MAJOR DOCUMENT
Dear John McClelland, dear participants in the Seminar:
This mesasge is in response to the Author's closing statement, and also a
farewell with thanks for an enriching conversation. I would alo like to
invite those of you who would like to, to join a puiblic formu we are
opening tight now as
Deep-sustainability@csf.colorad.edu
I send the details of the invitation at the end of this message. Welcome to
those of you who will want to deal with the issue of our common future alone
lines which will not always be easy, but which may be rewarding,
individually and colelctively.
First a general impression. I never was part of a discussion (eletronic or
not), whihc aslted so long, was so itnese and so devoid of disputes,
acrimony, or attempts by participants that their position was the only one
to be correct, and that those who thought differently were stupid.
Therefore, thank you for an exceptional experience.
I have not particiapted as much as I would have wished, but my few inputs
summed up all I think about the nondualist ecology: it is not necesary to be
animated by a faith of any type in any divinity of metaphysical philosophy
to accept the nondualism of ecology. Hopwever, i see it differently from
what I undersatnd was the initial position of John. Dualism places homo
sapiens (or supersapiens as I sometimes name our species with some
derision), as separate and superior to all other species and central to the
organization of things. Nondulaism places homo sp. as a "pars inter alia"
(part among others) of the universe, submitted to the same laws and risks.
The ide of technobia and the inclusion of technology in the forms of life is
not acceptable to me, because, as I said it in other places, technology will
not and cannot survive the extinction of our civilization. I also make a
clear separation between the processes the mind, spiritual, mental or
affective, and ecology as a science dealing with the liveability of the
collective habitat of all living species.
They are not separable, but they are as different as the tradesman and his
or her tools.
This is a general response to John McClelland closing statement made two
days ago. I want to provide a few comments on some of his propositions:
John says:<<Anger does not lead to the kind of purification we look for from it.
Anger, when it is based on the kind of self-deception and false view that
usually surrounds it, only drags one further into the bitterness we would
free ourselves from.>>
I agree fully with this. I would like to add that anger is a reaction of a
hurt ego, and that if we start considering our self as a part of a much
wider context in whihc teh ideal accomplishment is continuation of life for
all, udner decent conditrions of wellbeing, anger ceases to have a reason to
exist.
John says:
>It is the path of compassionate understanding that liberates and soothes
>the wounds that we have given each other.
Well, there is some sense of superioirty in the person who shows compassion
toward another. I would take away "compassionate" and replace it by "full
and unconditional" understanding.
>
>About "Civilization and Technology", I would strongly recommend the reading
in depth of Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, already recommended in this seminar.
It is good and a nice way to discover and think about waht we are doing now...
John says:
>*Of Control versus Respect*
>Anyway, to my mind the critical shift in attitude was this, the Single
>Idea: We humans, with our cooperative social structures and foundation
>technologies can take control over natural systems, over animals and
>plants, over rivers and meadows, over other humans even, and reshape them
>to our own immediate and longterm benefit. They thought this tremendous,
>revolutionary thought, and then organized themselves in order to
>accomplish it.....
I respond: and we failed. like the sorcerer's apprentice. What we need to do
now, it to learn to belong in Nature, not to own it.. We never really owned
it. Let's wake up and look at reality the way it is...
>*Of Nondual Ecology Today*
I responded already to John and to many others on this point.
When John says:*Of the Discussion List*
>I feel that I have failed enormously in my attempt to communicate these
>ideas. Many people grasp the concept immediately, as a native and
>intuitive self-recognition of what to them is already obvious. The
>challenge has been to try to present the idea to others, to clear minds
>and good hearts who have not quite arrived at this perspective on their
>own.
I do not think that John has failed to communicate his message. What
happened is that several of us (me included) did not agree with his view of
the world and ecology in particular. This did not prevent a full and
friendly conversation. Therefore, I consider the discussion group a success.
I learned a lot, many of us did, and perhaps, John learned a lot too..
>*Of the Future, like Next Week*
In addition to John's proposal, I renew my inviation to
Deep-Susatinability., and here is the invitation:
DEEP-SUSTAINABILITY
This CSF forum is a challenge to people worried by the conflict between
human activities and nature's resilience and the apparent ineffectiveness
and complications in official reaction.
Much has been said and written on the theme, and various meanings given to
the word "sustainability." Most everything now is labeled sustainable,
without a reality check on the word. Yet, the non-sustainability of human
endeavour may cause the highest threat ever on our common future.
Deep-Sustainability will be a constructive conversation on the theme, with
the idea of understanding its root causes, then of dealing with it in
concrete, practical and effective ways. "Engineering" the move to deep
sustainability may require changes to society and to our vision of ourselves
and of the world, but these changes need not be sacrifices to our qualify of
life. On the contrary, they may be enriching in many ways. The challenge now
is to become mature as a species and a civilization. This is the reason why
we are asking people to join an action-oriented conversation toward future
safety and security.
A personal will to face the issue and a commitment to simplicity are keys to
success in the process. The issues are simple, but resolving them may be
difficult. Therefore simplicity is crucial.
We invite you to join us and work constructively, positively, and in full
respect for one another to identify the problems and develop solutions in a
joint endeavour.
To succeed, we must avoid pre-conceived ideas, avoid unfounded statements
and respect one another, while innovating dynamically. Also, what will
distinguish Deep-sustainability from many discussion groups, is that it will
go beyond just examining worries about the future and sustainability. We
will focus on process, i.e., analysis, understanding of causes,
establishement of common understanding, and identification of possible paths
for action. We strongly discourage intellectual gamesmanship and
ideological sword-crossing. Attention to process and sincerity will be
required in a frutiful dialogue.
The list is moderated and those who trespass agreed upon rules will be taken
off the list by a moderation committee. Decisions can be appealed and may
be reversed.
The list has a Board of Editors:
1) BILL REES, Ph.D., Director, School of Regional and Community, University
of British Columbia. At the forefront of the issue of non-sustainability
for three decades, he is the "father" of the concept of Ecological Footprint.
2) LAURENT DOBUZINSKIS, Associate Professor, Political Science, Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby (B.C.) Canada. Laurent Dobuzinskis is a long time,
member of the NCFS (National Centre for Sustainability).
3) YVES BAJARD, D.Sc., Secretary and Founding Member, National Centre for
Sustainability, already mentioned above. In most of his professional life,
which took him to many development schemes around the world, Yves Bajard
focused on a search for ways to reduce the risks, endemic in most
decision-making, which created a threat to nature and society.
The initial moderators will be Yves Bajard and Laurent Dobuzinskis. The
moderating committee is to be augmented to four persons, and subscribers are
welcome to join the team. We'll make sure that the process of moderation
aims only at keeping the conversation on topic, at making sure that
statements made are founded and can be referenced to sources, and at making
sure also that there are no personal attacks or foul, insulting language on
the list. There will be no censorship within the framework of operation
spelled out above.
To subscribe to Deep-Sustainability, please send the message
subscribe deep-sustainability Yourfirstname Yourlastname
We look forward to seeing you there, and thank you for a good fiw days with
the seminar on nondual ecology.
Yves Bajard
National Centre for Sustainability
For an insight into what we are doing, consult our Homepage at URL:
http://www.islandnet.com/~ncfs/ncfs/homemenu.htm
Mail address: 1 - 800 Gorge Road West, Victoria B.C. Canada V9A 1N9
Telephone (250) 480 5016 Fax: (250) 480 5261 e-mail: ncfs@islandnet.com