August 20, 2011
Our Relationships
With ourselves:
Exactly who owns what, when we say, “I have a body”?
Does our mind own the rest of us? Can it really do anything it
wants with us? But is not the mind indeed part of our body?
The phrase comes from Roman law which defined private property
as the relationship between an owner and a slave, the owner having
absolute power over the slave, who was himself defined as a “thing.”
The power extended to that of torture and execution, without the
need for a formal reason. The law defined all other types of property,
such as, for instance the ownership of a chainsaw, where the power
of the owner is severely limited both inside and outside his land, as
exceptions to the cardinal, absolute power of the master over his slave.
Our expression “I have a body,” reflects a master-slave relationship, but
in this case, the owner is also the thing being owned. It would be more
accurate to say, “I am a body – in relationship with the rest of the world.”
With Our Peers:
The Vedic (c.1,500 B.C.E.) and later Hindu god Indra, depicted accurately our
relationship to each other. We are all jewels in his net, each one reflecting
all the other jewels, including all the reflections in these other jewels.
When we feel a large measure of equality, and comfortable loving and trusting
each other, we know the meaning of Indra’s net. We act communistically.
We do not keep tabs on who owes what to whom. In our family, it is “from
each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Sometimes even
thanking a relative or neighbor too profusely is insulting, as it intimates
that the favor was not expected, or even may not be returned. The debts
and obligations on each side are too numerous to count, and we assume
that “in the end” – that is, sometime during eternity – it will all balance out.
Where the relationship is with people who are approximately our equals, but
are strangers, or perhaps even enemies, we slip into a relationship of exchange.
If we are friendly, we exchange gifts which are comparable and of approximately
the same value. At the store, we pay our money for the goods we buy, say
“thank you!” and leave without any further obligation to the owner. If we do
not like a person, we might “exchange words.” If we are angry, we might
exchange blows. In sports, we exchange a ball. In war, we exchange gunfire.
War seems “fair,” whereas a massacre, where one side is defenseless, is “unfair.”
With incomparable Entities:
Where the parties are obviously unequal and disparate, we slide into a relationship of hierarchy, with its assumption that the two sides have essential essences which are so different, that the only possible way for them to interact, is for each to give what it can
give, no attempt even made to keep accounts. During the Middle Ages, for instance,
priests, warriors and vassals were seen as basically different kinds of human beings –
each, however, with specific responsibilities to the others. Priests prayed for everyone,
nobles fought for everyone, and peasants fed everyone – not a soul ever asking how
many prayers or how much military protection was equivalent to a ton of wheat.
Toward the end of his life, Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) put the final touches on the
Mona Lisa while living in a manor house and on a pension provided by King Francis I,
of France – without compromise to the assumption of the King’s intrinsic superiority.
In Medieval China (c.600), the Three Levels School of Buddhism calculated that in
the first three years of life, a child drinks, on average, 360 gallons of its mother’s milk. Beginning with this unpayable milk debt, life became a cycle of debt and redemption.
With Nature:
What kind of relationship then do we have with the world around us? An important
negative aspect of saying, “I have a body,” is that it allows us to imagine ourselves
completely isolated beings, without the need to form mutual relationships with the
life that surrounds us. It encourages us to think of ourselves as self-sufficient, apart
and independent of Nature. Economists, for instance, assume that theirs is a pure
field of inquiry, all humans driven by only one motivation – the rational, calculated
pursuit of “profit” or “advantage.” This assumption then permits them to study “the
market” much like astronomers study the attraction and repulsion of celestial bodies.
In fact, our relationship with Nature is hierarchical, the gifts from each side so
fundamentally different in quality, their relative value so impossible to quantify,
that they simply cannot be compared. There is no way to square accounts.
When we put out a birdfeeder for those singing birds, it is not to feed the birds.
The birds can take care of themselves. The gift demonstrates neither benevolence
nor power, only an acknowledgement that we can never repay our debt to birds.
When Bolivian President Evo Morales asks us to give human rights to Mother Earth, he correctly points to the hierarchical character of our relationship with Nature. But this is precisely the reason why we cannot assume that we can give to Nature what has meaning for us. Nature does not know rights. It can take care of itself – and will destroy us in the process. Nature is neither our mother, nor our defenseless child, nor our slave. And it is presumptuous to think that we can relate in a human way to the whole of creation. The disparity between us and Nature is such that the only recourse is for each to give what it can – sunshine, trees and fish from one side, appreciation, use, and acknowledgement of an infinite debt from the other.
Nature is like Saint Nicholas (270-343), patron saint of children and repentant thieves.
We cannot socialize with either. Like burglars, they enter our lives stealthily, and whether
Nature or Saint Nicholas leaves us bereft or rewarded, depends on our own actions.
We may ponder the implications of introducing an indigenous Amaryan concept into the Christian culture, with its history of populating the world with metaphysical entities (angels) –
invisible, ageless, sempiternal, immortal, endowed with “intellectual or mystical” bodies.
Greek philosopher Plato (424-348 B.C.E.) conceptualized an “Idea” as the generalization of
the particular (“a bird” is the composite of all individual birds). In the High Middle Ages,
Italian theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) declared angels to be the personification
of Plato’s “Ideas.” In 1250, Pope Innocent IV, noting that corporations were “Ideas” (the abstract of the individuals who compose them), decreed corporations to be angel-like – immortal “fictive persons” with the same rights as human beings. But is not Nature an “Idea,” the abstract of its individual elements? Is the United Nations, now drafting a Declaration on
the Rights of Mother Earth, then preparing us to accept that Nature also is a persona ficta?
Conclusions:
Global warming is now destroying the conditions on earth for life as we know it.
Our present actions will dictate whether Nature leaves us bereft or rewarded.
It is time to see that not only do we have a hierarchical relationship with
Nature, but we are, indeed, part of Nature. Her fate will determine ours.
We can begin the discussion by replacing our “I have a body,” with “I am a body
which could not exist, were it not in constant relationship with the universe.”
References
Principal Reference:
Graeber, David. 2011. Debt – the first 5,000 years. New York, N.Y.: Melvillehouse.
Other References:
Britannica Online Encyclopedia, “Peck.”
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/448327/peck. Accessed 08/23/11.
Annotation:
In the British Imperial System, the peck is used for either liquid or dry measure, and is equal to 2 imperial gallons (9.1 liters). In the United States Customary System, the pick is used only for dry measure, and is equal to 8.8 liters.
Graeber states that a Medieval Chinese Buddhist calculated that the average child absorbs precisely 180 pecks of mother’s milk during its first three years of life. The notion of a quantifiable (karmic) debt was taken up in particular by the “Three Stages” or “Three Levels” Chinese School of Buddhism, created by the monk Hsin-Hsing (540-594 C.E.) (Graeber pp. 262-264, 268, and 433-434).
Common Dreams, 2011. “United Nations Document would give ‘Mother Earth’ same Rights as Humans.” April 13.
http://www/commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/13-2. Accessed 08/23/11.
* See annotation next page.
Environment News Service, 2011. “Bolivia celebrates Law granting Rights to Mother Earth.” April 20.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2011/2011-04-20-01.html. Accessed 08/23//11.
* See annotation next page.
Global Exchange. 2011. The rights of Nature – the case for a universal declaration on the rights of Mother Earth. San Francisco, CA: Global Exchange.
http://therightsofnature.org/related-books. Accessed 08/23/11.
* See annotation next page.
Shaman’s Well, 2011. “Proposed UN Paper to give Mother Earth Rights – Bolivian Amaryan Indian Minister leading the Charge.” April 15.
http://www.shamanswell.org/shaman. Accessed 08/23/11.
* See annotation next page.
* Annotation for the above four References:
Bolivia’s Law of Mother Earth, enacted by President Evo Morales in January 2011, defines Mother Earth as “a unique, indivisible, self-regulating community of inter-related beings that sustains, contains and reproduces all beings.” The law will be implemented by a Mother Earth Ministry.
The eleven rights of Nature which the law establishes, include the following:
1. The right to maintain the integrity of life and natural processes.
2. The right to pure water.
3. The right to clean air.
4. The right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.
5. The right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration.
6. The right to balance, to be at equilibrium.
7. The right to be free of toxic and radioactive pollution.
8. The right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities.
9. The right to not be affected by mega-infrastructure development projects which affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities.
The law declares that every human activity has to “achieve dynamic balance with the cycles and processes inherent in Mother Earth.” The law also promotes “harmony,” “peace” and “the elimination of all nuclear, chemical, and biological” weapons.
On April 20, 2011, the United Nations General Assembly began drafting a “Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.” Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda, expressed support for the Bolivian proposal.
To coincide with the beginning of the U.N. debate, Global Exchange, the Council of Canadians, the Pachamama Alliance, and the Fundacion Pachamama released the book, The rights of Nature – the case for a universal declaration on the rights of Mother Earth (2011, San Francisco, CA: Global Exchange).
The book includes essays by and interviews with Maude Barlow (the Council of Canadians), Vandana Shiva (Indian eco-feminist), Desmond Tutu (South African retired Anglican bishop), Cormac Cullinan (South African environmental attorney and author), Edwardo Galeano (Uruguayan novelist), Nimo Bassey (Friends of the Earth), Thomas Goldtooth (Indigenous Environmental Network), and Shannon Biggs (Global Exchange).
Wikipedia. (This reference was used principally for dates).
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed 08/20/11-08/24/11.
***