Let’s innovate, but ideas for the people rather than products for profit!
Andy says we have to remember that we are nature too, but what does it mean to “remember” exactly? Remembering can be, in the logical/analytical sense, to just recall in the conscious mind, but I think what Andy is referring to is something that is deeper: does turning the psyche inside out mean to pull up or sublimate from the collective unconscious these repressed memories of non separation of ego/nature?
This gets me to a second necessary question: we have theories about how we repress experiences into the individual unconscious, but has anything significant been said about how we repress experiences regarding the collective unconscious? We do acknowledge the phenomena. We repressed the nature/society non division just a few hundred years ago, the ego/other divide seems to be more ancient.
Both of this phenomena, we had to realize at some point in history, we at some point “invented” or “made up” a separation, after having forgotten we did so in the first place as a collective species or peoples if we take Ludwig’s Clauss’ notion of the soul of nations seriously.
Some cultures in the past and in the present have myths about how this separations came to be and were aware of it, as some are now, seeing how some people are born animists, and it would be interesting to see what the equivalent of what the psychoanalytical timeline developmental freudian psychology teaches us about or, better said, proposes, is for transpersonal/depth sociology.
I like how we are psychoanalyzing the collective psyche, forging the path for depth and transpersonal sociology. And using marxist thinking or Pensamiento Critico (in english Critical Thinking) as Dr. Atilio Boron from Argentina (whom I view as a valuable and great thinker, albeit strong disagreements regarding some of his views) to boost, of course using. At least, that is what I think we are doing. This is part of the project of radical ecopsychology, I believe: to notice separations that are no longer useful, how they came to be, how they can go away, and the reasons they’re no longer useful thus making them in need of withering from our current’s society’s cosmovision.
Mental gymnastics: At some point, I listen to Andy’s thought provoking and catharsic lecture, and I make some connections. He may apply marxist thinking, with a case in history regarding capitalism, then combine it with a Freudian notion, and it makes me think Andy is just putting two plus two together, which is good and important. But is there something else? This is mind, and it’s important and necessary. But how do we bring more heart and soul (the lecture video I’m listening to right now as I take notes for my post just said soul when i wrote soul, what a fun synchronicity) into the matter, in order to, sorry if it sounds cheesy, but “save the world”. To truly bring more peace and prosperity through just the right amount of Liberty and Justice (See Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens for a look at how important this is) to everyone possible!
Andy talks about anxiety, and I was just checking out how Dr. Gabor Maté believes the system is built to bring anxiety so solving this is part of the situation… I would like to posit how working with disabilities, which aren’t necessarily weaknesses, some may even be gifts, some of this “things” or imagined intersubjective realities (from Sapiens again) we have worded as “disabilities” such as ADHD and autism and blindness (whether from birth, or from an accident, because if there is something bigger than the individual ego at work guiding us towards a de Chaldrinean “omega point”, then blindness by accident must serve a higher meaning in the play of existence from the Big Bang (whatever that is, sorry if that’s too continental rather than analytical haha) up to this point.
I don’t want to ask about how repression works when dealing with the collective unconscious because I’m fine with the basic idea for now, so I want to ask about how to bring more heart and soul into bringing more practical change for the world right now? I heard Andy mention Union Work, I was not aware Andy was involved in organized labour politics. Is he? I’m enthusiastic about hearing how a “from labour perspective” is useful here. If there is something more important to ask, it transcends me.
Like in Marx’s day, philosophers have only interpreted the world. The point is to change it. Not to in any means demean theory, just to humbly attempt to put in proper perspective, as we seem to have in everything (from bodybuilding/fitness to the political arena) more theory.
A notable exception I think is definitely mysticism and the paranormal (as in Ghost, demonic possessions, and the usual horror movie “based on real life events'' fare) because it is an arena which we ourselves admit cannot exhaustively be explained fully (can any phenomena be though? We just have theories, no?!) Even though we as humans seem to agree we can understand it better.
Now the individuals and peoples seem to be divided on just what is the right amount we should know and attempt to know…some Catholics condemn divination for example, and some are wary of tongue speaking in the catholic charismatic renewal. Mysticism is especially relevant if one ascribes any sort of value to what Osho thought: he thinks Mystics change consciousness, not just structures and policies, and that changing those three together is necessary.
I want to include catholics, even protestant catholics, in every tradition, from roman/orthodox to anglican/lutheran if we give credence to the “valid but illicit” theory which posits ordination may be a real event that produces a real change that gives real extraordinary power even if the pope of Rome did not authorize it (occultist Robert Anton Wilson seems to agree on the power of catholic apostolic succession framed in a “theologically conservative” way).
This last thing is just something I wanted to put forth, may be directly relevant; unsure about whether this was the proper venue for it, I felt this a safe space to make the statement in because healing unnecessary religious conflict arising out of unhealed wounds. This is maybe a topic for depth sociology, the wounds and healing thereof of the collective psyche and the collective heart, whatever the heart is (see documentary The Power of the Heart, found it interesting, because we talk more I find on the academic level about the soul, but not enough about the heart, both as archetype and possible body organ with untalked/unexplored yet connections to the psyche.
Transcending respect necessary for change? Civil disobedience as means to change! At a forum in Santo Domingo, a high ranking “left-wing” latin american political official currently in power from a country recognized by the U.S.A. as a representative democracy said the armed path may still be valid in some cases so that is food for thought.
I’ve done the satyagraha of the weak (which is when nonviolence is used more for practical purposes than as a conviction of ahimsa as understood by Gandhi), and use of proportionate violence recognized by two lawyers as legit self defense against my rights been violated, and I think the second is definitely more effective and better for the victim, especially if it is legal.
Andy seems to connect several theories together effectively for a good “idea cocktail” or reflections like he calls them. But what are we to do about those ideas? I do think they change consciousness which is important. Those intellectual cocktails are definitely, in my opinion, psychoactive as they bring changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behavior.I’m sure they’re having an effect, but how can we speed up and massify the change? I’m fully aware of how capitalistic this sounds, “speed up and massify the production of “common good” haha”. I believe I do this because capitalism does certainly bring a type of prosperity, not just the ideal one when talking about what has been referred to as “really existing capitalism”.
Those “idea cocktails” are especially relevant to those in the Dominican Republic and Latin America and the whole world really, given that an immensely rich and mistreated Republic of Haiti, which is our neighbour as dominicans, is undergoing a sort of revolution as we speak.
A lot of domestic violence and unrest in Haiti, and it is not spontaneous, I see a trend. Haiti was borne out of violent resistance, but I see a recent milestone that is relevant: the coup d’etat against President Aristide. Ecopsychology is specially relevant to Haiti, given Haiti’s exceptional situation of environmental degradation.
I wonder if it is true that haitians chop trees down more than dominicans for cooking, maybe it’s a french thing… What is it with French and food (I’m partially French, as well as Spanish)? I’ve joked on my dining table french sugar addiction is a curse for what the white french did to the blacks in the colony of Saint Domingue. Haiti also happens to have a lot of excessive stratification, which is a sort of ego-based excessive division, which radical ecopsychology seems to address, I must add trying my best to stay on topic the best I can. This can get challenging: The radical project of ecopsychology can be so thought-provoking and complex! I do find a lot of beauty in its complexity though so I’m not in any sense complaining.
Monism vs Dualism for the building of the democratic common good. Let’s start with a question. Is the nature versus nurture debate we find in Academia’s still today (still the case in some Californian and American Universities?) just an unnecessary dualism given that nurture is natural haha?
The terms psyche/nature/society remind me of the God of trinitarian christians: Just as God the father is and is not the son who is and is not the holy ghost who is and is not the father, is it accurate to state psyche is and is not nature that is and is not society that is and is not psyche?
And, I must ask, why does the psyche/nature/society construct have the same workings or process of a triune God? I’ve seen these patterns before, maybe there is some sort of microcosm/macrocosm correspondence here, if that is the best way to express how the small and the big and everything in between at least sometimes take the same form, albeit with -in a sense- different things and for different immediate purposes.
Another example of this I’m talking about would be the homeostasic processes in individual biological organisms and in society when viewed as an organism when attacked by a malady. I think it can be so difficult to get stuff done in the political arena because of this, society is an organism and to touch one part affects several others, if not all of the others, which brings social homeostasis in. Is refusing to “cross the aisle” in congress just social homeostasis at work? How do we work our way around this, if we should at all? ’m thinking these things should be discussed and examined further, ecopsychology is relevant as it explores real and false distinctions in the Cosmos/Psyche (which maybe is and is not the same thing, as we are exploring here, right?)
I’m loving how radical ecopsychology foments the, among other things, really beneficial groundwork in the building of the ideal economy. This is not mere mental gymnastics in the “how many angels can dance in a pinhead?” manner. This, the radical project of ecopsychology, may well ease the suffering this exposition of false division brings, which is immediately beneficial to the economy at least long term. Was checking out the differences among American and European academics, and realized my style was more American so I added pragmatic considerations to the economy to try to be more european…I’m glad I did by the way!
Summary of Chapter 5 of Radical Ecopsychology
In chapter 5 of radical ecopsychology, Andy talks about healthy cultures. I’ve wondered if some cultures are superior than others. Maybe the question is: do we have ill cultures and healthy cultures? We both appear to believe so.
How can we surpass the rejection of habitat as historians, given the western tradition to do so when one studies the discipline “history”?
Nationalism: do we need a differentiate rather than a split in relation to others? I believe so. The latter arises out of a defensive reaction against a sense of basic insecurity and inadequate differentiation. Haitians and Dominicans, as well as WASPs and brown Mexicans, are examples in my opinion. How to heal this divide? How can we turn actually existing split relations into differentiated relations? Spirituality seems to be a crucial ingredient in this equation. We need to be lovingly connected and this is to be done, this healing, fostering a sense of security on both parts. This question begs more study of collective developmental processes. An innocent loved one and the serial killer on death row are the same, yet different at the same time…Differentiation is not a problem, hyper-differentiation which becomes splitting is. I think this is very useful for issues of race, ethnicity and nationalism.
Criticism of existentialism: by not making room for the importance of loving relationships, existentialists turn our sense of isolation into a vital fact of existence rather than a creation of our despiritualzied and denaturalized existence.
On language: We are hungering for more satisfying words…the development of written literacy had pros and cons for the human condition and the psyche. Cons include a more deep sense of disconnection with the world because it widens the human/nature divide by promoting the emergence of a mental landscape unknown to oral traditions peoples who don’t have this, yet it promoted the advent of introspection by doing so. More can be said on the subject. The radical project of ecopsychology aims to, simply put, preserve the gains and regain what was lost. This is important because language, when cut off its natural source, nature, goes deliriant.
A chinese authority once said returning to nature hinders development, we who aspire to be radical ecopsychologists must ask how can truly and wholly develop without returning to nature?
Summary of Ecopsychology and the deconstruction of whiteness
Some of the colored view alarmists threats from environmentalists as the latest plot from the powerful to control people. As aspiring radical ecopsychologists we need to ask why some white, middle-class deep ecologists find it easier to think like a mountain than to think as a colored person. The colored have been further separated from nature, yet, paradoxically as we see in other readings, they were made nature by not qualifying for the category of human when the human/nature split occurred in order to foster Capitalism. To call migrants or any other minority that has had unfair treatment and hatred directed against them cockroaches is to make them nature and to make them other, as we have made nature other (a quite recent development). I do think there’s more biology to the construct of race, while acknowledging the societal biases(or better said, worldly in order not to further the psyche/nature/society false division bias) that affect scientific inquiry of all types negatively.
