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

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

> In a message dated 2003:06:03 10:39:12 AM,  Andreas writes:
>
> >> >What are we meaning by "wilderness" here?
> >
> >>     I mean Nature :) And we being animals too, we are part of
> Nature
> >> tho' many still think we are somehow separate (& above) like those
> who have
> >> in the recent historical past.
> >
> >Next question; what do we mean by "Nature"? :-)
>
>     LOL. Good question. It seems to be word that has mutated
> semantically
> quite often.
>
> >I've never been able to understand the "humanity as part of nature"
> >vs "humanity vs nature" debate.
>
>     Me, too ;) Well, I "understand" it but don't know what to make of it
> ;)
> It's quite foreign to me.
>
> > I mean, _obviously_ we are part of the
> >cosmos, as are flowers, supernovae and computers. Equally obviously,
> there
> are
> >parts of the cosmos that are, well, antithetical to human existence,
> and have
> >to be controled/avoided/defeated if we want to survive (and most of
> us
> >apparently does want to).
>
>     The above statement - especially the part that says "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?

>     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. But the drive put it off as long as possible appear to unify most
living beings.

> that
> natural
> processes can _not_ be controlled, avoided or defeated.
This appears to boil down to determinism. Is that intended?

[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.

> >>     Surface appearances are incredibly deceptive ;)
> >>     Ferinstanz you may think that a French Baroque-period _jardin_
> is
> >> no different than a Zen stone-garden.
> >
> >>     On closer examination, these two different gardens express
> highly
> >>differing worldviews: one of highly deliberated, artificial forms,
> rigid
> >>lines and precise geometric orderings ("Mankind Separate from Nature
> and
> >>imposing his will on Nature") . . . and the other a near total
> antithesis of
> the first
> >> ("humankind part of Nature and attempting to be part of Nature and
> >> natural processes").
> >
> >Two highly divergent worldviews - grantedly. But both seem
> interpretable
> >as "defense against wilderness" in the sense I, initially at least,
> assumed
> >that Sally meant it; as defense the against dangerous, "hostile",
> elements
> >of the universe.
>
>     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 ... ?

Actually trying to avoid dangerous things is, of course, optional, but it
seems to be what animals, including Asian humans, normally opt for.

>     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?

> >>     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.

[snip]

                                                         Andreas

Reply