> Buber's main proposition is that we may address existence in two ways:
> 1. The attitude of the "I" towards an "It", towards an object that is separate in itself, which we either use or experience.
> 2. The attitude of the "I" towards "Thou", in a relationship in which the other is not separated by discrete bounds.
We need to learn to relate to Nature as I-Thou (not I-It.) The vast majority of our problem right now is our divorce from Nature and our attempt to relate to Her as I-It.
The good news is that it's fun and easy to return to Nature (and, as Geoff Lawton says, "You can solve all the world's problems in a garden.)
I recommend Toby Hemenway's (RIP) videos: http://tobyhemenway.com/videos/ esp. "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Planet – But Not Civilization" and "Redesigning Civilization with Permaculture".
The problem with Permaculture is that it takes the classic "Anecdote is not data" misconception and turns it into a design philosophy. This can lead to some serious problems and you end up with a design philosophy that is completely divorced from the science.
For example, some of the key components of Permaculture Design - the use of nitrogen fixers and dynamic accumulators - stand on shaky ground. They're based on a limited number of studies. It's not clear whether dynamic accumulators actually add any nutrients to the soil. And for nitrogen fixers, it's not at all clear that the nitrogen they fix is available to the plants around them. It might not become available until they die back and rot.
This "personal observation" basis of the design philosophy that replaces careful experimentation leads to some pretty disasterous results - like Permaculturists being extremely laissez-faire about invasive species (which, after climate change and habitat loss is one of the top contributors to the loss of biodiversity world wide). I once heard a leading Permaculturist give this really fantastic lecture about the law of unintended consequences as it relates to human engineering, and then completely write off the risk of introducing invasive plants through novel ecosystem design. I mean, it's the same damned arrogance and mentality, just using plants in mimicry of nature instead of metal to dominate it.
So, personally, I've stopped encouraging people to listen to permaculturists. Permaculture is not the answer. Agroecology, however, the core kernel of Permaculture thought re-integrated with science, that holds _a lot_ of promise.
You make a good point, and I often substitute "applied ecology" to try to emphasize the scientific grounding that Permaculture originally had (Bill Mollison was an ecologist) and still has for a lot of people, myself included.
But I have to admit, I was once laissez-faire about non-native invasive species. I can thank E. O. Wilson for writing a thing that set me straight.
(I gotta add that the "Permaculture Designer's Manual" is IMO one of the finest guides to design (any design, not just farming) that I've ever read. FWIW)
> And for nitrogen fixers, it's not at all clear that the nitrogen they fix is available to the plants around them. It might not become available until they die back and rot.
Do you mean it’s a question of if they provide more nitrogen then they use themselves? I literally just read from a children’s book in the nitrogen cycle about how bacteria that live on the roots of some plants are the only way plants can access it.
As far as plants, I think its a mistake to anthropomorphize them like this. They have no ability to enter into an "I Thou" relationship because they have no concept of "I". Modern philosophies that disregard the special place in nature of Man, and deny Man's nature, are a mess and lead to some pretty horrible outcomes, such as the dehumanization of undesirable groups.
>Modern philosophies that disregard the special place in nature of Man, and deny Man's nature, are a mess and lead to some pretty horrible outcomes, such as the dehumanization of undesirable groups.
I don't see the line of thinking from anthropomorphizing plants to dehumanizing humans.
If anything the experience of getting in touch with Nature forms a powerful and undeniable basis for loving other humans, due to our shared existence within the unifying web of life.
In any event, I'm not anthropomorphizing plants, quite the opposite: I'm pointing out that humans are the anthropomorphization of the ambient natural "processing power" of living intelligence.
Without getting into to metaphysics of identity and the subjective "I"†, there is a result in cybernetics to wit: "every good regulator of a system must be (contain) a model of that system." Ergo, in a system under evolution we should expect models of systems to appear in those systems. In other words, a self-concept (of some kind) should develop in any stable evolving system.
So you have a system that includes many "I"'s and each of them is "running on" the same biological "wetware", so it's really not at all strange that they can communicate with each other, eh?
From my POV, this is filling in the scientific story for phenomenon that are common knowledge. There has been to time or place in human history without some people understanding and practicing the I-Thou relationship with Nature.
†(Gurdjieff distinguished humans from animals and plants as being "Three-brained" beings, as contrasted with "Two-" and "One-brained" beings.
Unity of the subjective "I" and God is a foundation of, e.g. Hinduism: "Atman is Paramatman." That "I" of consciousness is the "I" of all beings, including plants, animals, and ecosystems, as well as the Whole Earth.)
- - - -
Er, FWIW...
> To cut the story short: By speaking in the first person we can make statements about ourselves, answer questions, and engage in reasoning and advice in ways that bypass all the normal methods of discovery. As a result, we can participate in dialogues founded on the assurance that, when you and I both speak sincerely, what we say is trustworthy: We are “speaking our minds.” This is the heart of the I-You encounter.
This is incorrect. Scruton has failed to sound the depths of "I-Thou", "a relationship in which the other is not separated by discrete bounds". There is nothing linguistic in it. No boundary. As an example, consider that you can be in the "I-Thou" relationship with an infant.
> We need to learn to relate to Nature as I-Thou (not I-It.) The vast majority of our problem right now is our divorce from Nature and our attempt to relate to Her as I-It.
It was the I-It relation that enabled science. Before that, nature was full of myth and divinity and thereby inscrutable. After the scientific revolution, nature became it, subject to laws and open to manipulation for our benefit.
Going back to an I-Thou relationship with major would be a huge step backward and harmful to humanity.
You're right! I imagine that if we did just "go back to Nature" we would forget and do this all over again in a few thousand years, eh?
We need a new synthesis that incorporates our scientific knowledge with the deeper reality around us. That's exactly why I find TFA and Levin's work so fascinating: science is discovering that life thinks, which discovery then forms a bridge between the "mystic" experiential communing with nature and the "hard" rational-materialistic science.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18736698
Michael Levin's lab are uncovering the physical scientific basis for what a lot of people have always known: life thinks.
- - - -
Now then,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou
> Buber's main proposition is that we may address existence in two ways:
> 1. The attitude of the "I" towards an "It", towards an object that is separate in itself, which we either use or experience.
> 2. The attitude of the "I" towards "Thou", in a relationship in which the other is not separated by discrete bounds.
We need to learn to relate to Nature as I-Thou (not I-It.) The vast majority of our problem right now is our divorce from Nature and our attempt to relate to Her as I-It.
The good news is that it's fun and easy to return to Nature (and, as Geoff Lawton says, "You can solve all the world's problems in a garden.)
I recommend Toby Hemenway's (RIP) videos: http://tobyhemenway.com/videos/ esp. "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Planet – But Not Civilization" and "Redesigning Civilization with Permaculture".