I had meant to continue the blog with Alan Comb's book on consciousness, but have had little opportunity to read in the final hubbub of holidays and football games. It's been fun - and it's time to move on. I have to say that what little more I have read is fascinating, much of it removed from the evolution controversy.
Borrowing from the consciousness genius (and I mean that) Ken Wilbur, Combs transports us to higher "subtle" realms under a rationalized system - much more on that later.
For now, though, it is hard to avoid the controversial debate on global warming, with the plunge in temperatures in the eastern half of the US of late. Of course it is only a small portion of the globe, but I knew the anti- warmers would be using it to mock the pro-warmers. I also knew that the pro-warmers would equal their opposition by proposing that the cold was due to global warming. On cue, both assumptions proved immediately correct. As many know, behind the controversy are concrete material goals: many of the pro-warmers wish to use this possibility (so far, the science has not been proven in reality, as the "hockey stick" progression of temperatures model did not pan out as promised, although that may change) to alter or annihilate the industrial world. Environmentalist wish this to restore nature to a past state, while the political left wishes to use it as an excuse to destroy capitalism and promote a stronger and more centralized - and monetarily equal - state. To the right, many are reacting to the left by promoting an "unfettered" capitalism, where the hidden hand of the market place takes control, to largely beneficial effects. If the climate starts to change drastically, they say, the markets will respond, just as they will to pollution, low wages and so forth. They claim the science behind it is a hoax expressly continued to destroy capitalism.
I will not go on to say which side I believe more, and for reasons beyond a desire to avoid controversy. On the one hand, there must be something behind the science, as not all scientists are ideologues. On the other, the early, now testable models, as stated, have not proven themselves, and the left is indeed going to extremes to use warming as a political device. But what I am more interested in here is, what spiritual beliefs (if any) are uncovered by the controversy? Much of this is implicit, but often it is quite explicit, particularly on the right. The world, many of them think, is too large and complex to be heavily altered by Man. It is, instead, a realm of God, who is the ultimate judge of exactly what weather patterns we might have. The world, they say, has and will adjust to our follies because of fail-safe mechanisms divinely created. If a new Ice Age, or Tropical Era, come, that would be from God's will, not our own doing. They do not think that catastrophes cannot arise, but rather that they would come from our moral pollution, not from our factories. Leave the free will that is in the capitalistic marketplace so that we may exercise our free will in all areas - as God has planned.
On the left I see a strong divergence. The environmentalists believe that god (small "g" intended) is to be found in nature - or more correctly put, that our soul and spirit is best reflected in nature. Because we have separated ourselves from nature through civilization (unlike primitive humans, who they admire) we are out of harmony with it, and global warming is one of the consequences. For them, they work from a subtle new-age idea that often parallels those on the right - that the world is a living system capable of self-adjusting. For the right, this living system comes directly from God - for the left, from "Gaia" or the spirit of the earth. Both insist we must behave in accordance with natural law; they differ only in where natural law resides. For one, it comes from a supreme creator, and the other, from nature herself. For the former, our fortunes ride on obeying the moral laws codified in religions; for the latter, in being in harmony with nature-made laws.
Both sides also have their atheists of sorts as well. For some on the right, anything that gets in the way of production and consumption is nonsense. From an outside perspective, these people simply won't believe in anything else. They may or may not base their assumptions on God - but ultimately, "It" is besides the point. There is always, in the end, the reliance on the "invisible hand of the marketplace." For many on the left, atheism is an actual doctrine, found in various forms of neo-Marxism. Nature to them is also besides the point - all revolves around human activity. Marx directly and purposefully opposed his "dialectical materialism" to Hagel's spiritualism, using the same format but starting from the point of human activity, and how THAT made spirit. Like the "hand of the marketplace," collectivist ownership and thought will make all things come out right - global warming and all the other problems being solved by the ownership of production (etc).
Ah, what a headache! While this author is in neither extreme camp concerning global warming, I do see that the spiritual and the material affect each other. The Pope, I think, is right in his criticism of "unfettered" capitalism. Rush Limbaugh, et al, are right in stating that capitalism has brought more people into prosperity than any other system. The environmentalists are right in that we CAN affect world systems (for instance, poisoning large lakes and land masses through pollution), and the religious from both the pantheistic and monotheistic modes are right in that our spiritual makeup affects the physical planet. A much larger thesis could be drawn from this, but blog space is limited (thank God!, many are saying). But I put these ideas out as starts for thinking about this issue. Where in the global warming story sit humans, nature, spirit, God, and society? FK
Borrowing from the consciousness genius (and I mean that) Ken Wilbur, Combs transports us to higher "subtle" realms under a rationalized system - much more on that later.
For now, though, it is hard to avoid the controversial debate on global warming, with the plunge in temperatures in the eastern half of the US of late. Of course it is only a small portion of the globe, but I knew the anti- warmers would be using it to mock the pro-warmers. I also knew that the pro-warmers would equal their opposition by proposing that the cold was due to global warming. On cue, both assumptions proved immediately correct. As many know, behind the controversy are concrete material goals: many of the pro-warmers wish to use this possibility (so far, the science has not been proven in reality, as the "hockey stick" progression of temperatures model did not pan out as promised, although that may change) to alter or annihilate the industrial world. Environmentalist wish this to restore nature to a past state, while the political left wishes to use it as an excuse to destroy capitalism and promote a stronger and more centralized - and monetarily equal - state. To the right, many are reacting to the left by promoting an "unfettered" capitalism, where the hidden hand of the market place takes control, to largely beneficial effects. If the climate starts to change drastically, they say, the markets will respond, just as they will to pollution, low wages and so forth. They claim the science behind it is a hoax expressly continued to destroy capitalism.
I will not go on to say which side I believe more, and for reasons beyond a desire to avoid controversy. On the one hand, there must be something behind the science, as not all scientists are ideologues. On the other, the early, now testable models, as stated, have not proven themselves, and the left is indeed going to extremes to use warming as a political device. But what I am more interested in here is, what spiritual beliefs (if any) are uncovered by the controversy? Much of this is implicit, but often it is quite explicit, particularly on the right. The world, many of them think, is too large and complex to be heavily altered by Man. It is, instead, a realm of God, who is the ultimate judge of exactly what weather patterns we might have. The world, they say, has and will adjust to our follies because of fail-safe mechanisms divinely created. If a new Ice Age, or Tropical Era, come, that would be from God's will, not our own doing. They do not think that catastrophes cannot arise, but rather that they would come from our moral pollution, not from our factories. Leave the free will that is in the capitalistic marketplace so that we may exercise our free will in all areas - as God has planned.
On the left I see a strong divergence. The environmentalists believe that god (small "g" intended) is to be found in nature - or more correctly put, that our soul and spirit is best reflected in nature. Because we have separated ourselves from nature through civilization (unlike primitive humans, who they admire) we are out of harmony with it, and global warming is one of the consequences. For them, they work from a subtle new-age idea that often parallels those on the right - that the world is a living system capable of self-adjusting. For the right, this living system comes directly from God - for the left, from "Gaia" or the spirit of the earth. Both insist we must behave in accordance with natural law; they differ only in where natural law resides. For one, it comes from a supreme creator, and the other, from nature herself. For the former, our fortunes ride on obeying the moral laws codified in religions; for the latter, in being in harmony with nature-made laws.
Both sides also have their atheists of sorts as well. For some on the right, anything that gets in the way of production and consumption is nonsense. From an outside perspective, these people simply won't believe in anything else. They may or may not base their assumptions on God - but ultimately, "It" is besides the point. There is always, in the end, the reliance on the "invisible hand of the marketplace." For many on the left, atheism is an actual doctrine, found in various forms of neo-Marxism. Nature to them is also besides the point - all revolves around human activity. Marx directly and purposefully opposed his "dialectical materialism" to Hagel's spiritualism, using the same format but starting from the point of human activity, and how THAT made spirit. Like the "hand of the marketplace," collectivist ownership and thought will make all things come out right - global warming and all the other problems being solved by the ownership of production (etc).
Ah, what a headache! While this author is in neither extreme camp concerning global warming, I do see that the spiritual and the material affect each other. The Pope, I think, is right in his criticism of "unfettered" capitalism. Rush Limbaugh, et al, are right in stating that capitalism has brought more people into prosperity than any other system. The environmentalists are right in that we CAN affect world systems (for instance, poisoning large lakes and land masses through pollution), and the religious from both the pantheistic and monotheistic modes are right in that our spiritual makeup affects the physical planet. A much larger thesis could be drawn from this, but blog space is limited (thank God!, many are saying). But I put these ideas out as starts for thinking about this issue. Where in the global warming story sit humans, nature, spirit, God, and society? FK
RSS Feed