Mary wrote:
I thought some last night about this difference
between nature and culture. I think its really a matter of intent, and
CHOICE. "Nature", in whatever process we are talking about (geology,
biology, meteorology,etc), there are NO choices...physical laws
constrain all earth processes.
HUMANS have choice. Culture is choice--no physical laws dictate how a
group of humans must organize itself.
Phil responds:
As I see it this view of nature is basically that of scientific realism --
nature is out there, unchanging, governed by laws, independent of our wish
or whim, but knowable by scientific inquiry and manipulable given enough
scientific knowledge. While I agree with alot of Mary's views, I have to
take issue with this one, as a feminist (please indulge my long standing
belief that as a male I can still be a feminist, hopefully what comes off my
keyboard will provide sufficient confirmation, but if someone wants to go
into this on or off list, I'm game).
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. In fact I don't actually distinguish myself (in the deeper
sense of what I think I am) from any of these creatures, or even from the
chair, garden, gutter, backyard, etc. Mary, I'm a fairly rabid non-dualist;
so I'm easily concerned that you may have bought more deeply into the
culture of science that perhaps you really wanted or want to.. But you tell
me. This post is just for openers. Cheers...
ps
Philip T. Shepard, Professor
Lyman Briggs School
Michigan State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
