sb wrote :


> Bissell here: That is what I got from the discussion of "oneness" on the
> list recently. It seemed to me that it was suggesting that all "life" was
> one continuous process in a methaphorical sense. Leopold's view was that
> "life" was more pragmatically biological.
> 
> And Chris added: Yeah, well, I love Leopold, but the world and knowledge has
> changed vastly
> since his time. Nature is under immense pressure, everywhere, and that
> pressure is going to increase beyond anything we have witnessed so far.
> We need to draw upon all possible sources of ideas.
> The notion of 'oneness', as derived from mystics and philosophers, may
> be metaphysical to you. But the notion of oneness can also be derived
> from science. The hard-headed physicists say, roughly, that every
> particle in the Universe 'knows' about every other particle, and has
> done since the Big Bang.
> You can chop reality, or the environment, up, into discrete units if you
> want, but it is an arbitrary procedure, and does not accord with 'truth'
> whether that be derived from mystics and philosophers, or scientists,
> in my opinion.
> 
> Bissell responds; As to the "hard science" of "oneness," that is one of
> those interesting debates in evolution. Recently there have been some
> interesting suggestions based on deep benthic organisms that "life" had
> multiple, unconnected, origins on Earth. Darwin's view was that all "life"
> came from one source; a small, warm pond, he poetically suggested.  However,
> the degree of "tightness" of the interconnection is an on-going debate in
> ecology. Most American ecologists suggest tight, long food-chains and a high
> degree of interdependence. The exception being the "Tallahassee Mafia" at
> Florida State who suggest that ecological relationships are primarily
> stochastic, and not based on long term co-evolution. Many European and
> Australian ecologists also believe that food chains are mostly short and
> that ecosystems are only loosely bound.

Chris replied:

Mmm. I'm aware of the different schools of thought, though probably not as 
well informed as you are, Steve.But I think this is irrelevant to my argument. 
>From my viewpoint, the whole Universe is just 'one big warm pond'.
We chop it up into physics, biology, chemistry, then we chop biology up into
evolution, cladistics, ecology,etc, all in a reductionist quest for understanding.
Fair enough. That's what we need to do. Take the thing to pieces, label each part,
try and figure out how the bits work together and inter-relate. Trouble is, we 
forget that we did that. 
It's like breaking down a study of the human body to the cells, bacteria, 
all the subsystems of kidneys, gut, pancreas, etc, and forgetting that the
complete walking talking human is the emergent property that really counts.
And they don't come as discrete units,eithr, they've all got parents, friends,
neighbours, a social matrix in which they are embedded,and without the 
phytoplankton and trees, there'd be no air for them to breath.

It's the level of description and explanation thing. It would be absurd to define
human health from what goes on in a few mitochondria or toenails. Likewise,
it is absurd to try and refine a general ethical principle for the environment
based on, say, only your deep benthic organisms.
Another analogy might be with the law in a country. You begin from an overview,
a concept that the country is a unity, and the law will be apply to all the citizens
contained therein. But we all know, that where the national boundary gets drawn 
is pretty arbitrary. 

It wouldn't make any difference to my argument, if life had evolved several times
independently, and/ or been seeded from outer space. There is no 'outer space',
there is no external foreign outside. It's all one. There is no 'there'. It's all 'here'.
As we know, many cellular components in our own bodies were very likely at one 
time autonomous independent organisms. Now they are fully incorporated into our
structure. we can pencil in our conceptual circles to delineate and isolate areas of
interest. But these are maps in our heads, not the ultimate reality.

> IMO the view that ecosystems are tightly bound and all life is one is a
> metaphysical view, not an ecological one. I'll admit that the difference is
> probably semantic, and I have associates who blanch when I suggest that
> their views are based on cosmological issues, not dirt bound ecology. But
> then I have economist friends (although I don't want my daughter dating
> them) who get excited when I suggest they are really moral philosophers, not
> "hard" scientists.

Chris replied :

Hee, hee. Yeh, those economists. Would you buy a used car from an economist ?
I've nothing against dirt bound ecology. Love it. But what you're looking at, is
the 'ecology' of the heart, lungs, skin, tongue, and what I'm trying to say, is that
you have to stand back and look at the creature in toto, the whole organism,
and then, maybe, things get a bit clearer. 
 
> Suzanne further explained in response to Bissell: My intent was not to draw
> a parallel between native american perspectives and
> Leopold but to acknowledge Leopold's contribution to the evolution of
> environmental ethics. (As you read his writings you get a glimpse of his
> evolving thought processes.  His thoughts went beyond ecological concepts
> and
> science.)  And then to question why western culture has such difficulty with
> the internalization of the concept of oneness?  (I understand the historical
> european and judeo-christian influences).
> 
> Bissell says: I, respectfully, still disagree. I know Leopold's thinking
> about ecology changed over time, that is of course the point of Susan
> Flader's excellent biography, but he remained fully commited to a scientific
> view. His work is the *foundation* of ecology and probably as important as
> his views on conservation and environmental ethics. Take _A Sand County
> Almanac_ for example. Many people mistakenly believe that it is a series of
> independent essays. Actually it is one complete idea. The first part is a
> month by month lesson in basic ecology, it allows you to see the context of
> the rest of the book. The point, again IMO, is that Leopold's ethic is based
> on evolutionary/ecological principles (the so called "naturalistic fallacy")
> and not on metaphysical analysis. By the way, I don't have any issue with
> metaphysical analysis, or faith for that matter, they are all ways of
> getting at "Truth" with a capital "T", but they are different ways.

Yeah, but that's the point, Steve. 'Truth' arrived at via science, and 'Truth'
arrived at via mysticism, converge and tell you the same thing. It's the 
same Truth, just that one group of folk have walked towards it from the
east, the other from the west. 
 
> Finally, (did I hear a sigh of relief?) Leopold's view and ecology in
> general is very much a "western" view. By the way, aren't Native Americans
> "western"?, as in the wild west and all that (just joking :-)  ). The
> "eastern" view of all life being one is, as I understand it, a metaphysical
> view which has to do with the transmigration of souls, not ecological
> relationships. Could be wrong I suppose, but I see these as very different
> interpretations of interconnectedness, and the implications are very
> different. The western/ecological view is that respect for life has
> implications for survival of society, the eastern/metaphysical view is that
> respect for life has implications for the fate of your soul.

Yup, IMHO you is wrong :-)
 
> Anyway, just my thoughts,

Thanks for them.

Chris.
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~chrislees/tao.index.html



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