Steven, there are a lot of generalizations presented here about who is not
and who is an environmentalist. I don't wish to engage in another argument
about your inferences because for me it is a waste of my time...and all I
can say is that it was person's like Muir who took their own practical
intuition, and applied that intution to making an effort to protect
environments of spectacular beauty and so on. Muir founded the Sierra Club
to protect Yosemite, but failed to protect Hetch Hetchy. One day Hetch
Hetchy will be restored I hope. The same intuition regarding the uniqueness
and rarity of this paradigmatic individual lives  in all true
environmentalists living today. We are all unique persons and we as a rule
do not point our fingers and judge other environmentalists. If we did that
we would be defeating the goal of protecting and conserving environmental
quality. One thing I can say is that there is something numinous about my
feelings for nature and life that may not be as active in some persons that
regard Nature as 'standing reserve' and I do not take the simplistic
rational, nor humanistic-technological paradigm as the answer to all
problems. Where some persons see 'stocks' and 'flows', I see something
different, and in fact I can say that the terms here are lacking immensely
because the imagery of 'stocks and flows' requires conduits, and other
mechanistic terms of reference. The fact that consciousness is so saturated
with meaning and is the definition of the soul [psyche] means that all
sentient creatures are also capable of sympathy. Ancient eastern traditions
place primary importance in 'intuitive knowledge' or Chih and Dhyanna
[quetitude] as the means for which inner awareness of the self is unfolded;
this awareness also leads to an ethical practice, applied ethics, which
extends from the workplace to the deepest recesses of consciousness. This
awareness cannot even be measured, but is in essence what constitutes value
[practical intuition]. Dhyanna means repose, and without repose there can be
no sympathy, no great suspension [Teresa de Avila] and no love.

"...intuitive knowledge is pure self-consciousness through immediate,
direct, primitive penetration instead of by methods that are derivative,
inferential, or rational." [Chang Chung-yan, Creativity and Taoism: a study
of Chinese Philosophy, Art and Poetry]

I am not sure if it is possible to even generalize about environmentalists.
I can only speak about my self knowledge.  I don't care what you think about
them - although I hope there is an improvement -  because I know that my own
knowledge is secure about who I am. My credentials are sound. I have been
instrumental in the policy arena and have achieved good results, and rarely
have I and my contemporaries failed to make any progress. Certainly I can
speak for myself and can assure those on this list that if I had not been
involved directly in policy decisions the environment would have been worse
off.

I guess my intuition tells me that most of the banter, which is often
lighted hearted banter, is good banter. I pride myself in conveying
information from reputable sources, and sure if someone wishes to detract
from the essential facts, and engage in partisan rhetoric, that to is fine
up to a point. Wasting time engaging in arguments - to put it  lightly - is
futile I can agree, especially where there is distrust being conveyed;
however many points made by list members are relevant. One option that list
members have is to ignore the time wasters who continue ad infinitum any and
all opportunity to confuse, and humiliate, ultimately they may become
perpetually dis-advantaged in contributing sound comments. Even doing the
information searches to find out what is involved in the 'business ethics'
of green minded organizations is rewarding. Certainly the level of
discussion can be elevated beyond partisan rhetoric to where it is mutually
advantageous to 'like minded' individuals; we will proceed, regardless, on
this list until it is ruined....on this list if it survives.

As far as making counter claims about so and so or this and that
organization, this banter in the form of generalizations is all inferential,
derivative, etc. We need to look at the facts first, the solutions, and the
opportunities presented. We could actually alter this focus on cueing the
attention back toward the organizations that are making progress toward
sustainability, whether it is McCains, or 3M Corp. or Sierra Club. I am sure
that this engagement is to be expected, appropriate, and simply discussing
ad infinitum our own inferences about who is bad, is a fruitless venture.
Sure we can all suggest more suitable remedies for sustainability, but those
that are, truely, environmentalists are those of us who actually put into
practice some methods or recommendations that will benefit the environment,
communities and the economy. This banter that subverts the intention of well
meaning environmentalist will be ignored in part, or the list as it exists
will not serve the function that it exists for.

Being has one category and it is existence. To be is not to be on the run
all the time from scurrilous argumentation that goes nowhere. Chasing tails,
going in circles....is  a waste of time....

chao,

john foster