On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 01:31:08 -0400, Michael Sylvester wrote:
Since Rome speaks through its Canon law,and Papal encyclicals,
the latest by Pope Francs is that we are the custodians of the
.>planet and we should take care of it.
I do not know what Prof. Sylvester tells his students about checking
claims by locating the primary sources that those claims are based
on but it is clear that Prof. Sylvester does not bother to provide
them when posting on Tips. I have no doubt that Prof. Sylvester
has read Francis' encyclical letter on the environment in its entirety
but for Tipsters who haven't, here is a link to the English version
of the letter:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
Note #1: A PDF of the letter can be downloaded from the site.
Note #2: In the upper right of the beginning of the letter are
square brackets that contain a two letter code for the different
languages the letter is available in:
AR = Arabic
DE = German
EN = Esperanto ;-)
ES = Spanish
IT = Italian
PL = Polish
PT = Portugese
Unfortunately, a Latin version nor an Old Church Slavonic version
are not available for people who are really Old School.
It is comforting to think that the entire letter can be summarized by
"we are custodians of the planet and we should take care of it".
Makes one wonder why Francis didn't just say this instead of going
on and on in his letter.
I just caught the tail end of a program that aired on this past Earth
day that Freud had something to say about man and the wilderness.
Point of Evidence: Source?
I apologize for not reading Prof. Sylvester's mind about (a) what
program he is referring to, (b) what Freud said, and (c) what possible
relationship this has to Francis' letter because I am wearing my
tin foil hat. It keeps others from reading my mind but, alas, it keeps
me from reading other people's minds as well.
It had something to do with
the psychoanalytic significance of man's love affair with the
wilderness.
Let me guess: we want to have sex with Mother Nature?
Send me something and comment if Freud visited the Grand Canyon or
other
sites when he was at Clark U.
If you go to this website, you'll see a picture of Siggy alone in the
vastness of nature though not the Grand Canyon, instead, on a
road between two bodies of water, walking towards what
appears to be a lighthouse at the end of the road -- metaphorically
this is a very confusing image because the monkish existence of a
lighthouse keeper (along with his responsibilities in keeping
others safe in their passage) is at odds with what Freud wants to be,
well, Kardashian but without the butt. See:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-09-12/
Oh, and just to quote a bit or two from Francis' Letter:
|82. Yet it would also be mistaken to view other living beings
|as mere objects subjected to arbitrary human domination.
|When nature is viewed solely as a source of profit and gain,
|this has serious consequences for society. This vision of
|“might is right” has engendered immense inequality, injustice
|and acts of violence against the majority of humanity, since
|resources end up in the hands of the first comer or the most
|powerful: the winner takes all. Completely at odds with this
|model are the ideals of harmony, justice, fraternity and peace
|as proposed by Jesus. As he said of the powers of his own age: “
|You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and
|their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so
|among you; but whoever would be great among you must be
|your servant” (Mt 20:25-26).
NOTE: All of the paragraphs are numbered and this is the
82nd paragraph.
Regarding the use of animals in scientific experimentation:
|130. In the philosophical and theological vision of the human
|being and of creation which I have presented, it is clear that
|the human person, endowed with reason and knowledge,
|is not an external factor to be excluded. While human
|intervention on plants and animals is permissible when it
|pertains to the necessities of human life, the Catechism of the
|Catholic Church teaches that experimentation on animals
|is morally acceptable only “if it remains within reasonable
|limits [and] contributes to caring for or saving human lives”.[106]
|The Catechism firmly states that human power has limits
|and that “it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals
|to suffer or die needlessly”.[107] All such use and experimentation
|“requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation”.[108]
NOTE: Numbers in brackets refer to sources in the references
(yes, the letter has a reference list).
And one more point:
|150. Given the interrelationship between living space and
|human behaviour, those who design buildings, neighbourhoods,
|public spaces and cities, ought to draw on the various disciplines
|which help us to understand people’s thought processes, symbolic
|language and ways of acting. It is not enough to seek the beauty
|of design. More precious still is the service we offer to another
|kind of beauty: people’s quality of life, their adaptation to the
|environment, encounter and mutual assistance. Here too, we
|see how important it is that urban planning always take into
|consideration the views of those who will live in these areas.
I leave it to the interested reader to find other parts of the letter
that may be relevant to the teaching of psychology.
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
P.S. Freud's lectures at Clark U, I believe, was his only visit to the
U.S.,
so I do not believe he ever went to the Grand Canyon, any of our
national parks, or other similar natural wonders. However, Freud
arrived and departed the US from New York City (he traveled by
ship from/to Bremen; his departure from NYC to Bremen is
noted in the NY Times -- see:
"ON THE ATLANTIC HIGHWAY." New York Times (1857-1922):
9. Sep 21 1909. ProQuest. Web. 21 June 2015 . )
There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that while in NYC, Freud did
manage to take a trip out to Coney Island and visited Steeplechase
Park (see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steeplechase_Park ) where he rode
the steeplechase though falling off once. Freud allegedly had a
hot dog from one of the vendors on the boardwalk and was asked
about the symbolic significance of his eating a hot dog. He is
alleged to have said:
"Sometimes a frankfurter is only a frankfurter."
NOTE #1: Freud did not have a Nathan's Famous hot dog (of annual
Hot Dog competitive eating fame) because Nathan Handwerker
was still working for Charles Feltman's hot dog business. Handwerker
would open his hot dog restaurant in 1916 (the original location
is open and where the annual hot dog eating competition is held).
Handwerker showed his business acumen by selling his hot dogs
for 5 cents while Feltman was selling his for 10 cents.
NOTE #2: Given the questionable sources for some food, the local
health department had to post signs that there was no dog meat
in the red hots. This did not mean, however, the contents was
not otherwise questionable; see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dog
NOTE #3: According to the Wikipedia entry on Hot Dog, the longest
hot dog ever created was 60 meters or 197 feet long. It was made
by the Japanese in 2006. One wonders what Freud would have to
say about that. Overcompensation? ;-)
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=45502
or send a blank email to
leave-45502-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
