Hi Anne!
If you skim to the bottom of this message, you'll find the
comment to which I refer in my response to you which is being sent
privately so as not to potentially embarrass you in public. What you
say about natives is not quite accurate. It is however the very
prevalent view regarding them which is apparently based on a current
"politically correct" feeling that the old ways were better
especially when they were practiced by non-Western cultures.
My research has revealed a lot of material on ancient native
culture and practices, and certainly their spiritual approach to life
was very holistic and sensitive to the interconnections ..., However,
that did not prevent them from often doing decidedly unecological
things. The big difference was that they had such small numbers and
were relatively nomadic and so they didn't have the devastating
impact on nature that Western industrialization has. I think I'll
write a bit more about this in a general way in a little while.
Thanks for your contributions to the debate. We agree on many
points. See you on the 'net.
Roxanne
> Date sent: Fri, 23 Sep 1994 15:51:52 -0600
> Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: anne jordan dashiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: The Spirituality Debate
> whew doug...thats quite a leap of your "logic" you use when you interpret
> what roxanne was saying this way:
>
> > it reduces life to an interaction between the individual mind/imagination
> > and nature, with society disappearing from the picture.
>
> having a spiritual base in my life HELPS me see and feel the
> interconnections of all people and animals and life. that is society.. i
> think the major reason our "society' is so sick is that we have forgotten
> and been forced to forget our connections and our roots...
>
> > That disappearance of society is one thing that makes me nervous about
> > spirituality. Another is that it slides very easily into the irrational
> > and the anti-rational. Now certainly there are limitations to and dangers
> > of rationality. But I prefer the Frankfurt school critique of the
> > distortions of rationality - that it has become an instrument for the
> > accumulation of power and wealth rather than a critical, evaluative
> > agency.
>
> but see, the reasons for my personal distaste for "rationality" in our
> relationships to nature are precisely centered on the function of
> rationality as a critical, evaluative agency. i dont think there is no
> place for rationality..but i think it has a minor role in our
> relationship to nature. and that doesnt mean we shouldnt use rational
> critical techniques for decision making concerning the way society should
> relate to nature (technology, science) but i think it means that a
> spiritual relationship to nature (more than just admiring a landscape for
> its asthetics) must underlie all rational attempts to make society work
> smoothly.
>
> a problem seems to be that many of the "materialists" dont see how any
> spiritual connections to nature can be used to implement policy or
> transform industry into sustainable capitalistic enterprises.
>
> what i cant help but "argue" is that without the spiritual base, any of
> the things we talk about here are futile, and band-aid solutions. and
> capitalism as far as i can see a dead-end system. and really i dont put
> much stock in socialism either...cuz no matter what economic organization
> we use, if the human beings using them are detatched from nature were
> gonna use them foolishly. economic systems have been oppressive to most
> involve since at least the dawn of yaweh..if not way way before. but not
> always!! did native americans or africans destroy their ecology before
> europeans colonized them? NO! cuz people who are in tune with nature know
> that what we do to nature we do to ourselves!!
>
> okay enuf ranting!
> ;) anne
>
