The New Principle of Ecological Spiritualism
A recent suggestion has infected me with a penchance for whimsy that it only tempered by paternal influence. Henceforth, at least for the duration of this brief essay, the temperance of paternal concern shall be cast aside in favor of a tone that evokes the new principle of ecological spiritualism. It is but a flight of fancy, really, this concept. It is, simply put, the idea that reverence for the environment and use of terms like ecology evoke mere scientific concern or attitudes for natural processes. Instead of mere scientific regard for nature, or numbers and formulas providing the guidance as we step or trod through the jungle in search of holier than pavement temples of glory, there is instead a needed reverence, a certain spiritualism that has been left blank on the more rationally based arguments, pro and con, for preserving nature, fighting global warming, and any of the other endless green causes out there.
This concept of ecological spiritualism may in fact be self defeating since some have argued that mixing a term from the sciences with a term from the mystical defeats the power of the mystical with the overwhelming rationality of the ecological approach to studying nature. These ideas are far from new, which may be prompting readers to wonder, why now? Why waste millions of electrons transmitting this message from near and far when it has been hashed and re-hashed by different people on different levels, names such as Matthew Fox, David Abrams, Aldo Leopold, Edward O. Wilson. I haven't read stuff by all of those people, but I am familiar with the arguments.
It's all a lot of academic sounding mumbo jumbo when you glance at it, but upon closer inspection, the instrinsic push and pull between these forces - environment and spirit - is pretty much going to be the fundamental paradigm shift in the next 45 to 60 years that will herald a progressive shift towards a greater, more powerful environmental movement of the future. The scientific based pleas of heralds such as Al Gore lack a certain joie de vivre or appeal to humanity's wonderment at the all-encompassing unexplainable master forces of the universe that really has been underpinning the more salient movements which have shaped national debates of character or morals like the abortion rights debate or gay marriage. Although these issues are truly receding in importance compared to discussions of the Iraq war or terrorism, at least as far as recent election polls suggest, the illustration is that issues of the spirit have a wonderful power to captivate the larger majority of humans, while issues of science and rationality tend to alienate all but the nerdiest of practitioners.
Caring about this minor issue of semantics or nuance may seem irrelevant. However, when juxtaposed over a new term of self-awareness which was recently introduced to me by a practitioner of Jungian Psychology, I am now well aware of potential further reaching implications of the distinction, as well as potentially mind-blowing, or para-humorous implications.
The aforementioned concept is one of the Puer Eternus, the divine, radiant, golden boy who seeks only flights of fancy and whimsy, who is not content under any circumstances to "grow up" or accept binding responsibility. Instead, the Puer is a Peter Pan, a flighty and idealistic "innocent" who broaches subjects of adult-oriented obligation or responsibility with a continued naievity and perhaps even jovial disdain.
The relevance here is perhaps based largely inside of this melon-head, or coco-head, is the idea that maybe, in this case, the spirit can be likened to the Puer and the rational ecologist to the paternal opposite of the Puer, the Father archetype. In other words, a Puer-influenced outlook on matters of environment and ecology may help realize the more balanced approach. I suppose that what I am arguing is not just for a more balanced approach, but that the approach to protecting the environment and preserving nature not originate so heavily in the sciences. Instead, my hope is that, over time, an increasing number of folks will begin to express their defense of 'the environment' or even simply the Universe in the vague but faithful terms of reverence and holiness.
This new view need not offend the anti-Christian. I am not advocating a rigorous litany of religious ceremonies accompany each skinny-dip trip into the river. Rather, I am saying that the kind of reverence that individuals use when genuflecting in front of idols or shrines might be a telling example of the kind of collective attitude towards nature that might help bridge the gap between conservative ideology and ecological preservation.
And so, the whimsical but reverential understanding of nature that the Puer can and has exemplified may very well me an interesting example of the proto-naturalist of the future, who can balance the need for scientific understanding of the problems of the environment with a fair heap of radiant pastoral juvenile wonderment, which would be a fair confusion in place of the rigid robed religious pomp of, for example, a papal speech at the vatican. Our new minister is a child and the new religion is protecting nature. The old scientist is the codger who admonishes the youth for their naeive understanding of the natural world, but if for no other reason than to prove their limited understanding wrong in the face of his superior knowledge.
This concept of ecological spiritualism may in fact be self defeating since some have argued that mixing a term from the sciences with a term from the mystical defeats the power of the mystical with the overwhelming rationality of the ecological approach to studying nature. These ideas are far from new, which may be prompting readers to wonder, why now? Why waste millions of electrons transmitting this message from near and far when it has been hashed and re-hashed by different people on different levels, names such as Matthew Fox, David Abrams, Aldo Leopold, Edward O. Wilson. I haven't read stuff by all of those people, but I am familiar with the arguments.
It's all a lot of academic sounding mumbo jumbo when you glance at it, but upon closer inspection, the instrinsic push and pull between these forces - environment and spirit - is pretty much going to be the fundamental paradigm shift in the next 45 to 60 years that will herald a progressive shift towards a greater, more powerful environmental movement of the future. The scientific based pleas of heralds such as Al Gore lack a certain joie de vivre or appeal to humanity's wonderment at the all-encompassing unexplainable master forces of the universe that really has been underpinning the more salient movements which have shaped national debates of character or morals like the abortion rights debate or gay marriage. Although these issues are truly receding in importance compared to discussions of the Iraq war or terrorism, at least as far as recent election polls suggest, the illustration is that issues of the spirit have a wonderful power to captivate the larger majority of humans, while issues of science and rationality tend to alienate all but the nerdiest of practitioners.
Caring about this minor issue of semantics or nuance may seem irrelevant. However, when juxtaposed over a new term of self-awareness which was recently introduced to me by a practitioner of Jungian Psychology, I am now well aware of potential further reaching implications of the distinction, as well as potentially mind-blowing, or para-humorous implications.
The aforementioned concept is one of the Puer Eternus, the divine, radiant, golden boy who seeks only flights of fancy and whimsy, who is not content under any circumstances to "grow up" or accept binding responsibility. Instead, the Puer is a Peter Pan, a flighty and idealistic "innocent" who broaches subjects of adult-oriented obligation or responsibility with a continued naievity and perhaps even jovial disdain.
The relevance here is perhaps based largely inside of this melon-head, or coco-head, is the idea that maybe, in this case, the spirit can be likened to the Puer and the rational ecologist to the paternal opposite of the Puer, the Father archetype. In other words, a Puer-influenced outlook on matters of environment and ecology may help realize the more balanced approach. I suppose that what I am arguing is not just for a more balanced approach, but that the approach to protecting the environment and preserving nature not originate so heavily in the sciences. Instead, my hope is that, over time, an increasing number of folks will begin to express their defense of 'the environment' or even simply the Universe in the vague but faithful terms of reverence and holiness.
This new view need not offend the anti-Christian. I am not advocating a rigorous litany of religious ceremonies accompany each skinny-dip trip into the river. Rather, I am saying that the kind of reverence that individuals use when genuflecting in front of idols or shrines might be a telling example of the kind of collective attitude towards nature that might help bridge the gap between conservative ideology and ecological preservation.
And so, the whimsical but reverential understanding of nature that the Puer can and has exemplified may very well me an interesting example of the proto-naturalist of the future, who can balance the need for scientific understanding of the problems of the environment with a fair heap of radiant pastoral juvenile wonderment, which would be a fair confusion in place of the rigid robed religious pomp of, for example, a papal speech at the vatican. Our new minister is a child and the new religion is protecting nature. The old scientist is the codger who admonishes the youth for their naeive understanding of the natural world, but if for no other reason than to prove their limited understanding wrong in the face of his superior knowledge.
