What value: music, religion, ..? (Deep Ecology letters)

".. If beauty, inspiring music, religion and philosophy would cease to exist if humans cease to exist, then they are artifacts and have no reality outside of their effects on humans."

[includes Jill's: "These issues go to the heart of what it means to be human." ** and Betsy Barnum's: "To me, defining music and beauty (and the impulses that create philosophy and religion) as mere human artifacts implies that the universe is meaningless and we humans have given it arbitrary meaning to satisfy our own needs, whatever those are. This notion is hubris of the highest order, I'd say." ] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - At 07:28 24/05/99 +1200, David MacClement wrote: >** [thanks for] ... the Deep Ecology Education Institute's outline of DE. >I see it as a good basis for discussion, better than any one person's views, >even if that person is Arne Naess. > >** As someone who has been critical of almost everything for most of my >life, I decided to call myself atheist a few years ago, and recently >extended this to say: "if concepts like beauty, inspiring music (which I >certainly know well), religion and philosophy would cease to exist if >humans cease to exist, then the concepts are artifacts and have no reality >outside of their effects on humans". > >** Since humans are a small but no longer insignificant part of life on >earth, I suppose their ideas (including philosophies) matter to the extent >that those ideas can affect what homo sapiens does to life on earth. That >is, the criterion for value is not that some person or group of people >believes or even acts on these ideas, but how large the effect is, on life >on earth. > >** On this scale of value or importance, deep ecology and all other ways >of thinking favourably about maintaining and improving (all) life on earth, >are very close to zero, certainly in 1999. > >** So the only high-value philosophy or view-point is the >high-production-and-consumption avaricious power-based view of the current >rich and their corporations. (Rich on a world scale, i.e. including a >majority of North Americans; possibly a majority of people in OECD countries.) > >** You can see why I've been depressed for the last 5 years (until about >last August: early Spring, for us), and am still pessimistic. > >** Perhaps my current views, being non- (though not anti-)DE, are >unwelcome here. In any case, I'll dole them out sparingly, in case they >have a bigger effect than I think they should. > >David. >(David MacClement) <d1v9d-at-bigfoot.com> > http://www.oocities.org/davdd.geo/index.html >************************************************************ > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 07:12:02 -0500 From: Jill Taylor Bussiere <.-.-.-.@admin.itol.com> To: Deep Ecology e-mail list Subject: Re: non- Deep Ecology views. David MacClement wrote: >** ... I ... say: "if concepts like beauty, inspiring music, religion and >philosophy would cease to exist if humans cease to exist, then the concepts >are artifacts and have no reality outside of their effects on humans".

Are humans different than other species in a "more valuable" way? Deep ecologists would heartily say no, I think. Are humans different than other species? Yes. Each species is unique and a wonder. I know more about the capabilities of humans, as I am one. I know nothing about whether other species see beauty or not, and would not dare to say one way or another.

I do think that music is one of the finest things that humans do. As to being an artifact if humans cease to exist, that would be true of any accomplishment of any creature. A beaver dam, an anthill, a wolf song. A thing is no less fine because it does not last for eternity. Yet each thing has its effect in the moment. Each concept, action, emotion, may have different weights in regards to its effect on the earth and its creatures, but each has a weight.

One of our goals as humans here on the list is to tread lightly. So, if there is nothing left of music should we become extinct, (except its untraceable ripple effects) then perhaps that is one of our more successful activities.

But how can we judge the ripple effect of any of our actions? And actions result from our religions and philosophies. As well as from other things - such as basic needs.

Perhaps we worry so much about whether things we do last because we are unsure of the mortality of our spirits. If we were more certain about the continued existence of the lifeforce of all, then perhaps we would be more secure in our existence here - would be more able to wonder at what we see around us, would be able to "be here now" as Ram Dass says.

Which brings me back to music - a be here now kind of experience. Religion is another thing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 11:49:49 -0500 From: Betsy Barnum <.-.-.-.@wavetech.net> Organization: Great River Earth Institute To: Deep Ecology e-mail list Subject: Re: non- Deep Ecology views. David MacClement wrote: >** ... I ... say: "if concepts like beauty, inspiring music, religion and >philosophy would cease to exist if humans cease to exist, then the concepts >are artifacts and have no reality outside of their effects on humans".

Religion and philosophy are human ways of expressing our understanding of the world and ourselves. In their particulars, they are human artifacts, but the impulse to *know* who we are, the impulse to describe and explore our place in the universe, our connection, are impulses of the universe being expressed through us, in our uniquely human ways.

To me, defining music and beauty (and the impulses that create philosophy and religion) as mere human artifacts implies that the universe is meaningless and we humans have given it arbitrary meaning to satisfy our own needs, whatever those are. This notion is hubris of the highest order, I'd say. Why do we assume that our consciousness does not reflect or participate in the consciousness of the universe? Or that our consciousness is the *only* consciousness in the universe?
(And if so, where did it come from? An accident of evolution?)

This to me strongly implies that we are *not* connected, that we are some kind of separate being that isn't related to the rest of the universe. This belief in our fundamental separation is part of anthropocentrism -- if we're not connected, not related, then nothing else has inherent value, or if it does we can't fathom it because it is alien to us. So we can define everything however we want, and use it however we want.

The way I see it, the universe has inherent meaning, and we are a species whose consciousness is tuned to that awareness. We *are* the universe, just as we *are* the Earth, and our minds and hearts are tuned to see and to be in awe of the beauty of the Earth and the universe, to hear the music of the spheres and express our joy by playing it in an incredibly wide variety of ways, to feel deeply our connection with all life and with the forces of the universe and explore that connection.

If human beings just "made up" art, music and spirituality to fulfill some human need (begging the question, where did that need come from?) then deep ecology is also an arbitrary construct developed by a disconnected species in a vain effort to contravene our evolutionary fate and find some way to a future for ourselves.

-- Betsy Barnum bbarnum@wavetech.net http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1624/ ***************************** Anything we love can be saved. --Alice Walker - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -