Tao and Oneness With the World - Ernie Stanley

Tao Te Ching, 67 (as translated by Ch’u Ta-Kao):
“All the world says to me: 'Great as Tao is, it resembles no description (form).' Because it is great, therefore it resembles no description. If it resembled any description it would have long since become small.

I have three treasures, which I hold and keep safe: The first is called love; The second is called moderation; The third is called not venturing to go ahead of the world.

Being loving, one can be brave; Being moderate, one can be ample; Not venturing to go ahead of the world, one can become the chief of all officials.

Instead of love, one has only bravery; Instead of moderation, one has only amplitude;
Instead of keeping behind, one goes ahead: These lead to nothing but death.

For he who fights with love will win the battle; He who defends with love will be secure.
Heaven will save him, and protect him with love.”

I find this poem to be one of the greatest illustrators of the paradigm differences between Eastern schools of belief, such as Taoism and those of Western religions in the treatment of the world. Whereas Western religions contend that man, as the implicit favorite of the divine, is the ruler of nature and and even above it, Eastern religion often merely contends that man should be one with nature and the universe.

Within this Taoist poem, the path for being one with the Tao lies not in the domination of the world, but instead in loving it. In a sense this is not radically different than religions such as Christianity which demands foremost for love and worship of God, the transcendental force. Taoism asks for the very same thing, love of a transcendental force. However, Tao, the transcendental force, is not above the world and universe as God is, but rather the constant driving order behind it. In order to be in tune with Tao one must be in tune with the world and not above it or beyond it.

Jackie Trono - Sheldrake On The Reanimation of Nature

Outlining the history of man’s ontological relationship to nature, Rupert Sheldrake discusses the progression from an animate understanding before the rise of materialism to an inanimate understanding that has prevailed to modern times with materialism to the reanimated understanding of nature that is arising from modern science in his book, The Rebirth of Nature: The Greening of Science and God.

I find Sheldrake’s commentary on materialism particularly interesting as I used to share that view, which I know find to be patently false. Sheldrake writes,

“Materialism in its philosophical sense asserts that only matter is real, and that everything, including human consciousness, can be explained in terms of matter. As a political doctrine, it places the highest value on material well-being and material progress. In its everyday sense, it refers to a preoccupation with material needs and desires rather than spiritual values. In all these senses, the material world is the sole reality, or at least the only reality of importance” (Rupert Sheldrake, The Rebirth of Nature 74).

Materialism, then, excludes any and all possibility of something transcendent of matter, which directly contradicts quotidian and metaphysical experience of consciousness. Materialists would have us understand that completely counterintuitive idea that the mind is the brain and the brain is no more than an electrochemical machine. Francis Crick put it in the following way, and called this senseless idea the Astonishing Hypothesis.

“‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules…. This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people alive today that it can truly be called astonishing” (Qtd. Rupert Sheldrake, The Sense of Being Stared At 13).

The hypothesis is so astonishing and alien because it bears only a partial reality. The human mind is more than the sum of its constituent subatomic interactions. Clearly, there is something about consciousness that is inexplicable by physics. Once again, materialists would argue that it simply is a lack of the proper instrumentalities that makes the carry-over from brain chemistry to consciousness unclear. However, I find this argument weak considering that it insists that something that obviously exists – individual choice resultant from a consciousness necessarily comprised of more than merely deterministic electrochemical interactions – does not based on what appears to be nothing more than speculation.

Jackie Trono - Narby On Amazonian Shamanism

In The Cosmic Serpent: DNA And The Origins of Knowledge, Jeremy Narby explores the relationship between the knowledge of Western rationalism and the gnosis of Amazonian shamanism. I find the interplay between these ideologies fascinating. Western rationalism is characterized most notably by what I refer to as the “taxonomical imperative,” by which I mean the impetus in Westerners to classify and categorize their experiences. It could be said to be a generally human characteristic, but here I am making the distinction between the Western analytical mind that judges and the more holistic indigenous mind that perceives. I find the Western perspective to be severely limited by this differentiating instinct.

On this topic, Narby writes,

“Rationalism separates things to understand them. But its fragmented disciplines have limited perspectives and blind spots. And as any driver knows, it is important to pay attention to blind spots, because they contain vital information. To reach a fuller understanding of reality, science will have to shift its gaze. Could shamanism help science to defocalize? My experience indicates that engaging shamanic knowledge requires looking into a great number of disciplines and thinking about how they fit together” (Jeremy Narby, The Cosmic Serpent 160).

Narby, of course, is suggesting an endorsement of a more holistic approach to knowledge in general as part of the furthering of physical science, specifically. From personal experience in attempting to shift my own gaze from a staunchly materialist perspective, I would have to comment that such a transition would not exactly go smoothly. It is incredibly difficult to relinquish ingrained analytical tendencies on the personal as well as the social level. I wonder if there will be some synthesis of analytical and holistic thought that will reconcile this conflict.

Throughout the book, Narby formulates the hypothesis that Amazonian shamans under the influence of ayahuasca commune with nature in a very primal way such that they can communicate with the fundamental forces of nature and from them extract medical and spiritual information. I will close this blog with Jeremy’s own questions on the subject, as I find them good food for thought. Narby writes,

“According to my hypothesis, shamans take their consciousness down to the molecular level and gain access to biomolecular information. But what actually goes on in the brain/mind of the ayahuasquero when this occurs? What is the nature of a shaman’s communication with the animate essences of nature? The clear answer is that more research is needed in consciousness, shamanism, molecular biology, and their interrelatedness” (Narby 160).

Jackie Trono - Jonas On Technology's Infinity

Jonas – On Technology’s Infinity

Hans Jonas, a student of Heidegger, also investigated technology and its relation to ecology. First marking out the belief in the indefinite progress of technology, Jonas writes,

“What makes it more than a sanguine belief…is an underlying and well-grounded, theoretical view of the nature of things and of human cognition, according to which they do not set a limit to novelty of discovery and invention, indeed, that they of themselves will at each point offer another opening for the as yet unknown and undone” (Scharff 194).

I understand this virtual infinity of technology to give humans a sense of the sublime in a very similar way to that of religion. Jonas even states that not only does it dominate our lives, but technology “nourishes also a belief in its being of predominant worth” (Scharff 196). Perhaps technology is the new religion, as, following Ellul, it dictates all aspects of life, including morality.

Elaborating on the effects of recognizing the sublime in the technological, Jonas continues,

“In a reciprocal interplay with the growing subtlety of exploration (instrumental and conceptual), nature itself stands forth as ever more subtle…And instead of narrowing the margin of the still-undiscovered, science now surprises itself with unlocking dimension after dimension of new depths. The very essence of matter has turned from a blunt, irreducible ultimate to an always reopened challenge for further penetration” (Scharff 195).

Although such a comment seems to ensure that men, understanding and respecting the sublimity arising from technology, would also a bear respect for the natural world which they uncover in its most intimate depths, the opposite appears to be the case. Jonas insists that the self-proliferating aspect of technology is actually at the heart of man’s destruction of his environment, writing that

“technology exponentially increases man’s drain on nature’s resources (of substances and energy), not only through the multiplication of the final goods for consumption, but also, and perhaps more so, through the production and operation of its own mechanical means” (Scharff 197).

If, as Jonas suggests, the chief vocation of man is “to become ever more masters of the world” (Scharff 196), how are we to continue our existence in the presence of such ecologically destructive technology? Jonas’ short answer is that all we know is that the disaster of destroying the planet must be averted, and he believes that human spontaneity, which defies prediction, is our best bet.

I find Jonas’ philosophy very frustrating because he so aptly portrays technology and its destructive relationship to the environment, and yet, he offers no clear-cut solution to the problem.

Jackie Trono - Ellul On Technology's Invincibility

Whereas Heidegger is positive about the possibility of attaining a free relation to technology and thereby limiting its dominion over man, Ellul sees technology as completely autonomous. Ellul writes,

"technology ultimately depends on itself, it maps its own route, it is a prime and not a secondary factor, it must be regarded as an “organism” tending toward closure and self-determination: it is an end in itself. Autonomy is the very condition of technological development" (Ed. Robert C. Scharff & Val Dusek: Philosophy of Technology 386).

While Heidegger suggests that the continuance of technology is ultimately beyond human control but that it can be limited, Ellul seems to indicate that technology embodies indomitable proliferation.

Whereas the common conception entails that technology is applied science, Ellul would have us understand that science is theoretical technology. He writes,

"Technology is both ahead of and behind science, and it is also at the very heart of science; the latter projects itself into technology and is absorbed into it, and technology is formulated in scientific theory. All science, having become experimental, depends on technology, which alone permits reproducing phenomena technologically. Now, technology abstractly reproduces nature to permit scientific experimenting. Hence, the temptation to make nature conform to theoretical models, to reduce nature to techno-scientific artificiality" (Scharff 388).

According to Ellul, the technological reproduction of natural phenomena leads to the temptation to utilize science beyond its range. We suffer the consequences of attempting to make nature conform to our theoretical models rather than trying to conform our models to nature. This temptation to reduce nature to techno-scientific artificiality causes science to become powerful violence against nature, according to Ellul.

I wonder who is more correct, Heidegger with his positive view of limiting technology? Or Ellul with his resignation to the autonomy of technology?

Jackie Trono - Heidegger On Technology's Relation to Ecology

In PHIL382: Philosophy of Technology, we examined Heidegger’s thoughts on technology, which are directly relevant to ecology. In “The Question Concerning Technology,” Heidegger suggests that the only way to limit technology is by establishing a free relation to it, and in order to that, we must understand its essence. Accordingly, Heidegger sets about characterizing the essence of technology. The essence of technology, he argues, is Being itself, operating through Enframing. Enframing can basically be explained as that which establishes the world as it is ontologically and therefore ideologically for humans. The danger of technology is that its Enframing reveals the world to men as mere supply and resource, in Heidegger’s terms, as standing reserve.
Consequently, Heidegger sees this essence of technology, Enframing, the danger within Being, as the source of our misconception of our relationship to our surrounding and life-giving environment. Rather than recognize the symbiosis of our relation with Being through being-in-the-world, we are forced into the Enframing of the world as standing reserve by technology. But, Heidegger insists, there is a saving power. That saving power is to be found in safekeeping, the means by which we combat the nearly elusive principal stages of Enframing, the incipient stage of ontology where ideology is formed. Safekeeping is brought about by recognizing the nature of the beast, as one might put it roughly. The nature of the best, or the essence of technology, is Being itself, that which reveals the world as it is for man. Thus, it is by questioning alone, not thinking or calculation that we can reach that safekeeping aesthetic or mood by which Heidegger suggests we can finally limit the destructive scope of the technological. Of course, as the essence of technology is Being itself, it is ultimately unconquerable by man, and so we must learn also to live in a symbiosis with technology, not in the master-servant relation by which we currently abide.

Christopher Carter – "Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster"

"The 1990s have not been kind to Los Angeles." Davis, the author, says, "For generations, market-driven urbanization has transgressed environmental common sense. Historic wildfire corridors have been turned into view-lot suburbs, wetland liquefaction zones into marinas, and floodplains into industrial districts and housing tracts." Davis also goes on to say that, "Southern California has reaped flood, fire, and earthquake tragedies that were as avoidable, as unnatural, as the beating of Rodney King and the ensuing explosion in the streets." Ecology and the Psychology of Humankind and animal-kind alike both suffer from the multitude of problems that are plaguing our earth. Most of them we can't fix. Some of them we can; like pollution, global warming, and the extinction of animals. The book talks about these problems and how we can solve them in Los Angeles, and how we can take that ideology and apply it to the rest of the world and the rest of America's cities.

Christopher Carter – "Ecology and the Biosphere: Principles and Problems"

I was searching local libraries for more basic books on ecology and I found this book "Ecology and the Biosphere: Principles and Problems." It's a nice textbook that I really was looking for in order to get a more comprehensive look on Ecology. It is concise, focused on material that will help us make intelligent choices about the future of the earth, and written in a style that will help us make connections to our own lives. The book, in a nutshell, tells us how science relates to our lives, how the biosphere works, what is wrong with it, and what we can do to make a difference. The book gives us numerous real-life examples like the disasters that have struck Los Angeles and other cities in America. I'm really glad that I was able to find this book in particular, because it wasn't just all facts, it had examples and ideas that related back to our Ecology class. It got me thinking about a previous topic I wrote about "our disassociation from Ecology." It made me realize that there are so many problems in the world's Ecology that we don't even think about, and will never think about because we don't even know they are going on.

Christopher Carter - "Ecology of the Ancient Greek World"

The book "Ecology of the Ancient Greek World" was one of my favorite reads so far in this class. It combined Ecology with one of my favorite topics in all of history. As the author notes, "The demography of the ancient Greek world is a poorly developed subject, which has been treated by even the best of scholars in a way that lacks methodological sophistication." Historical Ecology is something I really like to read about and study, and this book was a really refreshing break from some of the more philosophical topics discussed in class. The book talked a lot about their farming techniques, and a lot of it was similar to the Arcadia pastoral section of "The Ecology of Eden." I would really recommend this book to anyone who is a fan of Greek culture. My favorite part about the book was how the author specifically went into the farming and gardening methods used by Ancient Greeks. Even though it was the same material as Eisenberg, it still was refreshing because it was more in-depth, and where Eisenberg would mention that they seeded their fields, this book would mention what seeds they used. It was a great addition to the Ecology of Eden and the Tender Carnivore in the sense that they built upon those ideas.

Christopher Carter – "The Philosophy of Ecology"

In David Keller's book "The Philosophy of Ecology", many important subjects are touched, mainly the subject of "humanizing" the Ecology. We give things names and "rate" them on size and condition. We say, "That tree is a good tree because it's large" and buy it because it will make a good Christmas tree. We rate nature and name everything in it so that we can identify with it. Keller says that this is disassociating us from Ecology, added on to the fact that we also characterize objects such as mountains and lakes by their "external relations", and not what they truly are. Also, at certain times and certain areas of the world we may think that a "flood" is a blessing, and some times, particularly in America recently, we think of it as a curse. Definitions of Ecology differ from place to place and there really isn't a "solid" definition of what's good and bad. If a volcano went off in New York City somehow, it would be terrible. But in some places around the world, even with the havoc it causes, it's a "sign" or a "gift" from the Gods and should be cherished. The mystery of our relationship with Ecology is touched in this book, and makes us thoroughly examine how we "rate" nature.

Wilderness, the Conqueror - Ernie Stanley

“We do not think of the great open plains, the beautiful rolling hills and winding streams with tangled growth as “wild.” Only to the white man was nature a “wilderness” and only to him was the land “infested” with “wild” animals and “savage” people. To us it was tame.” -A statement by an Oglala Sioux, Luther Standing Bear from Touch the Earth

I found this striking quote within Bill Devall’s description of deep ecology. It is an illustration of the western paradigm (views about an area) that I found very profound. Thoughts spawned from the Sioux’s words and I immediately questioned “wilderness”. I first searched for its denotation:

From Merriam-Websters

Wilderness (n)
A. (1) : a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (2) : an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community
B. an empty or pathless area or region

Then I began considering the implications “wilderness” and it’s adjective “wild” give. Wilderness and its meaning in use imply human domination over nature. Can “wilderness” exist without human supremacy over nature? The Definition A certainly does not allow for this, using words such as “Human” and “developed”. I also reason that definition B implies human domination over nature. “Empty” itself is a human word. It involves a view that no value can be derived from something and the idea of value relates only to the things objectified by human. Further, pathless in the sense of “wilderness” only applies to the steps of man and animal presence is ignored when declaring a wilderness. Thinking further, I find that “wilderness” and “wild” are also associated with negativism within mainstream Western society, attaching themselves to things such as confusion, danger and deviation.

And in reasoning this I am disturbed. It is our Cartesian and Baconian ideas that man is separated or even above nature that has led us to hurt and scar that which our corporeal existence is entirely reliant: the planet. “Wilderness”, in its use, separates us from the planet allows us to manipulate, to consume and exploit the planet. Under “wilderness” the natural and undisturbed immediately becomes objectified as an untapped resource for humans. And this is the western paradigm of the planet.

I now ask, how can we hope to mend our relationship with the planet if undisturbed areas are labeled as untapped resources, not yet ready for use? Even in the most positive sense “wilderness” still separates us from the planet. If we ever hope to achieve understanding with the planet and the natural, we must leave trappings which set us apart from the planet behind. And so I say wildernesses must be despised and eradicated, replaced by nature itself.

Christopher Carter - "The Culture of Extinction" book

The "The Culture of Extinction" is a very fascinating book that mainly talks about Ecology as a literal science. It really helps to understand philosophical points of interest in Ecology if you have the backbone down. The author, Frederic Bender, also helps break down the idea of Ecology as a Philosophy by attempting to explain certain ideas and concepts. For instance, he notes that, "natural climate cycles operate on many different time scales simultaneously," explaining that Ecology is very unpredictable and never certain. This is part of many Ecologists ideas and especially that of Eisenberg in "The Ecology of Eden." The idea that Ecology is an unpredictable force just as much as we are is an important concept to understand.