aha christina... :) finally i have unconvered the problem here... allow
me to explain....
"Now, to say that we are God, or for me to say that
>I am God not only sounds blasphemous, but a little preposterous as well.
>So I won't."
my tounge was largely in cheek (i hate that saying but i still use it) when
i wrote this.... as you may notice, i followed it with "but that's the
idea." basically it was an attempt at humor to first say that it would be
preposterous to say that i am (we are) god, but to then say that that is
indeed the case..... actually, i think that my thoughts are very much in
line with both deep ecology and ecofeminism.... and not to be critical of
you, but perhaps when one uses non-sexist language, they ought to be viewed
as not having a gender bias (unless there are other factors indicating such
a bias)..... again though, my facetiousness might not have been clear in
some parts of my post.....
bryan
-----Original Message-----
From: Christina Aus der Au <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, December 02, 1998 3:19 AM
Subject: sorry
>At 11:38 01.12.98 -0500, Bryan Hyden wrote:
>>>now THAT'S preposterous!
>>
>>not a very nice way to start a rebuttal christina... could you please
tell
>>WHY it is preposterous?
>
>I apologize, I certainly didn't mean to step in with clogs ... just wanted
>to take up your saying "Now, to say that we are God, or for me to say that
>I am God not only sounds blasphemous, but a little preposterous as well.
>So I won't."
>
>And I was referring to your interpretation of the creation story as
>pantheistic, that's what it's coming down to, isn't it? If there is
>something, theologians *do* agree on, then it is the idea of the Old
>Testament of God being the Great and not fully comprehensible Other.
>
>And this is what separates our understanding of "relational", too, I think.
>This concept of otherness, which makes our body not really a good example.
>I'd rather say: we integrate our perception of the universe into our
>nature, but there still is an *Other*, which goes beyond my perception.
>
>>please tell me in what way this is male, dominating, and imperialistic...
>>i did use the double gender when referring to God....
>
>Although I was happy to see that in the English language, using the double
>gender is much easier and much more common than in German, I don't think
>that this already guarantees that one is not "male, dominating, and
>imperialistic"
>;-) I'm not saying, you are, of course.
>I just remembered having read Jim Cheney:
>"Again, we see a false dichotomy at work: either we "respond to nature as a
>part of ourselves" or we treat it as a stranger or alien avaliable for
>exploitation" (...) There is a masculine soul in all this, a masculine soul
>hoping to overcome alienation but withou the radical, and feminist,
>transformation in self-concept that wourld make this possible."
>(Ecofeminism and Deep Ecology, Environmental Ethics 9/1987)
>
>or Ariel Kay Salleh:
>"The deep ecology movement is very much a spiritual search for people in a
>barren secular age; but how much of this quest for self-realization is
>driven by ego and will? (...) Men's ungrounded restless search for the
>alienated Other part of themselves has led to a society where not life
>itself, but "change", bigger and better, whiter than white, has become the
>consumptive end."
>(Deeper than Deep Ecology, Env. Eth. 6/1984)
>
>I'd really like to hear your thoughts on that, since I'm not yet quite sure
>what to make of it.
>
>Christina
>
>
>
>
>*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"
>
>Christina Aus der Au
>Institut fuer Sozialethik
>Zollikerstrasse 117
>8008 Zuerich
>
>phone: 01/634 85 14
>fax: 01/634 85 07
>
>http://www.unizh.ch/sozialethik
>
>"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*"*
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|