Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: In reality false religions have a better description by the word: superstitions---in nuanced 'mastery' usage of English language. True religions are great, especially when we have insiders experiences of a plurality of them.

Expand Messages
  • iyo.farm@ymail.com
    ... Well, please go ahead and publish them and allow others to decide what I might have said or not ... but don t attempt to prejudice people against me on the
    Message 1 of 7 , Sep 8, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, Jason Stewart <macropneuma@...> wrote:

      > Re: Me -- All falsehoods and dissembling the onus of proof---proofs i have recorded.Leave very well alone, all.

      Well, please go ahead and publish them and allow others to decide what I might have said or not ... but don't attempt to prejudice people against me on the basis of surmises.

      As others have agreed that the current Wikipedia topic on Masanobu Fukuoka is an easier introduction for newcomers, I'll trust their judgement.

      (... and please stick to simple written English. It is very difficult to understand what you are actually saying much of the time).
    • Jason Stewart
      Negativity of the same negativity meanings from your outset more than a year ago.They are of course already published by you. There s no fudging that just
      Message 2 of 7 , Sep 8, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Negativity of the same negativity meanings from your outset more than a year ago.They are of course already published by you. There's no fudging that just because everyone else can't bothered in a million years with looking up such recorded/published negative garbage.Leave 'anonymous' very well alone, all.

        --- On Sat, 8/9/12, iyo.farm@... <iyo.farm@...> wrote:

        From: iyo.farm@... <iyo.farm@...>
        Subject: [fukuoka_farming] Re: In reality false religions have a better description by the word: superstitions---in nuanced 'mastery' usage of English language. True religions are great, especially when we have insiders experiences of a plurality of them.
        To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, 8 September, 2012, 7:35 PM



        Well, please go ahead and publish them and allow others to decide what I might have said or not ... but don't attempt to prejudice people against me on the basis of surmises.



        As others have agreed that the current Wikipedia topic on Masanobu Fukuoka is an easier introduction for newcomers, I'll trust their judgement.



        (... and please stick to simple written English. It is very difficult to understand what you are actually saying much of the time).



























        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jason Stewart
        i know english well enough and know my own words well enough, to know the difference between the words anonymity and privacy .I not confused nor worried at
        Message 3 of 7 , Sep 8, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          i know english well enough and know my own words well enough, to know the difference between the words "anonymity" and "privacy".I not confused nor worried at all, no matter how much you've confused and troubled yourself in words published for all readers to see, if any of us could ever be bothered.
          Leave 'anonymous' very well alone---don't be at all bothered---, all.
          --- On Sat, 8/9/12, iyo.farm@... <iyo.farm@...> wrote:

          From: iyo.farm@... <iyo.farm@...>
          Subject: [fukuoka_farming] Re: In reality false religions have a better description by the word: superstitions---in nuanced 'mastery' usage of English language. True religions are great, especially when we have insiders experiences of a plurality of them.
          To: fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Saturday, 8 September, 2012, 7:12 PM
















           









          ...anonymity... 

















          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jason Stewart
          Quotation: ... Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute. ... COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS: This data file is the sole property of the
          Message 4 of 7 , Sep 11, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Quotation: "
            ----------------------------------------------------------------
            Copyright 1994 by the Christian Research Institute.
            ----------------------------------------------------------------
            COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
            This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research
            Institute. It may not be altered or edited in any way. It may
            be reproduced only in its entirety for circulation as "freeware,"
            without charge. All reproductions of this data file must contain
            the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by the Christian
            Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without the
            permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
            enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its
            content with the exception of a few brief quotations not to
            exceed more than 500 words.

            If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file
            for resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale,
            please give the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by the
            Christian Research Institute, P.O. Box 500-TC, San Juan
            Capistrano, CA 92693.
            -----------------------------------------------------------------

            "Book Reviews" (a column from the Christian Research Journal,
            Spring 1992, page 36) by Elliot Miller and Paul Carden.
            The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
            Elliot Miller.
            -------------

            *A Summary Critique*

            *Toward a Transpersonal Ecology: Developing New Foundations for
            Environmentalism*
            Warwick Fox
            (Shambala, 1990)

            In this election year many Americans are hearing for the first
            time about "Green politics" (also known as New Age politics), as
            Green Party candidates seek office in numerous local elections. The
            same phenomenon swept much of Western Europe in the 1980s, and now
            the Greens are well represented in the national legislatures of
            several countries, including Germany.

            Green politics has a distinctive ecological and spiritual
            orientation based in an environmental philosophy called "deep
            ecology." _Toward a Transpersonal Ecology_ -- whose author, Warwick
            Fox, is a National Research Fellow at the Centre for Environmental
            Studies, University of Tasmania -- is the best introduction to deep
            ecology in print.

            In 1962 Rachel Carson's _Silent Spring,_ a book about the
            pollution of the environment, launched the modern-day environmental
            movement. The movement accelerated with the 1972 publication of the
            Club of Rome's _The Limits to Growth._ Then, in the mid 1970s, the
            discipline of environmental philosophy/ethics (or _ecophilosophy_)
            began to flourish. Even today, however, "ecophilosophy is still
            very much a marginal rather than a mainstream pursuit in
            contemporary academic philosophy" (p. 9).

            In the early 1970s eminent Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess
            began classifying ecophilosophers as either "shallow" or "deep."
            This typology was one of many then used to describe the difference
            between an anthropocentric (man-centered) and ecocentric
            (environment-centered) approach to ecology. In the early 1980s it
            rose to prominence becoming the main way ecophilosophers are
            classified.

            Shallow ecology is environmental protection which does not
            arise from a new way of thinking about man's relation to the
            environment. Deep ecologists cite the philosophy of humanism and
            the animal liberation movement as examples of shallow ecology (66).

            Deep ecology differs from mainstream New Age thinking in its
            rejection of humanism, blaming anthropocentrism for virtually all
            of our environmental woes.

            Anthropocentrism is described by deep ecologists as both
            chauvinism and imperialism, only -- unlike other expressions of
            these evils -- it is rarely noticed. Even when concerns about
            environmental abuse are raised, arguments are couched in terms of
            preserving _human_ resources rather than preserving nature for its
            own sake or for its value to _nonhuman_ beings. "Thus, even many of
            those who deal most directly with environmental issues continue to
            perpetuate, however unwittingly, the arrogant assumption that we
            humans are central to the cosmic drama; that, essentially, the
            world is made for us. John Seed...writes: 'The idea that humans are
            the crown of creation, the source of all value, the measure of all
            things is deeply embedded in our culture and consciousness'" (11).

            What about the biblical view that _God,_ not _man,_ is the
            source of all value? "From a nonanthropocentric perspective,
            personalistic kinds of theocentrism, such as the dominant form of
            Christianity where humans are made in the image of a god to whom
            they have a privileged personal relationship, are in any case
            simply anthropocentric _projections_ upon the cosmos" (9).

            The anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches have been
            classified as _instrumental_ and _intrinsic_ value theories,
            respectively. According to instrumental value theory, humans "are
            valuable in and of themselves but...the nonhuman world is valuable
            only insofar as it is of value _to_ humans" (149). Thus, nature's
            value is _only_ as a means or _instrument_ to human ends. According
            to intrinsic value theory, at least some aspects or members of the
            nonhuman world are valuable in and of themselves.

            Fox describes three instrumental value theory approaches: (1)
            _unrestrained exploitation and expansionism_ values transforming
            nature without concern for depleting resources for future
            generations; (2) _resource conservation and development_ also
            values transforming the nonhuman world, but recognizes the
            limitations of resources; (3) _resource preservation_ stresses the
            _instrumental_ value of nature to humans if some of it is left
            untransformed.

            The author then details five intrinsic value theory approaches:
            (1) _ethical sentientism_ proposes that intrinsic value belongs to
            any creature possessing _sentience:_ the capacity for sense
            perception; (2) _life-based ethics_ holds that because all living
            entities (sentient or not) are continually engaged in
            self-regeneration, they should be considered ends in themselves and
            not mere means to ends; (3 and 4) _ecosystem ethics_ and _ecosphere
            ethics_ maintain that local ecosystems and the planetary ecosphere
            (sometimes called "Gaia") are in a sense living systems and thus
            have intrinsic value; (5) _cosmic purpose ethics_ finds value in
            nonhuman entities by virtue of their being expressive of some
            _cosmic_ interest (e.g., evolution or the nature or purposes of
            God).

            Although deep ecology is aligned with the interests of
            intrinsic value theory approaches, there is much ambiguity and
            confusion over whether all ecocentric approaches should be
            classified as deep ecology. This is because the term has been used
            in three distinct and differing senses.

            In his original and _formal_ use of _deep_ in deep ecology,
            Naess refers "to the idea that deep ecological views, in contrast
            to shallow ecological views, are derived from _fundamental_
            valuations and hypotheses that are arrived at by a process of
            asking progressively deeper questions" (126). He prefers to reserve
            the term deep for "primarily the level of questioning, not the
            content of the answer" (102). Naess, Fox observes, makes the
            mistake of _assuming_ that anyone who develops an ecophilosophy
            from fundamentals will arrive at an ecocentric view. But Fox
            demonstrates how a fundamentalist Christian or an evolutionist
            could derive a logically consistent anthropocentric environmental
            philosophy from their own fundamentals. Thus, Naess's formal sense
            of deep ecology cannot really be limited to the philosophical and
            popular expressions that are associated with that term.

            As Naess applied his formal definition by developing his own
            personal deep ecology, the _philosophical_ sense of the term was
            born. For Naess, _the_ fundamental value is "Self-realization."
            Naess's greatest philosophical inspirations have been the Dutch
            philosopher Baruch Spinoza, the Indian political reformer Mahatma
            Gandhi, and Buddhist psychology. From the pantheist (i.e.,
            believing God is all) Spinoza, Naess derived the idea that the
            driving force of creation is Self-realization or identification of
            the finite part with the infinite Whole (i.e., God). From Gandhi he
            concluded that this goal is best achieved through service of the
            world rather than abandonment of it. And from Buddhism he adopted
            a view of the self as process rather than substantial entity. Fox
            summarizes Naess's philosophical sense of deep ecology as follows:
            "Naess's fundamental...norm of 'Self-realization!' refers to the
            this-worldly realization of as expansive a sense of self as
            possible in a world in which selves and things-in-the-world are
            conceived as processes" (113-14). Thus, serving the needs of the
            physical world (environmental action) can facilitate one's personal
            growth.

            Naess's _popular_ sense of deep ecology refers to the
            ecological views shared by those who (in his view) engage in deep
            (questioning) ecology. Naess and deep ecologist George Sessions
            developed an eight-point platform characterizing the basic
            principles of the movement. These stress the intrinsic value of all
            life on earth; the value of humans preserving the richness and
            diversity of life forms (the only exception would be in serving
            _vital_ human needs); the environmental importance of decreasing
            human population; the need for radical change in policies affecting
            economic, ideological, and technological structures; and the
            importance of valuing life quality over increasingly higher
            standards of living.

            To correct the ambiguity brought by these conflicting uses of
            deep ecology, Fox prefers the term _ecocentric ecology movement_
            for Naess's popular sense of deep ecology. People who hold these
            principles are not actually limited to Naess's movement but include
            all who take a nonanthropocentric approach to ecological issues. He
            also proposes a change of name for that sense of the term which he
            considers most significant -- the philosophical: "Since this
            approach is one that involves the realization of a sense of self
            that extends beyond (or that is _trans-_) one's egoic,
            biographical, or personal sense of self, the clearest, most
            accurate, and most informative term for this sense of deep ecology
            is, in my view, _transpersonal ecology"_ (197).

            Those familiar with recent trends in psychology will recognize
            that Fox has employed a term used to describe a pantheistic or
            panentheistic (all is in God) offshoot of humanistic psychology:
            _transpersonal psychology._ Fox affirms that the above manner of
            defining _transpersonal_ (i.e., "beyond" one's personal sense of
            self) is exactly the meaning the originators of transpersonal
            psychology (Abraham Maslow, Stanislav Graf, and Anthony Sutich) had
            in mind. He observes: "The fact that the term _transpersonal_
            derives from recent work in psychology is appropriate since Naess's
            philosophical sense of deep ecology obviously refers to a
            psychologically based approach to the question of our relationship
            with the rest of nature as opposed to an axiologically based (i.e.,
            a value theory based) approach" (196).

            Fox hinges his argument for a psychological, rather than value
            theory-based, approach to ecophilosophy on an acceptance of the
            tripartite model of the human self found in many schools of
            psychology (e.g., the _id, superego,_ and _ego_ in Freudian
            analysis). The author himself prefers the terms _desiring-impulsive
            self_ (i.e., id), _normative-judgmental self_ (i.e., superego), and
            _rationalizing-deciding self_ (i.e., ego).

            According to this model, the will of each individual is
            represented by the _rationalizing-deciding self,_ who must
            continually arbitrate between the competing demands of the
            self-centered, irresponsible, unrealistic _desiring-impulsive self_
            and the idealistic, self-judging, at times also unrealistic
            _normative-judgmental self._ He argues that each of these selves
            fits one or more of the value theories described above: the
            _desiring-impulsive self_ corresponds to the unrestrained
            exploitation and expansionism approach. The _rationalizing-deciding
            self_ is expressed in the resource conservation and development and
            resource preservation approaches (i.e., they are seeking to find a
            compromise between ideals and desires). And the
            _normative-judgmental self_ is found in all intrinsic value
            approaches.

            The "bottom line" of Fox's analogy is this: despite their
            laudable goals, intrinsic value theory approaches are unrealistic.
            No one is all _normative-judgmental self._ The _desiring-impulsive
            self_ will make its demands, the _rationalizing-deciding self_ will
            find compromises between the two, and the environment will suffer
            as a result. In a word, human nature is too _selfish_ to live
            consistently with intrinsic value theories.

            What hope is there then for the environment? This is where deep
            ecologists believe they have the answer. Fox argues that
            "transpersonal ecology emphasizes a fundamentally different kind of
            self to those... in the...tripartite model of the psyche. This is
            because, whatever their qualitative differences, the
            desiring-impulsive self, the rationalizing-deciding self, and the
            normative-judgmental self all refer to a narrow, atomistic, or
            particle-like conception of self whereas the transpersonal self
            refers to a wide, expansive, or field-like conception of self"
            (215).

            Transpersonal ecology, suggests Fox, transcends this basic
            human dilemma caused by selfish desires competing with the demands
            of conscience. Moral demands, he tells us,

            are directed to and thereby reinforce the primary reality
            of the narrow, atomistic, or particle-like sense of self.
            In contrast...the transpersonal ecology conception of
            self is a wide, expansive, or field-like conception from
            the outset. This has the highly interesting, even
            startling, consequence that ethics (conceived as being
            concerned with moral "oughts") is rendered superfluous!
            The reason for this is that if one has a wide, expansive,
            or field-like sense of self then...one will naturally
            (i.e., spontaneously) protect the natural (spontaneous)
            unfolding of this expansive self (the ecosphere, the
            cosmos) in all its aspects. (217)

            He then quotes Naess: "Just as we need no morals to make us
            breathe...[so] if your 'self' in the wide sense embraces another
            being, you need no moral exhortation to show care...." (_Ibid._).
            Elsewhere Naess comments: "Maturity in humans can be measured along
            a scale from selfishness to Selfishness, that is, broadening and
            deepening the self, rather than measures of dutiful altruism"
            (220-21).

            Fox describes three ways of achieving this sense of
            identification: _personal_ (brought about through involvement with
            the entities with which one identifies); _ontological_ (brought
            about through mystical realization of the _fact_ of existence); and
            _cosmological_ (brought about through a deep-seated realization
            that all entities are aspects of a single, unfolding reality).

            A book could be written in reply to the issues Fox raises for
            evangelical Christians. Here, I can only address a few key points.

            We must ask where Christians belong in the
            anthropocentric/ecocentric and instrumental value/intrinsic value
            debates. Although many Christians have thought of nature merely in
            instrumental terms, Scripture actually provides a firm basis for
            its intrinsic value. In Genesis 1 we find that when God completed
            various aspects of His creative work He "saw that [they were]
            good," _even before man was there to enjoy them_ (vv. 10, 12, 18,
            21, 25). Since He pronounced all of His creation "very good" (v.
            31), all of nature has intrinsic value. We must avoid an either-or
            mentality, for there is _both_ instrumental _and_ intrinsic value
            in all of nature. God had man in mind when He created the world
            (Gen. 2), but ultimately He created it for Himself (Col. 1:16).

            Biblically the answer lies neither with an anthropocentric nor
            an ecocentric approach. What is needed is a _theocentric_ view that
            allows for value in all things created by God _because_ they were
            created by God, yet also allows for special value in man because he
            is created in the image of God, who is the Ultimate Value (_see,_
            e.g., Matt. 10:29, 31, where the sparrow has intrinsic value, but
            man has greater value).

            In dismissing the claim that man is created in the image of God
            as a mere anthropocentric projection on the universe, deep
            ecologists are making a critical mistake: they are failing to
            seriously investigate the possibility that this doctrine is rather
            the result of divine revelation. For had they carefully considered
            the evidence for biblical claims, they would have to acknowledge
            that such a position is at least tenable.

            The deep ecologists' critique of anthropocentrism must be
            evaluated carefully. There are aspects of it that a Christian can
            applaud. Certainly, the humanistic _over_valuing of man that says
            we are "the source of all value, the measure of all things" (11) is
            the antithesis of the biblical view. On the other hand, the
            biblical world view protects against a dangerous _under_valuing of
            man. For it is only "arrogance" to say humans are "central to the
            cosmic drama" and "the crown of creation" if in fact we are not so.

            Fox equates the belief that humans are morally superior to
            other animals with "the relentless exploitation of the nonhuman
            world by humans" (22). But this does not follow _if_ man's
            "dominion" over the world is to be one of benign stewardship, not
            relentless exploitation (on this, _see_ my book, _A Crash Course on
            the New Age Movement_ [Baker Book House, 1989], 85-86).

            While Fox makes clear the consequences for the _environment_ of
            an anthropocentric approach, he does not adequately consider the
            consequences for _humanity_ of a strictly ecocentric approach. Is
            it wrong, for example, to inject chimpanzees with the AIDS virus in
            the hopes of finding a cure for the epidemic? To be consistent, an
            ecocentric philosopher would have to say _yes._ But his (or her)
            answer might very well change if he or someone he loves contracts
            the disease. And this is not just a matter of one species being
            true to its own kind. We instinctively know (at least when we are
            forced to choose between humans and nonhumans) that a human life is
            of greater worth than other kinds of animal life.

            The Bible provides both a basis for utter humility and a basis
            for extraordinary worth to human beings. It provides a basis for
            man's using creation's resources, but also for setting healthy
            limits to that use. Both are essential if we are to forge and
            maintain a humane world in the twenty-first century.

            Finally, we must consider Fox's proposal of a psychological
            approach to environmental concern rather than a value-based
            approach. It must first be acknowledged that there is value in
            cultivating awareness of how the individual participates in wider
            natural processes. But, though such identification can promote
            environmental sensitivity, _it cannot relieve the need for ethics._

            Fox would eliminate the whole issue of moral responsibility by
            expanding the boundaries of self, but human selfishness cannot be
            expanded until it becomes unselfishness. This is just the wishful
            thinking of pantheists. It is impossible to define morality away:
            man always lives with "oughts"; it is part of his constitution.

            For example, deep ecologist John Livingston first states that
            "ethics and morals are unknown in nature," that they are
            "prosthetic devices" invented by our species, that "the notion of
            rights as applied to interspecies affairs is probably a blind
            alley," and that what we need instead is an "extended
            consciousness which transcends mere self." But he immediately goes
            on to say: "I see this extended sense of belonging as a fundamental
            biological (and thus human) _imperative. I think the thwarting of
            such an imperative is in some absolute sense wrong"_ (228, emphasis
            added).

            It must be conceded that if the pantheistic world view were
            true, identification would be superior to morality. But the very
            fact that identification cannot be practiced consistently in place
            of morality is a proof that the pantheistic world view is _not_
            true.

            Morality is a factor that gives _meaning_ and _dignity_ to
            man's existence. It must be faced squarely and its demands met. To
            define it out of existence is to _depersonalize_ (not
            "transpersonalize") man -- to reduce him to something less than he
            actually is. Replacing morality with identification is simply
            cosmic narcissism in which true, other-oriented love (the highest
            attainment possible to man, modeled and taught by Christ [John
            13:34-35; 15:13]) becomes a lost possibility. What is really needed
            in environmental ethics, then, as in all spheres of ethics, is the
            dynamic power of truly selfless love for God and all His "good"
            works -- a power made available (as such saints as Francis of
            Assisi have demonstrated) through a vital Christian faith.

            -- _Elliot Miller_

            -------------

            *Dead Air*
            Bob Larson
            (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991)
            ...[snipped]...
            "
            see:
            http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0102a.html
            also
            http://www.tulane.edu/~michaelz/Contest_of_Transpersonal_E.html
            http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/zimmerman4x.html


            I read both this Fox, Warwick (1990) book about 20 years ago and nearly as many years ago these real and imperfect but real good critiques (imperfect: eg. those uses of the words pantheistic or panentheistic are wrong, pathetic 'reductionistic', tendentiousness, priggishness. Many major religions 'best' expressions, which in fact incorporate this "psychological identification", amongst much more, cannot be reduced to these mono-thinking--reductions mischaracterisations--- in other words an exclusive-mono-thinking bigotry imperfection masking their denial of being impressed by the alive cosmos---how can anyone but very silly deny it from respect---it's the cosmos stupid! whatever context you look at it from and whatever shallow or depth perspective. Any genuine respect requires respecting plurality of (multiple not mono) context positions, values positions, ... The rest rocks. Fox sucks in his narcissism, just as much as Fox rightly criticises false pseudo Christians who ego-manically project their egos onto the cosmos and call that looking in the mirror image God, as appalling narcissists. Plurality has never lost and always already has won victory without any fight, presently, since billions of years ago and into billions of years future. Cosmos is the nature of the word nature (natura -- Latin) equally is the meaning of the word Physis (--Greek) from which it is the latin translation) .

            With sorrow and real compassion remembering all the victims of 9/11.

            Mr. Jason Stewart

            On 08/09/2012, at 6:38 PM, Jason Stewart wrote:
            ...

            > "We shall continue to have a worsening ecologic crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man. . - . Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not. We must rethink and refeel our destiny.‎"
            > a quotation of this below book, which itself quotes this writing from Lynn White's paper published in the international journal "Science" 10 March 1967---see the full quotation of that paper further below;
            > --page 6
            > of: Fox, Warwick (1990). Toward a Transpersonal Ecology: Developing New Foundations for Environmentalism.
            > Boston and London: Shambhala Publications. ISBN 9780791427750.
            > → http://books.google.com.au/books?id=05gK9U5c3ywC
            > (Author website → http://www.warwickfox.com/)

            ...



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.