I think that the story I told is not paradoxical but real, and you're right
about a different levels we could take into account:
1) 'the Grizzlys's reserve it is in someway a human construct' - for my
opinion this is the point, as humankind builded a world outside Nature (as
realm), humankind created a realm as human construct and now humankind have
to consider different living beings as part of this constructed Realm; as I
wrote in a previous post it is same as during the discoveries of Americas,
with the problematic of the native indios: the question was are they part of
the humankind? As yesterday we were able to recognize different way of being
(culturally) now my question is: we could be able to recognize as different
way of being our partner of the environment-space as animals, plants and
technologies?
4) 'The judge considered that...' - for my opinion the invention of the *habeas
corpus *(magna carta 1215; Habeas Corpus Act 1679*)* could be considered so
important for the modern humankind world that it would be very interesting a
serious debate with the aims to extend this writ to all living beings. (we
will go through an hot edge: what about entities without body?)
francesco
2010/5/3 Pier Luigi Capucci <plc@noemalab.org>
> Dear Francesco,
>
> thank you for your questions. Well, I think the idea that "democracy,
> contraception, equality and non-discrimination" are outside the natural laws
> could be discussed, since humans belongs to nature and everything they can
> do is inside nature. And saying humans can "avoid natural laws" draws back
> to that anthropocentrism you want to discuss.
>
> The story you tell is indeed interesting, and there are many similar
> paradoxical stories. I think there are some levels we have to take into
> account (her I indicate the main ones):
>
> 1) Maybe the Grizzlys's reserve was build, protected and mantained by
> humans for those bears, so it is in someway a human construct;
> 2) Although the reserve is a human construct it was given to the bears,
> hence it becomes the Grizzlys', not the humans', territory, and humans
> should be aware that entering this territory can be very dangerous;
> 3) The little girl, who was in the Grizzlys' territory, was attacked and
> her father shooted the bear;
> 4) The judge considered that the humans were in a territory which wasn't of
> their own and that they should have been aware of the risks in entering it,
> giving them the total responsibility.
>
> Although it may seem strange and cruel too, the judge's behaviour sounds
> logical, even from an anthropocentric viewpoint. And stresses the fact that
> the idea of nature we have is weak, bucolic, fairy-talish (we could say:
> anthropocentric). We say we love nature, but only when nature is harmless,
> in that corner we have locked her in, silent and controllable. But this is
> not nature. Nature is often unpredictable, intractable, uncontrollable,
> violent, strong... it can be very dangerous. And so "she" becomes an
> "enemy", a "monster", a "menace" to fight...
>
> Some artists worked in this direction, questioning the simple idea of
> nature humans often have. For instance Julia Reodica and Adam Zaretsky in
> the "The Workhorse Zoo Art and Bioethics Quiz" (
> http://emutagen.com/wrkhzoo.html) project. In this direction also go some
> SymbioticA's (http://www.symbiotica.uwa.edu.au/), Aniko Meszaros' (
> http://www.anikoland.com/), Eduardo Kac's (http://www.ekac.org/) and Marta
> De Menezes' (http://www.martademenezes.com/) projects. On the relations
> between animal species and languages we published on Noema some Louis Bec's
> researches:
>
>
> http://www.noemalab.org/sections/ideas/ideas_articles/bec_technozoosemiotique_1.html
>
> http://www.noemalab.org/sections/ideas/ideas_articles/bec_poissons_electriques.html
>
> http://www.noemalab.org/sections/ideas/ideas_articles/bec_stimutalogues.html
>
> http://www.noemalab.org/sections/ideas/ideas_articles/bec_chromatologues.html
>
> Best,
>
> Pier Luigi
>
> Il giorno 02/mag/2010, alle ore 18.17, francesco monico ha scritto:
>
> > Dear Pier
> > is clear that "anthropocentrisms" is a synonym of "species-centrism",
> also
> > your idea of "egoism of life" is clear, but you don't think that since
> > humankind avoided natural laws, through democracy, contraception,
> equality
> > and non-discrimination, this humankind acquire the responsibilities to
> > develop a "respect of the natural exploitation"? (because we break the
> other
> > side of the nature..) In other words we need to kill for eat but we can
> kill
> > with respect (this is a Buddhist position, 'the story of the withe
> rabbit').
> >
> >
> > Another story is the one that append in Colorado were in a sunny warm day
> a
> > father bring his little daughter in a grizzly reserve, here a grizzly had
> > the natural idea to take a snack with the little daughter (a milk-fed
> veal),
> > logically the father shooted the bear, but unlogically (for the
> > anthropocentric logic) the judge condemned the father to jail.
> >
> > what do you think?
> >
> > francesco
> >
> >
> >
> >> We put ourselves "in the center" because we have to survive, and in
> >> surviving we come first (there can be exceptions, like in the parental
> >> relations. and, I know, the idea of "surviving" can be very questionable
> for
> >> humans). In this perspective "anthropocentrism" could be (humanly)
> defined
> >> as the "egoism of life", and it is totally natural, because living
> implies
> >> taking and using some basic resources from the environment.
> >>
> >> More, according to Maturana and Varela, we can't be but anthropocentric
> >> because we can't exiting our body. Our mind - and all what it means - is
> >> what it is because it is embodied in *this* body. Hence we can't, for
> >> instance, think as a rabbit or as a lion or as a serpent because we have
> >> very different bodies.
> >>
> >> In these respects I think it is impossible to eliminate
> "anthropocentrism",
> >> because it is the only view we can achieve. What we, as humans, can do,
> and
> >> that in part we are developing, is expanding our knowledge and awareness
> of
> >> nature and environment and of the other species, is understanding the
> other
> >> species' basic needs, but always *from our viewpoint*. I think we could
> >> balance (expand) our bare anthropocentrism with a better knowledge of
> the
> >> environment we live in - you can call it "eco-centrism" - but in the end
> >> this is again a form of anthropocentrism (maybe we could call it
> >> "enlightened" :-). It should be stressed that all the ambientalist/green
> >> initiatives are the celebration of anthropocentrism, because, in the
> end, in
> >> the center they put the idea of nature and environment as best suitable
> for
> >> the humans' survival (but it is a normal behaviour as a species!).
> >>
> >> So what we can do is trying to deepen the other species' understanding
> and
> >> awareness. Some artists are trying to experiment in cross species
> >> communication, searching for a sort of interspecies language based on
> the
> >> roots we can both understand and share: the body. It is, for example,
> the
> >> work of Louis Bec, and of Antony Hall in particular with his ENKI
> project (
> >> http://www.antonyhall.net/)
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Pier Luigi
> >>
> >>
> >> Il giorno 28/apr/2010, alle ore 09.44, francesco monico ha scritto:
> >>
> >>> Dear Pier,
> >>> as you noticed "anthropocentrism" is part of a basic human ideo-logic,
> as
> >> a
> >>> cog of the mechanism of a human driven logic.
> >>>
> >>> I think that this vision is not merely a product of the invention of
> >>> science, but it arise from more deep reasons, it cames from the
> necessity
> >> to
> >>> put a reason, based not on experience but on revelation, in the centre
> of
> >>> our human logic. In order to justify what is not explicable or what is
> >> not
> >>> understandable, we revealed the supremacy-divinity, of the humankind
> that
> >>> became, after Plato, a sort of methapyisic idea, and that became with
> >>> Plotino the foundation of all the western methaphysics. And it would be
> >> th
> >>> case that Heidegger was rights with is idea that "all western
> >> methaphisic,
> >>> based on the Plotinic idea, is wrong".
> >>>
> >>> My proposal is that Anthropocentrism, is a metaphysically driven
> concept,
> >>> not based in any experience of the Nature, but invented by man in order
> >> to
> >>> exploit love and the sense of the world.
> >>>
> >>> So you're right questioning if this all imply that anthropocentrism is
> >>> fading out? Or, better, does it imply it will/can disappear? What is to
> >>> probe is if it would be possible to shift our anthropocentrism to
> >>> Eco-centrism, maybe we have to disappear in order to change experience
> >> and
> >>> reappearing in a more balanced position.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think?
> >>>
> >>> francesco
> >>>
> >>> 2010/4/23 Pier Luigi Capucci <plc@noemalab.org>
> >>>
> >>>> hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> sorry Francesco, Roger and all for joining this discussion late. It is
> >>>> indeed a very intriguing topic, and, as Natasha noted, a
> >> multidimensional
> >>>> one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Indeed the idea of "anthropocentrism" as some kind of ideology which
> >> puts
> >>>> humankind at the center of the known world has been historically put
> in
> >>>> discussion in a long path. 2009 was both the 400 anniversary of the
> >>>> telescope's invention by Galileo and the 150 anniversary of the
> >> publication
> >>>> of Darwin's "Origin of the Species" (and the 200centenary of his
> birth).
> >>>> [BTW 2009 was the centenary anniversary of the Futurism avantgarde
> too,
> >> with
> >>>> the central position their time's technologies had in their poetics,
> but
> >>>> we'd go too far]
> >>>>
> >>>> With his invention Galileo gave an extraordinary push to the sky's
> >>>> observation, to the diffusion of the heliocentric system and of
> >> Copernicus'
> >>>> theories, also through the "scientific method" (which is often called
> >>>> "Galilean method"). Copernicus dethroned the humankind from his
> central
> >>>> position in the Universe, but, although dislocated in a remote zone
> the
> >>>> humankind remained the chosen creature, the first one, the highest
> among
> >> the
> >>>> living beings on the Earth. Darwin dethroned the humankind from his
> >>>> privileged position. Like all the living beings, humankind is the
> result
> >> of
> >>>> an extremely long process, of a "design without a designer". All the
> >> living
> >>>> beings, humankind included, were not created as they are and are not
> >> steady
> >>>> and unchangeable, but evolved starting about 3,8 billion years ago
> from
> >> a
> >>>> remote group of primeval common organisms.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hence all the living organisms are related, and each individual,
> >> whatever
> >>>> species it belongs, is unique but it is pervaded by the matter and the
> >>>> processes which compose all the other living beings. The fundamental
> >>>> processes and the control mechanisms are essentially the same in all
> >>>> species; in our genes we have the genes of many other species, even of
> >>>> viruses. And the difficulties and discussions in the science domain on
> >> the
> >>>> definition of "species" and on the methodology to set the differences
> >> among
> >>>> the species emphasize this "unitarity".
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems today the humankind is reaching another topic point in this
> >>>> relativization path, since he has the chance to use sciences and
> >>>> technologies to hugely modify some issues which deeply define the
> "human
> >>>> essence", which becomes basically uncertain. But does this all imply
> >> that
> >>>> anthropocentrism is fading out? Or, better, does it imply it will/can
> >>>> disappear?
> >>>>
> >>>> More after.
> >>>>
> >>>> Pier Luigi
>
> --
> Pier Luigi Capucci
> e-mail: plc@noemalab.org
> web: http://www.noemalab.org/plc/plc.html
> skype: plcapucci
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yasmin_discussions mailing list
> Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
> http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
>
> Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
>
> HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to.
> In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and
> password in the fields found further down the page.
>
> HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter
> your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the
> unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
>
> HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set
> Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
>
--
nec metuas nec optas
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@estia.media.uoa.gr
http://estia.media.uoa.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions
Yasmin URL: http://www.media.uoa.gr/yasmin
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE: click on the link to the list you wish to subscribe to. In the page that will appear ("info page"), enter e-mail address, name, and password in the fields found further down the page.
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE: on the info page, scroll all the way down and enter your e-mail address in the last field. Enter password if asked. Click on the unsubscribe button on the page that will appear ("options page").
HOW TO ENABLE / DISABLE DIGEST MODE: in the options page, find the "Set Digest Mode" option and set it to either on or off.
