Day 3: Word Eco, a Fox, and a Daughter

"Transpersonal ecologists claim that ecology, and modern science in general, provide a 

compelling account of our interconnectedness with the world."

-Warwick Fox, Toward a Transpersonal Ecology

Day 3  

We spent a pleasant time at the beach discussing Warwick Fox and Mary Bateson.  Both conversations were quite interesting but before getting into them I need to resolve the definition of the Latin root "eco-", which rolls around these essays like a great wave building power and transforming as it moves from author to author.  

Eco- is a French word derived from the earlier Latin or Greek word "oeco" or "oikos" respectively.  Originally meaning "house or household", how did this root evolve into its more modern meaning of "being related to ecology or the environment?"   That I have not found yet but I did find some related material on the history of ecology. 

While ecology as a science emerges at the professional level in the middle of the last century, the practice of ecology, or the study of the environment, is much older.  In his study of scientific history, Francis Ramalay, suggests that Aristotle may have been one of the earliest ecologists.  I am sure many different cultures can find important historical figures who wrote or thought about elements that are now considered many of the fundamental cornerstones of this discipline.  Important figures that come to my mind include St. Francis of Assisi, Lineus, Darwin, Chief Sitting Bull, and Chief Seattle here in the Pacific Northwest.  It seems that the concept behind the root eco- predates the actual word itself.  

Warwick Fox

For me Warwick Fox was a dense article and I appreciated Scott's summary of it (which greatly helped me link Warwick's three selves with Frued's).   What struck me personally about this article was his consistent reference to the concepts developed by Naess.  Scott's free association activity around the words "freedom, potential, and nature" was also illuminating for me as he took it a step further and asked us to try and write down a description of our own ecological self.  I cam up with this:

"The SELF should become the WE and the WE should become the we as we are only specks in a larger system that ultimately transcends and evolves beyond us or we."

Where did this come from?   Hmmm....I have been thinking about it for a while in relation to Fox's fear of anthropocentrism and I believe this statement boils down to the following.  The systems that Capra and Naess are talking about are much more complicated than we as a single species can comprehend.   Yes, we have extensive abstract reasoning and inquiry based skills at our disposal for exploring these concepts but in my opinion we will never fully understand the nonlinear and dynamic nature of our universe because it is nonlinear and dynamic.  It is changing and evolving in ways that continue to elude us.  

That does not mean we will never successfully establish a sustainable relationship within this complex system.  No, by our very survival through evolutionary time to the point where we can designate ourselves as a species within the context of Lineus proves our success in this point and time of this dynamic evolutionary system.  However, variable can change causing less favorable outcomes for our species as well.  

I would modify what Naess and Capra are saying about our SELF (or "we" as I like to call it) and state that they are correct in challenging us to see the connections with all other elements (nonhuman life and the Gaia itself) of the universal system.  Where I would differ is in our role in it.  Though we may be some of the more self conscious nodes within this system, if it were the hemispheres of a larger brain we would be merely spots on either the right or left hemispheres (Which hemisphere?  That is another discussion.).  We are not even near the portion of this brain that maintains the essential control for life or our existence.  And outside the theoretical brain of course is the universal body and on and on.... 

I would focus on us as a species and explore why we have been so successful.  This perspective would be anthropocentric in nature...but...ultimately because we understand our environment only through the sensory input we receive from our limited senses.  I completely concur with Naess however that we should be concerned about the "intrinsic value" of other lifeforms and environments.  However, I agree for a different reason.

The fossil record and the science of paleontology tell us time and time again that species rise...live for a while and go extinct.  Most species last no more than 2,000,000 years though there are extraordinary exceptions like stromatolites, the Ceolocanth, or sharks.  However, this is the exception rather than the rule.  Given the fact that we as a species within this system exist, we are obligated to follow its rules meaning that we will live for a while and go extinct.  

We should be concerned about our impact on various elements of this system that directly relate to our evolutionary success and ability to survive.  The reason why we should be concerned is that by changing or eliminating key elements in our ecosphere (keystone species and loss of biodiversity) alters the combination of variables that support our current success as a species.  As a result, the axiom "do unto others as you would have them do onto you" holds true as the damage we do unto other lifeforms in our system ultimately reflects back upon ourselves.  It reflects back not only to the detriment of our world but quite possibly ourselves and our ability to thrive as a species or "we" within this system.  

Failure to act in a way that helps us thrive (protecting key variables of the system that support us) causes changes in the system which may force us in the struggle to merely survive and we know from the numerous species that we pushed into survival mode as endangered species, this is not a pleasant position to be in to say the least.  There is much more to this but I need to move on.

Bateson

I enjoyed how Anna incorporate the love activity into this discussion.  I chose four areas.  Three of which were commonly identify by other members of our discussion: family/friends, animals/pets, and nature.  The fourth was unique to me: bicycles.

I love bicycle!  As I stated in our discussion, bicycles mean freedom and exploration.  I discussed my first bicycle and how it took me everywhere I needed.  It took me to school, to the store to by candy, and to my friends house.  As I grew older my bike took me to college, to work, on vacations, and other expeditions (even when looking into UVIC).  The bike has always been a reliable source of transport and my bikes in many ways remind me of the horses we had when I was growing up on the ranch.  

What I loved about Bateson's article about her dialogue with her father was the relationship between love and wisdom as it related to the pursuit of science.  I can see how the experience of growing up from the horse age to the nuclear one influenced who he was and why he would urge caution in the pursuit of science.  It seems that he was writing about subjects other than science at the time of his most important writing but it is a compliment to him and his daughter that these arguments still hold traction in the electronic and biomedical age.  It would be interesting to hear his thoughts on these subjects if he were alive today.

"The problem is not to resist falling in love.  The problem is to fall in love and be the wiser thereby."

-Mary Bateson, Angel Fears