Thank you for your posting. Ceremonial gestures, and the humility and reverence that are a part of them, open doors for the patient. It also makes me wonder what sorts of technologies would be acceptable where such an honourable relationship is primary in a panpsychic world. It seems every technology has a downside, a 'side-effect', that disturbs the more-than-human world. If technology is a two-edged sword, I wonder what one-edged-technology would look like, or if it is even possible. Hmmmm, Josh.
Sorry Peter, I should have been clearer, I didn’t mean you and your writing, I was responding to the discussion afterwards where people were talking about ‘being in nature’ ‘visiting nature’ etc as part of a practice.
I’ve visited the Bybrook at Box but not spent much time with it, yet! I’ve been learning a lot more about the way rivers might have been in the past through my work on the Ripple Effect project with Wessex Archaeology. Fascinating stuff.
Truly not a problem. I enjoyed my little rant, and totally agree with your pov. The discussion afterwards was really quite disappointing in not grasping the core issues I tried to present.
I just followed the link to your presentation on the Pari Center youtube channel. Really good to watch/listen to it Peter, thank you, lots to ponder and take away.
Personally within these kinds of discussions, I would like to see the word/concept of Nature deconstructed and questioned more. I believe that even with a positive intention, its use relies on/originates from (and perpetuates) the same duality that has caused us all these problems in the first place. Supporting others to see the natural in the man-made is my preferred focus, so that we can experince everything as connected, and understand our impacts better.
James, I am glad you liked my talk. It was fun to do. And I agree with you entirely about the use of the word 'Nature'. I often quote the animist scholar Graham Harvey who says in a YouTube lecture to the Harvard Divinity School 'Every time we use the word ‘Nature’ we reinforce in our imaginations and in our sensemaking the idea that there is realm called Nature separate from the human realm. It drags us right back into the human separatist movement that is Modernity.' So I was a little surprised that you would raise this point in connection with my Pari talk, because I am careful with language. I am compulsive (and defensive!) to have searched the text I wrote. I have only used that word twice, once to identify the false dualism of 'humans and nature' and once as an adjective in 'specular in nature'. So I plead Not Guilty!
I have just yesterday been walking down the By Brook from Ford to Slaughterford. Quite beautiful. The Brook is very bendy and looks 'natural' But you can see, when you look with the right eyes that the 'river' before it was altered to provide water for mills, would have occupied the whole of the valley. It is possible to see where the old 'banks' would have been where the hills start to rise up on each side. So none of us have even seen a 'river' in its original state, only as a hybrid between the water flow and human management.
Thank you for your posting. Ceremonial gestures, and the humility and reverence that are a part of them, open doors for the patient. It also makes me wonder what sorts of technologies would be acceptable where such an honourable relationship is primary in a panpsychic world. It seems every technology has a downside, a 'side-effect', that disturbs the more-than-human world. If technology is a two-edged sword, I wonder what one-edged-technology would look like, or if it is even possible. Hmmmm, Josh.
Sorry Peter, I should have been clearer, I didn’t mean you and your writing, I was responding to the discussion afterwards where people were talking about ‘being in nature’ ‘visiting nature’ etc as part of a practice.
I’ve visited the Bybrook at Box but not spent much time with it, yet! I’ve been learning a lot more about the way rivers might have been in the past through my work on the Ripple Effect project with Wessex Archaeology. Fascinating stuff.
Truly not a problem. I enjoyed my little rant, and totally agree with your pov. The discussion afterwards was really quite disappointing in not grasping the core issues I tried to present.
I just followed the link to your presentation on the Pari Center youtube channel. Really good to watch/listen to it Peter, thank you, lots to ponder and take away.
Personally within these kinds of discussions, I would like to see the word/concept of Nature deconstructed and questioned more. I believe that even with a positive intention, its use relies on/originates from (and perpetuates) the same duality that has caused us all these problems in the first place. Supporting others to see the natural in the man-made is my preferred focus, so that we can experince everything as connected, and understand our impacts better.
A conversation for when we next meet perhaps!
James, I am glad you liked my talk. It was fun to do. And I agree with you entirely about the use of the word 'Nature'. I often quote the animist scholar Graham Harvey who says in a YouTube lecture to the Harvard Divinity School 'Every time we use the word ‘Nature’ we reinforce in our imaginations and in our sensemaking the idea that there is realm called Nature separate from the human realm. It drags us right back into the human separatist movement that is Modernity.' So I was a little surprised that you would raise this point in connection with my Pari talk, because I am careful with language. I am compulsive (and defensive!) to have searched the text I wrote. I have only used that word twice, once to identify the false dualism of 'humans and nature' and once as an adjective in 'specular in nature'. So I plead Not Guilty!
I have just yesterday been walking down the By Brook from Ford to Slaughterford. Quite beautiful. The Brook is very bendy and looks 'natural' But you can see, when you look with the right eyes that the 'river' before it was altered to provide water for mills, would have occupied the whole of the valley. It is possible to see where the old 'banks' would have been where the hills start to rise up on each side. So none of us have even seen a 'river' in its original state, only as a hybrid between the water flow and human management.
Much appreciate your interest!