[EMAIL PROTECTED] proclaims:
|
|Jim Roper wrote:
|
|>By being poor I don't feel obligated to keep up
|>I equate with enjoying being poor. I have watched wealthy people, filthy
|>rich people, and they don't love life, nature, each other, or even
|>themselves (IMHO).
|
|I agree with the sentiment Jim expresses, only I wouldn't call it being poor.
|Being poor, to me, is not having enough to eat, not having adequate shelter,
|not being able to take care of one's children. What Jim is talking about, I
|think, is not allowing material possessions to interfere with one's spiritual
|nature. Material things are good, in moderation. There is nothing wrong per
|se with television: it can be very edifying and entertaining. Too much of it
Well, I hate to overdo it, but I DO think there is something wrong with
TV per se. It might be at times edifying and entertaining. However, I
owuld say that of the options it is the least desirable. Also, it is the
source of so much bullshit and propaganda that I find it abhorent. Even
shows about nature, put together for a mass audience, often are
misleading if not outright false. For kids to watch TV rather than do
anything else seems terrible. I cannot imagine a scenario in which there
is no better option to TV. but that is only my humble opinion...
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 22:13:06 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: Spirituality
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 00:16:07 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Jayne S
Docherty" at Nov 11, 94 07:59:03 am
Jayne S Docherty proclaims:
|
|The few responses posted have ranged from skeptical about spirituality to
|borderline hostile to the notion of spirituality (at least that is the
|way I "heard" them). Is there a reason for this? I would like to hear
|more.....
|
|Jayne
I hope I wasn't one of those that seemed hostile... I'm not. Merely
confused. I have no idea which, among the many usages of "spirituality"
anybody means, or whether it really means anything. So I guess I just
wonder what all the talk of an ambiguous "spirituality" is and what its
implicaitons are. Of course, I am a man, and in my own narrow existence
(I say this for humor, since I am interjecting on ecofem) I have found
that women speak of spirituality very differently than me do. So, what
is it and what does it imply for ecofmenism?
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 22:19:17 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: What is poverty?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 00:22:15 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Jayne S
Docherty" at Nov 11, 94 05:47:12 am
|I would just point out that the letter forwarded by Jon Poppele
|about the economists who want to place a dollar value on the lives that
|will be lost due to global warming and think that the lives of the poor
|should be significantly discounted is a very clear statement of what it
|is to be *poor* as opposed to living simply. To be poor is to be
|disappeared by the power holders of society.
|
|Jayne
|
It just goes to show you who the economists believe they represent. To
me this is a lesson in that the things we read on the mainstream media
about politics, economy and environment are put there by people who have
a vested interest in the power structure as it now stands. Be it CNN,
NBC, or even at times NPR. So, read very carefully. Remember the old saw,
You can't believe half of what you see, and none of what you read...
With a grain of salt, of course.
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 22:25:37 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: post)election...
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 00:28:39 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Brian A. Luke" at Nov 11, 94
00:01:11 am
|more research on breast cancer. We know what causes cancer, we've
|known for decades. We need prevention, i.e., getting and keeping the
|pollutants out of the system. But, the government will continue to
|fund "further" research rather than work for prevention because (1)
|the government works for corporations, and corporations (A) cause
|cancer, and (B) sell treatments for cancer, so they have no serious
|interest in prevention; and (2) the government has its own historical
|interest in not focussing on prevention, namely its commitment to
|atomic weapons testing, which they knew all along caused cancer.
This also brings up an interesting problem vis a vis population. That
is, when a population is small, rare diseases are rare, and so do not
support an infrastructure of government and beaurocrats that can
administer the problem and make a niche for themselves. Concurrently,
when a population is small it does not place the demands that require
massive agroeconomics, and the addition of pollutants, chemicals, etc.
i.e. the causes of environmentally related diseases. Is it a problem
that to reduce population means reducing the base on which the
infruastructure rests that supports the cancer industry, the AMA
industry, and does this mean that governments have interests in seeing to
it that populations do NOT reduce?
What would the cancer industry do if they really found a cure? they
would all be out of work... I don't necessarily mean the researchers
themselves, who may often be interested in cures, but rather the higher
echelons, who merely manage...
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 22:32:57 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: Anarchy
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 00:35:58 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" at Nov
11, 94 08:41:17 pm
This kind of argument (that follows) is called teleological. That is, it
is sort of circular, and so not very informative. for example, to look
BACKWARDS on the evolutionary time scale, we see very definite patterns.
These would lead soem to think that it also means that if you were in the
past, you could look forward and see the same patterns. Patently not
so. But one can say that life is an organizing principle. The problem
is that life can be organized in an infinite variety of ways, many or
most of which do not appear superficially "orgnized." Evolution does not
work towards the future with a "plan" but rathere always works with
available variation AT ANY SPECIFIC moment in time. Bacteria are
organized, societies are organized. It does not mean that one level
means another level is inherent or inevitable.
|My own opinion (that it is not possible to prove) is that it is definately the
|former. It is my belief that life itself, in virtually all of its
|manifestations, contains a predilection to order at a very fundamental
|level...a level that far transcends any (relatively temporary) social or
|cultural order. In fact, forget humans for a moment, throw ten of virtually
|*any* species into a room togather for a week and (with a few expections in
|which most of the individuals would be killed by the dominant few) a good
|wildlife biologist would observe a number of different patterns and "social"
|organizations had formed. This predilection towards group order is, I believe,
|even more emphasized in those species with fewer inborn defenses...and humans,
In any event, this "nature" is NOT a moral agent. We must base our
judgements on what is right, NOT on what nature might do.
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 22:44:24 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: Anarchy
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 00:47:25 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> from "Swarr
Amanda Lock" at Nov 11, 94 08:40:08 pm
Swarr Amanda Lock proclaims:
|
|> > anarchy. I think a definition of terms is in order. Anarchy does not (in
|> > a literal sense) mean "no higherarchy," it means "no rules." It is the
|> > fundamental belief that no human being has any right to tell another
|> > human being what or what not to do.
|
|Okay, so to get back to the topic of this list, how does that tie into
|Ecofeminism? This sounds more like a traditional definition of social
|ecology to me...
This is the point of this list isn't it?
|How does the Ecofeminist usage of the term "patriarchy" as its
|primary "enemy" account for all of the oppressions listed above?
Okay, with little or no real "knowledge" to answer this question, I'll
use gut feeling.
Patriarchy, in this context, seems to imply "The System." That is, even
when Brian or I make comments, we as men have perspectives on the way the
system is that actually come from our interactions with the system as
men. Anarchy may in fact be a very male way of looking at things. As I
look at the system we ahve, I see the fact that it has been male
dominated for so long has left a legacy of many aspects that now are
considered "male." whether they are male or merely power oriented has
yet to be demonstrated. Women in power may end up in the same rut as
men, only time will tell. So, let's take the system as it stands, male
dominated. Patriarchical by definition. This system is our enemy. To
get at that enemy in a meaningful way means to assess what it directs us
to do against our will. For example, many obviously have problems with
the concept of "anarchy" because they think it means our world would fall
into chaos. Now is that because that is what anarchy means, or because
it is what teh dominant paradigm wants us to think? The latter, of
course. Because any real definition of anarchy means "government by the
people." Meaning, NOT by the politicians. So how does ecofemenism first,
dissect out the patricarchy bullshit (since it is so pervasive), and then
choose a better path? How do we get past our knee-jerk reactions to
terms like anarchy, which usally were foisted upon us by the patriarchy.
then, once past those knee-jerk reactions, how do we choose sensible
alternatives.
If I rambled, sorry. I occasionally do that when the devil alcohol has
loosed my tongue (fingers on the keyboard).
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 11 23:47:04 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 1994 23:49:26 MST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Anarchy
J. Roper wrote:
>This kind of argument (that follows) is called teleological. That is, it
>is sort of circular, and so not very informative.
With all due respect, that is not what "teleological" means...teleological
means `ends oriented'...i.e., as those who believe nature or human life (or
etc.) have an end or final design they are moving towards. Perhaps you mean
"tautological" which is the classical circular argument (as in proving "the
ocean is blue" by defining blue as "the color of the ocean").
In fact, my argument was neither.
>for example, to look
>BACKWARDS on the evolutionary time scale, we see very definite patterns.
>These would lead soem to think that it also means that if you were in the
>past, you could look forward and see the same patterns. Patently not
>so.
No, of course not, but I wasn't arguing that some *particular* pattern would
asire, only that *some* pattern of interaction *will* arise among any group of
beings from the same species placed in contact with one another.
>But one can say that life is an organizing principle. The problem
>is that life can be organized in an infinite variety of ways, many or
>most of which do not appear superficially "orgnized." Evolution does not
>work towards the future with a "plan" but rathere always works with
>available variation AT ANY SPECIFIC moment in time. Bacteria are
>organized, societies are organized. It does not mean that one level
>means another level is inherent or inevitable.
Well, I don't know about several of these points. Life as a whole certainly has
a wide variety of possible organizations, but interactions among various
members of the same species most certainly do not have an infinite number of
possible organizational patterns...all sorts of biological & perceptual
characteristics set substantial parameters on the organizational possibilities.
You state a distinct viewpoint about the non-*teleological* nature of
evolution...i.e., its not moving towards any end...I guess I'm not sure about
this. Certainly many, many mythologies, philosophies, religions and beef
systems from around the globe and across the reaches of recorded history would
disagree. I just don't think the human mind is anywhere near broad or deep
enough to arrive at any definite conclusion about this.
Finally, if by "superficially organized" you mean an organization that
appears as organization to normal waking awareness, I guess I would say that I
do believe human beings, on the whole, seek this...and seem to have sought it
throughout recorded history.
>In any event, this "nature" is NOT a moral agent. We must base our
>judgements on what is right, NOT on what nature might do.
Again, many would argue this...first thing that pops to mind is Aristotle's
ethics, which are grounded in the notion that all beings have a natural end to
which they strive, and that the "good" is defined as that which most
facilitates that end.
The statement also implies that we are somehow seperate from nature, as though
the "right" can be *opposed* to the natural. If anarchy must be *imposed* on
people who resist it, is it really any better than a fundamentalism of any
other sort?
w/ Love & Respect -JRC
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 08:34:08 MST 1994
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 94 10:35:52 EST
From: Natalie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: TV and Nature Shows
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Glad to see the list is picking up again (way to go Jayne!). Anyway, along the
television good or evil? thread, I heard someone recently refer to nature shows
as "eco-porn." What does everyone think of that?
Natalie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 10:10:20 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Roper)
Subject: Re: TV and Nature Shows
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 12:13:21 -0500 (EST)
Natalie proclaims:
|
|Glad to see the list is picking up again (way to go Jayne!). Anyway, along the
|television good or evil? thread, I heard someone recently refer to nature shows
|as "eco-porn." What does everyone think of that?
Well, let's see. The TV shows often misrepresent, the present pablum for
public consumption, these shows do NOT point fingers at the real causes
of destruction, since they are often on some kind of syndicated network,
they leave people thinking that nature can be found on a TV screen rather
than out the door and down the street. Which reminds me of an analogy.
I was in the forest in Panama, lush, green, wonderful. Another person
was being shown around and they said: "Wow, this is almost like
Disneyland!" When are metaphors are the man-made fakes "natures" and we
compare the real stuff to them, we are in trouble. So, people talk about
"nature" as something that you see on TV, not something that is really
meant to be part of lives, experienced by each of us.
Does that make it eco-porn?
--
Jim
____________________________________________________________________
James J. Roper | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Pennsylvania | Voice: (215)898-3100
Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | FAX: (215)898-8780
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 10:21:46 MST 1994
Sat, 12 Nov 94 12:24:30 GMT-5
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 12:24:17 EST
Subject: Re: Anarchy
> >From _The American Heritage Dictionary_:
>
> anarchy: 1) Absence of any form of political authority. 2) Political
> disorder and confusion. 3) Absence of any cohering principle, as a common
> standard or purpose. [From the Greek anarkhia: an-, without + arkhos, ruler]
>
My understanding of "anarchy" comes from reading self-identified
anarchist theorists and activists from the 19th and 20th centuries.
To them, it means opposing capitalism and the state, or more broadly,
all forms of hierarchical violence because of the oppressive nature
of such institutions. I would suggest that the dictionary definition
cited above is thoroughly skewed by the governmental propaganda
concerning what anarchy is about--especially definitions (2) and (3),
(which are in fact complete reversals of the meaning of anarchy) but
even definition (1).
> I am not trying to tell anyone what it is they believe in, I'm just
> trying to point out to you that the use or your terms is misleading. You
> have taken anarchy to mean something far more akin to populism. It does
> not mean this and you are most likely alienating people simpathetic to
> your cause (especially those on the right) by calling it anarchy.
>
> you who are calling yourselves Anarchists are promoting sentiments far
> more mainstream than you may realize. But if you call it anarchy and cry
> for the destruction of our government as we know it, you will endear
> yourselves to very few people. Call it Populism, and market it as
> empowerment, and bottom up control of commerce and government and you
> might well be able to sell the whole nation on it.
>
Yes, there is a serious problem in our understanding of anarchism
(it's often fallaciously equated with disorder and violence). But it
cannot be resolved by switching terminology. The reason is that ANY
term we choose to refer to a movement that fundamentally challenges
power structures such as capitalism and the state will inevitably be
smeared and distorted. This is what happened to the term "anarchy"
after the Haymarket fiasco in Chicago--the media went on an
all-out campaign to equate anarchism with bomb-throwing fanatics, an
association that has stuck. This is what would inevitably happen to
any movement, regardless of what it called itself, that challenges
the legitimacy of the state. So the struggle is not resolved by
picking new terms, but rather by challenging the power structure
itself--in this case, the government/corporate/mass media alliance
that continues to equate non-governmental organizing (anarchy) with
violence and chaos. We can do this by developing alternative media,
such as this network, and explaining what "anarchy," "radical
feminism," etc., really mean.
Brian
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 10:44:48 MST 1994
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 94 12:32:06 EST
From: natalie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: More on Nature Shows
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, Jim, I don't know if what you described "makes it ecoporn." Actually, I
think the person who said it was thinking more along the lines of how species-
ist we are and how it is okay to bring truckloads of cameras, video tape, tape
recorders and other "intrusive" devices out into the wild so we can all see
how zebras copulate! Until I heard this other viewpoint, I had never really
thought about it before. However, I do remember being little and watching
national geographic presentations of animals starving to death or being trapped
by human devices or other such ills and thinking to myself, "why don't those
camera people help the animals?"
I think something to think about, for me at least, is why do human beings feel
an insatiable need to "discover" everything that exists, to explain everything
that occurs, and to "understand" each minute detail of every thinkable thing?
It seems we cannot be satisfied just "knowing" something exists. Instead, we
do not rest until we have excrutiatingly documented every possible phenomena.
Thus, we perpetually invade the habitats and private space of other plants and
animals, sticking cameras in their faces, their nests and homes; we remove them
from their natural place to study them in our scientific laboratories -- all in
the name of understanding. But then, the "knowledge" that we gain is only a
knowledge that we ourselves have created. It is all constructed according to
what we think we understand. I guess my bottom line is why must we be so
invasive? Has anything really changed because we know the migration patterns
of Penguins or examined the stomach contents of Northern Pike or have docu-
mented how many eggs a Red Cockaded Woodpecker lies? Not really, in my
opinion. Now, I know the first argument will be that if we know these things
we can better protect these creatures. My response would be that we know
enough right now to cease the *human-caused* extinction of any living thing.
Stop encroaching on habitat, quit dumping and emitting toxins, and don't alter
one food chain level without expecting an effect on all the others. This would
only occur if we regained, or some would say gained period, a high level of
respect for organisms other than the human one. And this, of course, is not
going to happen under a profit-hungry capitalistic economic framework, blah,
blah, blah. But, it's a nice thought, anyway. There are alternatives, though,
many of which have been described on this list. I know the dangers of romanti-
cizing Native American cultures, but in my opinion from everything I have read,
seen, heard, and talked to people about, they did have an incredible respect
for all living things and for the Earth. They knew a lot of things about this
natural world without "sophisticated" scientific technology.
Well, now that I've gotten completely off my intended track, I will sign off.
By the way, if anyone knows why we have this incredible need to know everything
about everything, please let me know. It's driving me crazy. :)
Natalie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Nov 12 10:45:21 MST 1994
Sat, 12 Nov 94 12:48:18 GMT-5
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 1994 12:47:45 EST
Subject: anarchism and ecofeminism
> >
> > I don't understand anarchy this way. To me it means opposition to
> > hierarchical violence in all its forms (patriarchy, racism,
> > anthropocentrism, the state, capitalism, etc.).
>
>
> Okay, so to get back to the topic of this list, how does that tie into
> Ecofeminism? This sounds more like a traditional definition of social
> ecology to me...
>
Two ways:
(1) Ecofeminism relates power structures to each other, and in
particular sees the domination of animals and nature as intimately
linked to patriarchy. Since anarchists are nominally opposed to all
hierarchical power structures, but may not yet recognize the
domination of animals and nature as a political structure, they would
be natural allies once they are informed by the ecofeminist insights.
(This is in fact already happening. Feminism, animal liberation and
radical environmentalism are regular topics in anarchist
journals and at anarchist gatherings.) Conversely,
ecofeminists tend to be anti-hierarchical, but may have
lost some of the awareness of the essential oppressiveness of the
state that the earlier radical feminists had. So here's a place
where anarchist theory might be useful for ecofeminists.
(2) There is some suggestion that the state (the locus of anarchist
agitation) is inherently patriarchal. In fact, when we struggle to
abolish the state, we are struggling against one particularly
virulent development of patriarchy. I'm not in a position to
summarize this position, since I'm still working on fully
understanding it, but here are some references:
John Stoltenberg's essay "Disarmament and Masculinity" in his book
_Refusing to Be a Man_
Cynthia Enloe's books
Valerie Solanas' essay "SCUM Manifesto"
Sonia Johnson's work
Also Sarah Hoagland and Kathryn Pyne Addelson are relevant.
Here's a couple very provocative sections of Stoltenberg's essay:
"The war machine keeps father power in place. This is, at root, the
psychosexual function of militarism among fathers and sons: The
superfathers reinforce a cultural exaggeration of father power over
life (progenitation, done by penis) through maintaining the cultural
obscenity of father power over death (annihilation, done by weapons--
and sons as extensions of weapons/penises)."
"The stated reason for nuclear threat and counterthreat between the
supercocks is to preserve and protect the political alignment of
satellite nation-states. But the real reason is the need for global
allegiance to the existing political alignment of the sexes--and the
need for an irrefutable imperative for the maintenance of the sex-
class system. Imagine: the superfathers and supercocks of the world
locked in nuclear threat and counterthreat as an ultimate deterrent
to sex-class rebellion."
Brian
