the air and
> a
> bullet returning to earth could go right through someone or _moi_ (or I
> can
> report his ass to the cops before such tragedy strikes ... or take the
> law into my
> own cheeky hands since I ain't no frikkin' snitch ;)...
Well, I might've said the above.

> Shit Happens.
> Roll
> with the Punches. Go with the Flow.
[snip]

                                                              Andreas