O.G.,
Many of my assumptions are based on Nicholas Humprey’s “A History of the Mind.” Nowhere do I indicate the nonexistence of an “I”. In organsims the I is the necessary intermediary between what is seen as this and what is seen as that. The intermediary becomes more articulate for us humans; but is basically the same for all organisms who must adapt to environments (that) using the potentials of their this or become extinct.
“This is that” is an oriental concept still not very recognizeable by Western minds. The concept could be our salvation from ourselves.
Compliments much appreciated. That’s funny, because when I ask questions in forums regarding logic I seem to get slapped with the dunce cap ( . . . politely, of course). Win some and lose some.
“Gaia Guerrilla” was something I carefully thought, but I didn’t think much of method. When I started it I had very different attitudes. I thought: “Destroy the empire! Smash the state. Only mother nature matters. Ted Kacinsky, Earth Liberation Front, Anarchoprimitivism rarara.” And thought general philosophy achieves nothing.
Now I consider that term to imply the encouragement of a new way which may respect individuality but ultimately implements life as a whole rather than by its parts . . . and to go against the invented grain to achieve it.
I shut up and do a job, but casually wink an eye at the ones which don’t always.
The funny thing about this “Gaia” concept is that it implies a curvature in our concepts more than a rigid line. Good can turn to bad and vice-versa. Life relies on death, order on chaos, etc. In that sense, nuclear reactors can be regarded as natural, missiles pointed at countries might later be used to save us from asteroid impact. People that hurt us may somehow teach us.
It cannot be an excuse for ambiguity. There’s still utility and bottom line. But it tells us that when things seem depressing, strange things are also bound to happen.
Ravencry4all suggests that ultimatum we often hear. That we need to start understanding the biosphere before we destroy ourselves wholly (partially intentional and partially accidental). In this sense I’m very much a pessimist and . . . post-optimist, I guess I could call it?
I’m starting to believe humanity is driven to destroy itself. But in its own destruction, may create an offspring of its race which is ellegant and sophisticated. Much the way the selfish gene theory suggests the gene doesn’t care about the organism. Maybe the design doesn’t think about the designer.
This is a pretty cool thread, Ierrelus. Posters here should write a book.
Thanks, Gaia,
Your posts are “cool” in themselves. Most of us can see the evolutionary and devolutionary parts of human nature. Science and technology may be neither Satan nor Savior. It all depends on how we use them. But our attitudes may shift from one to the other. These attitudes offer us hope or despair. I’m for hope, from an evolutionary POV wherein good things can happen. Our best, last hope is discovering our influence on biospheres. If that discovery is Gaia, I’m all for it.
It is of ultimate importance that we know where we were before considering where we are going.