Does the nature part of Druidry matter?

[Argenta]

Apparently it contains nature experience, ecological activism, pagan religion, mysticism, poetry, mythology, science, psychology, the supernatural and you could probably think of a lot more subjects and subdivisions. Perhaps the '7 gifts of druidry" describes this better. And interestingly enough, some of the stuff contradicts, which challenges us to understand paradoxes.

If you would put me, a "naturalist" druid next to a "urban hippy druid" you could never guess that we are both in the same spiritual organisation. And that is the beauty of it, the diversity, cross fertilisation. I actually learned some things from people who I otherwise wouldn't even want to meet.

This is very nicely put! It was one of the things that appealed to me immediately. Until I came to Druidry, I could not find any spiritual option that was able to reconcile my two somewhat rather different personality traits: one is the bookish, meditative, theoretic type; the other is the outdoor, down-to-earth, no-fuss, no-whining, and no-fluffiness-allowed side that my trek-loving parents tried to instill (with a rather poor outcome, I'm afraid).

Btw, I don't actually live in a city, and never have; however, my survival skills are just as bad as if I had to find my way around asphalt all my life. I wish I could change that, but it is highly unlikely, so unless and until such an opportunity comes my way, I'll be sticking to the computerized, loosely eco-friendly, "urban hippy" path Hope you people'll have me anyway, as I intend to stick around for a while.

[Attila]

hi jake,

Personally I think the purpose of the universe is to create such things as life and intelligent life, spirit [ceugant [divine infinity] wants to be expressed in all its forms, and it also wants to have the greatest dexterity it can, in order to be as fully expressed as it can. A human is the highest form of that expression on this earth. Advancement is the goal of evolution in terms of that purpose! It is not just a pointless changing of shape to no end in a purely material universe.

I think you'll find this isn't the case. Genetic drift plays quite a large role (some say larger even than natural selection) in evolution as it is currently understood. Evolutionary change through genetic drift is not the result of the same kind of pressures that change through natural selection is.

What I meant was that animals and plants only change if they need to, we have had crocs for a long time and also some plant and tree types, not to mention germs.

This statement (as well as the one about being "more advanced") really does represent a pretty thorough misconception of evolutionary theory. It's been several generations since evolutionary biologists have thought in such terms. Evolution is not a linear progression from "less advanced" to "more advanced" organisms, or even from less complex to more complex organisms as some organisms, especially parasites, often evolve to become simpler.

Thinking outside the box here; how about, humans are generally more advanced! evolution is just one aspect of the equation. Whatever evolutionary theorist say, its obvious that life began as simple forms and got more complex [even if sometimes they get simpler again], as its complexity grew things learned to adapt, humans are the most adaptable creatures.

To say that a species is more evolved than another is to say that it has experienced a higher degree of genetic selection than another. For instance, chimpanzees are more evolved than humans in that since we split from our most recent common ancestor 5-7 million years ago, chimps have experienced more frequent and rapid genetic adaptations than humans have

Right so they have changed more [‘evolved’ in that sense] and yet we are more advanced and adaptable so we havent needed to change as much genetically ~ although we have changed more culturally and that has supplanted the need for genetic evolution in us. I don’t know what part of ‘more advanced’ these people don’t understand?! The trouble is when people just think in one field, they tend to put blinkers on.

If you must think of evolution as having some sort of winner (which can only mean the most successfully adaptable), then it is indeed the "germ" - microorganisms in general and bacteria in particular, which clearly take the prize for reasons which should be self-evident.

They cannot build houses or space shuttles, or chemicals that kill humans [as we can germs], they adapt only to microscopic environments. humans are more advanced.

And yet what exactly is the point of positing the existence of souls or spirits?

Why on earth wouldn’t you posit all of reality? Why posit anything if you are to take the negative approach?

Why should someone wish to "transcend" this amazing planet we live on?

Ever watched a relative die of cancer? It is bearable at least, if there is a purpose or something being learned [nothing ultimately is learned in a materialistic world, suns go supernova and planets whith everything on them die etc].

It would take several lifetimes to learn the most basic stuff about even half the species of life that exist in my own small corner of this small ecoregion, every one of which is far more fascinating to me than any ghost or spirit.

In the end you are just describing a mechanistic world, I find it more fascinating to think of the drivers of those vehicles [spirits, souls etc] learning from each life experience and becoming every more adapt at driving the vehicles! Thence I have all you said about + an extra layer, and one that isn’t completely pointless.
You seam to confuse what the world ‘is’ with what reality ‘is’! you presume for some strange reason that there is no more than the material world and that it describes the whole of reality.
Nature has not yet been understood so no one can claim it really, we may know a little of its mechanisms, but nature surely includes eternity and infinity and possibly realms of mind/spirit. It all depends on how you understand the reality map.

It’s a little unfair to say many druids are self important, in the main we all find ways to engage with the spiritual side of things via some manner of archetype, this gives us some way of getting a handle on something which is indescribable or a medium of other sorts etc.

[Jake]

Personally I think the purpose of the universe is to create such things as life and intelligent life, spirit [ceugant [divine infinity] wants to be expressed in all its forms, and it also wants to have the greatest dexterity it can, in order to be as fully expressed as it can. A human is the highest form of that expression on this earth.

The idea that humans are the purpose and pinnacle of life on earth is called anthropocentrism. It's a very narrow and arrogant worldview with incredibly harmful consequences.

The insights gained from biology and ecology (and druidry! why not?) serve as correctives to the anthropocentric delusion, helping to replace it with a more balanced and egalitarian biocentric point of view. (check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_%28ethics%29)

Advancement is the goal of evolution in terms of that purpose! It is not just a pointless changing of shape to no end in a purely material universe.

The problem is that when you make an argument using terms like "evolution" and "evolutionary" you are using scientific terms that actually mean something, not religious or pseudo-religious terms that mean whatever we want them to mean. Evolution really has no "goal."

I think you'll find this isn't the case. Genetic drift plays quite a large role (some say larger even than natural selection) in evolution as it is currently understood. Evolutionary change through genetic drift is not the result of the same kind of pressures that change through natural selection is.

What I meant was that animals and plants only change if they need to, we have had crocs for a long time and also some plant and tree types, not to mention germs.

But it isn't so. Species can change even if they don't "need" to (evolution by selection) through influences like genetic drift and mutation. Genetic equilibrium (also called Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium), where a population's genotypic and allele frequency remains identical to that of their ancestors, is a theoretical state that does not exist in nature.

Thinking outside the box here; how about, humans are generally more advanced! evolution is just one aspect of the equation. Whatever evolutionary theorist say, its obvious that life began as simple forms and got more complex [even if sometimes they get simpler again], as its complexity grew things learned to adapt, humans are the most adaptable creatures.

But this is thinking within the box of anthropocentrism, the root cause of the ecological nightmare(s) we're facing right now on this planet.

Right so they have changed more [‘evolved’ in that sense] and yet we are more advanced and adaptable so we havent needed to change as much genetically ~ although we have changed more culturally and that has supplanted the need for genetic evolution in us. I don’t know what part of ‘more advanced’ these people don’t understand?! The trouble is when people just think in one field, they tend to put blinkers on.

Again this is purely anthropocentric thinking. I apologize in advance for the extensive quote, but it addresses several of the questions you've raised above much better than I can:

Nonetheless, many people evaluate nonhuman organisms according to human anatomy and physiology and mistakenly conclude that humans are the ultimate product, even goal, of evolution. That attitude probably stems from the tendency of humans to think anthropocentrically, but the scholarship of natural theology, which was prominent in 18th-and 19th-century England, codified it even before Lamarck defined biology in the modern sense. Unfortunately, anthropocentric thinking is at the root of many common misconceptions in biology.

Chief among these misconceptions is that species evolve or change because they need to change to adapt to shifting environmental demands; biologists refer to this fallacy as teleology. In fact, more than 99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct, so clearly there is no requirement that species always adapt successfully. As the fossil record demonstrates, extinction is a perfectly natural--and indeed quite common--response to changing environmental conditions. When species do evolve, it is not out of need but rather because their populations contain organisms with variants of traits that offer a reproductive advantage in a changing environment.

Another misconception is that increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution. In fact, decreasing complexity is common in the record of evolution. For example, the lower jaw in vertebrates shows decreasing complexity, as measured by the numbers of bones, from fish to reptiles to mammals. (Evolution adapted the extra jaw bones into ear bones.) Likewise, ancestral horses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single toe with a hoof.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ce-evolvin

They cannot build houses or space shuttles, or chemicals that kill humans [as we can germs], they adapt only to microscopic environments. humans are more advanced.

Bacteria can do all sorts of things we can't do, like eat rock. They kill humans by the tens of thousands every year and we have been their food for tens of millions of years before we were even capable of detecting their presence. They adapt to nearly all environments, including boiling water. And there are no such things as more advanced and less advanced forms of life.

Why should someone wish to "transcend" this amazing planet we live on?

Ever watched a relative die of cancer? It is bearable at least, if there is a purpose or something being learned [nothing ultimately is learned in a materialistic world, suns go supernova and planets whith everything on them die etc].

In other words it's an emotional or psychological crutch? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the truth of something is measured by how much comfort it brings us to believe in it.

And yes, I have watched a relative die of cancer. More than one. It increased my respect for the natural cycles of life on this planet. It didn't make me yearn for escape into heaven.

In the end you are just describing a mechanistic world, I find it more fascinating to think of the drivers of those vehicles [spirits, souls etc] learning from each life experience and becoming every more adapt at driving the vehicles!

I don't find the world to be mechanistic at all. What, in fact, could be more a more classic textbook example of the Cartesian mechanistic view of the world than your idea of bodies as mere vehicles for the more important ethereal "drivers" within them who "advance" along the track exchanging vehicles as they go?

You seam to confuse what the world ‘is’ with what reality ‘is’! you presume for some strange reason that there is no more than the material world and that it describes the whole of reality.

Quite simply, I believe that there is no point in presuming the existence of beings for which I see no evidence and very limited utility. Other people disagree. I'm OK with that. They're usually not.

Nature has not yet been understood so no one can claim it really, we may know a little of its mechanisms, but nature surely includes eternity and infinity and possibly realms of mind/spirit. It all depends on how you understand the reality map.

For sure! I agree. But some understandings have objectively worse consequences than others. And while every understanding of reality is of necessity incomplete, some are much more so than others.

It’s a little unfair to say many druids are self important, in the main we all find ways to engage with the spiritual side of things via some manner of archetype, this gives us some way of getting a handle on something which is indescribable or a medium of other sorts etc.

Again I agree. The problem as I see it is when for some people the search stops being about the great indescribable wonders of life, the universe and our own inner worlds and instead becomes all about "me me me" and spiritual self-aggrandizement.

[Merlyn]

Best I understand "evolution" is random and natural selection dictates what evolved changes are able to adapt or prove out as beneficial.
Just look at my great great great great grand pa.

smart_animals_04.jpg (36.66 KiB) Viewed 795 times

He has no mortgage, no bills to pay, could care less about just about anything in the news today with the exception of the rain forest.

[Corwen]

If that is a photo of a living great ape, then Merlyn he isn't your great great-whatever grandpa, but rather your cousin, and you shared a great-great whatever grandpa with him.

One of the deeply Druidical insights that evolutionary theory can give you is the realisation of the literal truth that all living beings are our relations. Not metaphorically our relations, but literally our relations, the bacterium in my gut is actually related to me in the same way as my uncle (though rather more distantly). I would urge every Druid to read The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins, a deeply spiritual book written in the form of a pilgrimage narrative. I read it after making a physical pilgrimage across Norway on foot, and it was a great experience.

I'm glad you are here Jake, because I agree with everything you have said and I would feel lonely otherwise were I making these points by myself!

I personally am agnostic about the existence of the 'supernatural'. There is no hard evidence, and people's experiences, including my own, are open to many different interpretations and I am reluctant to nail these down as unlike many of my hard atheist comrades I think absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Rarely however do I find talk of souls or other supernatural realities persuasive or useful, and indeed a quick look through history will show that many and great evils have been carried out both against our fellow humans and against the natural world in the name of these unprovable and unseeable things. Better therefore not to try to define and quantify the ineffable, so I address the totality of cosmic reality as Great Mystery. The spiritual experiences we have serve us better IMO if we allow them to shape us and enlarge the realms of our dreaming, emotional and imaginative minds rather than to use them to educate the concrete mind or to build hypothetical models of the universe.

It is sad when we realise that there is probably nothing after death, that our loved ones now exist only as memories in our minds, which will themselves pass away in time. Sadder still to think that we will be separated from those we love now. Those of you lucky enough to have children will may take some consolation in them, but for those of us who have not had or cannot have children that consolation is not there for us. However because something is hard or unpleasant, because a realisation may make your life feel empty, may sadden you and make you grieve does not make it untrue.

Consolation may come in the form of witnessing life's great onrush, the power of the river of being and in the hope that it will continue its dance in rich and varied forms. I have many many relatives who will still be dancing that dance after I am gone. There may be consolation in the fact that all matter and energy continues to dance through time in ever shifting forms, and that nothing is truly destroyed or lost, except memory. There may be consolation for those who enjoy esoteric physics in the view that time is akin to a solid in an extra dimension, and that although we perceive them lineally all moments actually coexist simultaneously in a multidimensional form in a combined time and space. Our loved ones therefore still exist in a sense, back or forward in time, though we may never reach them.

Whether ignorance may be bliss, or whether the truth will set you free, is a matter of personal choice, but wilfully believing something that you suspect may be untrue because it consoles you seems to me intellectual and emotional cowardice. Better to grasp the nettle, and seize the day.

[Lailoken]

I feel that the nature part of the course (or of being a Druid) is only one of many aspects on this path that it needs not be your main focus. Of course, it really depends on what you mean when you say nature. Are you talking about daily honouring of each element, being a master gardener, or being able to walk through the forest and be able to identify every tree, bush, flower and weed? I feel the nature part of being a Druid comes quite easily and...naturally...through small things like recycling or having a plant or two in the house.

The way I honour nature living in the middle of a city of 5.4 million people is by having loads and loads of plants and trees throughout my house. Their upkeep is simple, but it gives me great joy caring for them nonetheless. I have four shrines dedicated to each element throughout my house, in a small way of honouring them, but they're more like visual cues to acknowledge them on occasion. I also recycle to the best of my ability. I don't get many opportunities to escape the city, find myself a quiet place deep in the woods, and just become one with the earth, so at this time, that really isn't a part of my Druidry, but it doesn't mean I'm lacking something, am a lesser Druid, or don't respect nature and the earth. My neighbourhood is full of live oaks, palm trees, and all sorts of succulents and cacti, so I'm hardly lacking for green spaces anyways.

In our modern day, it's easy for us to feel like we're apart from nature instead of a part of it. If we always remind ourselves that we're a part of nature, the need to make grand gestures to honour it seem less important...it's the little daily things like recycling and watering our plants that help us stay connected.

And yes, obviously I have no problems being a Druid in a city so big. I remember having a rather heated discussion on here a few years back with someone that claimed cities were evil and unnatural, and we all should move to the country. Besides that fact that the country would get to be quite crowded (like an...um...CITY!), it's just not realistic. So instead of focusing on theories, focus on practices, like recycling, having a garden, car pooling, etc. etc.

[Merlyn]

If we link ourselves to a past, then we do so for the future, and that is the disturbing part. Most of us don't really trust ourselves to be responsible to nature as a human race.
The collective soul includes the entire living family, past present and future, and we have enough intuition to see and feel the tangents. Are these stronger tangents gods?
God has a lot of different meanings, all the way from one collective to many and even better and worse spiritual meanings.

It's hard to ignore, and can be obsessive, consuming and drive people to do some very good and some very bad things. This part of life is nature, the nature of all things and our nature and natural relationship. Druidry looks at this from a view. We can see it as potential, something active, our part in it, and our responsibility to it. Rather than look at "god" as a thing, I see druidry puts it all in a very different and active form, always in motion. Life and the circle of life, a living and active role we are and are part of.

This very different view of spiritual and nature holds a key to our inner youth, that way to being, and our understanding. It is something shared across almost every other spiritual way in parts, but druidry is unique in its own way. It is pliable enough to relate and understand the core thought of god, but as I mention above looks at the realms as defined to life. Other religions seem to cage the idea, put everything into a static defined role.

How this works does evolve, change and progress in druidry. "It is OK to find, seek, learn and see the new life, active spirits as they move in time. We are not confined to what was possibly a delusion, exclusive or contrived by others. This one aspect of druidry is liberating, unique, giving a wholeness and meaning back to our human lives.

Such a empowering outlook on our own life has been strangled and denied for thousands of years for a large percent of human life, an overwhelming number, and still creates a sad fear between peoples, cultures and struggles along as an all consuming goal for some.

I think the nature of druidry does matter, but is perhaps mistaken sometimes as missing from the life we want. Because we don't live in the woods, are we void of nature?
Not really, it is one of the many aspects to nature, but we can as Lailoken mentions, we can invite this part of nature right into our home. Growing plants and trees can be a great hobby, gift or even a job. We might have to admit we like the pulse of the city, the companionship in a suburb, the relative convenience of being near enough to not need or even want a car.

What we shed from our daily grind to be happy, and what we bring in for the same reasons should evolve, grow and work with us as we grow, and evolve.
Have humans evolved? From what? and to what?

Well my great great great great grandpa, got a cup of Joe and thinks we should have a chat.

smart_animals_01.jpg (45.96 KiB) Viewed 778 times

Because he isn't convinced we have found our bliss like he has, and is a bit worried.

Merlyn /|\

[Attila]

Jake, hi

The idea that humans are the purpose and pinnacle of life on earth is called anthropocentrism. It's a very narrow and arrogant worldview with incredibly harmful consequences.

Sure thing, but I said that existence is the expression of infinity, it tries to reach its maximum [kinda like yoga]. That doesn’t put humans at the top as it doesn’t say they are the highest expression. Anthropocentrism suggests that humans are more important [central], where I am simply saying we are part of the expression which animals etc are too. In fact if you add the whole of nature [universe] together then the whole expression is massively greater than the human element of it! This is what I call the ‘universalists’ take on it.

Why centre on anything, why not decentralise on everything?

The meaning of ‘evolution’ can change and has done, I am simply thinking of it in context to the entire reality map I.e. ceugant > universe > earth > life.
If we go by the term….

Quick definitions (evolve)
verb: undergo development.
verb: work out.
verb: gain through experience.

I don’t see why I cannot use its meaning in the context of change in and of the universal expression?

Species can change even if they don't "need" to (evolution by selection) through influences like genetic drift and mutation. Genetic equilibrium (also called Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium), where a population's genotypic and allele frequency remains identical to that of their ancestors, is a theoretical state that does not exist in nature.

Yes but you still get similars, crocs are very similar to ancient crocs etc. …we could say the archetype doesn’t change, life emulates it as well as it can.

But this is thinking within the box of anthropocentrism, the root cause of the ecological nightmare(s) we're facing right now on this planet.

Capitalism is the root cause I’d say, but I agree with your point, though it is not enough to say humans aren’t more advanced generally as that is simply not true. I think my universalist take on it suffices for all parties [or else I have it wrong].

Again this is purely anthropocentric thinking. I apologize in advance for the extensive quote, but it addresses several of the questions you've raised above much better than I can:

Only if we don’t see the bigger picture, humans may not be the most advanced form, but they are on this planet ~ though as I say the whole of nature is a greater expression still esp, if there are more advanced species out there, or indeed if there are more advanced realms of eternity out there! The gods are more advanced than us, and each species type has an universal archetype [usually deified in pagan religions], so as a druid I would not wish to upset or insult them as that would be an insult to divinity itself. Obviously such archetypes are approximations, ultimately just as there is something that is and can be time, space and energy, then with ceugant we are actually looking at something that is indescribable due to its shapelessness, hence the archetypes are within the expression and not the ultimate reality.

Bacteria can do all sorts of things we can't do, like eat rock. They kill humans by the tens of thousands every year and we have been their food for tens of millions of years before we were even capable of detecting their presence. They adapt to nearly all environments, including boiling water. And there are no such things as more advanced and less advanced forms of life.

I take your point, but it is ridiculous to suggest germs are as advanced as humans, how would you define advancement? I would think of it in terms of; most universally dextrous, can do more things, can think [at all] more, can express more, can perceive more, can invent more, can understand its environment more [does a germ understand a computer] etc.
Now tell me what you think advancement means!!!

In other words it's an emotional or psychological crutch? I'm sorry, but I don't believe that the truth of something is measured by how much comfort it brings us to believe in it.

I agree, but I said; “if there is a purpose or something being learned”, the materialistic view gives neither of these. It may be true that reality is the expression of infinity [ceugant], we don’t know, but it is absurd to say we can explain everything with the materialistic view, hence the use of the term ‘if’ in what I said. Funny how materialists are always calling people like me arrogant lols

I don't find the world to be mechanistic at all. What, in fact, could be more a more classic textbook example of the Cartesian mechanistic view of the world than your idea of bodies as mere vehicles for the more important ethereal "drivers" within them who "advance" along the track exchanging vehicles as they go?

Materialism is mechanistic unless you add ‘mind’ to the equation, it is purely physical. I don’t know if it bodies or just ceugant as the driver, equally if we take the Egyptian view [which I rather like] then the body is also a spirit form, I don’t see it as dualistic [like the Cartesian view] ~ that is until the body dies.

Quite simply, I believe that there is no point in presuming the existence of beings for which I see no evidence and very limited utility.

Well yes it is very difficult to see spirit being in any way effectual or having any utility if you see the mind as physical. The only difference is that I flip the whole thing on its head and see mind as primary and the material as secondary, though I don’t see that as a duality as they are both ultimately made of the same thing [ceugant].

The problem as I see it is when for some people the search stops being about the great indescribable wonders of life, the universe and our own inner worlds and instead becomes all about "me me me" and spiritual self-aggrandizement.

So we are not even allowed to be gods now , funny how christian-like thought slips into materialistic philosophy, is there any reason in materialism why we shouldn’t think ourselves as grand or great, or that we shouldn’t kill anything and everything we want ~ there just are no moral basis to it, and all arguments are null and void if all things are organic machines. This is why I have continually looked deeper into it all, and so far no one has put up a valid argument to the basis.


thanks

[Jake]

Corwen, the feeling is very mutual.

Consolation may come in the form of witnessing life's great onrush, the power of the river of being and in the hope that it will continue its dance in rich and varied forms. I have many many relatives who will still be dancing that dance after I am gone. There may be consolation in the fact that all matter and energy continues to dance through time in ever shifting forms, and that nothing is truly destroyed or lost, except memory. There may be consolation for those who enjoy esoteric physics in the view that time is akin to a solid in an extra dimension, and that although we perceive them lineally all moments actually coexist simultaneously in a multidimensional form in a combined time and space. Our loved ones therefore still exist in a sense, back or forward in time, though we may never reach them.

Whether ignorance may be bliss, or whether the truth will set you free, is a matter of personal choice, but wilfully believing something that you suspect may be untrue because it consoles you seems to me intellectual and emotional cowardice. Better to grasp the nettle, and seize the day.

At the risk of sounding like I'm gushing, this was so beautifully expressed that I had to cry a little.

[Jake]

In our modern day, it's easy for us to feel like we're apart from nature instead of a part of it. If we always remind ourselves that we're a part of nature, the need to make grand gestures to honour it seem less important.

Yes!

[Jake]

Attila, you have simply offered an explanation for why you believe anthropocentrism is justifiable. Of course it doesn't make the point of view you've expressed any less anthropocentric. You've said that humans are the "highest expression" of life on this earth, that we are more advanced and more evolved both physically and spiritually than any other species. These are classic, even extreme, statements of anthropocentrism. I'm afraid the only way out of that would be to recant.

Corwen pointed out that your statements about evolution indicated that you misunderstood the concept. You disagreed and proceeded to argue your position in what you called "evolutionary terms." Then when it's pointed out that your statements really are contrary to the theory of evolution your response indicates that you are employing a highly personal and non-standard definition of the term and the meaning of a word can change. Yes, the meaning of a word can change but usually not in the middle of a conversation and never based on one individual's say-so.

You ask why you can't use the word in whatever meaning you choose. Of course you can. Unless your goal is to have an intelligible conversation, in which case it is probably inadvisable to do so. If I go around saying "table" when I mean "dog" on the basis that both have legs and are thus conceptually interchangeable, people will soon grow tired of talking to me and may eventually avoid my company altogether.

So, if you knew you were using an idiosyncratic definition of "evolution," it seems almost perverse that you would argue the specifics of the concept with people who are using the standard definition. On the other hand if, as seems far more likely, you only became aware that your definition was non-standard during the course of the conversation and you've been sort of making the rest of this up as you go along, then it was correct in the first place to say that you did not understand how evolution works and every response since then has been time spent wasted in an attempt to avoid acknowledging that fact.

Modern industrial corporatist capitalism is surely an example of anthropocentrism in action and thus, I would argue, not truly the root cause of the current ecological disaster. And personally I see no prima facie reason why communism or socialism should be any more ecologically sound economic systems unless and until the notion of community is expanded to include persons other than humans.

I'm not sure how many more times and in how many more ways this can be said - "advanced" is not a word in the vocabulary of evolutionary biology. Evolution is not about a progression from inferior to superior or less advanced to more advanced forms of life. At this point I'd be glad to offer some book suggestions if you like but I don't think anything more can be gained from the back and forth about this point.

As to the question of why materialists call you arrogant, you'd have to ask a materialist. So far none of the participants in this thread have identified themselves as such, which is why the explanation of why the materialists are incapable of seeing things your way is neither here nor there.

"So we are not even allowed to be gods now , funny how christian-like thought slips into materialistic philosophy, is there any reason in materialism why we shouldn’t think ourselves as grand or great, or that we shouldn’t kill anything and everything we want ~ there just are no moral basis to it, and all arguments are null and void if all things are organic machines. This is why I have continually looked deeper into it all, and so far no one has put up a valid argument to the basis."

What an odd statement. As if anyone who thinks humans are not gods does so because of the influence of Christianity rather than for some other reason like sanity.

And it's kind of amusing because I'd been assuming you were a Christian, given the affinity of your ideas. I'm glad I didn't mention it though as, given the pejorative way you seem to be using "Christian-like," I imagine you might have been offended.

Anyway, setting aside for the moment that your identification of me as a "materialist" who believes we are "organic machines" doesn't make it so, there are obviously all sorts of reasons why people who don't actively believe in the supernatural might refrain from wantonly murdering everyone they come across. Again, if you're looking for an explanation or twenty I'll be glad to recommend some books for you as it sounds like the last thing you read on the subject must have been written by an outraged clergyman sometime in the mid-19th century.

[treegod]

I'm anthropocentric because I'm human and exist as a human body. I'm anthropocentric by default.

By the same logic what is not human is not necessarily anthropocentric.

Though my dogs act as little "satellites" around me

[treegod]

Found this, it's pretty funny http://globalmindshift.wordpress.com/20 ... evolution/

Evolution is not about a progression from inferior to superior or less advanced to more advanced forms of life.

Biological evolution certainly isn't. And the more "advanced" (read complex) organisms are ecological bonuses, expressing ecological health, rather than a "logical progression" of going from "worse" to "better". And also not all species can advance in such a way without causing ecological disruption. A planet of only human-like organisms would not represent a sustainable ecosystem.

Imagine, all the time there has been life on Earth, only one third has had complex multicelular organisms (I read somewhere...). Obviously no logical progression, otherwise "humans" or "conscious beings" would have happened sooner.

"Once again a new world view is arising ... This idea is the culmination of all human history. It holds the promise of fulfilling the great aspirations of the past and heralds the advent of the next phase of our evolution. It is the idea of conscious evolution." Barbara Marx Hubbard

However, I think human evolution can and does have a direction. Being conscious beings we no longer have to passively participate in evolution, we can make choices, individually and collectively, about where we'd like to go. For once evolution is not blind but can see where it has been and where it could potentially go!

"We are moving from unconscious evolution through natural selection to conscious evolution by choice." Barbara Marx Hubbard

But one that is a social evolution rather than biological, I cannot stress enough that I am NOT talking about anything close to eugenics. But rather how humans interact with each other, how we think. The closest to anything scientific is to evolve new neurological patterns, a neurological evolution, new synaptic connections, which is simply to cultivate and develop the best of human potential.

"In the past our glorious visions of the future - heaven, paradise, nirvana - were thought to happen after death. The newer thought is that we do not have to die to get there. We are not speaking here of life after death in some mythical heaven, but life more abundant in real time in history. We are speaking of the next stage of our social evolution." Barbara Marx Hubbard

"The social potential movement is on the threshold of a mass awakening, seeking to carry into society what individuals have learned spiritually and personally." Barbara Marx Hubbard

If this potential for conscious evolution is actualised then the results could have profound consequences!

And for Gaia! Gaia's evolution has been unconscious and blind. Going from a lifeless rock to something filled with life that changes the nature of atmosphere, geosphere and aquasphere into something that sustains life, unconsciously.

But now Gaia has developed a consciousness within her. And this could introduce a new never before seen dynamic. It would be hubris ( a favourite word of James Lovelock's) to think that we then control Gaia. She doesn't need it and hasn't needed it since life overran Earth!

A conscious humanity (and I'm talking about A LOT of conscious people, not just a few) could be a creative addition within the already existing life-sustaining system, perhaps in the same way that life is a creative addition to a non-living universe.

And yes, there doesn't seem to be much of a sign of this but it is a potential, and I'm willing to give it a try.

[Jake]

I'm anthropocentric because I'm human and exist as a human body. I'm anthropocentric by default.

Do you really think so? That as humans it is natural not only that our primary concern be with our own species but that we think of ourselves as the reason that the world exists?

If so, are some of us exceptions to the rule? Or perhaps this lends further support to my mother's long-held (at least since the second trimester of pregnancy) and oft-mentioned (especially after she watches one of those Sigourney Weaver movies) suspicion that she gave birth to something inhuman.

It took me several years, from late teens to early adulthood, to become convinced that humans were of any real value whatsoever, let alone the pinnacle of creation. I seem to have been a natural born misanthrope or at least to have developed into one soon after learning to talk. Fortunately those feelings are behind me now. Although encounters with newspaper headlines, supermarkets, rush-hour traffic and television programming can often trigger a temporary relapse.

Seriously, as one of the resident scholars of ecopsychology, what are your thoughts on the relationship, if any, between anthropocentrism, egocentrism and ethnocentrism? Are these viewpoints "natural" or largely socialized? Are they stages of individual and collective development or pernicious social delusions? How are they best overcome or should we even try?

[treegod]

Seriously, as one of the resident scholars of ecopsychology, what are your thoughts on the relationship, if any, between anthropocentrism, egocentrism and ethnocentrism? Are these viewpoints "natural" or largely socialized? Are they stages of individual and collective development or pernicious social delusions? How are they best overcome or should we even try?

Ecopsychology, I'm there too

Well, like any organism I have a certain level of egocentrism, or rather organocentric (I hope that's right). Without some level of self-preservation no organism survives for long. And egocentrism is just a psychological extension of the organism's self-preservation, a device to indentify what is "it" and what is not "it".

However this organocentrism is itself born from a biological need for the organisms species to survive. So my organocentrism is anthropocentric! In some species the organism can sacrifice itself for the good of the species, the organocentrism "fails" and is taken over by its need to reproduce like the female octopus that looks after her eggs until she dies, or when the male mantis is decapitated during mating.

But let's not forget CONTEXT!!!

Very few organisms are able to survive without an ecological context. In fact the ones that can are simple one-celled organisms. Anything more complex, usually, has evolved with other organisms and so there is a lot of interdependency at this level. Every organism, not only serves its species but also provides an ecological function.

It's interesting to think that any organism that properly fulfills its selfish drives simultaneously provides a beneficial function for its ecosystem. It might be a stretch but we could say that if humanity was being really selfish it might behave more intelligently here on Earth.

So my anthropocentrism is ecocentric! Humanity cannot survive for long without its ecological context. And in fact if we can't find a way of behaving in a beneficial way as part of the Earth's ecosystems then we will no longer be welcome, like a defective organ/organism within an organism/species. That's natural selection on the ecological level.

As for ethnocentrism, I think it is essentially anthropocentric. And that being, once it has outserved its purpose (to bind communities together, I suppose) it should disintegrate. I don't feel ethnocentric, I think it's more cultural than biological.

And just to confuse matters, ecocentrism is biocentric. Ecosystems evolved in order to sustain life.

And biocentrism? Maybe that's where it is cicular, being itself biocentric, centred around both individual biological organisms and the biosphere as a whole.

EDIT: as for the misanthropism, I've been there too. But I think that's social conditioning that comes from... newspaper headlines, supermarkets, rush-hour traffic and television programming But I'm saved by myself. I look at myself and think "this is where humanity is right" so humanity can't be all that bad and could certainly be better

[Attila]

Jake

It is a simple fact that humans are more advanced than any other life form on earth, but if you can show otherwise then I‘ll go along with that ~ but you will need to show me a super duper germ that builds and flies concord. Just because we are more advanced that doesn’t mean we should not respect nature! All I am saying is that the materialist view [weather you are one or not] is neither druidic nor can it offer any basis for morality anthropocentric or not.

Generally I think we are reading from a different book, because I didn’t mean most of what I said how you took it, so lets just forget the rest.

[Corwen]

Jake

It is a simple fact that humans are more advanced than any other life form on earth, but if you can show otherwise then I‘ll go along with that ~ but you will need to show me a super duper germ that builds and flies concord. Just because we are more advanced that doesn’t mean we should not respect nature! All I am saying is that the materialist view [weather you are one or not] is neither druidic nor can it offer any basis for morality anthropocentric or not.

Generally I think we are reading from a different book, because I didn’t mean most of what I said how you took it, so lets just forget the rest.

Attilla, humans have more advanced technology, but we are not more advanced in many other ways so unless you precis your comment by saying, Technologically humans are the most advanced life form, then your comment is open to misinterpretation. In all sorts of other areas other lifeforms have the edge. Humans are not very advanced at photosynthesis, for example.

Germs can indeed build, plankton and little diatoms built the whole of the chalk downland of Southern England for example, and although we have great technology we are yet to construct anything on a similar scale. But all this is irrelevant. Even if we were to agree that humans were more advanced (which I do not think, but here we go for the sake of argument...) why should that privilege humans morally or spiritually at all over other forms of life, or give them the right to take more than they need or act disrespectfully to the others we share the planet with? What if I were more advanced than you in some way, would that justify me taking advantage of you, making you my lackey, or treating you as my property? Humans have justified their inhumanity to each other in this way in the past, with sad consequences.

Now lets examine materialism. I think (correct me if I am wrong) that you think that if we posit a world without souls, then we must have a world of biomechanisms, without true consciousness or value. You think that only an eternal soul can have intrinsic value, that the physical world is just stuff, we are 'drivers' of this stuff, but that our consciousness is not made of stuff. This is indeed a very Christian viewpoint, though one shared by most of the world religions.

There is another way to see a world without eternal souls made of non-stuff. What if stuff can be conscious? What if consciousness is an emergent property of stuff, when it gets complex enough? In fact I'd like to know what isn't conscious? It appears that all beings have a sort of personhood, they all respond to their environment and all have their own goals and motivation. They may or may not communicate in complex ways, but they have relationships with each other both on individual level and on species wide levels. There is no need to have an eternal soul to have consciousness. If all beings have personhood, then all have value (again without the need for souls anywhere). All are relating agents and deserve to be respected for their unique selfhood. Groups of persons appear to interact in ways that suggest a kind of relating consciousness may be an emergent property of complex systems even where the system is itself made up of conscious agents, just as on another level inert matter contains within itself the seed of consciousness. We are the rocks dancing, as John Seed says. But this is esoteric stuff.

May I recommend you read Thinking like a Mountain by John Seed et al. The most Druidic book you'll ever read, and hardly a soul in sight.

Here is an extract for you to enjoy:
http://www.morning-earth.org/DE6103/Rea ... o.seed.pdf

[Merlyn]

Now my great great great great grand pa is really worried,

ape460.jpg (113.57 KiB) Viewed 725 times

He has a soul too, just like anything else alive, so he thinks.
But we have "sin" and this makes us so different...

We have spirituality, language, bad social skills, bills to pay, foul the earth with pollution (Wait, that's the cows and methane..never mind) and we make beer!

Ahhhhhhh... now I remember why we are more advanced than any other creature on earth... we make beer..

No, really, how is being materialistic part of technical superiority?
Kind of a chicken and the egg question.

Does druidry reconnect us with what one might consider as "natural?"

[DJ Droood]

I can't think of another creature, other than certain domesticated pets and livestock, that is 100% dependent on technology for their survival. We are unlike almost every other plant and animal in that we will die unless we create fire, shelter and clothing and produce and process our food in some way, store our water, etc.. Romantic notions of living naked in the bush and picking berries, sleeping in a cave and hoping for a lucky lightning strike aside, we are a technology dependant animal, and have been for countless millennia. We are the most fragile of animal species. Perhaps that has something to do with our yearning to be part of "the wild" (or our contempt for it)...we always seem to want what we can never have...or destroy it, if we can't have it.

(alright, I suppose ants and birds, etc. use some home building technology, but certainly our dependence on fire, need for clothing and hunting/gathering tools is unique)

I mean, how many people here enjoy "getting back to nature" in their tents and kevlar canoes and gortex jackets, butane lighters and tvp chili mix?

[treegod]

Jake

It is a simple fact that humans are more advanced than any other life form on earth, but if you can show otherwise then I‘ll go along with that ~ but you will need to show me a super duper germ that builds and flies concord. Just because we are more advanced that doesn’t mean we should not respect nature! All I am saying is that the materialist view [weather you are one or not] is neither druidic nor can it offer any basis for morality anthropocentric or not.

Personally I don't know if I buy the "advanced" thing. I think we are advanvanced but that has to be qualified I think. If you say "technologically advanced" I can understand that. But I don't think it works in a general undefined way.

Advanced is pretty relative I think. It depends on circumstances. A tiger is more advanced at hunting than humans without technology. With technology is a different matter.