@surfism Thank you for these comments which I will take some time to absorb, research and better understand so as to be able to reply properly to them. I appreciate the detailed listening and hope you are doing well today. More soon...Andrea
I am encouraged by Salami’s reference to ancestors (though not “past lives”) at 46:00, because this ‘inner’ connection is the root of human nature. The temptation to identify with nature is just a figment of the left-brain’s imagination, trying to make sense of the ineffable. Obviously, we are part of nature. However, we ought to identify with our (inner) ancestral nature, instead of our (outer) environmental nature, because grounding oneself in the ancestral spirit provides the individual with a deep sense of belonging, far beyond what can be achieved through identifying with ‘nature’. It is very compelling to ‘see yourself’ reflected in the natural world, but it's an illusion. We can still care for the natural world, but we ought not reject humanity, as is common among environmentalists. After all, the feelings directed at nature are ultimately derived from human compassion for each other, particularly children. Although identifying with nature is superficial, the associated virtue signalling does empower the individual, but it is a power drawn from the collective, instead of one's ancestors. Ironically, the wellspring of a resilient spirit is found in one's (deceased) ancestors, instead of one's (living) communities. We can gain satisfaction from serving the community, however we must not leverage the community for personal advantage. That is what's wrong with the collectivist mindset.
Thanks for this @surfism as I absorb it a quick question: Do you see inner and outer connection as mutually exclusive in some way? As a choice that must be made?
@@waymaking23 I think they are mutually exclusive from the perspective of the outer connection, but not the inner connection. This is because the outer connection is oblivious to the inner connection in the same way the left-brain is oblivious to the right-brain. According to Iain McGilchrist, the right-brain is more connected to the body. So, that might explain the greater sense of inner connection. We need to establish the inner connection before extending outward. Otherwise, we are dealing with the world, and ourselves, in abstraction.
@@surfism again, might there be a space holding these inner/outer or right/left distinctions? And might we explore it from multiple directions? Reminds me of what Iain McGilchrist and I explore in terms of the spiral and coincidence of opposites
Being part of nature (42:28) has also been discussed in the context of facing predators in the wild. I have criticised Rebecca Olive for indulging in the fantasy of being part of the food chain during a spate of shark attacks in Byron Bay, NSW, Australia. However, I do recognise the desire to confront one's fears, but only for sake of breaking free of society. The difference is that Olive is identifying with a fantastic view of nature, while the other sentiment is simply rejecting society in favour of a more authentic sense of being alive, as a human being, not necessarily connected to ‘nature’. Olive draws on the work of ecofeminist Val Plumwood, stating: “Plumwood’s ‘corrective and chastening forms of experience’ of being attacked by a crocodile while kayaking in the bush - an experience far removed from her usual everyday life - led her to wonder at the value of experiences that immerse us in ecologies in ways that shake at our sense of being victorious and triumphant over nature. This thinking shifts human authority to be with the other-than-human, rather than above them.” I like Plumwood’s take on the chastening effect of being attacked by a wild animal. However, I don't see it as an opportunity to embrace post-humanism. It seems terribly self-indulgent to fantasise about being at one with nature, when someone else has to take responsibility for protecting people from predators. Apparently, Plumwood believed there was a connection between her encounter with the crocodile and her failure to ask permission from the traditional owners! It's all very appealing, but completely delusional. Rebecca Olive’s paper: DOI: 10.1080/02614367.2022.2149842
this comment seems to have been truncated so I am only able to read half of it alas, but what comes to mind is that in certain situations we have a very narrow state space...i.e. in cases where the body must take certain actions to survive...being part of nature is not a matter of valence but of nestedness of such potentials for action
Audio and ad free version is here: th-cam.com/video/vXtcp6kvIII/w-d-xo.htmlsi=-A8CPyvD_qsVsQBI
@surfism Thank you for these comments which I will take some time to absorb, research and better understand so as to be able to reply properly to them. I appreciate the detailed listening and hope you are doing well today. More soon...Andrea
I am encouraged by Salami’s reference to ancestors (though not “past lives”) at 46:00, because this ‘inner’ connection is the root of human nature. The temptation to identify with nature is just a figment of the left-brain’s imagination, trying to make sense of the ineffable. Obviously, we are part of nature. However, we ought to identify with our (inner) ancestral nature, instead of our (outer) environmental nature, because grounding oneself in the ancestral spirit provides the individual with a deep sense of belonging, far beyond what can be achieved through identifying with ‘nature’. It is very compelling to ‘see yourself’ reflected in the natural world, but it's an illusion. We can still care for the natural world, but we ought not reject humanity, as is common among environmentalists. After all, the feelings directed at nature are ultimately derived from human compassion for each other, particularly children. Although identifying with nature is superficial, the associated virtue signalling does empower the individual, but it is a power drawn from the collective, instead of one's ancestors. Ironically, the wellspring of a resilient spirit is found in one's (deceased) ancestors, instead of one's (living) communities. We can gain satisfaction from serving the community, however we must not leverage the community for personal advantage. That is what's wrong with the collectivist mindset.
Thanks for this @surfism as I absorb it a quick question: Do you see inner and outer connection as mutually exclusive in some way? As a choice that must be made?
@@waymaking23 I think they are mutually exclusive from the perspective of the outer connection, but not the inner connection. This is because the outer connection is oblivious to the inner connection in the same way the left-brain is oblivious to the right-brain. According to Iain McGilchrist, the right-brain is more connected to the body. So, that might explain the greater sense of inner connection. We need to establish the inner connection before extending outward. Otherwise, we are dealing with the world, and ourselves, in abstraction.
@@surfism again, might there be a space holding these inner/outer or right/left distinctions? And might we explore it from multiple directions? Reminds me of what Iain McGilchrist and I explore in terms of the spiral and coincidence of opposites
Being part of nature (42:28) has also been discussed in the context of facing predators in the wild. I have criticised Rebecca Olive for indulging in the fantasy of being part of the food chain during a spate of shark attacks in Byron Bay, NSW, Australia. However, I do recognise the desire to confront one's fears, but only for sake of breaking free of society. The difference is that Olive is identifying with a fantastic view of nature, while the other sentiment is simply rejecting society in favour of a more authentic sense of being alive, as a human being, not necessarily connected to ‘nature’.
Olive draws on the work of ecofeminist Val Plumwood, stating: “Plumwood’s ‘corrective and chastening forms of experience’ of being attacked by a crocodile while kayaking in the bush - an experience far removed from her usual everyday life - led her to wonder at the value of experiences that immerse us in ecologies in ways that shake at our sense of being victorious and triumphant over nature. This thinking shifts human authority to be with the other-than-human, rather than above them.”
I like Plumwood’s take on the chastening effect of being attacked by a wild animal. However, I don't see it as an opportunity to embrace post-humanism. It seems terribly self-indulgent to fantasise about being at one with nature, when someone else has to take responsibility for protecting people from predators. Apparently, Plumwood believed there was a connection between her encounter with the crocodile and her failure to ask permission from the traditional owners! It's all very appealing, but completely delusional.
Rebecca Olive’s paper: DOI: 10.1080/02614367.2022.2149842
this comment seems to have been truncated so I am only able to read half of it alas, but what comes to mind is that in certain situations we have a very narrow state space...i.e. in cases where the body must take certain actions to survive...being part of nature is not a matter of valence but of nestedness of such potentials for action