www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
usual suspect wrote: <snip>
From Library Journal This is one of a number of recent books that trace both environmental destruction and social oppression to the Western world view
Sentence should end there. Mason is a leftist prat whose anti-capitalist views make everything Western "wrong."
But an opposition to "the" (make that "a" or "various" ) Western world views is not necessarily anti-capitalist. Some of the worst ecological destruction has taken place in areas controlled by anti-capitalist regimes, such as the former Soviet territories. The worldview Mason means, I suspect, could better be described as a relic of the Victorian faith in progress and technology, and man's unique status above and outside the rest of nature.
Perhaps, but like other misanthropes from the Ivory Towers,
Perhaps "like other human supremacists from the Anti camp...." you can't resist trying to stick your opponents into neat little negative categories so you can (to use one of jonnie's favorite terms) marginalize them. Try dealing with Mason as an individual, not some stereotype you think he fits.
Mason sees things only in stark terms of "East good, West bad" without much respect for the truth of either.
And you know this because you have read his body of work, right? Or because you presume it is so from one book review.
that sets humankind outside of, above, and in conflict with nature.
It's not a exactly Western view,
It is A Western view -- a dominant one for a good two and a half centuries at least, with adherents going back to the Greek period.
Ipse dixit.
You really don't believe it is a view that is found in Western culture? Let's bring up, just for starters, the popular reaction to Darwin and the Scopes Trial, and perhaps the medieval worldview in Dante and the Renaissance worldview in Shakespeare (Try the first-year history classic _The Elizabethan World Picture_, or even C.S. Lewis's studies of Renaissance literature, for starters, or the nice survey _The Passion of the Western Mind_).
Mason, like others, adopts a paradigm (that man and nature are in harmony) which many from the East reject. Like Western beliefs, Eastern beliefs consist of perfectionary goals which man often fails to attain for a variety of reasons -- hence reincarnation to try again and again, etc., prevalent in Eastern religion.
and it's corollary position (that everything Eastern is utopian and in accord with nature) is false.
That is not a necessary corollary, either.
It is in this instance.
There is more than one "Eastern" view as well.
Yes, Karen, I know. That's why I said "*everything* Eastern..."
Again, cite, please. You are using "Eastern" to mean anything not part of the dominant modern European/American culture.
Man's conflict with nature transcends culture and geography. The "paradigm of the primitive" is specious as well. The primitive hunts and gathers, and is often hunted himself.
I.e. -- primitive technology is less developed. That does not mean the worldview of "primitive" (which should be defined) peoples is less valuable than that of the more technologically developed cultures.
Luddite.
Ridiculous. You are confusing technology with ideas. The two are not the same. You, who hold up the worldview of the technologically- primitive writers of the First Century who composed the Bible as better than the worldview of the dominant American culture (or mine) have no business claiming you don't agree that technology is not the full measure of cultural importance. Is Jerry Springer more valuable than Sophocles or Homer or Shakespeare? Jerry is a lot more technologically sophisticated,after all.
As C.S. Lewis put it, the pre-literate cultures which made the worst pottery might have made the best poetry, and we would never know it.
Where did you get that quote?
What makes this work unique is the emphasis he places on the relationship between human beings and other animals as both explaining and symbolizing our dysfunctional way of life with its built-in patriarchy, misogyny, and racism.
This sums up his book in a nutshell. Mason has co-written with Peter Singer, so you already know his AR background. What he spells out now is the rest of the effete views held by the radical elite today. One again, Mason upholds the mythical "paradigm of the primitive" while failing to note that women in such societies are literally barefoot and pregnant.
Men are usually barefoot, too.
But not pregnant.
As for pregnant: studies of tribes such
as the aboriginal tribes of Australia have shown that "primitive"
cultures do control fertility in various ways, such as prolonging the
period of nursing, which makes women less likely to become pregnant.
Most pre-industrial societies (if not all) also know about herbal
contraceptives and abortificants. Also, in pre-industrial societies,
with higher infant mortality, fertility is often good. Things are not
as simple as you make them out.
This strange digression of yours only shows you missed what I actually wrote.
No. You trotted out a stereotypical knee-jerk slam against non-Western pre-industrial cultures. Such a stereotype ignores the reality of such cultures.
Women's ability to produce new life often makes them figures of power in "primitive" tribes, where they
are more respected than in some "Western" cultures.
But do they have the right to vote, own land, or shoot their husbands?
"Dominionism" justifies merciless exploitation of the earth and its creatures for human wealth and pleasure, but it has left a deep psychic wound.
The primitive, too, uses his surroundings to his advantage and exercises dominion in the jungle.
I question that he exercises "dominion."
You would question it, but only because you romanticize about jungle life
No, I question it because dominion is primarily a Biblical idea, and not found in most "primitive" cultures, if any. What evidence do you have specific "primitive" cultures see the world in those terms?
Watch those shows on Discovery and National Geographic Channel: those folks are hunters. They kill animals, and sometimes they kill more than they plan to eat.
Other creatures represent the primitive's food and clothing, his sustenance in a rough environment. The "psychic wound" is only experienced in the West, and only by the hypersensitive and mentally ill ARAs and "ethical vegans."
It is experienced by many people in both Western and non-Western
cultures,
Ipse dixit.
including those who had been members of tribal or
non-Western cultures and who moved to a "Western" culture.
I know people who moved here from Nigeria, Ethiopia, and the Congo, not to mention from Central America. They're fine people who've adapted quite well to American life. I'll ask around to see if any of them are experiencing any "psychic wounds." I don't think they are, though.
The sense of malaise is widespread today, among many groups.
You have Jimmy Carter to thank for that.
I would say very few people in the modern world are entirely comfortable with the spiritually empty self-satisfaction of the worldview you evidently advocate.
You're a fellow traveler of Mason so I'd expect you to find Western life "spiritually empty."
I don't. I find your definition of the Western worldview spiritually empty. Much of Western life is also spiritually rich.
subjective. Here's how I see it. If I can't find spiritual richness right where I am in the space-time continuum, where will I ever find it?
How did St Paul put it? Look it up yourself. Philippians 4:10-13.
In pursuing his argument Mason (coauthor with Peter Singer of Animal Factories , LJ 6/1/80) piles up powerful and provocative examples and insights.
No, it's mostly colorful sophistry, strawmen, and mythology masquerading as academic insight. His examples are specious, and his insights are flawed by illogic and the paradigm of the primitive.
ipse dixit -- some examples, please.
They were addressed above. Psychic wounds, racism, misogyny, etc., compared to animal "rights."
He is less successful in convincing the reader of the sufficiency of his overall thesis...
Which supports my previous statement.
But is not necessarily true....
It definitely is in this case.
I wouldn't expect you to know the difference, given that you have an agenda and you prefer Linzey and Hyland to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
That's also a ridiculous statement. Let's say I prefer Linzey's gloss on them to yours.
The Library Journal review was on the Amazon website: http://tinyurl.com/wetz
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
