nature/culture

[Mary C. Simmons, Hydrologic Assistant, Albuquerque, NM]

Phil wrote: 

"My problem with Mary's statement about nature is that it distances
knowers and choosers from objects of knowledge and choice.  As a feminist, 
particularly some sort of ecofeminist, I don't believe I can afford to put all 
the freedom, rights, privileges over on one side with us "humans"; the dog in 
my chair, the bunny rabbit in my back yard, the wasp on the window screen, the 
bean sprout in the garden, the sparrow on the gutter -- all these (and more) I 
feel have and should be respected as having some sort of moral standing."

Phil, I only put "CHOICE" on the side of humans, in terms of organizing 
culture, as opposed to rocks, for instance, having some choice in whether to 
break under Los Angeles and cause massive death and destruction, or to break 
in some uninhabited place (uninhabited by humans or bunny rabbits or bean 
sprouts) where less damage is done, thereby pursuing survival and flourishment 
of the planet.  Rocks will break in earthquake zones because they have 
to...there is no choice or freedom or right or privilege NOT to.

NOT recognizing physical laws such as these leads, IMHO to silly arguments.  I 
confess that it annoys me dreadfully to hear people say things like "Well, 
since the Exxon Valdez spilled millions of gallons of oil into Prince William 
Sound, Mother Nature retaliated by causing an earthquake in Mexico" --which I 
actually DID read.  I find statements like these frighteningly ridiculous for 
the incredible ignorance of science this implies.  That is ALL *I* meant by my 
previous posts, but you seem to have read quite a bit more into them than I 
wrote...


No where in any of my posts have I ever said that nothing else has any rights 
or privileges or freedoms or moral standing, other than humans. I only used 
the word "CHOICE".


Nevertheless, I have always advocated respect for all living things, and I 
certainly don't get how you made such a leap from what I have actually said.   
I also said nothing about being distant or separate, though I do think that 
this perceived "separateness"  (which was not brought about by science) is 
soulfully painful to us humans, and is in some measure responsible for why 
humans can so heartlessly destroy life.

THank you for your concern about whether or not I may have "bought more deeply 
into the culture of science that perhaps you really wanted or want to". The 
natural world to me is full of awesome wonders and is more magical and 
mysteriously elusive sometimes that  it ever was before I learned anything 
about it. I don't think I've bought too deeply into it, but I do have concerns 
that I spend more time thinking about rocks than I do about quilting....

I have deep concerns that you and others who call themselves  ecofeminists 
have not paid enough attention to what runs the natural world.  It is NOT 
choice.   If you have some way of showing me that I am wrong in this view, I 
would really like to see it. 
 I find arguments about the environment that don't have some basis in science 
to be without reality, and as such are only word games, and have no where to 
go. 

Saying you don't actually distinguish yourself from a chair or a rain gutter, 
strikes me with wonder, though I can't really believe this is so--and I am 
concerned that you have bought more deeply into the culture of philosophy than 
perhaps you really wanted or want to.  But you tell me.  Cheers.

Mary.

PS  "feminist" does not at all preclude being male, no indulgence required


_________________________________________________________________________
Mary Simmons
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division  
Albuquerque, New Mexico 
(505)262-5332
[EMAIL PROTECTED]