,*APT] #c 
,?9K+ ,ECOLOGICALLY3 ,A ,DIALECTICAL ,APPROA* 

,PEOPLE 3 

,AU?OR 3 ,MURRAY ,BOOK*9 

,TEXT 3 

,?9K+ ,ECOLOGICALLY3  

 ,A ,DIALECTICAL ,APPROA* .<#d#h.> 

  

,9 A TIME ( SWEEP+ SOCIAL BREAKD[N & 9TELLECTUAL FRAGM5TATION1 IT IS NOT SURPRIS+ TO F9D ?AT PAT*WORK ECLECTICISM & IDEOLOGICAL FADDISM >E S]I\SLY CORROD+ ! V]Y NOTION ( COH]5T ?9K+4 ,AL?\< SU* IDEOLOGICAL DET]IORATION HAS OCCURR$ 9 E>LI] P]IODS ( SOCIAL DECAY1 ONE MI<T HAVE HOP$ ?AT ECOLOGICAL ?9K+ -- ) ITS EMPHASIS ON ! ORGANIC1 ! HOLI/IC1 & ! DEVELOPM5TAL -- W\LD HAVE PROVID$ AN IDEOLOGICAL T]RA9 FROM :I* WE C\LD RESI/ ! G5]AL FRAGM5TATION ( \R TIMES4 ,TRAGICALLY1 ?IS HOPE HAS NOT BE5 FULFILL$4 ,MANY CONTEMPOR>Y ECOPHILOSOPHIES1 9 FACT1 F> FROM C\NT]+ ! TR5D T[>D ECLECTICISM & FADDISM1 SEEM TO BE RE9=C+ IT ,9DE$1 WE >E BE+ OV]:ELM$ BY AN EFFLUVIUM ( FADS PREFIX$ BY ECO- ?AT P&] TO ,NEW ,AGE POP /YLES4 ,TOO (T51 !SE 0ECO0-FADDI/S EI!R IGNORE MUSCUL>ITY ( ?\<T AS TOO 0HEAVY10 OR ELSE !Y CONDEMN IT AS 9TELLECTUALLY 0L9E>0 & 0DIVISIVE40 ,AS A RESULT1 A M5TALLY LAZY READ]%IP IS EM]G+ ?AT IS />TL$ BY S]I\S ?\<T ?AT IS 9 ANY WAY DEM&+ -- & EV5 0TURN$ (F0 BY IT 7TO USE 0C\NT]CULTURE0 J>GON74 

,MORE SPECIFICALLY1 ,TAOI/ MOODS1 ,BUDDHI/ HOMILIES1 & ,NEW ,AGE PLATITUDES SEEM TO BE REPLAC+ EV5 G5U9E ?9K+1 LET ALONE ! POSSIBILITY ( ORGANIC REASON+ ?AT SOCIAL ECOLOGY RAIS$ A DECADE OR SO AGO4 ,AS SIMPLIFI$ 9T]PRETATIONS ( ,EA/]N ?\<T -- LI<T-M9D$LY MIX$ ) ,HEIDEGG]IAN 0WOODPA?S0 & ,JUNGIAN >*ETYPES -- OBSCURE ! MANY GNAW+ PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS ?AT >E 5DEMIC TO ECOLOGICAL ?\<T1 SURPRIS+LY FEW ECOLOGICALLY ORI5T$ PEOPLE SEEM TO FEEL ?AT ,WE/]N PHILOSOPHY & SOCIAL !ORY HAVE MU* TO CONTRIBUTE4 ,9/EAD1 ! ,WE/]N TRADITION IS REVIL$ AS ! MONOLI?IC S\RCE ( ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS4 ,9DE$1 IT IS /YLI% TO HEAP EPI!TS ON ,DESC>TES AS ! 0S\RCE0 ( DUALISM & ON ,FRANCIS ,BACON AS ! 0S\RCE0 ( SCI5TISM -- ) OR )\T READ+ !IR WORKS4 ,BUT RI* TRADITIONS ( IDEAS ?AT ORIG9AT$ 9 ANCI5T ,A!NS1 ?AT REA*$ !IR HI< PO9T 9 ?9K]S LIKE ,D5IS ,DID]OT & P>TICUL>LY ,HEGEL1 & ?AT /ILL HAUNT US 9 ! WORKS ( ,R4 ,G4 ,COLL+WOOD & ,HANS ,JONAS1 >E IGNOR$4 7,NE$ ,I ADD ?AT SOCIAL !ORY SUFF]S EV5 MORE1 ESPECIALLY FROM A LACK ( 9-DEP? /UDY ( ,R\SSEAU1 ,M>X1 & ,KROPOTK947 ,NOR IS ,WE/]N ?\<T MADE >TIFICIALLY RELEVANT TO ECOLOGICAL ?9K+ BY TURN+ ,SP9OZA 9TO A ,BUDDHI/ -- A K9D ( 0WOODPA?0 ?AT WAS FIR/ CLE>$ YE>S AGO1 :5 ,]I* ,FROMM TRI$ TO TURN ,M>X 9TO A ,Z5 MA/]4 ,TO ORI5TALIZE -- ,CALI=NIA /YLE -- ?9K]S :OSE WORK EM]G$ FROM DI/9CTLY ,WE/]N PROBLEMATICS & TRADITIONS NOT ONLY VIOLATES ,WE/]N TRADITIONS & !IR 9TEGRITY BUT S]VES TO OBSCURE BO? ! CONTRIBUTIONS & ! FAIL+S ( !SE ?9K]S1 !REBY DI/ORT+ !M4 

,:AT IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT IS ?AT ! ,WE/]N ORGANISMIC TRADITION IS MU* /URDI] 9 ITS ?RU/ ?AN ! ,EA/]N4 ,ALL TOO (T51 :AT 0ECO0-FADDI/S UNKN[+LY TAKE FROM ! ,WE/ IS NOT ITS ORGANISMIC TRADITION BUT1 IRONICALLY1 ITS /ATIC ANALYTICAL POSITIVI/IC LOGIC1 A WAY ( REASON+ ?AT /&S AT ODDS ) ORGANISMIC T5D5CIES -- EV5 AS !Y TURN TO ! ,EA/ = POETRY TO SATISFY !IR MORE SPIRITUALI/IC PROCLIVITIES4 ,?IS ODDLY S*IZOPHR5IC IDEOLOGICAL MUTATION HAS PRODUC$ A /RANGE TWI/ 9 PHILOSOPHICAL ?9K+ )9 TODAY'S ECOLOGY MOVEM5T3 EV5 AS ITS M9D IS ,WE/]N 9 ITS H>% 9/RUM5TAL ME?ODOLOGY1 ITS HE>T IS UNCRITICALLY ,EA/]N 9 ITS S5TIM5TALITY4 ,! /RANGE COMB9ATION ( A ,WE/]N 0M9D10 9 ITS MO/ 9/RUM5TAL & ANALYTICAL POSITIVI/IC =M1 ) AN ,EA/]N 0HE>T10 AT ITS MO/ VAPOR\S & SQUAM\S1 CANNOT BE RESOLV$ BY A GOSPEL ( PEACEABLE COEXI/5CE BUT MU/ ULTIMATELY YIELD A TOTAL CONTRADICTION4 ,ECOLOGY'S 0POP0 CULTURE IS AT W> ) ITS [N LOGICAL UND]P9N+S4 

,TODAY'S ECLECTICISM JUMBLES TOGE!R ?9K]S :OSE IDEAS >E1 TO SAY ! LEA/1 UNRELAT$4 ,9 ! ACADEMY1 AN 9COH]5T BODY ( 0ECOPHILOSOPHY0 HAS EM]G$ -- A CAT*ALL 0RECEPTACLE0 7TO BORR[ A METAPHOR FROM ,PLATO'S ,TIMAEUS7 ?AT WILDLY MIXES T5D5CIES ?AT >E %>PLY AT V>IANCE ) EA* O!R LOGICALLY BUT ?AT COEXI/ 9 A BLISSFUL /ATE ( IGNORANCE EMOTIONALLY4 ,TO ROLL TOGE!R ,HEIDEGG]'S 9EFFABLE 0OP5NESS TO ,BE+0 & ,B>RY ,COMMON]'S TRITE CAFET]IA 0ECOLOGY10 ) ITS MAXIM ?AT !RE IS 0NO SU* ?+ AS A FREE LUN*0 9 NATURE1 IS ADOLESC5T AT BE/ & 9SIDI\S AT WOR/ ,IT ASKS US TO DESC5D FROM ! ,BAV>IAN ,ALPS TO A ,NEW ,J]SEY %OPP+ MALL )\T EV5 POPP+ AN E>DRUM4 

,TYPICAL ( ?IS ECLECTICISM IS 0DEEP ECOLOGY0 -- WIDELY DISCUSS$ AT ECOLOGICAL CONF]5CES !SE DAYS1 EV5 AS P>TICIPANTS CONTEMPLATE :AT IS 0DEEP]0 ?AN 0DEEP ECOLOGY40 ,YET ITS V]Y NAME TYPIFIES A CONFUSION 9 SEMANTICS4 ,LEAV+ ASIDE ! PROBLEMS ( US+ ! DIM5SIONAL WORD DEEP1 0%ALL[ ECOLOGY0 -- 9T5D$ AS ! TE*NOCRATIC C\NT]P>T ( 0DEEP ECOLOGY0 -- IS H>DLY TO BE GRAC$ ) ! WORD ECOLOGY :5 IT IS 9 FACT NO?+ MORE ?AN  
5VIRONM5TALISM4 ,MOREOV]1 ONE CAN BE V]Y 0DEEP0 BUT PR(\NDLY WRONG1 AS ,C>TESIAN PHILOSOPHY & POSITIVI/ !ORY REVEAL TODAY ,IT DOES NOT HELP ONE'S ECOLOGY -- :E!R DEEP1 %ALL[1 OR SOCIAL -- TO FILL 9 ITS GAPS ) SOME PLA/] BORR[$ FROM ,TAOISM1 MORT> FROM ,BUDDHISM1 CONCRETE FROM ,HEIDEGG]1 & BRICKS FROM ,SP9OZA1 NOT TO SPEAK ( MUD FROM ,COMMON]1 ,PAUL ,EHRLI*1 & ! LIKE4 ,ATTEMPTS TO COMPO/ A GREAT V>IETY ( VIEWS UND] A COMMON RUBRIC LIKE 0DEEP ECOLOGY0 OR 0BIOREGIONALISM0 >E GRAVELY MISLEAD+3 !RE >E DIFF]5CES )9 ! ECOLOGY MOVEM5T ?AT >E UTT]LY AT ODDS ) EA* O!R1 & !IR DIV]G5CES >E MORE IMPORTANT ?AN !IR SO-CALL$ 0COMMON GOAL04 

,!RE IS1 9 FACT1 AN ORGANISMIC TRADITION 9 ,WE/]N ?\<T ?AT IS AT LEA/ AS RI* AS ?AT ( ! ,EA/4 ,MOREOV]1 LONG/&+ DEBATES 9 ! ,WE/]N TRADITION HAVE 5GAG$ PHILOSOPH]S ) HI<LY IMPORTANT PROBLEMS ?AT ! ,EA/ HAS NOT CONFRONT$ AS FULLY2 9DE$1 ! ,WE/]N ORGANISMIC TRADITION IS MU* /URDI] 9 ITS ?RU/ ?AN ! ,EA/]N4 ,ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO TRAVEL F> 9TO ,EA/]N ?\<T TO F9D DUALISMS ?AT >E NO LESS 9TRACTABLE ?AN ,DESC>TES'S & NOTIONS ( DOM9AT+ NATURE ?AT >E NO LESS /RID5T ?AN ,BACON'S4 ,ISSUES ( MONISM & DUALISM1 R$UCTIONISM & DIALECTIC1 & ! SOMETIMES ADV]S>IAL RELATION%IPS BETWE5 !M W]E >TICULAT$1 EXAC]BAT$1 & CONFRONT$ MORE CLE>LY 9 ! ,WE/ -- P>TICUL>LY 9 ! WORKS ( ,>I/OTLE1 ,SP9OZA1 & ,HEGEL -- ?AN 9 ! ,EA/1 :]E !SE NOTIONS T5D$ TO TAKE A VAPOR\S & MY/ICAL =M4 

,IF MY APPROA* SEEMS TOO 0,EUROC5TRIC10 LET ME W>N ! READ] ?AT ,ASIAN 0C5TRICITY0 IS A GREAT] AFFLICTION4 ,IT IS ! ISSUES ?AT ECOLOGICAL ?9K+ RAISES1 RA!R ?AN GEOPOLITICAL & DEMOGRAPHIC CONSID]ATIONS1 ?AT %\LD GUIDE US H]E4 ,ULTIMATELY1 ! REAL QUE/IONS ?AT CONFRONT US >E NOT ONLY H[ TO FEEL ECOLOGICALLY BUT H[ TO ?9K ECOLOGICALLY4 ,! *ASM BETWE5 ?\<T & FEEL+ IS GR[+ WID] TODAY1 NOT N>R[+1 DESPITE ! DELUGE ( ORI5TALIZ$ ,WE/]NISMS ?AT HAVE DESC5D$ UPON US ME?ODOLOGICALLY & ! ,WE/]NIZ$ ORI5TALISMS ?AT HAVE DESC5D$ UPON US ONTOLOGICALLY4 ,IT W\LD BE WELL1 = A MOM5T1 TO WORK ) ONE TRADITION ON ITS [N GR\ND & SEE :AT PROBLEMS IT RAISES & :AT SOLUTIONS IT ADVANCES4 

,NATURE PHILOSOPHY--,EA/ & ,WE/ 

  

,TO ?9K ECOLOGICALLY IS TO 5T] ! DOMA9 ( NATURE PHILOSOPHY4 ,?IS CAN BE A V]Y P]IL\S /EP4 ,S]I\S POLITICAL AMBIGUITIES P]SI/ 9 NATURE PHILOSOPHY ITSELF3 NAMELY1 ITS POT5TIAL TO N\RI% REACTION AS WELL AS REVOLUTION4 ,CONTEMPOR>Y SOCIETY IS /ILL SE>$ BY IMAGES ( NATURE ?AT HAVE FO/]$ HI<LY REACTION>Y POLITICAL VIEWS4 ,VAPOR\S SLOGANS AB\T 0COMMUNITY0 & HUMANITY'S 0ON5ESS ) NATURE0 EASILY 9T]PLAY ) ! LEGACY ( 0NATURALI/IC0 NATIONALISM ?AT REA*$ ITS G5OCIDAL APOGEE 9 ,NAZISM1 ) ITS MY?S ( RACE & 0BLOOD & SOIL40 ,IT REQUIRES ONLY A M9OR IDEOLOGICAL %IFT FROM ! IDEAS ( ! N9ETE5?-C5TURY ,ROMANTIC MOVEM5T & ,WILLIAM ,BLAKE'S MY/ICAL AN>*ISM TO >RIVE AT ,RI*>D ,WAGN]'S MY/ICAL NATIONALISM4 

,NOR DOES SCI5CE1 = ALL ITS CLAIMS TO OBJECTIVITY1 RESCUE US FROM ! WAYW>DNESS ( A NATURE PHILOSOPHY T+$ ) ROMANTICISM & MY/ICISM4 ,! 0NATURALI/IC 9JUNCTIONS ) :I* ,HITL] 9ITIAT$ HIS BLOOD-DR5*$ M>* ?R\< ,EUROPE HAVE !IR C\NT]P>T 9 ! COSMIC 0LAWS0 ( NATURAL HI/ORY ) :I* ,/AL9 IDEOLOGICALLY JU/IFI$ HIS BLOOD-DR5*$ 9DU/RIALIZATION ( ,RUSSIA4 0,DIALECTICAL MAT]IALISM10 OR 0DIAMAT0 -- :I* ,FRI$RI* ,5GELS RE/AT$ AS 0LAWS0 LIKE ! 0UNITY ( OPPOSITES10 ! TRANS=MATION ( 0QUANTITY 9TO QUALITY10 & ! 0NEGATION ( ! NEGATION0 -- AN*OR$ SOCIAL DEVELOPM5T 9 AN ALMO/ ME*ANI/IC CAUSALITY ?AT WAS AS DAMN+ TO MOD]N CLAIMS ( 9DIVIDUALITY & FRE$OM AS IT WAS TO ! COMPLEX RELATION%IPS ( SOCIETY TO NATURE4 

,IT IS WOR? NOT+ ?AT ! MAJOR !ORI/S ( ! ,FRANKFURT ,S*OOL1 :OSE IDEAS >E SO FA%IONABLE !SE DAYS1 F\ND]$ ON ! HORNS ( DILEMMAS ?AT NATURE PHILOSOPHY POSES4 ,!ODOR ,ADORNO & ,MAX ,HORKHEIM]'S D>K PESSIMISM AB\T ! HUMAN CONDITION /EMM$ 9 L>GE P>T FROM !IR 9ABILITY TO AN*OR AN EMANCIPATORY E?ICS 9 A RADICALLY CONCEIV$ ECOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY4 ,9DE$1 REASON1 9 !IR VIEW1 WAS HOPELESSLY TA9T$ BY ITS ORIG9 7AS !Y UND]/OOD IT7 AS A MEANS = DOM9AT+ NATURE -- A VA/1 PRESUMABLY CIVILIZATORY 5T]PRISE ?AT ALSO REQUIR$ ! DOM9ATION ( HUMAN BY HUMAN AS M]E 9/RUM5TS ( PRODUCTION4 ,M>XI/ !ORY JU/IFI$ HUMAN S]VITUDE & ! DEVELOPM5T ( CLASSES AS UNAVOIDABLE /EPS 9 HUMANITY'S 0TORTUR$0 M>* T[>D FRE$OM FROM MAT]IAL WANT & HOPEFULLY FROM SOCIAL DOM9ATION ITSELF4.<#d#i.> ,SU* IDEAS1 :I* TRADITIONAL ,M>XISM & LIB]ALISM CELEBRAT$ & OV] :I* ! ,FRANKFURT ,S*OOL BROOD$1 W]E ! RECEIV$ WISDOM ( ! LA/ C5TURY4 ,H5CE ! 9ABILITY ( SO MANY RADICAL !ORI/S TODAY TO GRAPPLE ) NATURE PHILOSOPHY1 DIALECTIC1 OR 9DE$1 ANY ORGANIC APPROA* ?AT SEEKS TO RE9T]PRET !SE \TLOOKS ECOLOGICALLY4 ,! DOMA9 ( NATURE AS A GR\ND = FRE$OM HAS BE5 R5D]$ TABOO BY ! POLITICAL CONSEQU5CES ( E>LI] 9T]PRETATIONS1 MANY ( :I* HAVE MY/IFI$1 ROMANTICIZ$1 OR UNIFI$ NATURE & ITS RELATION%IP TO SOCIETY BY MEANS ( A COSMIC MY/ICISM ?AT PREEMPTS REASON BY 9TUITION4 

,ON ! O!R H&1 ! FACT ?AT ,EA/]N SAGES ?\<T & FELT PR(\NDLY DOES NOT IMMUNIZE !IR WORK TO ! CRITICISM ?AT AMBIGUITY CL\DS MU* ( IT4 ,! ,TAO ,TE ,*+1 IMPUT$ TO ,LAO-TZU1 CAN BE READ NOT ONLY AS ! PEASANTRY'S 0WAY0 = MOV+ ) ! 0GRA90 ( NATURE BUT AS A H&BOOK = ELITI/ CONTROL ( ! PEASANTRY -- AN AMBIGUITY ?AT IS NO LESS TR\BL+ ?AN ! FACT ?AT ,PLATO'S ,REPUBLIC CAN BE READ NOT ONLY AS A F>-SEE+ DISQUISITION ON JU/ICE BUT AS A ,HELL5IC GUIDE = A GU>DIAN ELITE 9 ! MANIPULATION ( ! PEOPLE4 ,WE/]N ACOLYTES ( ,EA/]N ?\<T (T5 USE SU* AMBIGUITY TO !IR ADVANTAGE1 EXPLOIT+ METAPHORS ( ,EA/]N SAGES TO R5D] COMPLETELY SELF-CONTRADICTORY >GUM5TS 9TELLIGIBLE1 IF NOT EXACTLY COH]5T4 ,AMBIGUITY IS NO VIRTUE 9 ITSELF2 RA!R1 IT DEM&S CL>IFICATION & ELUCIDATION4 

,:5 MANY QUASI-RELIGI\S ,ASIAN TRACT S >E VIEW$ FROM A  
SOCIAL /&PO9T -- :I* SOCIAL ECOLOGY ALWAYS REQUIRES -- SOME ( !IR AMBIGUITY SEEMS TO DISAPPE>4 ,9 TRADITIONAL ,*9A1 A FATALI/IC PEASANTRY WAS AN EASILY MANIPULABLE PEASANTRY1 H[EV] 0S(TLY0 IT DEALT ) NATURE -- :I* WAS NOT QUITE AS 0S(T0 AS ! ,WE/]N IMAG9ATION T5DS TO PICTURE IT4 ,9 ?IS RESPECT1 ,LEON ,E4 ,/OV]'S  
,! ,CULTURAL ,ECOLOGY ( ,*9ESE ,CIVILIZATION IS A MU*-NE$$ COMPANION READ] TO ,TAOI/ & ,BUDDHI/ LIT]ATURE4.<#e.> ,! PEASANT VILLAGE OR ,GRE5 ,CIRCLE 7*'+ *UAN7 ( ! NOR? -- A SOBRIQUET ?AT ,/OV] APPLIES TO ,*9ESE VILLAGES G5]ALLY -- WAS TRADITIONALLY ! OBJECT ( SY/EMATIC PLUND] BY AN ELITE4 ,?IS ELITE FO/]$ A PRIVILEG$ 0HI< CULTURE0 ?AT PAT5TLY JU/IFI$ !IR EXPLOITATION ( ! PEASANTRY 9 ! NAME ( A 0,GREAT ,CONNECT$ ,:OLE40 ,:AT WAS 0GREAT10 ALAS1 WAS (T5 :AT LAY 9 ! BE/ 9T]E/S ( ?OSE :O CONSID]$ !MSELVES 0GREAT10 NOT NECESS>ILY ( ! PEASANTRY1 :O ALSO =M$ P>T ( ! 0:OLE40 ,ECOLOGICALLY1 ! LANGUAGE ( 0CONNECT$NESS0 9 ! ,TAO ,TE ,*+ IS 5*ANT+LY 0NATURALI/IC40 ,SOCIALLY1 H[EV]1 IT PROVID$ A RHETORICAL PAT9A = UN*ALL5G$ DESPOTISM 9 :I* PEASANT & ELITE W]E 0CONNECT$0 NOT BY A MUTUALI/IC SYMBIOSIS BUT BY A P>ASITISM 9 :I* ! PEASANT WAS ! HO/ & ! G5TLEMAN ! P>ASITE4 

,FOLK CULTURE WAS SEP>AT$ FROM HI< CULTURE BY ! ILLIT]ACY & CONTRACTION ( ! PEASANT VILLAGE TO AN 9TROV]T$1 P>O*IAL1 & SELF-5CLOS$ UNIV]SE -- ONE ?AT KEPT ,*9ESE SOCIETY FRAGM5T$1 HI]>*ICAL1 & SOCIALLY IMMOBILE4 ,VILLAG]S' CONCEPTIONS ( NATURE W]E DISCONC]T+3 HUMAN LIFE WAS SE5 9 ! MO/ PASSIVE & RESIGN$ P]SPECTIVE1 AS A /EADY DEMOGRAPHIC FL[ 9TO ! 0,S9K ( ,DEA?40 ,EV5 DIVE/$ ( ITS 9/ITUTIONAL & IDEOLOGICAL TRAPP+S1 ,TAOISM HI/ORICALLY ALMO/ C]TA9LY %AP$ ! PEASANTRY 9TO A SOCIAL BODY )\T *OICE1 MOTIVATION1 RESPITE FROM POV]TY1 OR HOPE ( ESCAP+ BE+ DRA9$ 9TO ! 0,S9K40 ,9 A 0NATURALI/IC0 CR$O LESS ( NURTURE ?AN ( UNREL5T+ DE/9Y1 PIETY WAS 9T]M+L$ ) ACQUIESC5CE T[>D ONE'S FATE1 & TOIL WAS 9T]M+L$ ) 0SANCTIMONI\S HUSB&RY10 AS ,/OV] CALLS IT4 ,FROM ! VIEWPO9T ( ! ELITE1 ! PEASANTS' PRIDE 9 !IR HUSB&RY WAS LESS IMPORTANT ?AN !IR VULN]ABILITY TO EXPLOITATION4.<#e#a.> 

,IT IS NOT MY PURPOSE TO DWELL AT ANY GREAT L5G? ON ! ,ASIAN HE>T ?AT SO (T5 DAZZLES ! ,WE/]N HEAD4 ,:AT IS MORE IMPORTANT H]E IS ?AT ?IS HEAD IS MORE ME*ANI/IC1 9/RUM5TAL1 & 9ORGANIC ?AN IT C>ES TO ADMIT4 ,MU* ?AT PASSES = ECOLOGICAL ?9K+ TODAY IS AS DIM ME?ODOLOGICALLY AS IT IS />RY-EY$ IDEOLOGICALLY4 ,BEH9D ! 0,?IRD ,WAVE0 ?AT IS ROLL+ OV] US1 ! 0NEW P>ADIGM0 ?AT IS %IFT+ US1 ! 0FE$BACK0 ?AT IS ELECTRIFY+ US1 & ! 0WOODPA?S0 ?AT >E GUID+ US1 IS A BIZ>RE =M ( ?9K+ ?AT IS AS AIRY ON ITS SPIRITUAL PEAKS AS IT IS CRUDELY ME*ANI/IC AT ITS HYPO!TICO-D$UCTIVE BASE4 ,!SE CONTRADICTORY 0ECOLOGICAL ZONES10 AS IT W]E1 REFLECT S]I\S AMBIGUITIES 9 NATURE PHILOSOPHY ITSELF3 NAMELY1 ITS POT5TIAL TO N\RI% REACTION AS WELL AS REVOLUTION1 (T5 ) ! SAME VISIONS ?AT F$ A ,BLAKE AT ONE EXTREME & A ,WAGN] AT ! O!R4 ,!SE 0ECOLOGICAL ZONES0 MU/ BE BRIEFLY SURVEY$ IF ! PROJECT ( ?9K+ ECOLOGICALLY IS TO BE S]I\SLY EXPLOR$4 

,SPIRITUAL ,ME*ANISM 

  

,AT ! P]IL ( /&+ V]Y MU* AT ODDS ) :AT IS VOIC$ !SE DAYS 9 ECOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY1 LET ME SAY ?AT ! PROBLEM ( DUALISM -- ! MODE ( ?\<T ?AT C\NT]POSES M9D TO BODY1 ?\<T TO REALITY1 & SOCIETY TO NATURE -- :I* RECEIVES SO MU* EMPHASIS 9 ECOLOGICAL LIT]ATURE IS GIV+ WAY TO ! MORE S]I\S PROBLEM ( R$UCTIONISM4 

,DUALISM & R$UCTIONISM1 9 FACT1 >E USUALLY DEEPLY 5TANGL$ ) EA* O!R4 ,A CRUDE DUALISM T5DS TO FO/] ITS C\NT]P>T 9 AN EQUALLY CRUDE MONISM ?AT SIMPLIFIES ALL ( REALITY 9TO A S+LE1 (T5 HOMOG5E\S AG5CY1 =CE1 SUB/ANCE1 OR 5]GY S\RCE4 ,HEGEL CAU/ICALLY CALL$ ?IS 0A NI<T 9 :I* ALL C[S >E BLACK40 ,! MY/ICAL SP>KS ( LI<T ?AT APPE> 9 ?IS 0NI<T0 %\LD NOT DECEIVE US4 ,?AT R$UCTIONI/ NOTIONS GLIMM] ) WORDS LIKE ,SPIRIT1 COSMIC 5]GY1 VITAL =CES1 &  
5]GY C5T]S B>ELY CONCEALS ! FACT ?AT R$UCTIONISM EM]GES FROM WAYS ( ?9K+ ?AT >E NO LESS ME*ANI/IC1 9/RUM5TAL1 & ANALYTICAL ?AN ! HYPO!TICO-D$UCTIVE M5TALITY ?AT HAS ASSUM$ SU* SUPREMACY OV] ! PA/ TWO C5TURIES ( ,WE/]N ?\<T ,SEEM+LY MY/ICAL1 SPIRITUAL1 & EV5 ORGANISMIC CONCLUSIONS >E (T5 D$UC$ BY MEANS ( HYPO!TICO-D$UCTIVE APPROA*ES1 :I* 9 TURN 9FECT ! 5TIRE PROJECT ( 0RE5*ANT+0 ! WORLD ) DISMALLY 0DIS5*ANT+0 9/RUM5TAL UND]P9N+S4 ,9DE$1 AS WE %ALL SEE1 0ME?OD0 CAN NEV] BE BL&LY DETA*$ FROM ! CONT5T IT YIELDS1 JU/ AS ! MEANS ONE USES 9 POLITICS & LIFE G5]ALLY SIGNIFICANTLY DET]M9ES ! 5DS ONE PURSUES4 

,ONE HAS ONLY TO CONSID] ! CURR5T LOVE AFFAIR BETWE5 ECOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY & SY/EMS !ORY TO OBS]VE ?IS R$UCTIONISM 9 ITS MO/ POPUL>1 UNTUTOR$1 & SYNCRETIC =M4 ,FRITJ( ,CAPRA'S WIDELY READ ,! ,TURN+ ,PO9T CAN BE TAK5 AS AN EXAMPLE4 0,! CREATIVE UNFOLD+ ( LIFE T[>D =MS ( EV] 9CREAS+ COMPLEXITY10 WE LE>N1 0REMA9$ AN UNSOLV$ MY/]Y = MORE ?AN A C5TURY AFT] ,D>W91 BUT REC5T /UDY HAS \TL9$ ! CONT\RS ( A !ORY ( EVOLUTION ?AT PROMISES TO %$ LI<T ON ?IS /RIK+ *>ACT]I/IC ( LIV+ ORGANISMS4 ,?IS IS A SY/EMS !ORY ?AT FOCUSES ON ! DYNAMICS ( SELF-TRANSC5D5CE & IS BAS$ ON ! WORK ( A NUMB] ( SCI5TI/S FROM V>I\S DISCIPL9ES0 -- HE M5TIONS1 AMONG O!RS1 ,ILYA ,PRIGOG9E1 ,GREGORY ,BATESON1 & ,]V9 ,LASZLO1 TO S+LE \T ?OSE :O >E WIDELY KN[N 9 ! ,UNIT$ ,/ATES4 ,CAPRA CONT9UES3  
  

,! BASIC DYNAMICS ( EVOLUTION1 ACCORD+ TO ! NEW SY/EMS VIEW1 BEG9S ) A SY/EM ( HOMEO/ASIS -- A /ATE ( DYNAMIC BALANCE *>ACT]IZ$ BY MULTIPLE 9DEP5D5T FLUCTUATIONS4 ,:5 ! SY/EM IS DI/URB$ IT HAS ! T5D5CY TO MA9TA9 ITS /ABILITY BY MEANS ( NEGATIVE FE$BACK ME*ANISMS1 :I* T5D TO R$UCE ! DEVIATION FROM ! BALANC$ /ATE4 ,H[EV]1 ?IS IS NOT ! ONLY POSSIBILITY4 ,DEVIATIONS MAY ALSO BE RE9=C$ 9T]NALLY ?R\< POSITIVE FE$BACK1 EI!R 9 RESPONSE TO 5VIRONM5TAL *ANGES OR SPONTANE\SLY )\T ANY EXT]NAL 9FLU5CE4 ,! /ABILITY ( A LIV+ SY/EM IS CONT9UALLY TE/$ BY ITS FLUCTUATIONS1 & AT C]TA9 MOM5TS ONE OR SEV]AL ( !M MAY BECOME SO /RONG ?AT !Y DRIVE ! SY/EM OV] AN 9/ABILITY 9TO AN 5TIRELY NEW /RUCTURE1 :I* WILL AGA9 BE FLUCTUAT+ & RELATIVELY /ABLE4 ,! /ABILITY ( LIV+ SY/EMS IS NEV] ABSOLUTE4 ,IT WILL P]SI/ AS LONG AS ! FLUCTUATIONS REMA9 BEL[ A CRITICAL SIZE1 BUT ANY SY/EM IS ALWAYS READY TO TRANS=M ITSELF1 ALWAYS READY TO EVOLVE4 ,?IS BASIC MODEL = EVOLUTION1 WORK$ \T = *EMICAL DISSIPATIVE /RUCTURES BY ,PRIGOG9E & HIS COLLABORATORS1 HAS S9CE BE5 APPLI$ SUCCESSFULLY TO DESCRIBE ! EVOLUTION ( V>I\S BIOLOGICAL1 SOCIAL1 & ECOLOGICAL SY/EMS4.<#e#b.>  
  

,ALMO/ EV]Y?+ ?AT IS TR\BL+ AB\T SPIRITUAL ME*ANISM1 FROM ITS T]M9OLOGY TO ITS ?\<T1 IS CONTA9$ 9 ?IS TELL+ PASSAGE4 ,SY/EMS !ORY IS C]TA9LY USEFUL 9 EXPLA9+ ! OP]ATION ( SY/EMS1 ESPECIALLY ONES SO /RUCTUR$ AS TO L5D !MSELVES TO SY/EMS !ORY ANALYSIS1 JU/ AS ! EQUATIONS ( PHYSICS CAN EXPLA9 ANY PH5OM5ON ?AT CAN BE R$UC$ TO ! T]MS ( PHYSICS4 ,:AT S]I\S PEOPLE 9 ECOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY HAVE TO ASK !MSELVES IS :E!R EVOLUTION1 LET ALONE SELF-TRANSC5D5CE1 CAN REALLY BE R$UC$ TO 0DYNAMICS10 09T]DEP5D5T FLUCTUATIONS1 0FE$BACK ME*ANISMS0 -- OR EV5 09PUTS0 &'\TPUTS -- ?AT DO NOT DIFF] 9 PR9CIPLE FROM ! ,NEWTONIAN ORI5TATION T[>D PH5OM5A OR FROM ,LA ,METTRIE'S EI<TE5?-C5TURY DESCRIPTION ( HUMAN BE+S AS MA*9ES4 ,IF !RE IS ANY?+ DEVELOPM5TAL OR EVOLUTION>Y 7AS DI/+UI%$ FROM M]ELY K9ETIC7 AB\T A SY/EMS !ORY 0P>ADIGM10 IT IS SIMPLY ?AT SOME RELATIVELY HOMEO-/ATIC PH5OM5A1 CONCEIV$ PRECISELY AS SY/EMS1 MAY REPLAC$ ) O!R1 HOPEFULLY COMPLEX SY/EMS4 ,9 EI!R CASE1 DESPITE ! IMAG]Y ?AT ,CAPRA TRIES TO =M 9 ! READ]'S M9D1 WE CANNOT PROP]LY SPEAK ( ONE ME*ANISM BE+ QUALITATIVEY TRANS=M$ 9TO ANO!R4 ,IF ! ESS5TIAL PROBLEM ( ORGANIC DEVELOPM5T IS R$UC$ AT ALL ITS LEVELS TO 0FE$BACK LOOPS0 AN 0FLUCTUATIONS10 \R ?9K+ HAS NOT ADVANC$ BEYOND ,C>TESIAN & ,HOBBESIAN ME*ANISM1 H[EV] LAVI%LY WE SPEAK ( ! 0COEVOLUTION ( AN ORGANISM PLUS ITS 5VIRONM5T10 ( 0:OL5ESS10 OR ( ,TAOI/ SAGACITY & ,FRANCISCAN !OLOGY4.<#e#c.> 

,!RE IS A PHYSICAL BASIS TO EV]Y?+ ?AT PHYSICS 0,TAOI/10 ,NEWTONIAN1 OR ,PRIGOG9IAN -- DESCRIBES ) V>Y+ DEGREES ( EXACTNESS & AT V>I\S LEVELS ( PHYSICAL DEVELOPM5T ,BUT ?IS FACT IS NO MORE A W>RANT = CA/+ ALL PH5OM5A 9 T]MS ( !SE DESCRIPTIONS ?AN R$UC+ ! 5TIRE WORLD TO MATT] & MOTION4 ,9DE$1 SU* R$UCTIONISM IS FATAL TO ANY =M ( ORGANISMIC ?9K+4 ,CAPRA'S EXPLICATION A SY/EMS !ORY ( EVOLUTION DESCRIBES ?\<T AS 0FREE40.<#e#d.> ,BUT TO SPEAK ( 0AUTONOMY & FRE$OM ( *OICE0 9 NATURE1 PURE & SIMPLE1 IS TO DIM9I% ! E?ICAL MEAN+ ( ! WORDS4 ,NATURE MAY BE AN EVOLV+  
GR\ND = AUTONOMY1 FRE$OM1 & AN 9CREAS+ MEASURE ( *OICE1 BUT A GR\ND IS NO MORE ID5TICAL ) ! E?ICS IT SU/A9S ?AN NUTRI5TS 9 SOIL >E ID5TICAL ) ! PLANTS !Y SU/A94 ,AUTONOMY & FRE$OM PRESUPPOSE HUMAN 9TELLECTION1 ! P[] TO CONCEPTUALIZE & G5]ALIZE4 ,!IR DOMA9 MU/ BE EXPLICAT$ 9 CULTURAL1 LOGICAL1 &1 )9 V]Y DEF9ITE LIMITS1 BIOLOGICAL T]MS -- NOT 9 T]MS ( A COSMIC 0DYNAMICS0 ?AT IS 0BASICALLY OP5 & 9DET]M9ATE40.<#e#e.> ,9DE$1 TO FLIPPANTLY CONFUSE 9DET]M9ACY ) AUTONOMY & OP5NESS ) FRE$OM IS TO %IFT FROM ONE LEVEL TO ANO!R AS C>ELESSLY AS ONE /IRS A CUP ( TEA4 ,CAPRA'S APPROA* TO 0FRE$OM0 R5D]S 9DET]M9ACY & /ATI/ICAL PROBABILITY 9 PHYSICS COEQUAL ) HUMAN SOCIAL FRE$OM1 )\T ! LEA/ REG>D = ! /AGG]+ COMPLEXITY ( SOCIAL 9/ITUTIONS1 WAYW>D 9DIVIDUAL PROCLIVITIES1 DIV]SE CULTURAL TRADITIONS1 & CONFLICT+ P]SONAL WILLS4 

,ILYA ,PRIGOG9E HAS ATTEMPT$ TO EXPLA9 ! ORGANIC PROCESS ( EVOLUTION ?R\< 0*EMICAL DISSIPATIVE /RUCTURES10 9 WDU* V>I\S SY/EMS >E =M$ 9 SUCCESSION1 EA* HOPEFULLY OIF GREAT] COMPLEXITY ?AN ! ONES ?AT PREC$$ IT4.<#e#f.> ,9 A SUCCESSION ( SY/EMS1 !SE 0DISSIPATIVE /RUCTURES10 :I* CAN BE MIA !MATIC ALLY =MULAT$1 >E %[N TO SUCCE$ EA* O!R3 A SY/EM APPROA*ES A 0F> FROM EQUILIBRIUM0 SITUATION1 :I* MI>KS ITS TRANSITION TO A NEW SY/EM4 ,H]E1 AS 0DISSIPATIVE /RUCTURES0 REPLACE ! PHASES ( GR[?1 DEVELOPM5T GIVES WAY TO !RMODYNAMICS4 ,NOR DOES A SY/EM ( POSITIVE FE$BACK1 UPON WDII* ,PRIGOG9IAN SY/EMS !ORY DEP5DS1 ALL[ = A CONCEPT ( POT5TIALITY3 IT IS RA!R *ANCE & /O*A/IC PH5OM5A ?AT ACT AS 0M$IAT+0 PHASES BETWE5 ONE 0DISSIPATIVE /RUCTURE0 & ANO!R4 ,CONFRONT$ ) 0F> FROM EQUILIBRIUM0 DISORD] & SUCCE$+ ORD]LY SY/EMS1 SPECULATIVE ?\<T IS R$UC$ TO M]E OBS]VATION4 ,9DE$1 A SY/EM APPROA*+ TRANSITION MAY NOT ASSUME AN IMMAN5TLY PR$ICTABLE =M !REAFT] -- IT MAY SIMPLY FALL AP>T 9TO 0*AOS40 ,!SE SY/EMS HAVE1 9 EFFECT1 NO 9T]NAL DEVELOPM5TAL LOGIC4 

,PRIGOG9E'S MA!MATICS CAN NO MORE EXPLA9 ! BIOLOGICAL1 SOCIAL1 & P]SONAL DIFF]5TIAE ?AT MAKE UP REALITY1 EV5 ) ! AID ( W+$ ,TAOI/ METAPHORS1 ?AN A HEAP ( BRICKS CAN =M ITSELF 9TO A ,GO?IC CA!DRAL ?R\< ! 0FLUCTUATIONS0 9VOLV$ 9 POSITIVE FE$BACK4 ,ONE C\LD1 ) EQUAL APLOMB1 TRY TO R$UCE ORGANIC METABOLISM TO ,E9/E9'S COSMIC =MULA  
,E"7MC#b1 SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS COSMIC4 ,AT ! RISK ( ADD+ TO PHILOSOPHY'S ALREADY HEAVY BURD5 ( 0FALLACIES10 ,I W\LD DEF9E ! 0R$UCTIONI/ FALLACY0 AS ! APPLICATION ( ! MO/ G5]AL =MULAS TO ! MO/ DETAIL$ P>TICUL>S1 9 ! BELIEF ?AT :AT IS UNIV]SAL & SEEM+LY ALL-5COMPASS+ MU/ NECESS>ILY EXPLA9 :AT IS HI<LY P>TICUL> & UNIQUELY 9DIVIDUAL4.<#e#g.> ,AT BE/1 A =MULA1 A 0P>ADIGM10 OR MORE PROP]LY1 A PHILOSOPHY1 MAY PROVIDE ! BASIS = AN ORI5TATION T[>D REALITY AT A CLE>LY DEF9ABLE LEVEL ( REALITY4 ,IRONICALLY1 ! MORE UNIV]SAL1 AB/RACT1 & MA!MATICAL A =MULA IS1 ! MORE LIKELY ?AT ITS V]Y G5]ALITY WILL LIMIT IT :5 IT IS APPLI$ TO CONCRETE1 HI<LY P>TICUL>IZ$ PH5OM5A1 ,E"7MC#b IS TOO COSMIC TO EXPLA9 SU* RI*LY >TICULAT$ OR M$IAT$ MODES ( REALITY AS NATURAL EVOLUTION1 ORGANIC METABOLISM1 SOCIAL DEVELOPM5T1 & P]SONAL BEHAVIOR4 

,NOT SURPRIS+LY4 ,NEW ,AGE ACOLYTES ( ECOLOGY BECOME AU!NTIC R$UCTIONI/S4 0,GOD10 0,5]GY10 0,BE+10 0,LOVE10 0,9T]CONNECT$NESS10 & A :OLE REP]TOIRE ( METAPHORS >E 9VOK$ ?AT S]VE TO HOMOG5IZE ! P>TICUL> & DIVE/ IT ( ITS RI*NESS & DIV]SITY4 ,:5 ?IS APPROA* PROVES TOO AB/RACT1 IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO CREATE A PA/I*E ( ILL-DIGE/$ 0P>ADIGMS0 & !ORIES1 REG>DLESS ( ! FACT ?AT !IR PREMISES & LOGIC MAY CONFLICT ) EA* O!R4 ,H]E ECLECTICISM1 :I* USUALLY CL\DS RADICALLY DIFF]5T WAYS ( ?9K+ & ! MY? ?AT WE ALL %>E A 0COMMON GOAL10 BECOMES ! LA/ R$\BT = %E] 9TELLECTUAL SLOPP9ESS4 

,! LANGUAGE ?AT ! MORE SOPHI/ICAT$ SY/EMS !ORI/S USE REFLECTS ! CONCEPTS !Y BR+ TO !IR 0P>ADIGMS40 ,COMPLEX RESULTS >E /RIPP$ D[N TO !IR MO/ ELEM5TAL LEVELS SO ?AT !Y CAN BE H&L$ 9 PHYSICO-MA!MATICAL T]MS4 ,?AT HYPO!TICO-D$UCTIVE ANALYZES HAVE IMM5SE VALUE 9 RELATIONS ?AT >E AU!NTICALLY DYNAMIC OR ME*ANICAL IS NOT 9 QUE/ION H]E2 !IR VALUE 9 !SE DOMA9S ( KN[L$GE CANNOT BE SURPASS$4 ,:AT IS TR\BL+ IS ?AT SY/EMS !ORY T5DS TO BECOME A HI<LY IMP]IALI/IC IDEOLOGICAL APPROA* ?AT /AKES \T A CLAIM TO ! TOTALITY ( DEVELOPM5T1 9DE$ TO REASON \T & EXPLA9 VIRTUALLY ALL PH5OM5A4 ,IF NATURAL EVOLUTION1 ORGANIC METABOLISM1 & P]SONAL BEHAVIOR W]E SY/EMS1 !N SY/EMS !ORY 9 ALL ITS SELF-FULFILL+ GR&EUR W\LD SEEM TO WORK ADMIRABLY4 ,?AT ?IS 0IF-!N0 CONV]SION 7& ,I WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY AB\T !SE LAT]7 D5UDES PH5OM5A ( MANY COMPLEX QUALITIES ?AT DO NOT L5D !MSELVES TO SY/EMS ANALYSIS IS CONV5I5TLY LO/ 9 A %UFFLE ( GR&IOSE METAPHORS ?AT APPEAL MORE TO AN EV]-YIELD+ HE>T ?AN TO A DEM&+ LOGICAL M9D4 

,BY CONTRA/1 ! P[] ( ! ,WE/'S ORGANISMIC -- MORE PRECISELY1 DIALECTICAL -- TRADITION 7EV5 AT ,HEGEL'S HI<LY CONCEPTUAL LEVEL7 LIES 9 BUILD+ UP ! DIFF]5TIAE ( NATURAL & SOCIAL PH5OM5A FROM :AT IS IMPLICIT 9 !IR AB/RACT LEVEL -- NOT 9 CORROSIVELY R$UC+ !IR RI*LY >TICULAT$ CONCRET5ESS TO AB/RACT1 LOGICALLY MANIPULABLE 0DATA0 ,! DIFF]5CE BETWE5 ! TWO APPROA*ES C\LD NOT BE /AT$ %>PLY 5\<4 ,DIALECTIC1 AS WE %ALL SEE1 TRIES TO ELICIT ! DEVELOPM5T ( PH5OM5A FROM !IR LEVEL ( AB/RACT 0HOMOG5EITY10 LAT5T ) ! RI* DIFF]5TIATION ?AT WILL M>K !IR MATURITY1 :ILE SY/EMS !ORY TRIES TO R$UCE PH5OM5A FROM !IR HI<LY >TICULAT$ P>TICUL>ITY TO ! LEVEL ( HOMOG5E\S AB/RACTION SO NECESS>Y = MA!MATICAL SYMBOLIZATION4 ,DIALECTIC1 9 EFFECT1 IS A LOGIC ( EVOLUTION FROM AB/RACTION T[>D DIFF]5TIATION2 SY/EMS !ORY IS A LOGIC ( DEVOLUTION FROM DIFF]5TIATION T[>D AB/RACTION4 

,= ! PRES5T1 IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE ?AT ! C>ELESS USE ( ! WORD COMPLEXITY (T5 TELLS US NO?+ :ATEV] AB\T ! NATURE ( A COMPLEX PH5OM5ON & ITS DEVELOPM5T1 ANYMORE ?AN ! C>ELESS USE ( ! WORD PROCESS TELLS US ANY?+ AB\T ! NATURE ( A COMPLEX PROCESS4 ,MANY COMPLEX PH5OM5A1 VIEW$ 9 AN E?ICAL OR EV5 9 A SURVIVAL S5SE1 >E POSITIVELY H>MFUL & WOEFULLY UNECOLOGICAL1 SU* AS ! COMPLEX1 PRESUMABLY SELF-REGULAT+ M>KET -- :OSE ADVOCATES >E1 9 FACT1 CAPTIVAT$ BY ! !ORETICAL PREMISES ( ,PRIGOG9E'S V]SION ( SY/EMS !ORY4 ,NOR CAN WE IGNORE COMPLEX PROCESSES ?AT CAN DEGRADE A BIOLOGICALLY DESIRABLE DEVELOPM5T1 SU* AS EPIDEMICS ?AT EXT]M9ATE ECOLOGICALLY VALUABLE SPECIES4 

,DEVELOPM5T )\T A 0GOAL 9 IT1 OR PURPOSE10 AS ,CAPRA DECL>ES SOME:AT DOLEFULLY1 CAN BE EQUALLY MEAN+LESS1 DESPITE ! FACT ?AT HIS 0SY/EMS !ORY ( LIFE0 F9DS A 0RECOGNIZABLE PATT]N ( DEVELOPM5T40.<#e#h.> ,! WORD PATT]N -- OR = ?AT MATT]1  
P>ADIGM -- IS NO SUB/ITUTE = ! IDEA ( T5D5CY 9 SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY4 ,9 ! ABS5CE ( EV]Y?+ BUT A SY/EM ( POSITIVE FE$BACK ?AT MAY OR MAY NOT YIELD COMPLEXITY1 ,CAPRA1 LIKE MANY ( HIS ASSOCIATES1 IS OBLIG$ TO TURN TO ! ,EA/ & IMPORT AN E?ICS TO R5D] SY/EMS !ORY MEAN+FUL--EV5 9 FLAT CONTRAV5TION ( HIS ,WE/]N ME?ODOLOGY4 ,9 A SUDD5 LEAP1 ! LANGUAGE 7NOT TO SPEAK ( ! CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK7 (  
,! ,TURN+ ,PO9T UND]GOES A />TL+ TRANS=MATION4 ,9VOCATIONS ( 0A NEW HOLI/IC WORLDVIEW10 0A CONCEPTUAL %IFT FROM /RUCTURE TO RHY?M0 -- EXT5D$ TO ! 0RISE & FALL0 ( CIVILIZATIONS1 9DE$ TO ! 0PLANET AS A :OLE 444 AS IT SP9S >\ND ITS AXIS & MOVES >\ND ! SUN0 -- SUDD5LY OV]LIE ! 0DYNAMICS0 & 0FE$BACK1 LOOPS0 ?AT ACTUALLY =M ! EM95TLY ,WE/]N ME?ODOLOGICAL UND]P9N+S ( HIS 0SY/EMS VIEW ( LIFE40 0,EA/]N MY/ICAL TRADITIONS1 ESPECIALLY 9 ,TAOISM10 >E ?R[N 9TO A POTP\RRI ( =MULATIONS :OSE ONLY SIMIL>ITY IS METAPHORIC4.<#e#i.> 0,! IDEA ( FLUCTUATIONS AS ! BASIS ( ORD] IS ONE ( ! BASIC !MES 9 ,TAOI/ TEXTS10 ,CAPRA APPRIZES US1 MAK+ IT SEEM 9 ! MO/ SUP]FICIAL WAY ?AT ,TAOISM P>ALLELS ,PRIGOG9E'S SY/EMS APPROA*4 ,BUT 0FLUCTUATIONS10 LIKE 0CYCLES10 HAVE BE5 US$ FROM1 TIME IMMEMORIAL TO EXPLA9 /AGNATION RA!R ?AN EVOLUTION1 FIXITY RA!R ?AN *ANGE1 & ET]NALITY RA!R ?AN DEVELOPM5T4 ,SYNCRETICALLY PLAC+ FLUCTUATIONS 9 SY/EMS !ORY ON A P> ) FLUCTUATIONS 9 ,TAOISM IS AB\T AS S\ND AS PLAC+ ! ELECTROMAGNETIC 0ATTRACTION0 9 PHYSICS ON P> ) ,]OS AS A 0COSMIC0 S\RCE ( AFF9ITY & UNITY4 ,FROM A ME?ODOLOGICAL VIEWPO9T1 ,PRIGOG9E'S MA!MATICAL =MULATION ( *EMICAL DISSIPATIVE /RUCTURES FITS JU/ AS SNUGLY 9TO ,NEWTON'S ME*ANI/IC S5SIBILITY AS ! CORPUSCUL> !ORY ( LI<T FITS 9TO ! WAVE !ORY4 ,!SE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS MELD TOGE!R BECAUSE !Y D]IVE FROM ! SAME HYPO!TICO-D$UCTIVE1 9DE$ CLE>LY ME*ANI/IC M5TALITY4 

,NOR IS IT HELPFUL TO RECA/ ! 0SY/EMS VIEW ( LIFE0 9TO ,GREGORY ,BATESON'S !ORETICAL FRAMEWORK4 ,H]E1 MAT]IALITY IS DISSOLV$ 9TO 9T]RELATION%IPS & !N SUBJECTIVIZ$ AS 0M9DS0 ,?IS FRAMEWORK MI<T BE SOME:AT COMPREH5SIBLE TO AN ,EA/]N SAGE1 BUT IT DIVE/S SUB/ANCE1 9DE$ NATURE ITSELF1 ( ITS V]Y PHYSICALITY4 ,AB&ON+ ! /UDY ( ?+S -- LIV+ OR NOT -- = A /UDY ( ! RELATION%IPS BETWE5 !M IS AS ONE-SID$ & R$UCTIONI/ AS AB&ON+ ! /UDY ( RELATION%IPS = ! ?+S !Y 9T]RELATE4 ,IF TRADITIONAL MAT]IALI/ ME*ANISM /RONGLY EMPHASIZ$ ! OBJECT1 (T5 ) RESULTS ?AT 9HIBIT$ SPECULATION BEYOND ! GIV5 /ATE ( AFFAIRS1 ,BATESON'S EMPHASIS ON RELATION%IPS V]GES ON A SUBJECTIVISM ?AT C\LD ALMO/ BE TAK5 = SOLIPSISM IF ONE DID NOT KN[ MORE AB\T ,BATESON'S WORK AS A :OLE4 ,! CLAIM ?AT 0ALL EXP]I5CE IS SUBJECTIVE0 & ?AT 0\R BRA9S MAKE ! IMAGES ?AT WE ?9K WE 'P]CEIVE'0 BORD]S ON AN IDEALI/ C\NT]P>T ( ,JACOB ,MOLES*OTT'S EQUALLY CRUDE MAT]IALI/ MAXIM1 0,NO ?\<T )\T PHOSPHORUS40.<#f.> 

,?9K+ ONCE PRESUPPOS$ A KN[L$GE ( ?\<T AS IT UNFOLD$ OV] MILL5NIA ( PHILOSOPHICAL & SOCIAL DEVELOPM5T4 ,TODAY1 ! 9TELLECTUAL SPAN ( ! PRES5T G5]ATION B>ELY EXT5DS BEYOND A DECADE & IS M>K$ BY A DISQUIET+ BIAS 9 FAVOR ( J\RNALI/IC GLIBNESS4 ,?AT ECOLOGICAL ACOLYTES ( SY/EMS !ORY (T5 M]ELY /& ,NEWTONIAN ME*ANISM ON ITS HEAD YET RECEIVE NO CRITICISM FROM ECOLOGICALLY ORI5T$ 9TELLECTUALS IS EVID5CE ( ! CULTURAL ,D>K ,AGES ?AT >E GA!R+ >\ND US4 ,WE >E EV5 WITNESS+ A REVIVAL ( ,HUME'S 0IS-\<T0 CRITICISM1 :I* D5IES SPECULATIVE ?\<T ! RI<T TO REASON FROM ! 0:AT-IS0 TO ! 0:AT-%\LD-BE40 ,?IS POSITIVI/IC M\SETRAP IS A PROBLEM NOT 9 LOGIC BUT 9 E?ICS -- NOTABLY1 ! RI<T ( ! E?ICAL 0%\LD-BE0 TO 5JOY AN OBJECTIVE /ATUS4 ,! PROBLEM ( CON/ITUT+ AN OBJECTIVE E?ICS1 :I* CONF\ND$ ! ,FRANKFURT ,S*OOL1 IS NO LESS S]I\S ?AN ,HUME'S QU>REL ) ORGANIZ$ RELIGION4 ,SPECULATIVE PHILOSOPHY BY DEF9ITION CLAIMS ?AT REASON CAN PROJECT BEYOND ! GIV5 /ATE ( AFFAIRS1 :E!R TO ,PLATO'S EXEMPL>Y DOMA9 ( =MS OR ,M>X & ,KROPOTK9'S VISIONS ( A COOP]ATIVE SOCIETY4 ,TO REMA9 )9 ! 0:AT-IS0 9 ! NAME ( LOGICAL CONSI/5CY IS TO D5Y REASON ! RI<T TO ASS]T GOALS1 VALUES1 & SOCIAL RELATION%IPS ?AT PROVIDE A VOICE TO ! CLAIMS ( ECOLOGY AS A SOCIAL DISCIPL9E4 

,!SE !ORETICAL PROBLEMS HAVE AN EM95TLY PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE4 ,9 ALL CASES !Y REVEAL AN 9TELLECTUAL GLIBNESS ?AT DISSOLVES ?AT :I* IS CONCRETE 9 ! ECOLOGICAL PICTURE1 9DE$ ! LIFE-=MS ?AT GIVE SUB/ANTIALLY TO ! V>I\S SY/EMS1 9TO 9T]RELATION%IPS1 0DYNAMICS10 & 0M9DS0 ?AT ,CAPRA1 ,PRIGOG9E1 ,BATESON1 ET AL41 AB/RACT 9TO LIFELESS CATEGORIES4 ,?US R$UCTIONISM NOT ONLY TURNS COMPLEX ORGANISMS & !IR EQUALLY COMPLEX EVOLUTION 9TO ME*ANICAL 0FLUCTUATIONS10 DEBAS+ CONCRETE ORGANISMS 9TO AB/RACT 9T]RELATION%IPS2 IT TURNS LIFE 9 ALL ITS RI* SPECIFICITY 9TO AN AB/RACTION1 !REBY DIVE/+ NATURE ( ! V>IETY1 9DE$ ! SPECIES-9DIVIDUALITY SO ESS5TIAL TO AN UND]/&+ ( NATURE'S FECUNDITY & ITS EVOLUTION>Y IMPETUS4.<#f#a.> 

,HUMANISM & ,ANTIHUMANISM 

  

0,HUMANITY10 CURR5TLY SO UNFULFILL$ & DIVID$ AGA9/ ITSELF1 HAS SC>CELY REALIZ$ ITS POT5TIALITIES4 ,BUT 9 MU* CURR5T 0ECOLOGICAL0 ?9K+ ! CONCEPT ( HUMANITY IS NO LESS SUCK$ 9TO ! IDEOLOGICAL BLACK HOLE4.<#f#b.> ,IDEOLOGICALLY1 ! PH5OM5ON ( HUMAN SELF-HATR$ 7& HUMAN BE+S SEEM TO BE ! ONE SPECIES ?AT HAS ! ABILITY TO LUXURIATE 9 SELF-HATR$7 TAKES A NUMB] ( =MS3 A LOGICALLY AMBIGU\S 0BIOC5TRISM0 & (T5 /RID5T ANTIHUMANISM >E SET AGA9/ 0AN?ROPOC5TRISM0 & HUMANISM -- PRESUMABLY ! C>D9AL S9S ( AN AB/RACT 0,MAN0 :O IS DET]M9$ TO DESPOIL AN EQUALLY AB/RACT 0,NATURE40 ,IF SY/EMS !ORY DIVE/S NONHUMAN LIFE ( ITS SPECIFICITY1 BIOC5TRISM & ANTIHUMANISM DIVE/ HUMAN LIFE ( SOCIAL DEVELOPM5T4 ,SOCIETY BECOMES AN AB/RACTION ?AT SOMEH[ IS 9FLICT$ UPON 0,NATURE0 )\T ANY REG>D = SU* SOCIAL *>ACT]I/ICS AS HI]>*Y1 DOM9ATION1 & ! /ATE4 ,AS A RESULT1 A SIMPLI/IC BIOLOGISM EM]GES1 (T5 /RUCTUR$ >\ND 0NATURAL LAWS10 ?AT SEES 0,MAN0 & HUMANISM AS A CURSE ?AT AFFLICTS 0,NATURE0 ) ECOLOGICAL DEGRADATION4 ,AS A RESULT1 SOME VOICES 9 ! ECOLOGY MOVEM5T CALL = A MORAL 0BIOSPH]IC DEMOCRACY0 9 :I* HUMANITY'S 0RI<T0 TO LIVE & FULFILL ITSELF IS EQUATABLE ) ?AT SAME 0RI<T0 9 BUTT]FLIES1 ANTS1 :ALES1 APES1 & -- YES -- PA?OG5IC VIRUSES & G]MS4 

,VIEW$ HEURI/ICALLY1 BIOC5TRISM IS AN EF=T TO BRIDLE 0HUMAN0 >ROGANCE T[>D O!R LIFE-=MS & DEFY ! PRES5T DE/RUCTION ( ! BIOSPH]E4 ,BUT H[ LONG ONE CAN CONT9UE TO BELABOR 0HUMANITY0 = ITS AFFRONTS TO ! BIOSPH]E )\T DI/+UI%+ BETWE5 RI* & POOR1 M5 & WOM51 :ITES & PEOPLE ( COLOR1 EXPLOIT]S & EXPLOIT$1 IS A NAGG+ PROBLEM ?AT MANY ECOLOGICAL PHILOSOPH]S HAVE YET TO RESOLVE1 OR P]HAPS EV5 RECOGNIZE4 ,BIOC5TRISM1 = ALL ! CAVEATS ITS SUPPORT]S ISSUE TO QUALIFY IT1 /RIKES ME AS BLUNTLY MISAN?ROPIC & LESS AN ECOLOGICAL PR9CIPLE ?AN AN >GUM5T AGA9/ ! HUMAN SPECIES ITSELF AS A LIFE-=M4 

,TAK5 SEP>ATELY1 P]HAPS1 ! 9T5TIONS ( !IR ADH]5TS MAY BE GOOD1 EV5 AS !SE !ORIES >E S]I\SLY FAULTY4 ,UNIT$ 9TO A S+LE 5SEMBLE1 H[EV]1 !Y DEVELOP A H>% LOGIC & CREATE AN >5A = EXPLICITLY VICI\S VIEWS4 ,IT WAS NOT SURPRIS+ ?AT ,DAVID ,=EMAN1 !N ( ,E>? ,FIR/6 & AN AV[$ ACOLYTE ( 0DEEP ECOLOGY10 C\LD ADVANCE ! FOLL[+ 0ECOLOGICAL0 V]DICT ON ! ,?IRD ,WORLD3  
  

,:5 ,I TELL PEOPLE H[ ! WOR/ ?+ WE C\LD DO 9 ,E?IOPIA IS TO GIVE AID -- ! BE/ ?+ W\LD BE TO JU/ LET NATURE SEEK ITS [N BALANCE1 TO LET ! PEOPLE !RE JU/ />VE 444 !Y ?9K ?AT IS MON/R\S4 ,BUT ! ALT]NATIVE IS ?AT Y\ GO 9 & SAVE !SE HALF-DEAD *ILDR5 :O NEV] WILL LIVE A :OLE LIFE4 ,!IR DEVELOPM5T WILL BE /UNT$4 ,& :AT'S GO+ TO HAPP5 9 T5 YE>S' TIME IS ?AT TWICE AS MANY PEOPLE WILL SUFF] & DIE4 

,LIKEWISE1 LETT+ ! ,U,S,A BE AN OV]FL[ VALVE = PROBLEMS 9 ,LAT9 ,AM]ICA IS NOT SOLV+ A ?+4 ,IT'S JU/ PUTT+ MORE PRESSURE ON RES\RCES WE HAVE 9 ! ,U,S,A4 ,IT IS JU/ CAUS+ MORE DE/RUCTION ( \R WILD]NESS1 MORE POISON+ ( WAT] & AIR1 & IT ISN'T HELP+ ! PROBLEMS 9 ,LAT9 ,AM]ICA4.<#f#c.>  
  

,REGRETTABLY1 IT IS ALL TOO EASY TO 9T]PRET SU* REM>KS AS AN APOLOGIA = IMP]IALISM1 RACISM1 & G5OCIDE4 ,TO CONSID] />VATION AS M]ELY AN 0ALT]NATIVE0 TO ! CIVIL W> ?AT WRACK$ ,E?IOPIA & ! DE/RUCTION ( SO MU* ( ! CULTURAL 9TEGRITY ( ,LAT9 ,AM]ICAN VILLAGES BY 7L>GELY ,AM]ICAN7 CORPORATE 9T]E/S REVEALS A %OCK+ SOCIAL AMNESIA4 ,IT IS BREA?TAK+ TO CONTEMPLATE ! EXT5T TO :I* ?IS 0ECOLOGICAL0 5SEMBLE ( IDEAS DEFLECTS PUBLIC ATT5TION FROM ! SOCIAL ORIG9S ( ECOLOGICAL PROBLEMS4 ,?AT ANY?+ BESIDES 0NATURE0 IS SEEK+ ITS 0BALANCE0 9 ! ,?IRD ,WORLD SEEMS TO ELUDE ,=EMAN1 :OSE OBFUSCATION ( SOCIAL PROBLEMS EXPRESSES ! LOGIC ( A R$UCTIONI/ 0ECOLOGY40 ,SU* 0REV]5CE = ! E>?0 /IFLES EV5 ! MODE/ DEC5CIES ( MIDDLE-CLASS VIRTUES LIKE EMPA?Y & CONC]N = ! PLI<T ( HUNGRY *ILDR54 0,E>? WISDOM0 ( ?IS K9D C\LD WELL LEAVE US ) A 0LOVE0 ( ! PLANET BUT NO C>E = ! UND]PRIVILEG$ :O MAKE UP SO MU* ( ! HUMAN SPECIES4 

,YET ,=EMAN'S REM>KS >E NOT IDIOSYNCRATIC4 ,QUITE TO ! CONTR>Y3 AM AU?ORIT>IAN /REAK IS LAT5T 9 A CRUDE BIOLOGISM ?AT CONCEALS AN EV]-DIM9I%+ HUMAN5ESS ) 0NATURAL LAW0 & PAP]S OV] ! FACT ?AT IT IS CAPITALISM ?AT IS AT WORK H]E1 NOT AN AB/RACT 0,HUMANITY0 & 0,SOCIETY40 ,?IS AU?ORIT>IAN M5TALITY SOMETIMES COEXI/S ) PI\S APPEALS TO V>IANTS ( ,EA/]N SPIRITUALITY1 PLAC+ A SA9TLY MASK ON ! RU?LESS EGOISM ?AT /EMS FROM B\RGEOIS GRE$4 0,ECOLOGICAL ?9K+0 ( ?IS K9D IS ALL ! MORE S9I/] BECAUSE IT SUBV]TS ! ORGANIC1 9DE$ DIALECTICAL ?9K+ ?AT CAN RESCUE US FROM R$UCTIONISM4 ,AN UNBRIDGEABLE GULF SEP>ATES SOCIAL ECOLOGY FROM ! NEO-,MAL?USIANISM ?AT ! 5SEMBLE ( BIOC5TRISM1 ANTIHUMANISM1 & 0NATURAL LAW0 !ORY HAVE SPAWN$4 ,WE >E GRIMLY 9 NE$ ( A 0RE5*ANTM5T0 ( HUMANITY -- TO USE ! QUASI-MY/ICAL J>GON ( \R DAY -- ) A FLUID1 ORGANISMIC1 & DIALECTICAL RATIONALITY4 ,= IT IS 9 ?IS HUMAN RATIONALITY ?AT NATURE ULTIMATELY ACTUALIZES ITS [N EVOLUTION ( SUBJECTIVITY OV] LONG EONS ( NEURAL & S5SORY DEVELOPM5T4 ,!RE IS NO?+ MORE NATURAL ?AN HUMANITY'S CAPACITY TO CONCEPTUALIZE1 G5]ALIZE1 RELATE IDEAS1 5GAGE 9 SYMBOLIC COMMUNICATION1 & 9NOVATE *ANGES 9 ! WORLD >\ND IT1 NOT M]ELY TO ADAPT TO ! CONDITIONS IT F9DS AT H&4 ,= BIOC5TRIC1 ANTIHUMANI/1 & 0NATURAL LAW0 ADVOCATES TO SET !IR FACES AGA9/ ! SELF-REALIZATION ( NATURE 9 AN ECOLOGICALLY ORI5T$ HUMANITY & DIALECTICAL ?\<T IS TO FO/] ! IMAGE ( A BLI<T$ HUMANITY4 ,NO LESS ?AN ,ADAM & ,EVE'S ACQUISITION ( KN[L$GE1 HUMANITY'S P[] ( ?\<T BECOMES ITS ABID+ 0ORIG9AL S940 

,ECOLOGIZ+ ! ,DIALECTIC 

  

,IT IS EM95TLY NATURAL = HUMANITY TO CREATE A 0SECOND NATURE0 FROM ITS EVOLUTION 9 0FIR/ NATURE40 ,BY SECOND NATURE1 ,I MEAN ! DEVELOPM5T ( UNIQUELY HUMAN CULTURE1 ) A WIDE V>IETY ( 9/ITUTIONALIZ$ HUMAN COMMUNITIES1 EFFECTIVE HUMAN TE*NICS1 RI*LY SYMBOLIC LANGUAGES1 & C>EFULLY MANAG$ S\RCES ( NUTRIM5T4 ,DUALISM1 9 ALL ITS =MS1 HAS OPPOS$ !SE TWO NATURES TO EA* O!R1 AS ANTAGONI/S4 ,MONISM1 9 TURN1 (T5 DISSOLVES ONE 9TO ! O!R -- BE IT LIB]ALISM1 FASCISM1 OR MORE REC5TLY1 ! BIOC5TRISM ?AT SO CLOSELY APPROXIMATES MISAN?ROPIC ANTIHUMANISM4 ,!SE MONI/ IDEOLOGIES DIFF] PRIM>ILY 9 :E!R !Y WANT TO DISSOLVE FIR/ NATURE 9TO SECOND OR SECOND NATURE 9TO FIR/4 

,:AT !SE DUALISMS & MONISMS HAVE 9 COMMON IS AN ACCEPTANCE ( DOM9ATION4 ,CLASSICALLY1 ! C\NT]P>T ( ! DOM9ATION ( NATURE BY MAN0 HAS BE5 ! 0DOM9ATION ( MAN BY NATURE4 ,JU/ AS ,M>XISM & LIB]ALISM SEE ! =M] AS A DESID]ATUM ?AT EM]GES \T ( ! LATT]1 SO 5?USIA/S ( 'NATURAL LAW0 ACCEPT ! LATT] AS A FACT & CONDEMN EF=TS TO A*IEVE ! =M]4 ,!SE VIEWS >E DEEPLY FLAW$ -- NOT ONLY BECAUSE !Y >E CONCEPTUALLY ONE-SID$ OR SIMPLY WRONG1 BUT BECAUSE ( ! WAY !Y >E PHILOSOPHICALLY /RUCTUR$ & WORK$ \T4 ,! REAL QUE/ION1 ,I SUBMIT1 IS NOT :E!R SECOND NATURE P>ALLELS1 OPPOSES1 OR BL&LY 0P>TICIPATES0 9 AN 0EGALIT>IAN0 FIR/ NATURE2.<#f#d.> RA!R1 IT IS H[ SECOND NATURE IS D]IV$ FROM FIR/ NATURE4 ,MORE SPECIFICALLY1 9 :AT WAYS DID ! HI<LY GRAD$ & MANY-PHAS$ EVOLUTION FROM FIR/ NATURE 9TO SECOND GIVE RISE TO SOCIAL 9/ITUTIONS1 =MS ( 9T]ACTIONS BETWE5 PEOPLE1 & AN 9T]ACTION BETWE5 FIR/ & SECOND NATURE ?AT1 9 ! BE/ ( CASES1 5RI*ES BO? & YIELDS A SECOND NATURE ?AT HAS AN EVOLUTION>Y DEVELOPM5T ( ITS [N8 ,! ECOLOGICAL CRISIS WE FACE TODAY IS V]Y MU* A CRISIS 9 ! EM]G5CE ( SOCIETY \T ( BIOLOGY1 9 ! PROBLEMS 7! RISE ( HI]>*Y1 DOM9ATION1 PATRI>*Y1 CLASSES1 & ! /ATE7 ?AT UNFOLD$ ) ?IS DEVELOPM5T1 & 9 ! LIB]ATORY PA?WAYS ?AT PROVIDE AN ALT]NATIVE TO ?IS W>P$ HI/ORY4 

,! FACT ?AT FIR/ & SECOND NATURE EXI/ & CAN NEV] BE DUALIZ$ 9TO 0P>ALLELS0 OR SIMPLI/IC ALLY R$UC$ TO EA* O!R ACC\NTS1 9 GREAT P>T1 = MY PHRASE SOCIAL ECOLOGY4 ,ADDITIONALLY1 SOCIAL ECOLOGY HAS ! SPECIAL MEAN+ ?AT ! ECOLOGICAL CRISIS ?AT BELEAGU]S US /EMS FROM A SOCIAL CRISIS1 A CRISIS ?AT ! CRUDE BIOLOGISM ( 0DEEP ECOLOGY0 G5]ALLY IGNORES4 ,/ILL FUR!R1 ?AT ! RESOLUTION ( ?IS SOCIAL CRISIS CAN ONLY BE A*IEV$ BY REORGANIZ+ SOCIETY ALONG RATIONAL L9ES1 IMBU$ ) AN ECOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY & S5SIBILITY4 

,SU* A PHILOSOPHY & S5SIBILITY CANNOT BE ECLECTICALLY PAT*$ TOGE!R FROM BITS & PIECES ( ME*ANISM & MY/ICISM1 OR ( CONV5TIONAL REASON & ,EA/]N SPIRITUALITY4 ,ONE C\LD RESPECT A CONSI/5TLY ,EA/]N MY/ICAL VIEW OR A CONSI/5TLY ,WE/]N ME*ANI/IC VIEW1 H[EV] ONE-SID$ OR ]RONE\S EA* MAY BE4 ,BUT NEI!R VIEW CAN FRUITFULLY D]IVE SECOND NATURE FROM FIR/ NATURE ORGANICALLY4 ,?AT REQUIRES A MODE ( ?\<T ?AT DI/+UI%ES ! PHASES ( ! EVOLUTION>Y CONT9UUM FROM :I* SECOND NATURE EM]GES & YET PRES]VES FIR/ NATURE AS P>T ( ! PROCESS4 ,COMMON S5SE BETRAYS US ) ITS DEM& = CONCEPTUAL FIXITY2 MY/ICISM1 9 TURN1 DEFLECTS US FROM RATIONALITY ?AT GOES SUB/ANTIALLY BEYOND POETIC METAPHORS4 ,A GOOD DEAL ( ECOLOGICAL ?9K+ TODAY1 AS WE HAVE SE51 P>TAKES ( BO? MODES -- ! ME*ANI/IC & ! MY/ICAL -- 9 AN OPPORTUNI/IC1 0CAT*-AS-CAT*-CAN0 MANN]1 RA!R ?AN RE/RUCTUR+ ITS MODE ( ?\<T 9 AN AU!NTICALLY ORGANIC MANN]4 

,?IS MU* %\LD BE CLE>3 ! PURELY D$UCTIVE LOGIC ?AT WE USE TO BUILD BRIDGES1 BUDGET \R 9COME & EXP5SES1 PLAN \R EV]YDAY LIVES1 & CALCULATE \R *ANCES ( 0MAK+ \T0 9 ! WORLD HOLDS NO PROMISE ( GRASP+ ! RI*LY >TICULAT$ OR M$IAT$ DEVELOPM5T ?AT BO? UNITES & DIFF]5TIATES FIR/ & SECOND NATURE4 ,COMMON S5SE DEM&S ONLY 9F]5CE1 CONSI/5CY1 & ! V]IFICATION ?AT ORD9>Y S5SORY EXP]I5CE PROVIDES4 ,AP>T FROM ! 9DUCTIVELY APPREH5D$ P>TICUL>S ?AT HELP US >RIVE 7(T5 QUITE 9TUITIVELY7 AT ! CONCRETE PREMISES = \R 9F]5CES1 WE NORMALLY T5D TO D$UCE \R IDEAS S*EMATICALLY1 AS A S]IES ( WELL-ORD]$ & RIGIDLY FIX$ CONCEPTS4 ,TRU? 9 ?IS EV]YDAY LOGICAL DOMA9 IS NORMALLY LITTLE MORE ?AN CONSI/5CY4 ,?US1 WE >E HELD TO BE 0LOGICAL0 :5 \R CONCLUSIONS CAN BE FRAM$ 9TO FIX$ CATEGORIES -- SUPPORT$1 TO BE SURE1 BY ?OSE ATOMIZ$ ISOLATES KN[N AS 0BRUTE FACTS40 ,?IS A*IEVEM5T IS CELEBRAT$ AS 0CL>ITY0 & ITS RESULTS AS 0C]TA9TY40 ,TO CONCEIVE ( ANY =M ( REASON+ O!R ?AN A HYPO!TICO-D$UCTIVE LOGIC IS EVID5CE ( FUZZY-HEAD$NESS4 ,FACTS1 Y\ KN[1 >E FACTS1 & TRU? IS TRU?4 ,CONSI/5CY1 ! =MALI/IC 0IF-!N0 PROPOSITIONS ?AT MAKE UP CONV5TIONAL LOGIC1 TOGE!R ) EXP]I5CE AS A SEQU5CE ( 0CLE>-CUT0 DATA & ! EM95TLY PRACTICAL RESULTS ?AT CONV5TIONAL LOGIC A*IEVES -- ALL1 TAK5 TOGE!R1 >E ! MEANS TO 0?9K CLE>LY0 & UND]/& ! 0REAL WORLD40 

,YET !RE IS A HI<LY P]SONAL SPH]E ( LIFE 9 :I* WE ?9K V]Y DIFF]5TLY FROM CONV5TIONAL REASON4 ,WE DO NOT DEAL ) *ILDR5 ! WAY WE DEAL ) \R BUS9ESS AFFAIRS & ! PRAGMATICS ( EV]YDAY LIV+4 ,WE SEE *ILDR5 AS DEVELOP+ BE+S :O PASS ?R\< NECESS>Y PHASES ( GR[? & 9CREAS+ CAPABILITIES4 ,WE TRY NOT TO IMPOSE MORE DEM&S UPON !M ?AN !Y CAN ADEQUATELY H&LE AT !IR AGE 7ASSUM+1 TO BE SURE1 ?AT WE >E RATIONAL & HUMANE PEOPLE74 ,NOR DO WE TRY TO AFFLICT !M ) PROBLEMS !Y CANNOT YET RESOLVE4 ,WE S5SE A FL[ 9 !IR LIVES ?AT 9VOLVES ! ACTUALIZATION ( !IR POT5TIALITIES AT DIFF]5T LEVELS ( !IR DEVELOPM5T4 ,IT REQUIRES NO UNUSUAL P]CEPTION TO RECOGNIZE ! 9FANT ?AT L+]S ON 9 ! *ILD1 ! *ILD ?AT L+]S ON 9 ! Y\?1 ! Y\? ?AT L+]S ON 9 ! ADULT -- 9 %ORT1 ! CUMULATIVE NATURE ( HUMAN DEVELOPM5T1 9 CONTRA/ TO M]E SUB/ITUTION & SUCCESSION ,ONLY A FOOL BELIEVES ?AT ! MAN OR WOMAN C\LD -- OR %\LD -- COMPLETELY REPLACE ! BOY OR GIRL4 ,PROP]LY UND]/OOD1 A MATURE P]SON IS NOT AN 9V5TORY ( TE/ RESULTS & MEASUREM5TS4 ,HE OR %E IS AN 9DIVIDUAL BIOGRAPHY1 ! DEVELOPM5TAL EMBODIM5T ( P>TIALLY OR :OLLY REALIZ$ QUALITIES ?AT AN 5VIRONM5T SURELY CONDITIONS BUT :OSE 9H]5T MAKEUP W\LD ULTIMATELY DET]M9E HIS OR H] DEVELOPM5T IF SOCIETY ACQUIR$ A HI<LY RATIONAL =M4 

,H[EV] 9TUITIVE IT MAY BE1 ?IS K9D ( ?9K+ IS /RUCTUR$ >\ND NOT D$UCTION BUT $UCTION4 ,IF D$UCTION CONSI/S ( ! 9F]5TIAL 0IF-!N0 /EPS WE TAKE1 ) DUE REV]5CE = CONSI/5CY1 TO >RIVE AT UN%AKABLE & CLE>LY DEF9$ JUDGM5TS AB\T 0BRUTE FACTS10 $UCTION FULLY MANIFE/S & >TICULATES ! LAT5T POSSIBILITIES ( PH5OM5A4 ,$UCTION IS A PHAS$ PROCESS 9 :I* 0IF0 IS NOT A FIX$ HYPO!TICAL PREMISE BUT RA!R A POT5TIALITY4 0,/EPS0 9 $UCTION >E NOT M]E 9F]5CES BUT /AGES ( DEVELOPM5T4 0,CONSI/5CY10 F> FROM BE+ AN IMPOS$ CANON ( LOGIC BAS$ ON PR9CIPLES ( ID5TITY1 CONTRADICTION1 & ! EXCLUD$ MIDDLE1 IS ! IMMAN5T PROCESS WE PROP]LY CALL SELF-DEVELOPM5T4 ,F9ALLY1 0!N0 IS ! FULL ACTUALIZATION ( POT5TIALITY 9 ITS RI*1 SELF-9CORPORATIVE 0/AGES0 ( GR[?1 DIFF]5TIATION1 MATURATION1 & :OL5ESS4 ,?AT ! 0MATURE0 & 0:OLE0 >E NEV] SO COMPLETE ?AT !Y CEASE TO BE ! POT5TIALITY = A /ILL FUR!R DEVELOPM5T REPRES5TS AN ECOLOGICAL *ANGE ,I AM ADVANC+ H]E4 

,:I* BR+S US TO ! PROBLEM ( :AT WE >E OBLIG$ TO MODIFY 9 ! DIALECTICAL PHILOSOPHY ( ITS TWO MO/ \T/&+ VOICES1 ,>I/OTLE & ,HEGEL1 9 ORD] TO R5D] IT AN ECOLOGICAL MODE ( ?\<T4.<#f#e.> ',TO DO ?IS1' WE MU/ BRIEFLY SUMM>IZE :AT AN ECOLOGICAL DIALECTIC %>ES ) ! ,>I/OTELIAN & ,HEGELIAN4 ,DIALECTICAL PHILOSOPHY MOVES FROM ! UNDIFF]5TIAT$ AB/RACT TO ! HI<LY DIFF]5TIAT$ CONCRETE 7:ILE MO/ COMMONS5SICAL =MS ( ?\<T MOVE 9 ! OPPOSITE DIRECTION74 ,9 ?IS RESPECT DIALECTIC PICKS UP ! ?READ ( CLASSICAL $UCTION & GOES BEYOND IT1 MOV+ FROM ?AT :I* IS IMPLICIT 9 B>E POT5TIALITY TO ITS REALIZATION 9 A FULLY >TICULAT$ ACTUALITY4 ,MU* ( ,GREEK PHILOSOPHY EXPRESS$ ?IS PROBLEMATIC AS ?AT ( ! EM]G5CE ( ! ,MANY FROM ! ,ONE3 9 ,>I/OTLE'S WORK1 ! APOGEE ( CLASSICAL ?\<T1 0A CONCEPTION ( SUB/ANCE1 OR ! REAL1 AS ! GOAL T[>D :I* DEVELOPS A POT5TIAL BE+ ?AT1 SAVE AS ULTIMATELY REALIZ$1 IS NEI!R REAL NOR 9TELLIGIBLE1 DOM9ATES ! :OLE C\RSE ( ,>I/OTLE'S SPECULATION10 OBS]VES ,G4,R4,G4 ,MURE 9 A V]Y PI?Y =MULATION4 0,FOLL[ HIM AS HE APPLIES IT 9 EV]Y SPH]E :I* HE 9VE/IGATES2 WAT* IT GR[ FROM ?IS 9ITIAL AB/RACT =MULA 9TO A CONCRETE UNIV]SE ( ?\<T2 & Y\ MAY HOPE TO GRASP ! ESS5TIAL MEAN+ ( HIS PHILOSOPHY0.<#f#f.> ,! SAME C\LD BE SAID ( ,HEGEL1 :OSE ELABORATION ( ?IS ,>I/OTELIAN MOTIF IS MORE SUBJECTIVIZ$ & 9=M$1 AL?\< AT TIMES IT IS CLUTT]$ BY ! M\NTA9 ( PROBLEMATICS ?AT HAD BE5 ADD$ TO ,WE/]N PHILOSOPHY S9CE ,>I/OTLE'S TIME4 

,AN ECOLOGICAL DIALECTIC W\LD HAVE TO ADDRESS ! FACT ?AT ,>I/OTLE & ,HEGEL DID NOT WORK ) AN EVOLUTION>Y !ORY ( NATURE BUT RA!R SAW ! NATURAL WORLD MORE AS A  
SCALA NATURAE1 A LADD] ( 0,BE+10 ?AN AS A FL[+ CONT9UUM ,AN ECOLOGICAL DIALECTIC 9TRODUCES EVOLUTION 9TO ?IS TRADITION & REPLACES ! NOTION ( A SCALA NATURAE ) A RI*LY M$IAT$ CONT9UUM4 ,BO? ?9K]S W]E MORE PR(\NDLY 9FLU5C$ BY ,PLATO ?AN !IR WRIT+S W\LD SEEM TO 9DICATE1 ) ! RESULT ?AT 9 ! CASE ( ,HEGEL1 WE MOVE )9 A REALM ( CONCEPT MORE ?AN HI/ORY 7H[EV] HI/ORICAL ,HEGEL'S DIALECTIC 9V>IABLY WAS74 ,HEGEL WAS /RONGLY PREOCCUPI$ ) ! 0IDEA0 ( NATURE RA!R ?AN ) ITS EXI/5TIAL DETAILS1 AL?\< HE HONOR$ ?IS PREOCCUPATION 9 ! BREA*4 ,F9ALLY1 ! OV]>*+0 TELEOLOGY ( ! TWO PHILOSOPH]S T5DS TO SUBORD9ATE ! CONT+5CY1 SPONTANEITY1 & CREATIVITY ?AT M>K NATURAL PH5OM5A4.<#f#g.> ,HEGEL1 ) HIS /RONG !OLOGICAL B5T1 T]M9AT$ ! UNFOLD+ ( ! WORLD 9 AN 0,ABSOLUTE0 ?AT 5COMPASSES IT 9 AN ID5TITY ( SUBJECT & OBJECT4 ,9 AN ECOLOGICAL DIALECTIC1 BY CONTRA/ !RE W\LD BE NO T]M9ALITY ?AT C\LD CULM9ATE 9 A ,GOD OR AN ,ABSOLUTE4 0,ACTUALITY10 TO USE ,HEGEL'S SPECIAL T]M1 IS ! ALMO/ MOM5T>Y CULM9ATION ( MATURITY1 SO ?AT ! OBJECTIVITY ( ! POT5TIAL1 :I* IS CRUCIAL = AN OBJECTIVE E?ICS1 IS SUBORD9AT$ TO ITS ACTUALIZATION4 

,5GLI% TRANSLATIONS ( ,HEGEL (T5 ]RONE\SLY R5D] REAL & ACTUAL AS SYNONYMS 9 C]TA9 PASSAGES1 ALL[+ ! ,HEGELIAN 0REAL0 TO BE CONCEIV$ AS ! ACTUALIZATION ( ! POT5TIAL -- A FAIL+ ?AT ,I BELIEVE %\LD BE CORRECT$4 ,:AT IS LESS 0REAL0 ?AN ,HEGEL'S 0REALITY0 -- NOTABLY ! 0BRUTE FACTS0 OR ! GIV5 0IS0 ( COMMON S5SE -- W\LD MORE CLOSELY CORRESPOND TO :AT ,HEGEL CONSID]S 0! APP>5T0 7DAS ,]S*E95DE74 ,FROM AN ECOLOGICAL VIEWPO9T1 ?IS MI/RANSLATION C\LD LEAD TO MU* CONFUSION4 ,H5CE1 ,I HAVE US$ ! WORD REAL TO MEAN SIMPLY 0:AT-IS10 NOT 0:AT IS NECESS>ILY LAT5T 9 ! POT5TIAL40 ,! ACTUAL REMA9S V]Y MU* :AT ,HEGEL MEANT IT TO MEAN3 ! RATIONAL REALIZATION ( ! POT5TIAL1 AS DI/+UI%$ FROM ! 0REAL0 AS ! EXI/5TIAL4.<#f#h.> ,F9ALLY1 AN ECOLOGICAL DIALECTIC GREATLY MODIFIES ! CREATIVE ROLE ?AT ,HEGEL IMP>T$ TO /RIFE1 (T5 9T]PRET$ AS M]E 0ANTI!SIS0 7:I* IS R\<LY AS F> AS ,!ODOR ,ADORNO TAKES ! DIALECTIC 9 HIS ,NEGATIVE ,DIALECTICS71 BUT NOT )\T IGNOR+ ! PRES5CE ( /RIFE 9 HUMAN HI/ORY4 ,IT EMPHASIZES ?AT ! DIALECTIC1 NO LESS 9 ,HEGEL'S ?AN 9 MY [N ?9K+1 UND]GOES DIFF]5TIATION ?R\< A TRANSC5D5CE BEYOND M]E ANTI!SIS1 NOTABLY :AT ,HEGEL CALL$ AN ,AUFHEBUNG OR NEGATION ( ! NEGATION4 ,DIALECTIC IS ?US A PHILOSOPHY ( PROGRESS 9 :I* !RE IS A GR[+ ELABORATION & SELF-CONSCI\SNESS1 9S(> AS ! WORLD IS RATIONAL4 

,DIALECTIC1 LET ME EMPHASIZE1 IS NOT M]ELY 0*ANGE10 0MOTION1 OR EV5 PROCESS1 ALL BANAL IMPUTATIONS TO ! CONTR>Y NOT)/&+4 ,NOR CAN IT BE SUBSUM$ UND] 0PROCESS PHILOSOPHY40 ,DIALECTIC IS DEVELOPM5T1 NOT ONLY *ANGE2 IT IS D]IVATION1 NOT ONLY MOTION2 IT IS M$IATION1 NOT ONLY PROCESS2 & IT IS  
CUMULATIVE1 NOT ONLY CONT9U\S4 ,?AT IT IS ALSO *ANGE1 MOTION1 PROCESS1 & A CONT9UUM TELLS US ONLY P>T ( ITS TRUE CONT5T4 ,BUT D5I$ ITS IMMAN5T SELF-DIRECTIV5ESS & ITS 5TELE*IAL $UCTION ( ! POT5TIAL 9TO ! ACTUAL1 ?IS 0PROCESS PHILOSOPHY1 9DE$ ?IS REM>KABLE NOTION ( CAUSALITY1 CEASES TO BE DIALECTIC4 ,9/EAD1 IT BECOMES A M]E HUSK ?AT \R CURR5T FLOCK ( 0ECO0-FADDI/S CAN R$UCE TO 0K9ETICS10 0DYNAMICS1 0FLUCTUATIONS10 & 0FE$BACK LOOPS0 -- ! SAME ME*ANI/IC V]BIAGE ) :I* SY/EMS !ORY DRESSES ITSELF UP AS A DEVELOPM5TAL PHILOSOPHY4 

,AS ,HEGEL W>N$ 9 ! C\RSE ( $UC+ ! COMPLEXITY ( ! DIALECTICAL PROCESS3 KN[L$GE HAS 0NO O!R OBJECT ?AN TO DRAW \T :AT IS 9W>D OR IMPLICIT & ?US TO BECOME OBJECTIVE40 ,BUT IF  
  

?AT :I* IS IMPLICIT COMES 9TO EXI/5CE1 IT C]TA9LY PASSES 9TO *ANGE1 YET IT REMA9S ONE & ! SAME4444 ,! PLANT1 = EXAMPLE1 DOES NOT LOSE ITSELF 9 M]E 9DEF9ITE *ANGE4 ,FROM ! G]M MU* IS PRODUC$ :5 AT FIR/ NO?+ WAS TO BE SE52 BUT ! :OLE ( :AT IS BR\<T =?1 IF NOT DEVELOP$1 IS YET HIDD5 & IDEALLY CONTA9$ )9 ITSELF4 ,! PR9CIPLE ( ?IS PROJECTION 9TO EXI/5CE IS ?AT ! G]M CANNOT REMA9 M]ELY IMPLICIT1 BUT IS IMPELL$ T[>D DEVELOPM5T1 S9CE IT PRES5TS ! CONTRADICTION ( BE+ ONLY IMPLICITLY & YET NOT DESIR+ TO BE SO4.<#f#i.>  
  

,?US DIALECTIC IS NOT WAYW>D MOTION1 ! M]E K9ETICS ( *ANGE4 ,!RE IS A RATIONAL 05D 9 VIEW0 -- NOT ONE ?AT IS PREORDA9$1 TO /ATE ?IS PO9T FROM AN ECOLOGICAL VIEWPO9T RA!R ?AN A !OLOGICAL ONE1 BUT ?AT ACTUALIZES :AT IS IMPLICIT 9 ! POT5TIAL4 ,EV]Y 0IF-!N0 PROPOSITION IS PREMIS$ NOT ON ANY IF ?AT SPR+S 9TO ONE'S HEAD LIKE A GAMBL] S HUN*2 IT POSITS A POT5TIALITY ?AT HAS ITS ANCE/RY 9 ! DIALECTICAL PROCESSES ?AT PREC$$ IT4 

,R$UCTIONISM BREAKS ?IS PROCESS D[N TO ! MO/ UNDIFF]5TIAT$ 9T]ACTIONS IT CAN =MULATE4 ,BUT IT DOES SO AT ! CO/ ( DEMOLI%+ ! V>I\S PHASES OR 0MOM5TS0 7TO USE ,HEGELIAN T]M9OLOGY7 FROM :I* ! PROCESS IS LIT]ALLY CON/ITUT$4 ,A HUMAN BE+ IS CLE>LY AN 5SEMBLE ( *EMICALS4 ,:ILE R$UCTIONISM CAN EXPLA9 ITS EXI/5CE AS A PHYSICO-*EMICAL PH5OM5ON1 IT CANNOT COMPREH5D IT AS A REM>KABLY COMPLEX =M ( LIFE4 ,*EMICAL ANALYSIS PROVIDES US ) NO SUB/ITUTE = ! MULTITUDE ( =MS1 RELATION%IPS1 PROCESSES1 & 5VIRONM5TS ?AT ! ORGANIC CREATES = ITSELF AS IT METABOLICALLY SU/A9S ITS [N 0SELFHOOD0 9 DI/9CTION FROM O!R 0SELVES40 ,9DE$1 C>RI$ TOO F> 9TO A L[] LEVEL ( PH5OM5A1 R$UCTION LEADS TO DISSOLUTION1 SO ?AT ! V]Y 9TEGRITY ( A GIV5 LEVEL ( PH5OM5A -- BE IT SOCIAL1 BIOLOGICAL1 *EMICAL1 OR PHYSICAL -- SIMPLY DISAPPE>S 9TO M]E 0MATT]0 & 0MOTION40 ,9 A K9D ( IDEOLOGICAL 5TROPY1 ?\<T NO LONG] HAS ! DIFF]5TIAE ) :I* TO DEF9E ITS SUBJECT MATT]1 LET ALONE EXPLORE IT4 ,AS ! COMPLEX IS TRIMM$ D[N TO ITS 0IRR$UCIBLE0 COMPON5TS1 ! :OLE ?AT =MS ! V]Y PREMISES ( ?\<T DISAPPE>S 9TO A MEAN+LESS1 9DE$ =MLESS HEAP ( 0MATT]10 !REBY ]AS+ ! V]Y B\ND>IES ?AT GIVE DEF9ITION TO A PH5OM5ON AS A COMPON5T ( A MORE COMPLEX 0:OLE40 

,9 ! ORGANIC WORLD1 ! METABOLIC ACTIVITY ( ! SIMPLE/ LIFE-=MS CON/ITUTES ! S5SE ( SELF-ID5TITY1 H[EV] G]M9AL1 FROM :I* NATURE ACQUIRES A RUDIM5T>Y SUBJECTIVITY4 ,NOT ONLY DOES ?IS RUDIM5T>Y SUBJECTIVITY 7:I* R$UCTIONISM NECESS>ILY CANNOT 5COMPASS7 D]IVE FROM ! METABOLIC PROCESS ( SELF-MA9T5ANCE1 A PROCESS ?AT DEF9ES ANY LIFE-=M AS A UNIQUE :OLE2 IT EXT5DS ITSELF BEYOND SELF-MA9T5ANCE TO BECOME A /RIV+ ACTIVITY1 NOT UNLIKE ! DEVELOPM5T FROM ! VEGETATIVE TO ! ANIMATIVE1 ?AT ULTIMATELY YIELDS M9D1 WILL1 & ! POT5TIALITY = FRE$OM4 ,CONCEIV$ DIALECTICALLY1 ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS1 9 A BROAD S5SE1 SUBJECTIVE 9S(> AS LIFE-=MS BEG9 TO EX]CISE *OICES 9 ADAPT+ TO NEW 5VIRONM5TS -- A CONCEPTION ?AT /&S MU* AT ODDS ) ?AT CLE>LY DEF9ABLE FIXITY WE BLISSFULLY CALL 0CLE> ?9K+40 ,SY/EMS !ORY 5T]S 9TO ! R$UCTIONI/ TABLEAU 9 A S9I/] WAY3 BY DISSOLV+ ! SUBJECTIVE ELEM5T 9 BIOLOGICAL PH5OM5A SO ?AT !Y CAN BE TREAT$ AS MA!MATICAL SYMBOLS1 SY/EMS !ORY P]MITS EVOLUTION>Y 9T]ACTION1 SUBJECTIVE DEVELOPM5T1 & EV5 PROCESS ITSELF1 TO BE TAK5 OV] BY 0! SY/EM10 JU/ AS ! 9DIVIDUAL1 ! FAMILY1 & ! COMMUNITY >E DE/RUCTUR$ 9TO 0! ,SY/EM0 EMBODI$ BY ! ECONOMIC CORPORATION & ! /ATE4 ,LIFE CEASES TO HAVE SUBJECTIVITY & BECOMES A ME*ANISM 9 :I* ! T5D5CY ( LIFE=MS T[>D EV]-GREAT] ELABORATION IS REPLAC$ ) 0FE$BACK LOOPS10 & !IR EVOLUTION>Y ANTEC$5TS ) PROGRAMM$ 09=MATION40 ,A 0SY/EMS VIEW ( LIFE0 LIT]ALLY CONCEIVES ( LIFE AS A SY/EM1 NOT ONLY AS 0FLUCTUATIONS0 & 0CYCLES0 -- ME*ANI/IC AS !SE CONCEPTS >E 9 !MSELVES4 

,DESPITE ! EXT]NAL SELECTIVE FACTORS ) :I* ,D>W9IANS DESCRIBE EVOLUTION1 ! T5D5CY ( LIFE T[>D A GREAT] COMPLEXITY ( SELFHOOD -- A T5D5CY ?AT YIELDS 9CREAS+ DEGREES ( SUBJECTIVITY -- CON/ITUTES ! 9T]NAL OR IMMAN5T IMPULSE ( EVOLUTION T[>D GR[+ SELF-AW>5ESS4 ,?IS EVOLUTION>Y DIALECTIC CON/ITUTES ! ESS5CE ( LIFE AS A SELF-MA9TA9+ ORGANISM ?AT BE>S ! POT5TIAL = ! DEVELOPM5T ( SELF-CONSCI\S ORGANISMS4 ,DIALECTIC1 9 EFFECT1 IS NOT M]ELY A 0LOGIC0 OR A 0ME?OD0 ?AT CAN BE B\NC$ >\ND & 0APPLI$0 PROMISCU\SLY TO A CONT5T4 ,IT HAS NO 0H&BOOK0 O!R ?AN REASON ITSELF TO GUIDE ?OSE :O SEEK TO DEVELOP A DIALECTICAL S5SIBILITY4 ,DIALECTIC CAN NO MORE BE APPLI$ TO PROBLEMS 9 5G9E]+ ?AN ,E9/E9'S G5]AL !ORY ( RELATIVITY CAN BE APPLI$ TO PLUMB+2 !SE PROBLEMS CAN BE/ BE RESOLV$ BY CONV5TIONAL =MS ( LOGIC1 COMMON S5SE1 & ! PRAGMATIC KN[L$GE ACQUIR$ ?R\< EXP]I5CE4 ,DIALECTIC CAN ONLY EXPLICATE A RATIONALLY DEVELOPM5TAL PH5OM5ON1 JU/ AS SY/EMS !ORY CAN ONLY EXPLICATE ! WORK+S ( A FLUCTUAT+ & CYCLICAL SY/EM4 ,! K9D ( V]IFICATION ?AT VALIDATES OR 9VALIDATES ! S\NDNESS ( DIALECTICAL REASON+1 9 TURN1 MU/ BE DEVELOPM5TAL1 NOT RELATIVELY /ATIC OR = ?AT MATT] 0FLUCTUAT+0 K9DS ( PH5OM5A4 

,H5CE1 IT DI/ORTS ! V]Y MEAN+ ( DIALECTIC TO SPEAK ( IT AS A 0ME?OD40 ,9DE$1 DIALECTICAL PHILOSOPHY1 PROP]LY CONCEIV$ & FRE$ ( ME*ANI/IC PRESUMPTIONS1 IS AN ONGO+ PROTE/ AGA9/ ! MY? ( ME?ODOLOGY3 NOTABLY1 ?AT ! 0TE*NIQUES0 = ?9K+ \T A PROCESS CAN BE SEP>AT$ FROM ! PROCESS ITSELF4 ,ITS S5SITIVITY = CONCRETE PH5OM5A1 EV5 :5 !Y >E DI/ILL$ 9TO 0CONCEPTS10 AS ,HEGEL DID1 IS :AT R5D]S DIALECTIC SU* AN EXI/5TIALLY VITAL & PALPABLY ORGANISMIC PHILOSOPHY4 ,IT WAS ,HEGEL'S G5IUS TO RE9TRODUCE ,PLATO'S SUPRA-MUNDANE WORLD ( =MS -- AN EXEMPL>Y & H5CE A MORAL WORLD1 NOT M]ELY A METAPHYSICAL ONE -- 9TO REALITY & TO DEVELOP ,>I/OTLE'S NOTION ( 5TELE*Y 9TO A CONCEPT ( 0TRANSC5D5CE0 7,ANFHEBUNG7 ?AT NUANCES PROCESSES AS M$IAT$ 0MOM5TS 9 ! SELF-FULFILLM5T ( !IR POT5TIALITIES40 ,FRE$ ( ITS !OLOGICAL TRAPP+S1 DIALECTIC EXPLA9S1 ) A P[] BEYOND ?AT ( ANY CONV5TIONAL LOGIC1 H[ ! ORGANIC FL[ ( FIR/ 9TO SECOND NATURE IS A REWORK+ ( BIOLOGICAL 9TO SOCIAL REALITY4 ,EA* PHASE OR 0MOM5T0 PRESS$ BY ITS [N 9T]NAL LOGIC 9TO AN ANTI!TICAL & ULTIMATELY A MORE TRANSC5D5T =M1 EM]GES AS A MORE COMPLEX UNITY-9-DIV]SITY ?AT 5COMPASSES ITS E>LI] MOM5TS EV5 AS IT GOES BEYOND !M4 ,DESPITE ! IMAG]Y ( /RIFE ?AT P]MEATES ! ,HEGELIAN V]SION ( ?IS PROCESS1 ! ULTIMATE PO9T ( ! ,HEGELIAN ,AUFHEBUNG IS RECONCILIATION1 NOT ! NIHILISM ( PURE NEGATION4 ,MOREOV]1 NORMS -- ! ACTUALIZATION ( ! POT5TIAL 0IS0 9TO ! E?ICAL 0\<T0 -- >E AN*OR$ 9 ! OBJECTIVE REALITY ( POT5TIALITY ITSELF1 NOT AS IT ALWAYS 0IS10 TO BE SURE1 BUT AS 0%\LD BE10 SU* ?AT SPECULATION BECOMES A VALID ACC\NT ( REALITY 9 ITS TRU?4 ,HEGEL1 ,I W\LD >GUE1 RADICALLY EXP&$ ! V]Y CONCEPT ( ,BE+ 9 PHILOSOPHY & 9 ! REAL WORLD TO 5COMPASS ! POT5TIAL & ITS ACTUALIZATION 9TO ! RATIONAL 0:AT-%\LD-BE0 NOT ONLY AS AN EXI/5TIAL 0:AT-IS40.<#g.> 

,DIALECTICAL SPECULATION1 DESPITE ,HEGEL'S [N VIEW ( ! RETROSPECTIVE FUNCTION ( PHILOSOPHY1 ?US IS PROJECTIVE 9 A %>PLY CRITICAL S5SE 7QUITE UNLIKE 0FUTUROLOGY10 :I* DISSOLVES ! FUTURE3 BY MAK+ IT A M]E EXTRAPOLATION ( ! PRES5T74 ,9 ITS RE/LESS CRITIQUE ( REALITY WE CAN CALL DIALECTIC A 0NEGATIVE PHILOSOPHY0 -- 9 CONTRA/1 ,I %\LD ADD1 TO ,ADORNO'S NIHILISM OR 0NEGATIVE DIALECTICS4 ,BY ! SAME TOK51 SPECULATION IS CREATIVE 9 ?AT IT CEASELESSLY CONTRA/S ! FREE1 RATIONAL1 & MORAL ACTUALITY ( 0:AT-C\LD-BE1 :I* 9H]ES 9 NATURE'S ?RU/ T[>D SELF-REFLEXIVITY1 ) ! EXI/5TIAL REALITY ( 0:AT-IS40.<#g#a.> ,SPECULATION CAN ASK 0:Y0 7NOT ONLY 0H[07 ! REAL HAS BECOME ! IRRATIONAL -- 9DE$1 ! 9HUMAN & ANTI-ECOLOGICAL -- PRECISELY BECAUSE DIALECTIC ALONE IS CAPABLE ( GR\ND+ AN ECOLOGICAL E?ICS 9 ! POT5TIAL1 ?AT IS1 9 ITS OBJECTIVE POSSIBILITIES = ! REALIZATION ( REASON & TRU?4 

,?IS OBJECTIVIZATION ( POSSIBILITIES -- ( POT5TIALITY CONT9U\S ) ITS YET UNREALIZ$ ACTUALIZATION -- IS ! GR\ND = A G5U9ELY OBJECTIVE E?ICS1 AS DI/+UI%$ FROM AN E?ICAL RELATIVISM SUBJECT TO ! WAYW>DNESS ( ! OP9ION POLL4 ,AN ECOLOGICAL DIALECTIC1 9 EFFECT1 OP5S ! WAY TO AN E?ICS ?AT IS ROOT$ 9 ! OBJECTIVITY ( ! POT5TIAL1 NOT 9 ! COMM&M5TS ( A DEITY OR 9 ! ET]NALITY ( A SUPRAMUNDANE & TRANSC5D5TAL 0REALITY40 ,H5CE1 ! 0:AT-%\LD-BE0 IS NOT ONLY OBJECTIVE1 IT =MS ! OBJECTIVE CRITIQUE ( ! GIV5 REALITY4 

,HUMAN 9T]V5TION 9TO NATURE IS 9H]5T & 9EVITABLE4 ,TO >GUE ?AT ?IS 9T]V5TION %\LD NOT OCCUR IS UTT]LY OBFUSCATORY1 S9CE HUMANITY'S SECOND NATURE IS NOT SIMPLY AN EXT]NAL IMPOSITION ON BIOLOGY'S FIR/ NATURE BUT IS ! RESULT ( FIR/ NATURE'S 9H]5T EVOLUTION>Y PROCESS4 ,:AT IS AT ISSUE 9 HUMANITY'S TRANS=MATION ( NATURE IS :E!R ITS PRACTICE IS CONSI/5T ) AN OBJECTIVE ECOLOGICAL E?ICS ?AT IS RATIONALLY DEVELOP$1 NOT HAPHAZ>DLY DIV9$1 FELT1 OR 9TUIT$4 ,M9IMALLY1 SU* AN ECOLOGICAL E?ICS W\LD 9VOLVE HUMAN /EW>D%IP ( ! PLANET4 ,A HUMANITY ?AT FAIL$ TO SEE ?AT IT IS POT5TIALLY NATURE R5D]$ SELF-CONSCI\S & SELF-REFLEXIVE W\LD SEP>ATE ITSELF FROM NATURE MORALLY AS WELL AS 9TELLECTUALLY4 ,SECOND NATURE 9 SU* A SITUATION W\LD LIT]ALLY BE DIVE/$ ( ITS LA/ TIES TO FIR/ NATURE2 WORSE1 ! VACUUM LEFT BY ! DEP>TURE ( CONSCI\SNESS W\LD BE FILL$ BY BL9D M>KET-ORI5T$ 9T]E/S & AN EGOI/IC M>KETPLACE M5TALITY4 ,9 ANY CASE1 !RE IS NO ROAD BACK FROM SECOND TO FIR/ NATURE1 ANY MORE ?AN SECOND NATURE AS IT IS N[ CON/ITUT$ CAN RESCUE ! BIOSPH]E FROM DE/RUCTION ) 0TE*NOLOGICAL FIXES0 & POLITICAL RE=MS4 

,GIV5 ! MASSIVE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS ?AT CONFRONTS US1 9TELLECTUAL CONFUSION 9 ! ECOLOGY MOVEM5T MAY YIELD H>MFUL RESULTS ( IMMEASURABLE PROPORTIONS4 ,9 ! PRES5T P]IOD ( HI/ORY1 TO C>ELESSLY HEAP FRAGM5TS ( IDEAS UPON EA* O!R & CALL ?IS ECOPHILOSOPHY IS NO LONG] AN AF=DABLE LUXURY4 ,/EW>D%IP ( ! E>? NE$ NOT CONSI/ ( SU* ACCOMMODAT+ MEASURES AS ! E/ABLI%M5T ( ECOLOGICAL WILD]NESS ZONES OR HALF MEASURES TO PAT* UP 5VIRONM5TAL DISLOCATIONS4 ,:AT IT CAN & %\LD MEAN IS A RADICAL 9TEGRATION ( SECOND NATURE FIR/ NATURE ALONG F>-REA*+ ECOLOGICAL L9ES1 AN 9TEGRATION ?AT W\LD YIELD NEW ECOCOMMUNITIES1 ECOTE*NOLOGIES1 & AN ABID+ ECOLOGICAL S5SIBILITY ?AT EMBODIES NATURE'S ?RU/ T[>D SELF-REFLEXIVITY4 ,= BIOC5TRI/S & ANTIHUMANI/S TO ?R[ WORD >ROGANCE >\ND :5EV] ANYONE CITES HUMAN BE+S AS E?ICAL & M5TAL REF]5TS = NATURE & NATURAL EVOLUTION IS MANIPULATIVE4 ,NATURE )\T AN ACTIVE HUMAN PRES5CE W\LD BE AS UNNATURAL AS A TROPICAL RA9=E/ ?AT LACK$ MONKEYS & ANTS4 ,DIALECTIC1 IT %\LD BE NOT$1 IS NO LESS A CRITIQUE ( ONE SID$NESS & SIMPLICITY ?AN ( EXI/+ REALITY & AN ADAPTIVE M5TALITY TO ! /ATUS QUO4 ,CA/ 9 RADICAL ECOLOGICAL T]MS1 IT CALLS = A D5IAL ( C5TRICITY AS SU*1 BE IT 0AN?ROPOC5TRICITY10 0BIOC5TRICITY10 OR SO-CALL$ 0ECOC5TRICITY10 :I* IS MEANT TO 9CLUDE ROCKS & RIV]S AS WELL AS LIFE-=MS4 ,A PHILOSOPHY ( ORGANIC DEVELOPM5T IS ABOVE ALL A PHILOSOPHY ( :OL5ESS 9 :I* EVOLUTION REA*ES A DEGREE ( UNITY-9-DIV]SITY SU* ?AT NATURE CAN ACT UPON ITSELF RATIONALLY ?R\< RATIONAL HUMAN AG5CY1 ) ITS D]IVATION 9 NATURE'S POT5TIAL = FRE$OM & CONCEPTUAL ?\<T4 

,9 ! 9T]M$IATE ZONE BETWE5 FIR/ & SECOND NATURE ?AT SAW ! GRAD$ PASSAGE ( BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION 9TO SOCIAL1 SOCIAL EVOLUTION BEGAN TO ASSUME 9CREAS+LY HI]>*ICAL =M2 ,:E!R ?IS C\LD HAVE BE5 AVOID$ IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY -- & MEAN+LESS TO DIV9E4 ,9 ANY CASE1 SOCIAL EVOLUTION UNFOLD$ 9 ! DIRECTION ( HI]>*ICAL1 CLASS-ORI5T$1 & /ATI/ 9/ITUTION GIV+ RISE TO ! NATION-/ATE & ULTIMATELY1 ALBEIT NOT 9EVITABLY1 TO A CAPITALI/ ECONOMY4 ,9 \R [N TIME1 ! MASSIVE P5ETRATION ( ?IS ECONOMY 9TO SOCIETY AS A :OLE HAS PRODUC$ AN EV5 MORE S]I\S DI/ORTION ( SECOND NATURE4 ,! M>KET ECONOMY1 :I* ALL CULTURES FROM ANTIQUITY TO REC5T TIMES HAVE RESI/$ TO ONE DEGREE OR ANO!R1 HAS ESS5TIALLY BECOME A M>KET SOCIETY4 ,?IS SOCIETY IS HI/ORICALLY UNIQUE4 ,IT ID5TIFIES PROGRESS ) COMPETITION RA!R ?AN COOP]ATION4 ,IT VIEWS SOCIETY AS A REALM = POSSESS+ ?+S RA!R ?AN = ELABORAT+ HUMAN RELATION%IPS4 ,IT CREATES A MORALITY BAS$ ON GR[? RA!R ?AN LIMIT & BALANCE4 ,= ! FIR/ TIME 9 HUMAN HI/ORY1 SOCIETY & COMMUNITY HAVE BE5 R$UC$ TO LITTLE MORE ?AN A HUGE %OPP+ MALL4 

,UNLESS ECOLOGY EXPLORES ?IS W>P$ DEVELOPM5T SY/EMATICALLY -- ?AT IS1 UNLESS IT UNE>?S ITS 9T]NAL LOGIC 9 A REASON$ & ORGANISMIC WAY -- ITS CRITICAL ?RU/ WILL BE 5TIRELY LO/ & ITS 9TEGRITY HOPELESSLY IMPUGN$4 ,TODAY1 ECLECTICISM & R$UCTIONISM -- A HODGEPODGE ( DISCONNECT$1 EV5 CONTRADICTORY IDEAS DEGRAD$ TO !IR L[E/ COMMON D5OM9ATOR -- >E ! MO/ S]I\S OB/ACLES TO ! REALIZATION ( ?IS CRITICAL PROJECT4 ,ECLECTICISM MAY APPEAL TO LAZY M9DS ?AT PREF] SLOGANS TO REASON$ /UDIES ( SOCIETY & ITS IMPACT ON ! NATURAL WORLD4 ,BUT ) LAZY M9DS COME LAZY ?\<TS & A PASSIVE-RECEPTIVE M5TALITY ?AT 9CREAS+LY R5D]S ! M9D VULN]ABLE TO AU?ORIT>IAN CONTROL4 

,BEYOND ,FIR/ & ,SECOND ,NATURE 

  

,WE MU/ TRY TO BR+ ! ?READS ( \R DISCUSSION TOGE!R & EXAM9E ! IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS DIALECTIC HAS = ECOLOGICAL ?9K+4 ,A 0DIALECTICAL VIEW ( LIFE0 IS A SPECIAL =M ( PROCESS PHILOSOPHY4 ,ITS EMPHASIS IS NOT ON *ANGE ALONE BUT ON DEVELOPM5T4 ,IT IS $UCTIVE RA!R ?AN M]ELY D$UCTIVE1 M$IAT$ RA!R ?AN M]ELY PROCESSUAL1 & CUMULATIVE RA!R ?AN M]ELY CONT9U\S4 ,ITS OBJECTIVITY BEG9S ) ! EXI/5CE ( ! POT5TIAL1 NOT ) ! M]E FACTICITY ( ! REAL2 H5CE ITS E?ICS SEEKS ! 0:AT-%\LD-BE0 AS A REALM ( OBJECTIVE POSSIBILITIES4 ,?AT 0POSSIBILITIES0 >E OBJECTIVE1 ALBEIT NOT 9 ! S5SE ( A SIMPLI/IC MAT]IALISM1 IS DIALECTICALLY JU/IFI$ BY ! P]CEPTION ?AT POT5TIALITY & ITS LAT5T POSSIBILITIES =M AN EXI/5TIAL CONT9UUM ?AT CON/ITUTES ! AU!NTIC WORLD ( TRU? -- ! WORLD ( ! 0:AT-%\LD-BE10 NOT SIMPLY ! WORLD ( ! 0:AT-IS10 ) ALL ITS 9COMPLET5ESS & FALSEHOOD4 

,FROM A DIALECTICAL VIEWPO9T1 A *ANGE 9 A GIV5 LEVEL ( BIOTIC1 COMMUNAL1 OR = ?AT MATT]1 SOCIAL ORGANIZATION CONSI/S NOT SIMPLY ( ! APPE>ANCE ( A NEW1 POSSIBLY MORE COMPLEX 5SEMBLE ( 0FE$BACK LOOPS40 ,RA!R1 IT CONSI/S ( QUALITATIVELY NEW ATTRIBUTES1 9T]RELATION%IPS1 & DEGREES ( SUBJECTIVITY ?AT EXPRESS & RADICALLY CONDITION ! EM]G5CE ( A NEW POT5TIALITY1 OP5+ UP A NEW REALM ( POSSIBILITY ) ITS [N UNIQUE T5D5CY -- NOT A GREAT] OR LESS] NUMB] ( 0FLUCTUATIONS0 & 0RHY?MS40 ,MOREOV]1 ?IS NEW POT5TIALITY IS ITSELF ! RESULT ( O!R ACTUALIZATIONS ( POT5TIALITIES ?AT1 TAK5 TOGE!R HI/ORICALLY & CUMULATIVELY1 CON/ITUTE A DEVELOPM5TAL CONT9UUM -- NOT A BULLET 0%OT FROM A PI/OL0 ?AT EXPLODES 9TO ,BE+ )\T A HI/ORY ( ITS [N OR A CONT9UUM ( :I* IT IS P>T4.<#g#b.> 

,DIALECTICAL LOGIC IS AN IMMAN5T LOGIC ( PROCESS -- AN ONTOLOGICAL LOGIC1 NOT ONLY A LOGIC ( CONCEPTS1 CATEGORIES1 & SYMBOLS4 ,?IS LOGIC IS EM]G5T1 9 ! S5SE ?AT ONE SPEAKS ( ! 0LOGIC ( EV5TS40 ,CONSID]$ 9 T]MS ( ITS EMPHASIS ON DIFF]5TIATION1 ?IS LOGIC IS PROVOCATIVELY CONCRETE 9 ITS RELATION%IP TO AB/RACT G5]ALIZATIONS -- H5CE ,HEGEL'S SEEM+LY P>ADOXICAL EXPRESSION 0CONCRETE UNIV]SAL40 ,DIALECTIC !REBY OV]COMES ,PLATO'S DUALI/IC SEP>ATION ( EXEMPL>Y IDEAS FROM ! PH5OM5AL WORLD ( IMP]FECT 0COPIES0 -- H5CE ITS E?ICAL ?RU/ IS LIT]ALLY /RUCTUR$1 CUMULATIVELY AS WELL AS SEQU5TIALLY1 9 ! CONCRETE4 ,EM]G+ FROM ?IS SUP]B 5SEMBLE IS A WORLD ?AT IS ALWAYS E?ICALLY PROBLEMATICAL BUT ALSO AN E?ICS ?AT IS ALWAYS OBJECTIVE1 A RECOGNITION ( SELFHOOD & SUBJECTIVITY ?AT EMBODIES NONHUMAN & HUMAN NATURE1 & A DEVELOPM5T FROM METABOLIC SELF-MA9T5ANCE TO RATIONAL SELF-DIRECTION & 9NOVATION ?AT LOCATES ! ORIG9S ( REASON )9 NATURE1 NOT 9 A SUPRAMUNDANE DOMA9 AP>T FROM NATURE4 ,! SOCIAL IS ?US W$D$ TO ! NATURAL1 & HUMAN REASON IS W$D$ TO NONHUMAN SUBJECTIVITY ?R\< PROCESSES ?AT >E RI*LY M$IAT$ & GRAD$ 9 A %>$ CONT9UUM ( DEVELOPM5T4 ,?IS ECOLOGICAL 9T]PRETATION ( DIALECTIC NOT ONLY OV]COMES DUALISM BUT MOVES ?R\< DIFF]5TIATION AWAY FROM R$UCTIONISM4 

,ECOLOGY CLEANSES ! REM>KABLE H]ITAGE ( ,EUROPEAN ORGANISMIC ?\<T ( ! H>D TELEOLOGICAL PR$ET]M9ATIONS IT ACQUIR$ FROM ,GREEK !OLOGY1 ! ,PLATONI/IC D5IGRATION ( PHYSICALITY1 & ! ,*RI/IAN PREOCCUPATION ) HUMAN 9W>DNESS AS 0S\L0 & A REV]5CE = ,GOD4 ,ONLY ECOLOGY CAN V5TILATE ! DIALECTIC AS AN ORI5TATION T[>D ! OBJECTIVE WORLD BY R5D]+ IT COEXT5SIVE ) NATURAL EVOLUTION1 A POSSIBILITY ?AT >OSE 9 ! LA/ C5TURY ) ! APPE>ANCE ( EVOLUTION>Y !ORY4 

,AS SU*1 AN ECOLOGICAL DIALECTIC IS NOT SOLELY A WAY ( ?9K+ ORGANICALLY2 IT CAN BE A S\RCE ( MEAN+ TO NATURAL EVOLUTION -- ( E?ICAL MEAN+1 NOT ONLY RATIONAL MEAN+4 ,TO /ATE ?IS IDEA MORE PROVOCATIVELY3 WE CANNOT HOPE TO F9D HUMANITY'S 0PLACE 9 NATURE0 )\T KN[+ H[ IT EM]G$ FROM NATURE1 ) ALL ITS PROBLEMS & POSSIBILITIES4 ,AN ECOLOGICAL DIALECTIC PRODUCES A CREATIVE P>ADOX3 SECOND NATURE 9 AN ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY W\LD BE ! ACTUALIZATION ( FIR/ NATURE'S POT5TIALITY TO A*IEVE M9D & TRU?4 ,HUMAN 9TELLECTION 9 AN ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY W\LD ?US 0FOLD BACK0 UPON ! EVOLUTION>Y CONT9UUM ?AT EXI/S 9 FIR/ NATURE4 ,9 ?IS S5SE -- & 9 ?IS S5SE ALONE -- SECOND NATURE W\LD ?US BECOME FIR/ NATURE R5D]$ SELF-REFLEXIVE1 A ?9K+ NATURE ?AT W\LD KN[ ITSELF & C\LD GUIDE ITS [N EVOLUTION1 NOT AN UN?9K+ NATURE ?AT 0S\<T ITS [N BALANCE0 ?R\< ! 0DYNAMICS0 ( 0FLUCTUATIONS0 & 0FE$BACK0 ?AT CAUSE NE$LESS PA91 SUFF]+1 & DEA?4 ,AL?\< ?\<T1 SOCIETY1 & CULTURE W\LD RETA9 !IR 9TEGRITY1 !Y W\LD CONSCI\SLY EXPRESS ! ABID+ T5D5CY )9 FIR/ NATURE TO PRESS ITSELF T[>D ! LEVEL ( CONSCI\S SELF-DIRECTIV5ESS4 

,9 A V]Y REAL S5SE1 AN ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY W\LD BE  
A TRANSC5D5CE ( BO? FIR/ NATURE & SECOND NATURE 9TO A NEW DOMA9 ( A 0FREE NATURE10 A NATURE ?AT 9 A TRULY RATIONAL HUMANITY REA*$ ! LEVEL ( CONCEPTUAL ?\<T -- 9 %ORT1 A NATURE ?AT W\LD WILLFULLY & ?9K+LY COPE ) CONFLICT1 CONT+5CY1 WA/E1 & COMPULSION4 ,9 ?IS NEW SYN!SIS1 :]E FIR/ & SECOND NATURE >E MELD$ 9TO A FREE1 RATIONAL1 & E?ICAL NATURE1 NEI!R FIR/ NOR SECOND W\LD LOSE ITS SPECIFICITY & 9TEGRITY4 ,HUMANITY1 F> FROM DIM9I%+ ! 9TEGRITY ( NATURE1 W\LD ADD ! DIM5SION ( FRE$OM1 REASON1 & E?ICS TO IT & RAISE EVOLUTION TO A LEVEL ( SELF-REFLEXIVITY ?AT HAS ALWAYS BE5 LAT5T 9 ! EM]G5CE ( ! NATURAL WORLD4 

,TO D5Y ! POT5TIALITY = ?IS TRANSC5D5CE & SYN!SIS ( FIR/ & SECOND NATURE 9TO A FREE NATURE IS TO LEAVE ECOLOGICAL ?9K+ OP5 TO ALL ! WAYW>D 0IF-!N0 PROPOSITIONS ?AT ?REAT5 TO OV]RUN & BRUTALIZE IT4 ,COMMONS5SE 0BRA9/ORMS10 ?R[+ IDEAS 9TO ! AIR ) A PRAY] ?AT M]E PROBABILITY WILL PROVIDE US ) A MEAN+FUL PATT]N1 W\LD REPLACE REFLECTION & 9TELLECTUAL EXPLORATION4 

,TODAY1 ! RESULTS ( ?IS DESY/EMATIZ$ ?9K+ >E (T5 LUDICR\S :5 !Y >E NOT SIMPLY CRUEL OR EV5 VICI\S4 ,IF ALL ORGANISMS 9 ! BIOSPH]E >E 09TR9SICALLY0 EQUALLY 0WOR?Y0 ( A 0RI<T0 TO 0SELF-REALIZATION10 AS MANY BIOC5TRI/S BELIEVE1 !N HUMAN BE+S HAVE NO RI<T1  
GIV5 ! FULL LOGIC ( ?IS PROPOSITION1 TO TRY TO /AMP \T MOSQUITOES ?AT C>RY MAL>IA & YELL[ FEV]4 ,NOR DOES ! LOGIC ( ?IS PROPOSITION GIVE HUMANITY ! RI<T TO ELIM9ATE ! ,A,I,D,S VIRUS OR O!R ORGANIC S\RCES ( DEADLY ILLNESS4.<#g#c.> ,IT H>DLY HELPS ?AT ,BILL ,DEVALL & ,GEORGE ,SESSIONS1 ! COAU?ORS ( ,DEEP ,ECOLOGY1 H$G$ 0BIOC5TRIC EQUALITY0 ) ! QUALIFI] ?AT 0WE HAVE NO RI<T TO DE/ROY O!R LIV+ BE+S )\T SUFFICI5T REASON40.<#g#d.> ,A LOOPHOLE LIKE 0SUFFICI5T REASON0 IS AMBIGU\S 5\< TO DIVE/ ! 5TIRE PHRASE ( ITS LOGICAL 9TEGRITY4 ,LOGIC1 9 FACT1 GIVES WAY TO A PURELY RELATIVI/IC E?ICS4 ,:AT ,DEVALL & ,SESSIONS CONSID] 09SUFFICI5T REASON0 TO TAKE A LIFE MAY BE V]Y SUFFICI5T TO MANY O!R PEOPLE :OSE WELL-BE+1 9DE$1 :OSE V]Y SURVIVAL UND] ! PRES5T 0SY/EM0 DEP5DS ON IT4 ,9 ?IS K9D ( >GUM5TATION1 :I* DIVE/S E?ICS ( ITS SOCIAL BASIS & SECOND NATURE ( ITS D]IVATION FROM FIR/ NATURE1 0C5TRICITY0 BIFURCATES 9TO TWO OPPOS+ BODIES ( VALUES3 A BIOC5TRISM ?AT MAKES HUMANS & VIRUSES EQUAL 0CITIZ5S0 9 A 0BIOSPH]IC DEMOCRACY10 & AN AN?ROPOC5TRISM ?AT MAKES HUMANS 9TO SELF-C5T]$ SOV]EIGNS 9 :AT IS PRESUMABLY A BIOSPH]IC TYRANNY4 ,?AT BO? VIEWS >E 9 ]ROR IS A C5TRAL PO9T 9 ?IS WORK4 ,9 ANY CASE1 0DEEP ECOLOGY0 TAK5 AT ITS WORD1 LEADS US 9TO A FOGGY & DANG]\S LOGICAL REALM FROM :I* !RE IS USUALLY NO REC\RSE BUT ,EA/]N MY/ICISM4.<#g#e.> 

,!RE IS NO 0BIOSPH]IC DEMOCRACY0 -- OR 0TYRANNY10 = ?AT MATT] -- 9 NATURE O!R ?AN :AT HUMAN SECOND NATURE IMPUTES TO NONHUMAN FIR/ NATURE1 JU/ AS !RE IS NO HI]>*Y1 DOM9ATION1 CLASS /RUCTURE1 OR /ATE 9 ! NATURAL WORLD -- ONLY :AT ! SOCIALLY CONDITION$ HUMAN M9D PROJECTS ONTO NONHUMAN BIOLOGICAL RELATION%IPS4 

0,RI<TS10 9 ANY MEAN+FUL S5SE ( ! WORD1 >E ! PRODUCT ( CU/OM1 TRADITION1 9/ITUTIONAL DEVELOPM5T1 & SOCIAL RELATION%IPS1 ( AN 9CREAS+LY SELF-CONSCI\S HI/ORICAL EXP]I5CE1 & ( M9D -- ?AT IS1 CONCEPTUAL ?\<T ?AT PA9/AK+LY =MULATES A CON/ELLATION ( RI<TS & DUTIES ?AT MAKES = AN EMPA!TIC RESPECT = 9DIVIDUALS & COLLECTIVITIES4 ,!Y EM]GE FROM ! HUMAN SOCIAL SPH]E & FROM WAYS 9 :I* HUMAN COMMUNITIES 9/ITUTIONALIZE !MSELVES4 ,LEOP>DS CLAIM NO 0RI<TS0 = !MSELVES & C]TA9LY RECOGNIZE NO 0RI<T0 TO LIFE1 MU* LESS TO 0SELF-REALIZATION10 9 ! ANIMALS ON :I* !Y PREY4 

,AS MAMMALS1 !SE PR$ATORS MAY BE MORE SELF-AW>E ?AN1 SAY1 FROGS1 BECAUSE ( !IR MORE COMPLEX NEUROLOGICAL & S5SORY APP>ATUS4 ,H5CE1 !Y MAY BE MORE SUBJECTIVE1 EV5 MORE RATIONAL 9 A DIM WAY4 ,BUT !IR RANGE ( CONCEPTUALIZATION1 FROM EV]Y?+ WE KN[1 IS SO LIMIT$1 (T5 SO IMM$IATELY FOCUS$ ON !IR [N SURVIVAL NE$S1 ?AT TO IMPUTE E?ICAL JUDGM5TS 9VOLV+ 0RI<TS0 TO !M IS TO BE TRULY AN?ROPOMORPHIC1 (T5 )\T EV5 KN[+ SO4 ,:5 BIOC5TRI/S1 ANTIHUMANI/S1 & 0DEEP ECOLOGI/S0 FLAGELLATE US ) CLAIMS ?AT LIFE-=MS HAVE 0RI<TS0 TO LIFE & 0SELF-REALIZATION0 ?AT WE1 AS HUMANS1 FAIL TO RECOGNIZE1 !Y UNKN[+LY P>TICIPATE 9 A HIDD5 AN?ROPOMORPHISM ?AT WE BR+ TO MANY =MS ( LIFE4 ,!Y WORK FROM )9 HUMAN IDEAS & FEEL+S -- 9DE$1 ! BE/ ?AT CON/ITUTES HUMANISM -- TO 9C>NATE 0RI<TS0 & ! NOTION ( A 0BIOSPH]IC DEMOCRACY0 9 FIR/ NATURE4 ,A HUMAN EMPA?Y & S5SE ( ID5TIFICATION ?AT YIELD A PR(\ND RESPECT & S5SITIVITY = ! NONHUMAN WORLD %\LD NOT BE CONFUS$ ) SOPHI/ICAT$ E?ICAL 0RI<TS0 & A 0DEMOCRACY0 ?AT HAVE MORAL & POLITICAL MEAN+ -- ?AT IS1 UNLESS WE >E PREP>$ TO UND]M9E ! AU!NTIC SOCIAL CONT5T ( 0RI<TS0 & 0DEMOCRACY0 = HUMAN SOCIETY & 9TELLECTION4 ,IRONICALLY1 IF !RE IS TO BE ANY?+ ?AT APPROXIMATES A 0BIOSPH]IC DEMOCRACY0 9 ! NONHUMAN WORLD1 IT WILL BE %AP$ BY HUMAN EMPA?Y1 :I*  
PRESUPPOSES ! RATIONAL & ECOLOGICAL 9T]V5TION ( HUMAN BE+S 9TO ! NATURAL WORLD4 ,?IS W\LD 5TAIL ! 9FUSION ( HUMAN VALUES 9TO NATURE1 & HUMAN M9D 9TO NONHUMAN SUBJECTIVITY4.<#g#f.> 

,BIOC5TRI/S & ANTIHUMANI/S CAN H>DLY HAVE !IR CAKE & EAT IT TOO4 ,EI!R HUMANITY IS A DI/9CTIVE MORAL AG5T 9 ! BIOSPH]E1 ?AT CAN PRACTICE AN ECOLOGICAL /EW>D%IP ( NATURE -- OR ELSE IT IS 0ONE0 ) ! :OLE WORLD ( LIFE & SIMPLY DISSOLVES 9TO IT4 ,IF ! LATT] IS TRUE1 !N HUMAN BE+S HAVE A 0BIOSPH]IC RI<T0 TO USE ! BIOSPH]E EXCLUSIVELY TO SUIT !IR [N 5DS1 A 0RI<T0 ?AT CANNOT BE D5I$ ANY MORE ?AN ! LEOP>D'S 0RI<T0 TO KILL & FEA/ ON ITS PREY1 ALBEIT LESS 0EFFICI5TLY0 ?AN HUMAN BE+S4 ,AT ?IS PO9T1 ANTIHUMANI/S MAY *ANGE ! :OLE LEVEL ( ! >GUM5T BY REPLY+ ?AT ! DESPOLIATION ( ! E>? BY PLUND]+ 0HUMANS0 7:OEV] !Y MAY BE7 WILL ULTIMATELY BOOM]ANG ON ! HUMAN SPECIES4 ,BUT ?IS TURNS !IR >GUM5T 9TO A PRAGMATIC PROBLEM ( A PURELY 9/RUM5TAL *>ACT]1 R$UCES A PROBLEM 9 MORALITY TO A PROBLEM 9 5G9E]+ NEW TE*NOLOGICAL FIXES & ! DEPLOYM5T ( ME HUMAN CUNN+4 ,NATURE ?US REV]TS TO A ,D>W9IAN JUNGLE ?AT IS MORALLY NEUTRAL AT BE/ OR 5GAG$ 9 A DUEL BETWE5 HUMAN CUNN+ & ANIMAL M9DLESSNESS AT WOR/4 

,ON ! O!R H&1 IF WE UND]/& ?AT HUMAN BE+S >E 9DE$ MORAL AG5TS BECAUSE NATURAL EVOLUTION CONF]S UPON !M A CLE> RESPONSIBILITY T[>D ! NATURAL WORLD1 WE CANNOT EMPHASIZE !IR UNIQUE ATTRIBUTES TOO /RONGLY4 ,= IT IS ?IS UNIQUE ABILITY TO ?9K CONCEPTUALLY & FEEL A DEEP EMPA?Y = ! WORLD ( LIFE ?AT MAKES IT POSSIBLE = HUMANITY TO REV]SE ! DEVA/ATION IT HAS 9FLICT$ ON ! BIOSPH]E & CREATE A RATIONAL SOCIETY4 ,?IS IMPLIES NOT ONLY ?AT HUMANITY1 ONCE IT CAME 9TO ITS [N HUMANITY AS ! ACTUALIZATION ( ITS POT5TIALITIES1 C\LD BE A RATIONAL EXPRESSION ( NATURE'S CREATIVITY & FECUNDITY1 BUT ?AT HUMAN 9T]V5TION 9TO NATURAL PROCESSES C\LD BE AS CREATIVE AS NATURAL EVOLUTION ITSELF4 

,?IS EVOLUTION>Y & DIALECTICAL VIEWPO9T1 :I* D]IVE2 ! HUMAN SPECIES FROM NATURE AS ! EMBODIM5T ( NATURE'S [N ?RU/ T[>D SELF-REFLEXIVITY1 *ANGES ! 5TIRE >GUM5T >\ND COMPET+ 0RI<TS0 BETWE5 HUMAN & NONHUMAN LIFE =MS 9TO AN EXPLORATION ( ! WAYS 9 :I* HUMAN BE+S 9 T]V5E 9TO ! BIOSPH]E4 ,:E!R HUMANITY RECOGNIZES ?AT AN ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY W\LD BE ! FULFILLM5T ( A MAJOR T5D5CY 9 NATURAL EVOLUTION1 OR REMA9S BL9D TO ITS [N HUMANITY AS A MORAL & ECOLOGICAL AG5T 9 NATURE1 BECOMES A SOCIAL PROBLEM ?AT REQUIRES A SOCIAL ECOLOGY4 ,! SELF-EFFAC+ QUIETISM & 0SPIRITUALITY0 SO RAMPANT TODAY AFFLICT A SIZABLE1 HI<LY PRIVILEG$ SECTOR ( ,EURO-,AM]ICAN SOCIETY -- HUMAN TYPES SO CONSUM$ BY A 0LOVE0 ( NATURE & LIFE ?AT !Y MAY WELL IGNORE ! NE$LESS BUT V]Y REAL SUFF]+ & PA9 ?AT EXI/ 9 NATURE & SOCIETY ALIKE4 

,FROM 3 ,!,AN>*I/,LIBR>Y4ORG4 

,*RONOLOGY 3 
,JANU>Y #b1 #bba 3 ,*APT] #c -- ,ADD$4 
,JANU>Y #a#f1 #bbb 3 ,*APT] #c -- ,UPDAT$4 

 FILE G5]AT$ FROM 3  
HTTP3_/_/REVOLTLIB4COM_/