ok, actually two:

Soangela, hard at work.

I just made up that team name – I think we have a different one, but I can’t remember what it is offhand.

We’re making strong progress on our project!

- Our plans and designs have been approved.

- We have gathered and are in the process of assembling the frame for our panel structure.

We should be done with our frame within the week, weather permitting.

Left to do:

- Refurbish the panels (clean glass, re-insulate, fix housing)

- Check/fix plumbing, install panel pipes.

- Check and streamline wiring.

As long as we stay on track, we should be finished well before the end of the block. We plan on using our remaining time to tackle the energy flow systems in the Student Lounge. This includes a diagram explaining how our solar hot water collector works, but also addresses issues like earth-plastering the walls, making the kitchen more accessible (and re-using the hot air from it back into the Lounge), and so on. These are, obviously, only to be tackled once our primary project is completed.

Reading: Warwick Fox’s “Towards a Transpersonal Ecology” pages 215-243

I understand, perhaps more than people realize, just how important it is to get to the real cause of problems, and once getting there, finding effective and permanent solutions. In my view, that approach to life is the only valid one – while relieving superficial symptoms definitely have their place, every true healer knows the difference between alleviating symptoms and true health.

While some Deep Ecologists may debate it, we can clearly see that a good segment of humanity retains an unhealthy relationship with the natural world, in that their actions (whether consciously or unconsciously) are directly driving the Sixth Major Extinction Event and wholesale ecological destruction, in nearly every biome on the planet. Clearly, something must change.

The answer, if there is one, does not lie in Transpersonal Ecology. Here’s why:

1) The very concept of “trans-personal” is highly suspect, given that any individual can only have a subject experience – even if that experience is of a larger-than-self type. By that I mean, we have no way of verifying the validity of the trans-experience. If this is true for simply human-to-human transpersonalization (yeah, I made the word up), then how much more of a stretch is it so claim a “trans-eco-personal experience”? The truth is, even if such experiences are wholly valid, they do not guarantee any particular actions, because…

2) Sometimes, people hate. People hate their family, their friends, and sometimes people hate themselves so much that that engage in self-destructive behaviors. A man who abuses his family could, after expanding his sense of self to include the natural environment, continue to express that hatred on a larger scale. You wouldn’t think so, because….

3) There is an inherit bias deeply embedded in transpersonal ecology towards unexpressed values of “right and wrong.” They’ve spend a lot of time trying to distance themselves from the formal morality and ethics that the more “shallow” ecologists espouse as a method of saving the natural world, vying instead for Kant’s “beautiful action” Taoist ideal of spontaneous right action. However, the enlightened, self-actualized actor works from a place of spontaneity, which by its very nature contains the entire range of action – good and bad, right and wrong, life-supporting and death/killing. We have no ability to claim this “enlightened” sage, who identifies with all the natural world, will do what we consider right – in point of fact, this person may destroy the natural world in an even deeper way than before.

4) Moreover, the transpersonal experience is not limited to the natural world – there are many other objects and entities that one can transpersonalize with. For example, a man could expand his sense of self to include his business, which is strip-mining – a horribly damaging thing that he sees as “good” or “right,” and works naturally in accordance with. His ever-expanding sense of self grows to include the economy that supports ecological destruction, and the government that, in turn, supports the economy. If there are 100 things that can be incorporated in a growing sense of self, the natural world is only 1 – which means that someone could have a nearly universal sense of self, identifying with 99% of Creation, and still not have those “beautiful actions” towards that natural world.

I could go on, but these few points cover most of what I’m getting at. We cannot depend upon people actively trying to “enlighten” themselves as the only means of saving the natural world from destruction. While education and a radical new way of looking at the world are needed, without a clear set of ethical guidelines to steer humanity’s actions NOW, all the transpersonalization in the world will not be enough to curb the dangerous tendencies of our domination-based capitalistic systems.

Activity 3: Being There. (Experience Nature’s Loving Intelligence through deliberate communion and communication on a non-verbal level – the level of love and attraction.) Michael J. Cohen.

There is a regality to man that is often vilified by eco-activists. They would see us as no better than a fly or shoot of grass. They see our current ills coming from hubris – that we think too highly of ourselves. I think it is the opposite.

I was tromping through the lush summer woods, looking for the fabled “elder oak” that was over 350 years old – if I had to communicate with some nature thing, I wanted it to be something significant. I was following a deer trail, the tiny, twisting path through the verdant undergrowth, when I came across a tree near the stream, bent in such a way as to invite a climb.

As I got closer, however, I noticed some brilliant green moss thriving on the bark – tiny stems poking out, fuzzy and warm. What right did I have, I reasoned, to climb the tree, if by doing so I would destroy this beautiful moss? Feeling somewhat ashamed for my destructive tendancies, I left the tree alone and continued along the trail…. this trail… which was a trail by virtue of the deer stomping upon, and outright killing, so many plants.

No one debates the naturalness of deer, even in their destructive capabilities. Is this their intelligent love? To move through the woods, killing and consuming as they please? What is man’s nature, if deer have such freedom?

Needless to say, I wasn’t having much fun. The idea of pushing through the hot, buggy wood to find a tree and “communicate” with it seemed odious to me. I stood on the creek-side, looking out on to the cool brown water, and it became obvious – I’d much rather go creek stomping. That, to me, seemed fun.

It became clear to me, as I slipped into the cold water, that nature’s design for me was to have fun. If there was an overriding intelligence in those woods that afternoon, if it was aware of me and who I am, then fun was the method of communication. That is – whatever seemed like the most fun to me WAS what nature wanted me to do, because nature was here for me to enjoy. Life itself, that Force that was generated by and flowed through all living beings, speaks to me in terms of enjoyment alone.

I let the idea float through my mind as I slowly pushed upstream. Why should nature, if we speak, speak in terms of fun instead of a “wholeness?” Why wouldn’t it communicate, like the baby deer I had encountered earlier, in terms of threats, of food, or any other more basic levels? I had a feeling that my fellow classmates, sprinkled throughout these same woods, were having similar experiences – not a communication of basic needs, but of higher, more spiritual needs.

And why not? Out of all the forms of life, only I could dictate the terms of my life. I was the only one in the woods, classmates aside, who could decide when, where, what, who – eating, breeding, sleeping, elimination. More than this self-selected destiny, I held an almost unlimited power over other forms of life. As I took each sandy step up against the current, I looked around – I could cut down every tree and plant, move the earth up and down to radically alter the topography, kill or encourage every animal, even change or eliminate the very creek itself.

This potential, I feel, is as natural to man as making a trail is to deer. Man is King of Nature – his power is absolute. When man speaks, nature listens intently. But when nature speaks, how does man hear it? Is he a wise ruler, listening to his subjects, and out of love do what is best for them? Or is he the worst tyrant, ignoring the legitimacy of his citizens, while he pursues an agenda based solely on his own profit?

What most tyrants don’t realize (until they are made painfully aware of it) is that they derive their divide power of sovereignty from the consent of the ruled. If there is a link between a King and God, it is through the expressed will of God’s people – in this case, my divide right to rule over nature comes directly from nature, not in spite of it. I am fit in my ability, as is every man, but have I earned that love and support necessary to rule effectively, working for the benefit of all?

I reached a point in my stomp where the stream seemed to say “no further this way.” The line was obvious, but I tried anyway – and lost my footing, going face-first into the water. I popped back up and looked hard. Yes, I could push past this point. I could destroy every part of this barrier, pour concrete and steel and just walk past it. I could certainly, at least, just keep pushing forward. I considered doing it, just to make a point – but the potential and the actual seemed to be the same to me. Yes, I could – but why bother? To whom would I prove this trivial point, and to what end? Whatever I would gain from it, I would lose something else – even, to some small degree, that ability to listen to nature.

Communication and laziness won out as I turned and, leaning back, began the slow float back downstream. Fun, again, was the key – drifting downstream was vastly more fun than trying to push past some arbitrary boundary to prove a point. The air was fresh, cool and shaded under the trees and birdsong, arriving and departing from those hot spots of sunshine at the easy pace of the stream – subject, at any time, to my desires. My desire, however, wasn’t domination but a cooperation – blessing the creek with my presence, allowing it to feel my bliss, and receiving it’s joy in return. I could ask, then – “What is best for you, stream? How may I use my abilities to help you?” And for it, the answer seemed to be – “There is no greater completion of being for me, the Great Nature, than the simple enjoyment of Sovereign Mankind. Although, to be fair, I could do without so much runoff in my water.”

We may fight, influence, help or hinder each other – man and nature. But there is more than the simple science of helping, which can be of a great boon to all life – the deep ecology is nourishment. Man provides the food of attention and bliss, a factor that nature may do without… but it would be lonely, without a companion. I am compelled to believe that if Man were not, it would be necessary for Nature to invent Him.

I witnessed a slight miracle there, as I stood near a log poking out in the middle of the stream. A stick appeared from behind me, appearing suddenly, as if dropped by an angel, and knocked directly into the log, balancing precariously upon it. Both it and the log weaved and bobbed in the current, as I watched in amazement – this stick, so fragile in its situation, stayed there for no less than ten timed minutes. It was still there when I grew bored of it and walked back to the shore. It was weird.

As I climbed out of the water I was reminded how hard and static life on land can be. I threaded my way back to the trail, passing classmates in various stages of communication – eyes closed or open, silent, feeling energies and deep in contemplations. It reminded me of once, when I was out in the woods, I decided to “Namaste” everything I could. It was an intense experience – suddenly everything, every single thing, demanded my attention and devotion. I was paralyzed, unable to move, not wanting to slight anything or offend anyone. It was too much, really – every rock, every plant, each leaf upon it, every tree and insect and…. I had ended up running, just chanting Namaste over and over, not able to look around me.

This time, however, I realized a new mode of being: Every being, everything that entered into my awareness came to that place of Namaste – an automatic response, a deeper understanding instantly communicated without the hands or the words. As I walked down the trail, I reached out my hand and felt some grasses – these were the adoring hands of my subjects.  My devotion to my Kingdom was complete. My Kingdom, Nature, accepted me as their Ruler in return, for my devotion inspired their trust.

True communication cannot occur without trust – and trust is nearly impossible without both parties knowing their roles in their relationship. It was only after I had come to accept my role as King that I could freely communicate with Nature – all the mood-making and forced empathy I had attempted before seemed silly and pointless. No… I am a Man. I am the small God of Nature. I derive my power from Nature’s consent, and this is the basis of our connection – equal partners in life and death.

This is intelligent love.

Reading: Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: A Challenge for the Ecology Movement, by Murray Bookchin.

(read it here: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/socecovdeepeco.html )

I was once contracted to transcribe audio files to text, and the file I received was a talk from the  man who’s mission had been the eradication of Guinea worm. Outright, wholesale destruction of this terrible parasite, which once afflicted most of Africa. Due to dedicated efforts from the Carter Foundation and the World Health Organization, however, transmission rates steadily decreased, and now the final goal (zero cases globally) is within reach: http://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/mini_site/index.html

This is almost universally considered to be a good thing, by nearly every individual and group, with the exception of Deep Ecology (as our reading has pointed out) and other nutjobs: http://www.deadlysins.com/guineaworm/index.htm <— These people are fighting to save the worm, even asking for volunteers to host (or “nurture”) the worm inside their own bodies. By what right do we, as humans, choose who lives and dies?

Should we just let nature “take its course?” The elimination of Guinea worm comes primarily from filtering drinking water – by that alone the worm would be extinct. As it turns out, there was a lot of social bias in rural Africa regarding purifying drinking water – I wish I had the source to refer to, but story told in this speech went something like: A man traveled from his remote village to the city for business, and while there learned about the worm and how it can be prevented by filtering drinking water. He returned and started to do so, but faced extreme prejudice, to the point of threatened violence, from the other villagers. They believed that by filtering drinking water he was “offending the Gods,” and would invite Their wrath upon the village. This, to me, sounds like Deep Ecology at work – a mystical supernatural force that was incompatible with rational common sense. It took the testimony of converted shamans, priests and high-profile political leaders, working together, to dispel these idea and get people to filter the water they drink.

I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that the supernatural (or any spiritual or religious) can be disregarded in a theoretically “pure” scientific, or even social, ideology. I only see a clash of ideals when the above happens – suffering needlessly out of fear or ignorance. The point here is not one of denying the spirit, but rather one of regulating it to its proper place – as a framework for personal experience and spiritual growth, and NOT as a method of approach to our current ecological crises. Whether or not humanity, in all its complex social glory, is a product of the natural world or not is irrelevant; we have the power to influence “first” nature with our “second,” and that alone is enough.

Of course, Bookchin’s understanding of the distinction between Self and self is woefully lacking – I’m not surprised, as I don’t believe anyone from the Deep Ecology camp gets it either. What I believe, as I pointed out in class, is that any discussion of the spiritual unfolding of self into Self is a useless one; enlightened behavior is, in no way, externally different from unenlightened behavior. To base a movement of thought and action around a state of being that is both poorly-understood and behaviorally like any other state is a very bad idea.

This same mistake plagues Taoism, which Murray was quick to scorn, in that Taoist texts provide a description of the state itself, and offers no real methods for achieving it. We can, by proximity and osmosis, gain insight and feeling, and by those means possibly move closer to the goal, but it is like being given a road map of Manhattan while one lives in Iowa – you’re not there, but you get an idea of what it could be. To base a movement, or a social structure, on these descriptions is a terrible idea – and yet, one of the central points of Deep Ecology is expanding this sense of self into the larger Self! This is either mood making, delusion, or enlightenment. If we could really expand ourselves by just thinking about it and wishing it were so, I would have been enlightened a million freaking times by now.

Personally, then, I base my actions on an overwhelming sense of proper, normal, common-sense conduct. Within this common-sense framework are my ideologies, my religion, my spiritual experiences, and the like. These factors, however, are limited to their proper spheres – I don’t kill people, even though I believe in reincarnation and the like, because that would be horrible. On the other hand, I naturally feel a sense of superiority over the rest of nature in those things I am good at, namely cognitive thinking. Individual facets of nature are “better” than me in every physical manner – running, swimming, endurance, sex, seeing, hearing, and so on. But my ability to think and act on those thoughts far exceed anything else in nature – why not celebrate this fact? Why not embrace the power that this provides? If we are the products of nature, we have been set as Kings and Queens on the top – as a democratically elected King of Nature, it would be an insult and disservice to not act with the authority that position provides.

And, as may be the case, our abuse of that position may result in our overthrowing, a defenestration of King Man – Man, in this case, being our social structure, the collective activity all of us contribute to. Here Murray is exactly right – it is our social structure that must be fixed, not how we see ourselves. Humanity already has enough compassion and empathy with nature IF we allow for it to grow in society. By structuring ourselves in a manner which denies this basic goodness to each other, how much more difficult to find basic goodness towards anything non-human? That is the vital flaw of Deep Ecology, if it is true – we must “be excellent to one another” on all scales, in all counties, and among all people if we are to truly address the Why of our ecological destruction. To appeal to the spiritual gods of nature, and merge with them, while advocating death and destruction to our families, is both counter-productive and truly terrible.

Recently, a friend of mine (who is an excellent blogger) “quit” Facebook. I say “quit” because, as she pointed out, Facebook saves ALL of your information (contact and “about me”, pictures, links, friends, groups, pages, and so on). The difference between an active account and a deactivated account is simply how long it takes to log back in. There really is no quitting Facebook – even if you took the time to manually delete everything, your account would still be available to FB’s database mining, and if you did decide to rejoin you’d just have more work to do.

I know, because I’ve tried it. I’ve done both the “simple deactivation” type of quitting, and the hardcore “delete everything” attack. MySpace had the decency to fully delete your account after a certain amount of time, but Facebook? Despite the two, maybe three times I’ve tried to leave… I’m still on my original account.

The role social networking has taken in our society has been commented upon by many a blogger, and honestly I don’t care that much. I remember the Time Before Cell Phones, when you had to call someone on a land-line and arrange social gatherings before they happen, having to go out of your way to contact people before you left the house. I remember when I found my cellphone had an email address, and I could email other phones right from my computer. And then… texting.

In the same way, I remember getting my first email address, and then my first web-based email address (still have it: rskrules@hotmail.com … back before Hotmail was bought by MSN). Then ICQ was all the rage, because you could type to another person In Real Time! Broadband hit around then, eliminating the ear-splitting scream of a dial-up and offering blistering-fast, always-on Internet. Then MySpace, a website offering the best of having your own website without having to learn HTML and signing up at GeoCities or Angelfire. I remember how Napster introduced me to worlds of music I had never heard before, and directly led me to spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on bands I never would have discovered without it.

This is good. I imagine this is what old men feel like, telling the kids what it was like back in my day. You little punks! 16-bit graphics are blasphemy!

What was I saying? Did I have a point? Oh yes…

I got this new smart phone recently – the htc Driod Eris – and it did something shocking. I booted it up for the first time (don’t get me starting on phone that have to “boot up”) and put in my email address to help integrate it into… I don’t know, the web? After setup was over, I went to enter in all the numbers I had written down on a Post-It from my old phone (see what an old man I am?) when I discovered that they were already in there. My brain stopped. How was that possible? Something wasn’t right… it took me a full day to realize that my phone’s “contacts” were actually my Google Mail Contacts. My email contact list. In my cell phone.

This…. thing instantly knew everyone I had ever emailed. But… no, this can’t be… It also recognized my Facebook friends and linked my gmail contacts to them.

My jaw hit the floor. This was no cellular phone, this was a device to divine internet contacts, where ever they be, and bring them to me at post-computer locations.

Before I had this phone, I used to think of three groups of people: people on my phone, my email lists, and social network lists (FB, MySpace, Twitter, etc). I could quit any one of these groups at any time, depending on my mood or situation, and the others would be untouched.

Now I think of all of them as one singular group: My Contacts. It doesn’t matter which contact in on which website or service anymore, just so long as we’re connected.

My personal feelings about Google or Facebook are now irrelevant. I have a Google-based phone, in which it is easier to add a new contact FOR MY PHONE via my COMPUTER’S WEB BROWSER… which happens to be Google Chrome. The people on my Facebook friends list are not just there so I can have friends – their updates and information (email, phone number, pictures, etc) are all vital parts of my contact web. I could no more quit Facebook than I could delete all the numbers off my phone. And I, in no way, actually hold or store my friend’s information – Google does that for me.

I’d be concerned if I wasn’t so apathetic to the whole thing. I know my information is being bought and sold. Soon all my personal information will be available to the highest bidders, and they can find out exactly where I am, who I’m with, what I’m doing and where I’m going. If they wanted, they could delete me outright and I would be powerless to stop them. In an instant my phone could be bricked, my Google account erased and my Facebook account suspended. Then what would I do? Where would I go?

Outside, probably. *shudder*

EDIT: Instantly after posting this, College Humor summed it up better: http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1806517