And Hello to you Mauro Grun,

I don't know Clare Palmer's work.  I would greatly appreciate a citation for
the specific work you mention.

And I thank you for giving us your comments.  I hope you will continue to
engage in these discussions.

Sincerely,

Ray
-----
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mauro Grun" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: An alternative to Anthropocentrism?


Hello Ray,

Thank you for your comments. On What concerns the problems caused by an all
embracing holism (like the Ecozoic Era and some of its conclusions: I am
part of the ecosystem: therefore, I am), I think Clare Palmer has some
interesting thoughts to make. She says that some forms of embracing holism
like Deep Ecology (Naess and Fox) and Process Thinking (Whitehead) fail to
recognise the natural environmental as Other. She also observes that can
occur a kind of loss of identity because some forms of embracing holism
(like Deep Ecology and Process Thinking) fail to recognise difference."Where
one might see te extende self in Deep Ecology as proposing a Great Me which
encompasses the univerese, Process Thinking propose a multitude of tiny
"me's''which humanise and, by doing so, familiarise the universe'. I think
some of these thougths are applicable to the Ecozoic Era.

Regards,
Mauro Grün
The University of Caxias do Sul
Brazil






At 12:02 01/05/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Hello folks,
>
>I have been reading _The Universe Story: From the Primordial Flaring Forth
>to the Ecozoic Era_ by Brian Swimme & Thomas Berry; HarperColins paperback,
>1994;  ISBN 0-06-250835-0.
>
>It brings together so  much of the scientific literature, pieces of which I
>knew and had accepted.  But they put it in perspective as a systematic
>evolving whole.  And then they draw interesting conclusions about where we
>are now and what we must consider for our future situation.
>
>Beginning with the "Big Bang", they outline the story through the rise of
>life, of humans, of civilizations to the present conflict over the human
use
>(exploitation?) of earth.  They end with a discussion of what they call the
>"Ecozoic Era: the emerging period of life following the Cenozzoic, and
>characterized, at a basic level, by its mutually enhancing human-Earth
>relations...." (p. 280)
>
>You don't need to read the book to follow my comments, though I hope you
>will.
>
>We have mentioned "anthropocentrism"; they contrast that with
"biocentrism".
>Following is a paragraph addressing that contrast and raises a question for
>me.  I would like to get your views if I may.
>
>On page 250 in the concluding chapter, they say:
>
>".....it is clear that a mystique counter to the commercial-industrial
>mystique must be evoked if the Ecozoic era is to come into being.  The
>future can be described in terms of the tension between these two forces.
>If the dominant political-social issue of the twentieth century has been
>between the capitalist and the communist worlds, between democratic
freedoms
>and socialist responsibility, the dominant issue of the immediate future
>will clearly be the tension between the Entrepreneur and the Ecologist,
>between those who would continue their plundering, and those who would
truly
>preserve the natural world, between the mechanistic and the organic,
between
>the world as a collection of objects and the world as a communion of
>subjects, between the anthropocentric and the biocentric norms of reality
>and value."
>
>Following are my comments, questions.
>
>1.  "anthropocentric", taken to mean:
>
>a : considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe
>b : interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and
>experiences
>(from: Merriam-Webster)
>
>2.  "Biocentric" taken initially to be defined as:
>
> the view that all (and only?) living organisms have moral standing or
>intrinsic value. (adapted from:
>http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/ee/distinctions.html#taxonomy )
>
>My comment:
>I am not comfortable that the new world view be "biocentric";  I think it
is
>too exclusive.  It seems to me that we should be thinking "ecocentric", a
>concept that includes all life but also soil, air, water, climate, etc., a
>recognization of the total interdepence of all the  members of the
>ecosystem.
>
>3.  It seems to me that it is not possible for humans to be other than
>anthropocentric in the way they view the world.
>
>Of some relevance here is a paper maintaining that the several ways that
>people have constructed an environmental ethics is really founded in
>anthropocentrism contrary to
>arguments of some researchers.  A friend sent me the website:
>http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/pubs/anthropocentrism.html
>
>4.  If one accepts something along the above, including that humans can
only
>think in anthropocentric terms, what might be required to move toward an
>"ecocentric" world view?
>
>My present thinking:
>
>When one examines the arguments by Swimme and Berry it seems to me
>that "anthropocentrism" morphs into "ecocentrism" (their "biocentricism").
>That is to say that when one follows the "Universe Story", one begins to
>recognize that "interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human
values
>and
>experiences" really means that we have to be "ecocentric".
>
>In order to move toward "ecocentrism", it seems to me we first need to come
>to some understanding of the nature of "human".  For example, what/who is
>included in the concept "human", what is the context within which human
>exists, is there some "ideal" human toward which an individual might be
>expected to strive?
>
>Societies have changed/expanded the criteria/standing for membership from,
>for example, only white males with a minimum level of property ownership to
>include all white males, non-whites, females.
>
>Now, it seems to me, we need to restructure our way of thinking "human" to
>include the whole ecosystem.  That is, we need to think of the whole
>ecosystem as being an essential part of "human"; that the essense of being
>human is a unity with ecosystem.  For example, we need to think of human
>health as being intricately and inseparately  bound into the ecosystem
>health.  ("health" yet to be fully defined for me)
>
>I am part of the ecosystem: therefore, I am.
>
>Am I too far out in left field??
>
>Maybe some of you don't want to move to an ecocentric world view, don't
>think it matters?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Ray
>