NOTICE: Those responding to this message should respond directly to David
Pearson's home email (see above) and he can summarize the results and post a
single message to all. This will mean only one message on this topic in your
Inbox, rather than a whole bunch to all of us.
Thanks, Ted M.
-------------------
Dear David Pearson & others:
This is a test to see whether what I am writing here and also in the new test
paragraph (below) of this post gets garbled up - just like my latest one on "The
Ethics of Order in Nature." When David was monitoring the messages, they were
all garbled by some glitch at <[log in to unmask]>. The puzzle is that the
first one I sent *after* David stopped monitoring the messages turned out OKbut
the most recent was garbled. Am sending a cc of this email to my other email
address and also directly to David Pearson's home email. I have a couple of
posts drafted and will hold off sending until the results of this test are on
the screen. Hoping this problem gets solved in the next day or two....
The problem may possibly be at my end, and if that is a possibility I would
appreciate it if someone knowledgeable on these things could suggest what the
problem might be. I use the mail system in Netscape Navigator 4.7 . Does the
width of the "composition window" have some bearing on whether a message gets
garbled or not?? Looking forward to hearing from you David. With thanks.
Ted Mosquin
Ignore these four lines:
> lkslskslsks lalalla
> o0emsmna
> [;alkajkaj
> poeppeookk
In addition to the above, here is the test paragraph (between these 2 horizontal
lines)
_________________________
p;lkj;lkd;j s;kf;lk; ;l'lskl;'k' k[poekop[ [po[i [pkljlk lkj kl;llk ;lkj
;lkj;lkjs r=-0oi-w0joij0 =-0oij [okj ij[oopkj ;'lknmkl,z. /,mvb'[po;pklv
p\pop[lkjtlkjlk 'jkl;1;lkj;lk2j3lk; kl5jk jk;j;k l ;lljk;poljkl;jlk lk'lakj;l
;alk;j l l. jjploe lkm kk;lk;lkj nk d. l;okj aqpoi[preou[ lw;kj iokjp[okjjo
orepoponploikui4plnml;lkp;lknmmvmpzplujh we[pokj w oij m w[oijpoij4 pwoij
[oijin owipp pwoij -43opiuoiu-009284- 5092743-059 8026298-34905m 2=-904u5
2-24oiu 098-01n 987098798`798798976`` `LKJA0E9 APKJE A EY80 API APIEIJH
AUS0IUIUHO AP9IUHE A09UIE ALIEKJH A0J A0IUYE AO0IUEH 38 48901Y560 K OJ i
I suppose that this provides suffienct text for the test. Is the above
garbled, or "normal.?"
___________________________
Now here is what my last message looked like (this is a snip from the whole
thing)
"Ted here again:
Well, good for statisticians! What interests me is not pure randomness, but
complex systems
that repeatedly produce order -- such as the Ecosphere
(system) has done for over 3.5 billion years, and in a necessary earlier form
(according to
some - ever since the moment of the Big Bang). Of
course, in the case of the Earth's Ecosphere the process of complexification has
been grossly
interrupted (smashed) particularly by 3 or 4 huge
asteroids which wiped out the emerging ecosystems and a lot of lines of
evolution completely.
But the astounding thing is that the "Gaian system"
(the Ecosphere) started right up there with what was left and once again began
to create an
ordered, and ever more complex Nature. While the
creation of order in Nature, no doubt involves some random phenomena (mutation,
selection,
etc.), something of far greater significance was going on
-- ever more order was arising out of a complex, dynamic system.
It seems to me that a ligitimate question in enviroethics is whether the actions
of humans are
heterotelic or homeotelic to the complexifying
ecospheric system which produced us - because this should help govern our
ethical thinking and
conduct. Heterotelic refers to abnormal or
misdirected behaviour which, though it may, partly at least, satisfy the
requirements of the
individual, does not satisfy those of the larger systems
of which it is a part - i.e. the Gaian hierarchy as a whole. Such behaviour
therefore reduces
stability and integrity of the Gaian system. Or, in
contrast, the behaviour and actions can be homeotelic - normal behaviour that
serves to
maintain the critical order of the whole Gaian hierarchy.
Thus, to behave ethically to the Earth's environment, humans would have to
promote stability
rather than do things which destablize and impoverish
planetary ecosystems. Here, Maria Stella's comment (right at the top of this
post) on
prescribed burning of forests is very relevant - but it is only
one tiny example. More graphic (and serious) examples of heterotelic behaviour
of humans would
be clearcutting, mega-trawling, industrial
agricultural practices, the generation of anti-environmentalism hate literature,
mega-pollution, and all the other huge kinds of destruction of the
Earth's evolved, ordered system that are taking place (driven by a massive
overpopulation of
humans). With a small (normal) population, I believe
that humans too could once again behave in a homeotelic manner (as have many
smaller-scale
cultures in the past), but while retaining "ecologically
friendly" technologies ( see <http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/RoTechEcol.htm>).
This is a
topic for another time.
[The complete definitions and full discussion of homeotelic and heterotelic
behaviour are found
in the excellent book by Edward Goldsmith "The Way:
An Ecological World View." U. of Georgia Press, Athens (1998), 541 pp. (which I
read last
spring while sitting on a stump making maple syrup in the
woods of Lanark County, where I live].
______________________________
Ted
--
Ted & Linda Mosquin, Lanark, Ontario K0G 1K0, Canada
http://www.ecospherics.net (literature on ecocentric/ecospheric ethics)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
