Democratic Forest Trusts (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.Democratic trusts with leadership elected by citizen-members promise to solve many of the problems afflicting both traditional government and corporate ownership of forestlands. This article explores these issues in some depth.Complexity and the Dream of Human Control of Eco-Systems (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.The title captures it. I then explore the kinds of institutions compatible with both nature and the modern world that are implied from this analysis.Rethinking the Obvious: Modernity and Living Respectfully With Nature (PDF)The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy, Winter, 1997.Modernity is usually considered a wrong turn in terms of respect for and sustaining the environment. I argue the reality is more complex, for modernity has freed us from personal dependence on agriculture, ended the economic value of children, radically reduced the likelihood of large scale wat, and shifted much production to intellectual rather than material capital. This partially decouples society from nature, which gives us important opportunities as well as problems.Towards an Ecocentric Political Economy (PDF)The Trumpeter, Fall, 1996.This paper begins my effort at showing how liberal modernity can be harmonized with an ecocentric perspective on our relationship with the natural world. It is a corrective to much “free market environmental” literature that sacrifices Nature to money as well as to anti-liberal attacks by well-meaning but economically naïve environmentalists.Unexpected Harmonies: Self-Organization in Liberal Modernity and Ecology (PDF)The Trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, 10:1, Winter 1993This is my initial paper exploring how what I term ‘evolutionary liberal’ thought can be an important means by which society and nature can be brought into greater harmony. The other Trumpeter papers build on it.Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberalism (PDF)Review of Politics, Fall, 1996.Liberal thought and deep ecology are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But the “evolutionary” tradition offers a way to integrate the two through commonalties in the work of David Hume, Michael Polanyi, Arne Naess, and Aldo Leopold, providing a stronger foundation for liberalism while strengthening the case for an ecocentric ethic.(Related subjects: Ecology)Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal (PDF)in Writers on the Range, Karl Hess and John Baden, eds., University Press of Colorado, 1998.Developmental pressures in the rural and small town West involve three groups: long term residents, new arrivals, and environmentalists. Today their interests often conflict. This conflict is in part the outcome of institutions which prevent harmonizing competing interests. The concept of developmental trusts, both for rural regions and for small communities offers a means whereby these interests can be harmonized for the benefit of all concerned.(Related subjects: Politics)Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and Liberalism (PDF)Critical Review, 6: 2-3, 1992.Murray Bookchin is considered a leading radical environmental theorist. However, his analysis is incapable of leading humankind towards a more respectful and sustainable relationship with the natural world. Criticisms of Bookchin from both the deep ecology and evolutionary liberal perspective complement one another, pointing the way towards a better understanding of how modernity relates to the environment.The paper as a whole offers an early discussion of issues that are more clearly addressed in later papers, particularly Deep Ecology and Liberalism (1996) and the three Trumpeter articles in 1997, 1996, and 1993. However, there are other ideas in the article which have not been developed more thoroughly elsewhere.
Franklin Evans in commenting on the last post suggested I host a
discussion of what these words mean because he says they are often
confused by people.
Perhaps they are. Let’s see,
My own perspective, put somehwat briefly is this:
EMPATHY is the
ability to put oneself in another’s shoes, either other people or
myself at a future date because that future ‘me’ is different from ‘me’
right now. This means one cannot act in one’s long term self-interest
without the ability to epathize – to foresee future effects of our
actions and to care abut them. We care when we empathize.
In my view empathy is the foundation for moral action – as was seen by Hume and
Adam Smith – and its lack is the defining characteristic of sociopaths. Our
ability to empathize with others different from ourselves, as well as how deeply we empathize, comprise sliding
scales towards of our ability to enter into “Thou” relationships.
It has a lot to do with some kinds of understanding and nothing much to do with agreement.
UNDERSTANDING
- ‘Understanding’ is very complex. In our society this usually this
refers to a logical process by which we can see what a claim means and
the reasons behind it or it can take a more ‘gestalt’ form of seeing
the meaning of a situation. Understanding the message of a deity takes
this form in my experience.
Understanding can bleed over into
relying on empathy as well, for to understand another’s motives we
often need empathy. Thus, understanding is very contextual as to how it
is applied.
I can understand an argument and not agree with it.
AGREEMENT – seems to me obvious, and there are degrees of it. I hope you agree.
posted June 19, 2009 at 12:59 pm
The difficulty I see (first amongst several) is the internal filter many people have. I do not mean to imply “problem” here, because internal filters are what keep us sane.
Empathy is an adjunct to imagination. Its accuracy is based on practice, feedback and reinforcement. Unfortunately, it is not the sort of thing one can develop and bank on. It requires constant maintenance.
Understanding — by which I refer to its value in human interaction — is largely intellectual. One cannot jump from feeling bad for a person to understanding why that person feels bad. The rational thought processes have to work in between.
Agreement is too often attached (like a leach) to empathy and understanding in the minds of people with agendas. Allowing a person’s feelings to project into our awareness (empathy) or projecting ourselves enough to see the facts and follow the thought processes of others (understanding) is seen as a risk that we will automatically agree with the other person despite how we natively feel about the issue or topic.
In short, fear is the primary motivation for assuming agreement.
posted June 21, 2009 at 6:56 am
I believe that empathy and understanding are elements/agents of identification. Empathy is an emotional resonance, and as such is the primary way that “feelers” connect with others. Understanding is an intellectual resonance, and as such is the primary way that “thinkers” connect with others. Ideally, we work toward the strengthening of both in ourselves.
I must have missed the conversation this is based on, and I don’t know why agreement is in here. I don’t see it related. It is possible to say “I understand what you’re saying and I feel your pain, but I don’t come to the same conclusion that you do.”
posted June 21, 2009 at 10:23 am
In the Spirituality and Empathy thread, I posted to Gus the following:
“In my travels, I’ve encountered basic misunderstandings of these terms: empathy, understanding, agreement.
In general, people seem to mean all three at the same time regardless of which one is being used and often regardless of the context.”
Gus generously took up my suggestion and created this thread.
posted June 21, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Ah. Thank you for clarifying, Franklin.