If you’d like to get in contact then you can..
I read your blog on framing of nature as container, person, self. I think one of our key disconnects from nature in Western culture is that other living or non living things are seen as not being entitled to moral and ethical considerations – in part due to not being seen as having personhood. What moral consideration do we owe to a wild bird or fish, to a tree, to a river or a mountain if they are not seen as being a bird, fish, tree, river or mountain “person”?
I might argue that a corn plant, a wild oak sapling and a venerable oak tree require different moral and ethical stances, and this confuses many people because they have to adjust the degree of ethical consideration (personhood) those plant entities might deserve. The corn plant in a field is one of millions planted by human beings and lives 6 months, the oak sapling has grown in the wild on its own for a few years, while the ancient oak tree has weathered drought, wind, pest and fire for many, many years. Many people, corporations and government agencies, seemingly blind to some of these issues, would declare that none of the plants deserve any moral considerations at all and could be treated relatively the same. In similar vein what consideration should a mountain get, name or un-named, sacred or not?
Pingback: 3-day Mindfulness nature retreats | cultureprobe
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 76 other followers