>I'm trying to find the reference to Ouspensky in SCA. In doing so I've found
>a couple other references, but I'll wait on those for my ideas to come
>together.
>
>In _Thinking Like a Mountain_ Susan Flader footnotes the first page in part;
>
>. . . ."Leopold used the expression 'thinking like a mountain' to
>characterize objective or ecological thinking; it should not be viewed as
>personification." (pg 1, fn 1)

I think there are two things to keep distinct and separate in this
discussion.  One is what we think Leopold *intended* by the phrase,
and the other is how the phrase actually is *used* (and potentially
can be used) by others.  Literary criticism of the past 20-30 years
should at least make us slightly cautious about our ability to know
what Leopold's authorial intent was, regardless of Flader's confident
interpretation.  At any rate I do not take it that Leopold
interpretation is what the main thrust of this conversation has been
about.  My concern has been the fact that the phrase IS so easily
personified, for better or worse.  If as Tony remarks in a different
email, "all values are anthropo-", then I don't see what is gained
through the employment of the "think like a mountain" device.  On the
contrary, I see great potential for its misuse and
misinterpretation--for a truly radical non-anthropocentric
mountain-minded value system would seem to license just about any
action taken with regard to the environment.  So even if "the
metaphor helps us see beyond mindless development," I just don't
think that we need "the metaphor" to be able to do this.  Better to
confront mindless development head on without a lot of eco-babble
about thinking mountains.

Steve remarks elsewhere that "This nihilist side of deep ecology is
not (IMO) derived from anything Leopold ever said."  That's fine and
good, but history is chock full of examples of bad things done in the
name of good people--another reason why it is important to keep the
two strands mentioned above separate.  Leopold may be a saint on the
order of Christ, Buddha, and Mohammed, but sometimes people acting as
"Christians," "Buddhists," and "Mohammedans" are capable of all sorts
of mischief, even evil.  I assume that "Leopoldians" are likely no
different, making this a subject worthy of enviroethics critique.  At
the risk of reviving ancient ecoterrorism debates, I'll just say that
plenty of EarthFirst!ers and Earth Liberation Fronters seem to find
plenty of inspiration in Leopold.  In other words, many radical
environmentalists *do* see inspiration in Leopold's quasi-mysticism,
and contrary to Steve's statement above, I believe it is highly
likely that certain nihilist deep ecologists derive inspiration from
Leopold . . .  a fact that is entirely independent of whatever it is
anyone thinks Leopold intended by his writing.

On this latter topic (of Leopold's intent), however, I agree with
Steve, that Leopold was simply trying to put modern scientific
ecological insights into interesting, readable prose for a lay
readership.  In some ways, the more interesting inspiration for
Leopold's popular writing is not Ouspensky but rather Thoreau.  If
I'm not mistaken, I seem to recall that Leopold took an entire set of
Thoreau's journals--14 volumes--on his honeymoon.  Now if that
doesn't qualify Leopold as a hopeless romantic, I don't know what
would.    :-)

Jim T.

p.s. on the philosopher in SCA, here's a snippet from the web that
may help, although I don't recall a direct quote in the 'Land Ethic':
"2. Aldo Leopold and the "Land Ethic." Wrote monograph in 1920's,
after working on wolf extermination in mountains of New Mexico,
quoting from PD Ouspensky's Tertium Organum as to the character and
rights of living systems. This work eventually ended up as final
section of Sand Co. Almanac on the "Land Ethic" -- our ethical
responsibilities to the entire living system and the earth. This
provided the starting point for what is known today as the
Environmental Ethics movement."  from
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/bags/Talks/0009lindh.html




>
>I think this is more or less my point. Leopold was trying to convey complex
>ecological/evolutionary messages is a popular format. In _Game Management_
>he bemoaned several times that ecology was so complex that it was difficult
>to get a point across easily. He might have been making it up, but an old
>professor of mine told me that Leopold had called ecology "the most complex
>game in the world." I find that a bit frivolous, but it gets a sort of point
>across. The chapter on Predator Control in GM ends pretty much that way.
>Leopold says that species inter-relations are so complex that a prudent
>course of action in management was usually called for. A sentiment he echoed
>later by saying that in intelligent tinkerer did not throw away parts.
>
>I'm still on the track of "the philosopher" in SCA, anyone care to help?
>
>Steven
>
>Even errors must be respected
>when they are more than
>two thousand years old.
>                  Sangharakshita