|>> || 1531360830421.jpg -(2007013B / 1.91MB, 1500x2121) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. |
Its cool, as if i (or anyone) possess this thread anyway.
>However, one thing I would ask, is human nature specific or unique to homo sapiens?Good point. I don't know at what point someone would consider human nature to be absent, or for that matter, present in earlier homo species. Are you suggesting biological evolution and/or a technologically augmented human?
>because of the dichotomy between the self and the environment human consciousness created by being self aware, we saw the environment as separate from ourselves and thus initially believed crazy things like we had the unlimited right to subjugate and control it.If you study early human history and pre-history or even look at existing human society's right now that are considered primitive from our late-modern perspective, many of those societies don't view the world as something to control with the right to subjugate it. Their mythologies and belief systems were often about being a part of the sum total world, not as some separate objective species apart from it.
Often the different societies' belief systems used the concepts of God(s) to characterize unexplainable phenomenon and posit their place in the world. Such as Coyote, the trickster, who figures predominantly in many First Nations tribes throughout North America. He is unpredictable and ambivalent, representing both good and bad, animals, humans, and gods, a characteristic of all these beings. "By testing and pushing the limits of behavior, he demonstrates and reinforces concepts of harmony and order for the Navajo."
In the Navajo's creation myth Coyote was responsible for their great flood, from pieces of his fur are made all coyotes, different colors for the four different directions, sometimes he's associated with meanness and uncontrollable sexual passion. He sanctifies Sun, Moon, corn and plants, insists on the mountains being given life, he gives names to Talking God and Calling God, two major Navajo deities, "and in his capacity as a wise philosopher is responsible for the ordering of what are now regarded by Navajos as proper and necessary life patterns, [...] such as crop growing[.]" So despite Coyote's trickster characteristics, the impression in the Navajo creation myths is much more of the Cultural Hero than the Trickster.
http://www3.brandonu.ca/cjns/7.2/cooper.pdf COYOTE IN NAVAJO RELIGION AND COSMOLOGY
The belief of having the right to subjugate nature often emerged with civilizations, monotheism, and the state, so its not necessarily a western attitude.
> The dissolution of the barrier between subject and object, self and environment, is a two-way street. We're the first part of the biosphere that is aware of the biosphere and is able to adapt to it, and it to us.This is anecdotal, and could be my imagination, but sometimes I've gotten that impression during hallucinogenic experiences.
>Consider how early life destroyed the ecosystem many times over through its unawareness of the constraints of the environment (for example, like when oxygen generating life nearly destroyed all life because DNA had not yet adapted to prevent oxidization.) Or animals overeating plant life in an area.
>Humanity no longer rules the environment, it becomes one with it, and it with us.Wont there always be a divide of self though? The physical separation of our skin from the environment and nothing more. Our unity with the world that we are a part of would then be a conceptual interconnectedness, a feeling of being a part of something more than our self. But as Stirner had put it, also a realization of our self as a unique object that may appear to possess other objects that are actually unique and their own.
Joseph Campbell, who studied myths, has some interesting insights about "Human Empathy & Interconnectedness" https://youtu.be/_CGb-p_0gvY
It is certainly a problem to see the environment as separate from ourselves and not something that as its affected, affects us, reciprocally. This theoretically comes from "this human-centered -- or 'anthropocentric' -- reduction of the being of nature to raw, moldable, inferior stuff that exists as if only to be on-call for human use. [Ecopsychologists] would reconceive nature along less narcissistic lines, as a sacred realm of intrinsic worth and as a world full of vital 'others' for the articulation of the human psyche. "
They see the problems of our alienation within human society as intrinsic to our alienation from nature. "If the psyche exists beyond the boundaries of the skin, then this makes it a social as well as an ecological phenomenon[.]"
Ecopsychology appears to be challenging ecological and psychological fields to push them towards radical and practical beliefs and solutions. Also to take social action inspired by ecopsychological theory. The author says that if "ecopsychology is to be a radical project then it must seek out the critical currents within psychology itself, not just ecology." (He explored deep ecology earlier before this quote and critisizes it for its view of the ecological crisis as a crisis of "character and culture." Saying that our character and culture has a social context, which the deep ecology movement has ignored.
Ecofeminism from another angle criticizes deep ecology because "the domination of nature cannot be satisfactorily understood unless viewed as a feminist issue, so is the connection between the man-centered or 'androcentric' exploitation of nature (regarded as feminine) and of women (regarded as natural). Many ecofeminists suggest that as a movement deep ecology is insufficiently sensitive to the complex ways in which naturism (domination of nature), sexism, racism, and classism interlock, and to the strategically central role that gender analysis could play in dismantling all of them."
I'll additionally point you towards this post for Ecopsychology's proposals to overcome society's generally apathetic malaise. >>209380