It’s time to work on a new schematic. I seem to have an idea, now, thanks to WordPress and the feedback I’ve been getting online and elsewhere (OK, so I didn’t get much feedback online… never mind!) of how I can structure the thesis now that I have the focus as self respect and respect. I am still really uncomfortable about the gap that has developed between ‘ordinary language’ and the language I’m inclined to use when talking about the topics of the thesis. This is because it’s so important to be clear about what I’m trying to say, because the risks of being misinterpreted as some snake oil salesperson, or some jargon-laden pseud who’s saying nothing (yes, it was helpful to reread Orwell the other day) or even some frothing at the mouth ecowarrior, are considerable. The points I want to make, very simply, are:
1. that self-respect IS respect, and vice versa.
2. that perceiving the world primarily as boundaried entities rather than interacting relationships has created, among other things, the division between respect and self-respect.
3. that Dogen recognised the indivisibility of entities and the primacy of interactions, and therefore the importance of respect as an activity
4. that Darwin and the scientific understanding of evolution developed within a historical context and was understood as competitive and divisive, either/or development, until recently when more information allowed that evolution proceeds symbiotically and through the cooperative activity of systems
5. that our understanding of environmental ethics has been bound by our concern to show that we can locate qualitative measures for valuing within different loci, but that understanding ourselves as physical systems allows us to consider the environmental crisis and ourselves in terms of energy flows, facilitated or interrupted.
6. that the facilitation of energy flows facilitates the dissipation of energy whereas the reduction of flows, either through less biodiversity, or through the caught patterns of energy locked in plastics or radioactive waste, or even through the stuck patterns of reactions that fix us in resistance to relationships and create suffering, all interferes with it.
7. that this is not a moral problem: it is not right or wrong to live according to the Dao, or the Way. Suffering itself is not wrong. But if it is possible to ease suffering then it makes sense to do so, because our own suffering and the suffering of, or the locked patterns of, all existence, are interlinked, and our immediate patterns depend but also interact with larger ones. The only means we have to reduce suffering is through respecting ourselves, compassionately, and respecting the world, particularly the biodiverse world.
8. to say that we exploit the biodiverse world necessarily, and therefore cannot respect it, is to mistakenly liken ourselves to machines: we are not machines but responsive biofeedback systems that interact with ourselves and with the world around us. Respect itself creates space for compassionate, impartial activity that releases attachment.
9. So Dogen’s imagery and ideas illuminate those of science and vice versa. They are not saying the same thing and we need to contextualise and personalise our responses, so that we realise no principles can guide us. We can only practice respect and watch what happens, personally. We can actively speak about disrespect and its impact but without attachment, or emotional investment.
10. A critical mass can be created through this activity, but it can come about only through the elicitation of a response.
11. Humans can live with respect for themselves and the environment. It is not an easy way to live but it is possible. It is no more difficult than the way we live now, however.
12. This is not a choice, in the traditional sense of willing ourselves into a new understanding. It is the effort of practice-enlightenment, the willingness to become more aware of where respect is absent by drawing attention to it in ourselves.