The pretence of speaking as though being coolly objective flies in the face of your advice RP - desire is always at least waiting for a return. Environmental ethics (hardly unknown in the ancient East) involves a change of heart for me - though the definition of 'heart' here is difficult and is hard work against existing education and propaganda.
On Tuesday, December 2, 2014 5:31:37 PM UTC, RP Singh wrote: > > To evolve you have to change and for that you have to change your > feelings. It is the feelings which tumble into thoughts and then actions. > No matter how much you control yourself > your feelings will get over you and spill into thoughts and actions. You > would realize that you suddenly do something or act spontaneously in ways > which are a result of your attitudes. So if you want to evolve change your > heart , then your mind and last of all your actions. > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As you know I like the Spiral Dynamics model of human development, and >> they define the green meme as: >> >> The Sensitive Self . Communitarian, human bonding, ecological >> sensitivity, networking. The human spirit must be freed from greed, dogma, >> and divisiveness; feelings and caring supersede cold rationality; >> cherishing of the earth, Gaia, life. Against hierarchy; establishes lateral >> bonding and linking. Permeable self, relational self, group intermeshing. >> Emphasis on dialogue, relationships. Basis of value communities (i.e., >> freely chosen affiliations based on shared sentiments). Reaches decisions >> through reconciliation and consensus (downside: interminable "processing" >> and incapacity to reach decisions). Refresh spirituality, bring harmony, >> enrich human potential. Strongly egalitarian, anti-hierarchy, pluralistic >> values, social construction of reality, diversity, multiculturalism, >> relativistic value systems; this worldview is often called pluralistic >> relativism . Subjective, nonlinear thinking; shows a greater degree of >> affective warmth, sensitivity, and caring, for earth and all its >> inhabitants.Where seen: Deep ecology, postmodernism, Netherlands idealism, >> Rogerian counseling, Canadian health care, humanistic psychology, >> liberation theology, cooperative inquiry, World Council of Churches, >> Greenpeace, animal rights, ecofeminism, post-colonialism, Foucault/Derrida, >> politically correct, diversity movements, human rights issues, >> ecopsychology. 10% of the population, 15% of the power. [Note: this is 10% >> of the world population. Don Beck estimates that around 20-25% of the >> American population is green.] >> >> With the completion of the green meme, human consciousness is poised for >> a quantum jump into "second-tier thinking." Clare Graves referred to this >> as a "momentous leap," where "a chasm of unbelievable depth of meaning is >> crossed." In essence, with second-tier consciousness, one can think both >> vertically and horizontally, using both hierarchies and heterarchies (both >> ranking and linking). One can therefore, for the first time, vividly grasp >> the entire spectrum of interior development , and thus see that each level, >> each meme, each wave is crucially important for the health of the overall >> Spiral. >> >> Ken Wilber, in his Integral Philosophy, embraces the model and goes on to >> add the "mean Green meme" (MGM) where people get stuck from transcending >> into second tier, interior development because they are caught up in >> oppositional causes - working in groups against while superficially >> claiming the green sensitivity to earth and the marginalization others. >> >> I think he agrees with your assessment, Neil, when he declares the MGM: >> "the damage that the MGM has caused, mostly because that is where the >> action is in the cultural elite. The MGM is the driving force of >> boomeritis, and it has dominated academia, liberal politics, and the >> humanities for three decades. Its damage is staggering, and only made worse >> by the smug self-satisfaction of these particular Inquisitors." >> >> >> On Monday, December 1, 2014 10:10:09 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >> >>> Environmental ethics is the discipline in philosophy that studies the >>> moral relationship of human beings to, and also the value and moral status >>> of, the environment and its nonhuman contents. This involves (1) the >>> challenge of environmental ethics to the anthropocentrism (i.e., >>> human-centeredness) embedded in traditional western ethical thinking; ((2) >>> the connection of deep ecology, feminist environmental ethics, and social >>> ecology to politics; (3) the attempt to apply traditional ethical theories, >>> including consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, to support >>> contemporary environmental concerns; and (4) the focus of environmental >>> literature on wilderness. >>> >>> Our current de facto religious control fraud (economics) is broadly >>> anti-green - Allan's 'golden calf'. It is resistant to Andrew's 'time walk >>> history' and Molly up a tree being at one with nature other than as a >>> 'sweet story' and communicative rationality generally, using pseudo-science >>> systems to explain everything and direct what we can do. I now vote Green >>> as my other 'choices' are neo-liberal or fascist. Gabby can perhaps vote >>> that way with more direct hope. >>> >>> Various books I've read recently suggest 'being green' is a morality >>> changer. I've long thought science such, though not in the crude >>> positivist sense most of the anti-science people use as a straw man. >>> >>> Anthropocentrism often recognizes some non-intrinsic wrongness of >>> anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) environmental devastation. Such >>> destruction might damage the well-being of human beings now and in the >>> future, since our well-being is essentially dependent on a sustainable >>> environment. We have been aware of the population and environmental crisis >>> since the 1960's. Much religion, perhaps especially the >>> Judeo-Christian idea that humans are created in the image of the >>> transcendent supernatural God, who is radically separate from nature, also >>> by extension radically separates humans themselves from nature. This >>> ideology further opened the way for untrammelled exploitation of nature. >>> Modern Western science itself, White argues, was “cast in the matrix of >>> Christian theology” so that it too inherited the “orthodox Christian >>> arrogance toward nature” (White 1967, 1207). Clearly, without technology >>> and science, the environmental extremes to which we are now exposed would >>> probably not be realized. White's thesis, however, is that given the modern >>> form of science and technology, Judeo-Christianity itself provides the >>> original deep-seated drive to unlimited exploitation of nature. >>> Nevertheless, White argued that some minority traditions within >>> Christianity (e.g., the views of St. Francis) might provide an antidote to >>> the “arrogance” of a mainstream tradition steeped in anthropocentrism >>> ( White, L., 1967. “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis”, >>> Science, 155:1203-1207). >>> >>> The arguments are old, though one rarely sees them in insanestream >>> media. Two keys points are (1) the evaluative thesis (of >>> non-anthropocentrism) is the claim that natural nonhuman things have >>> intrinsic value, i.e., value in their own right independent of any use they >>> have for others, and (2) the psycho-behavioural thesis (of >>> non-anthropocentrism) is the claim that people who believe in the >>> evaluative thesis of non-anthropocentrism are more likely to behave >>> environmentally (i.e., behave in beneficial ways, or at least not in >>> harmful ways, towards the environment) than those who do not. >>> >>> Our 'deep ideologies' don't seem to be helping much. Ferguson and >>> Tottenham rioted on the killings of minor black criminals by police, but we >>> don't seem to be able to get 'up in arms' against burning the planet or >>> wars that have killed millions of innocents and continue to do so. Looking >>> at us from 40 million light-years away, a decent alien society might be >>> discussing whether they have any ethical imperative to help us as distant >>> strangers, perhaps wondering if delivering some practical green energy >>> alternatives could help us move from our crude libidinal condition of >>> scarcity wars and trinket consumption. >>> >>> The economists don't want to discuss any deep ideology at all. The >>> politicians seem able to whip it up and it hardly resembles 'deep green' >>> when they do. Is our religious talk just talk above deeper crude ideology >>> of a selfish, self-centred libidinal-tribal condition? So what are your >>> views, my fellow carbon-footprints? >>> >> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> ""Minds Eye"" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
