There are too many over-generalizations in your argument Jim T.

Ernst Cassirer states that all knowledge is metaphorical. We do not know the
'things in themselves' despite assurances from theologi(o)ns (cf. Heidegger
et al.). 

The original Greek meaning of metaphysics (first coined by commentators of
Aristotle) and metaphor have similar roots. Meta means after, (sometimes
alongside) and <phorein> means moving. Phora means body. Only bodies can
move since a void cannot. What give definition to bodies is movement.
Whatever is described as a metaphor is therefore what is meant by the
ancient Greeks <metaphorein> (sic). Which is analogous to a moving image,
concept, or idea communicated in language and in the understanding. 

The hard part is figuring out - actualy differentiating- between the
socially constructed definition of what is meant by the author Leopold and
what it is that he is 'signing'. The latin term 'environ' is really meant to
convey something about a 'surround' or an 'ambient' which is common to many
percepient individuals.

Leopold has been interpreted by contemporary ecologists. His primary thesis
essentially is a statement about some key feature of ecosystems (or
attributes regarding principles and causes). In particular he emphasizes the
resilience and integrity of ecosystems. I should here quote from Bella - an
American Social Forester- who provided a defintion of what may constitute a
social definition regarding what it means to make assertions about the
properties and functions of forests. 

Bella provides a social definition of the word forests which instills and
conveys an organizational attribute (social definition) of forests. He
provides that that the profession of forestry -when it is referred to by the
professionals employed in the art and science of forestry- is guided in
principle by goals and even notions of what the forest is to provide en toto
(not just utilitarian interests but more private interests). He is sure that
whenever forest ecologists in general describe forests and their purposes
that what stands as a defining quality about forests is what is contained or
expressed in any mandate that the organization may espouse and uphold. 

Therefore if the mandate of the organization is to manage an area for any
particular purpose or attribute, the primary feature of the mandate will be
collectively to espouse what is described in the mandate implicitly and
explicitly. So if for instance an area is designated as wilderness, then
that area will be managed as wilderness. The term wilderness will have
different definitions depending on who values the wilderness. 

Moreover if the definition of wilderness is really a social construction,
then at heart of the matter is what is meant by the definition of
wilderness. This is where the definition is said to be a 'social construct',
rather than a reality that is - or albeit existent objective feature of a
landscape- a self sufficient entity. There will be different definitions of
wilderness depending on the social group, and depending on the cultural
context. Despite what a wilderness truly is, the term wilderness will be a
social construction or referential term designated by a culture or society
for the moment, but it will not be something that is exhausted on that
definition. Unless there is a 'n'eant' qualifier in the term, there will be
no satisfactory defintion. It is functionally correct to ascribe on
attribute to wilderness which is a denotation (rather than connotative) of
the thing by saying that it lacks what is not wilderness, i.e. human impacts
of a certain kind. This means that wilderness lacks something in definition,
an <apophantic> being which is unknown but is known. 


Now if Leopold was alluding metaphorically to the general concept of an
ecosystem with the use of words like "mechanism" and "body" he was also
alluding to some metaphysical properties regarding nature. Body is itself
the metaphor for an ontological category that necessitates difference.
Difference is what constitutes the essential definition of matter that is
'informed' or if you will the beginning prior possibility of <kinesis> or
movement. One needs to be very cognizant of the fact that much of what
language conveys is about a general conceptual object that really is a
common or public image of what really is. When in the most reflective mood
of our free time we think of an ecosystem, then we as a human species are
thinking primarily about a body which can exist providing it exists only in
a vaccuum or void. The term ecosystem takes it's meaning from Ecce or
behold, that which one senses or perceives with the sense and the mind as
existing. So it is a term which is inclusive and exclusive at the same time
depending on contextual circumstances. When I say I was in that place, then
I mean that now I am excluded from that place, but depending on the
circumstance (standing around me) I many be in that ecosystem. 

The essential and intrinsic definition of a body necessitates the existence
of at least a vacuum or void. So conceptually when we refer to a body or a
part of a body we are also referring to some common object in nature, or in
some cases a function, or in some cases a organ. When Aldo writes that the
ecosystem conceptually is an organism, then he means that this conceptual
object in general has one intrinsic moment of being together. It also means
that the ecosystem as a concept also has other intrinsic moments of being.
Whether it is an intutive appreciation of being together, at one, or it is
inferred cognitively, it makes little difference when one is referring to an
ecosystem as a general object-concept. Animals perhaps are conscious only in
act-concept, but that may be false.  We are animals too so if we are capable
of 'animal values' and 'animal virtues' then we should know. And we
do...know... 

I am alluding of course to the thinking of Zubiri who believes that
organisms have -each on their own- an essential definition. That definition
is quite simple in most cases. He says for instance that the oak tree has a
series of intrinsic moments of beginning. That 'defintion' begins with the
oak seed, and culminates in the very old oak tree. This is a pure
phenomenological description of an entity which societies tend to refer to
when they see an oak tree.  

The issue of whether the oak tree is a Quercus rubra, or it is a Quercus
garryana is not that important to the definition of an ecosystem for the
general purposes of conveying in metaphorical terms what an Oak ecosystem is
really like. These two species do not overlap at all in their natural
ranges, and they do not share ecological amplitudes, even though because of
man they may coexist in city parks, et cetera. 

The defintion of an ecosystem 'turns' on the perception of the intrinsic
moment of each instance of the oak tree, or oak forest. So in fact the
language that Leopold was forced to use to describe a synusae of living
things was somewhat primitive and very poetic. Even so it is largely a
language that still is effective in conveying what he meant, and what we
contemporaries may experience in terms of a fully functioning oak ecosystem. 

In fact Leopold went to Germany in the 1930's and this is where he began to
develop his environmental philosophy and sense of environmental values
regarding forests. He was shocked by the simplicity of monocultural forests
there. In particular he wrote that wherever there were forests, these
forests were being managed for only two or three species: deer and spruce
and or beech (I believe). The high populations of deer caused the forest to
become depauperized of forbs and shrubs by browsing. In fact he said that in
order for the deer to survive they had to be fed with hay and other
agricultural crops. As a result of his 'shock' he began to philosophize
about the consequences of thinking in simply utilitarian terms re the
forests. He rejected the entire notion of modern game management which
emphasized the maximization of deer as a functional output of the forest. He
was obviously also astounded by his own experiences in New Mexico where he
effectively eliminated predators from the deer population there. His
professional conversion became complete in Germany when he witnessed the
virtual eradication of natural regeneration and understory plants in the
managed forests as a result of deer browsing. In fact he rejected the whole
social definition of modern sustained yield management. Thus we have today a
record, a deep and lasting record (an ecological logos) regarding the
consequences of game management which emphasized the maximization of outputs
of deer and trees for lumber. 

In the last few decades scientists now have empirical definitions of
'degradation' that can be verified by measurement and observation. Much of
this kind of knowledge is actually proving that Leopold was correct in his
generalizations about ecosystems. After all Leopold says it was not the deer
that benefitted from the eradication of predators at all, but not any
species. He cites soil erosion, species eradication, and other phenomenon
that occur after the game populations expand, and then collapse. The account
of Leopold is about as accurate today as it was when he observed the
declines in productivity. 

The root word for mechanism is <machinatio> which has a wealth of meanings.
Therefore it is really difficult to apply a negative dialectic to Leopold
for using the term which means primarily to 'support a mechanical view of
the universe' (F & W, page 1539, 1949). One could also infer that he meant
an explanation of how things work together as synusae or consortia. The
Greek root for mechanism is mechanikos. This signifier means that there is
an 'orderly' function to things that coexist and operate together. Kosmos
means order, and the modern definition of logic means 'follows' or what
follows from some anticedent. So in fact the ecological logos (an account of
nature) that Leopold provides is correct internally and within the cultural
domain of the time. What follows from overgrazing is depletion of the
resource that the graziers have valued, therefore another account is
required to 're-valuate' the prescription to eliminate predators. 

Enough....it is unfair to critize Leopold today unless we fully understood
what his own mileu. He still inspires many ecologists with his own
ecological logos and account, so I uphold his account and only add to rather
than detract....

chao,

John Foster



"You never know where fish will go."




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%