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

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."

>>     The Asian viewpoint is that even death is part of life...
>
>I might oppose this on terminological grounds - death being what happens
>_after_ life - but, of course, biological death is part of how the universe
>works.
    As far as scientific theory goes that is ;) One reason I have some belief
in re-incarnation and the cycles of existence(s) is that the whole cosmos
seems to operate in cycles or spirals of one kind or another ... that energy and
matter can not "just disappear" from this universe, that all energy and matter
just changes shape and form.

> 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."

>> 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?

>[snip]
>> >> > I'll happily admit that I'm unfamiliar with Chinese
>> >>> thinking/philosophy, but the outer form here strikes me as fitting
>> >>> perfectly in Sally's box.
>
>>     Then you _must_ get Ursula Le Guin's translation of the _Tao Te
>> Ching_!
>> There is even an audiobook version with really nice, ambience-enhancing
>> music (not Chinese music, but improvised by IIRC Todd Barton)!
>
>Well, I'll add it to the list of things I ought to read. Which is, of course,
>already terribly long.
    Then get the audiobook and listen to it instead :)  Might help ya think
"outside the Box." ;)

<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."
    So much so that in these supposed modern times a psychology experiment
AFAIK that was conducted just a few years ago showed that waaaay too many
EuroAmericanized people tend to associate not only the colour black with death, evil
and other "bad things" but photos of African-American faces (and other people
of darker skin tones) with these very things as well. And the reaaaally
freaky thing is that something like 30% of the African-Americans in this experiment
responded identically to the "Whites" - talk about some kinda subconscious
self-loathing!

>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.
    Animals are wiser than us Higher Primates when it comes to certain issues
of life-or-death.

>>     The American Taoist Gung-Fu Surfer says: "Shit Happens. Roll with
>> the Punches. Go with the Flow [Tao]."
>
>This appears to say that one should not try to avoid dangers. That's correct?
In a message dated 2003:06:04 05:57:42 AM, the Google-master & pack-rat
extraordinaire John Cowan answers very well:

>No, it's a warning that what appears to be stable equilibrium (like a cone
>resting on its base) may well be more like unstable equilibrium (like a
>cone resting on its tip) after all, and the better choice may be to assume
>a posture of neutral equilibrium (like a cone resting on his side). [...]
    Or as the Zen-influenced samurai would say "relaxed alertness" - a
self-disciplined habit of concentrated awareness. In another words, "combat-ready"
but without the fear, tension and aggression.

    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 ;)... Shit Happens. Roll
with the Punches. Go with the Flow.

>> >>     The purest expressions of this particular Asian mindset IMHO is
>> >> Taoist.
>> >> Buddhist thinking comes in a good strong second place (many Buddhists -
>> >> East and West - are active in ecology, animal and human rights).
>
>> >In my experience, few no other groups are as prone to view homo
>>  >sapiens as deeply different from other species as are environmentalists
and
>>> animal-rightists. Grantedly, those such I've known have not been Buddhists
>>> (nor Taoists).
>
>>     Perhaps those environmentalists and animal-rights activists are still
>> trapped in the pre-Modern European dichotomy of "Man versus Nature" or
>> still dragging around the baggage of the paleo-conservative Judeo-Christian
>> idea that "Man is superior to Nature because Man was Made in God's Image."
>
>They appear to believe that humans are (morally) inferior to other animals.
    Like I said "still dragging around the baggage." It's just "opposite"
extreme - no different in my mind than the so-call Satanists. Just a
different-albeit-thornier side of the same bloody coin (or _koine_ ;)
    These environmentalists and animal-rights activists still see themselves
as separate from nature - but inferior rather than superior like their
ancestors. Until that "psychic wound" of separateness-from-Nature is truly healed,
they can not speak effectively for Nature - they can not speak truthfully of
what has no voice to them ... Because of guilt and shame, they will not really
comprehend the world around them that continues to possess the scars, wounds and
insults inflicted by their ancestors.


In a message dated 2003:06:04 04:42:41 AM, cowan@MERCURY.CCIL.ORG writes:

>J Y S Czhang scripsit:
>
>>     ::truly surprised stunned look:: What 0_o? You, the one who has more
>> versions and translations of the _Tao Te Ching_ than me, haven't gotten
>it
>> already? What's the world comin' to...  ;)
>
>Well hey, I can't get what I haven't heard of (and you should see my
>shopping bag fulla Tarot decks, much more impressive than the TTC and
>I Ching collections).
    General Pack-Rat
    :P~  <=== the pack-rat salute (well, the less vulgar one at least ;)

---
Hanuman Zhang

    "Those at the top of the social order are apt to preach benevolence and
righteousness to those at the bottom. Yet those at the top have typically
stolen their position from others. They are the greatest thieves, because they have
stolen the greatest amount of land and other property. So words about
benevolence and righteousness are usually the fruit of robbery." - Chuang Tzu/Zhuangzi

"O wise humanity, terribly wise humanity! Of thee I sing. How inscrutable is
the civilization where men toil and work and worry their hair gray to get a
living and forget to play!" - Lin Yutang, _The Importance of Living_

    "...So what is life for? Life is for beauty and substance and sound and
colour; and even those are often forbidden by law [socio-cultural conventions].
. . . Why not be free and live your own life? Why follow other people's rules
and live to please others?..." ~Lieh-Tzu/Liezi, Taoist Sage (c. 450- c. 375
BCE)

"...we may be able to prove conclusively that all men are born with
potentially brilliant intellects...and that the source of cultural creativity is the
consciousness that springs from social cooperation and loving interaction...the
majority of us live far below our potential, because of the oppressive nature
of most societies." - John Blacking

    "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
violent.  It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage --- to move in the
opposite direction."
 - E. F. Schumacker

    "Excess is excrement. Excrement retained in the body is poison." - Ursula
Le Guin

    "A man's character is determined by how hard he will fight for what he
believes in." - Aben Kandel

=> To Thine Own Self Be True <=

Replies