Discriminating knowledge never speaks to the truth. The only truth is that there is no knowledge. There is no knowledge and no ultimate truth in existence. There is solely existence. Yet as human beings we have managed to separate ourselves from all other existence, hung up on explaining in favor of experiencing. As scientific knowledge becomes the basis of our living, we become dependent on observational truths. These truths become the foundational facts of our being. We have gone so far in belief as to let them birth our identity. When you see experiences just as is, just as they are, there is no interpreting, judgement, or assumptions by the intellect. Instead we are entrapped within a scientific paradigm; our physical being bound “in a world dominated by the technology of the old, a science which treats life as mechanical, where living organisms respond to fixed laws which man discovers and applies. Nowhere has this been more true than in the world of plants. We have studied, dissected, experimented, and examined the whole world of plants and have developed sciences which make plants our servants” (Hawken, 124). This is the limited scientific truth and judgement which sets an ontological divide of humans from nature.
The knowledge we call truth defines nature as “the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creation” (Oxford American Dictionary). By this definition humanity is not part of the natural physical world. We are, along with our creations, not considered nature. Our separation in identity grows within the egotistical mindset we as humans take on through labeling, categorizing, compartmentalizing, and defining existence. Humanity has come to a point where we no longer see ourselves as a part of nature, in coexistence with life, but instead as superior to nature, possessing the ability to explain existence. We also cannot be considered “natural” existence, as by definition “natural” means to be “existing in or caused by nature, not made or caused by human kind”(Oxford American Dictionary). Woah woah woah, lets back up here. Where on earth do these defining ultimate truths come from? As I explored earlier, I see them as an inability to simply exist, an inability to realize the interconnectedness of existence. There is a need to step back and refrain from separating, compartmentalizing, and defining, passing these judgements off as truth. We need to stop ourselves from plugging into patterns so that we no longer have to “think” because we “know.” Closing ourselves off through “the pursuit of truth and wisdom, we have lost every faculty that would grant that which we seek” (Hawken, 126). So how do we break through this front? Let’s zoom way out, lets make no assumptions on the limits of existence. Simply experience these words.
To say that what I personally do in life as a human being matters is purely egotistical. To say that the being of any existence matters is to pass judgement rooted in the narrow perspective of the human intellect. To say the existence of the earth matters is a narrow view of the self. To say that the end of the earth’s existence, the end of our atmosphere, the end of our solar system, the end of our universe, even to say that the end of all this and beyond matters, is to make an assumption about existence. An assumption we have no way of proving without basing the “facts” or proof on the narrow interpretational observations of the human intellect. So how can we be so superior as to pass this off as truth. Who says that anything matters? So everything is “matter” by our scientific definition, but does any of this matter matter?
Everything just is, there are no answers that are not purely egotistical. There is no truth. There exists no good nor bad, no right nor wrong. I cannot assume that I can do any wrong in my very existence. So then how do humans do wrong? Are we doing wrong or might this path that global society is paving be right? Who is to say we are destroying the earth? Who is to say we are not just as we are, part of the regenerative process of nature. We are nature, and so everything we produce, define, create, and dream up is nature as well. It might take trillions and zillions of years to break down into what we define as earth, but it’s nature. We might die out as a human race, but that is still nature. To say that human induced extinction (of humans or any other being) is not natural or is not a part of nature, is to say that human action and humans themselves are separate from nature. It is not. We are not. We are all interconnected matter that does not really matter. Or maybe we do. But who will ever know. There is no knowing, no right nor wrong. So there just is. We just are. Realize that none of what we see as true is the “truth” as we know it to be. Realize that there is no truth. Realize that we can make NO assumptions about our very existence. I am making the assumption that NOTHING matters, But you might make the assumption that EVERYTHING matters, or CERTAIN things matter. If we leave all of these assumptions behind, leave all beliefs we assume as “truths” behind, then we just are. Everything just is. Try saying that out loud…I just am. Earth just is. We just are. Existence just is. IT JUST IS. No assumptions, no judgements, everything just is. One cannot say there is truth, yet one cannot say there is no truth. Take away all labels, all definitions, all categorization, all compartmentalization. Take this all away, and breath. Nothing is, yet everything is. Is what? Just is.
There really is no weak nor strong, no good nor bad, no right nor wrong. We create these notions in our human intellect. If we could step back, back to the days of infancy, we could see light and dark, strong and weak, young and old, but make no judgements. This is how you are, therefore I am; interconnected as one whole, indefinable in our being. We need to return to perception as it was at our state of infancy, without discrimination. Living this way, even for a second, changes everything. It’s hard, but to be conscious about not making assumptions, to avoid judgements as best we can, it changes happiness and presence. It brings a calm to life, a natural movement towards our defined need for “sustainability.” We can bridge the vast existing separation of life by “giving up everything on the mental level, the concepts, the intellect, and the ideas that one has imposed upon the world, and to release these and see the world again as a child, with fresh eyes and an open mind” (Hawken, 67). It is how we see things that creates separation or relation. If we see them as separate, they will be separate in our reality; if we see them as related, they will be related in our reality. It is all in the seeing. This perspective brings forth a vital recognition, that all existence is one.
It is my belief that with this mindset we can work within the global societal structure present today and our actions will reflect a closer connection to the earth and all other existence. From this we can achieve a fundamental shift in our ideological base, an expanded identity and realization of our interconnectedness, and our being. Then and only then, as I see it, will we be closer to nature. We will no longer be separate and superior, no longer explaining instead of experiencing, our actions will reflect this even as we exist within the social structure our human intellect has created. We will begin to experience on all levels; our talk reflected in every waking moment of our walk, demonstrating sustainability by bringing our identities down to earth, seeing integration of our existence.
I chose not to discuss sustainable technological development in this paper because I do not see a successful fundamental global shift in sustainability based in technological innovations stemming from a perceived moral obligation. I see them rooted in an ideological shift, a shift in the foundations of our thinking, a shift in how we identify ourselves. “When people feel they unselfishly give up, even sacrifice, their interest in order to show love for nature, this is probably in the long run a treacherous basis for ecology. Through broader identification, they may come to see their own interest served…through genuine self love, love for a widened and deepened self” (Seed, 24). I would identify this shift as the biggest challenge currently facing our society in the United States. But if we can make this shift in ideology we will come closer to closing an ontological gap between human beings and nature, this is what I see as sustainable. A sustainability in our being, our being inclusive of all existence which in turn marks the beginning of a sustainability of all life, living and non living life.
Closing this gap means supporting an evolution of existence where non human nature changes slowly over thousands of years by dwelling together WITH human beings, they are not products born entirely from the unchecked usage of our surroundings. I believe there can be made a distinction in natural being for example between plastic, which evolves overnight through human manufacturing, and the evolution of crops over thousands or tens of thousands of years which dwell together with human beings. Both I argue are nature, as we are nature, but the creation of plastic distances itself from the realization of interconnectedness. The production of plastic ignores the implications and affects on inter-being. Plastic falls closer to discriminating scientific truth, judgement, and discovery than to the realization and recognition of all existence as one. Manufacturing production is an exemplar of ontological separation which Min noted in class; within 200 years we have consumed what took millions of years to form, the extraction of finite resources at such a rate falls farther from the realization of co-existence than evolutionary change over tens of thousands of years.
We as humans have taken pride primarily in our economic and scientific development, but we need to stop and really see the implications of these innovations. Why is it that we think “if one does nothing at all the world could not keep running. What would the world be without development?…Why do we have to develop? If economic growth rises from 5% to 10%, is happiness going to double? What’s wrong with a growth rate of 0%? Isn’t this a rather stable kind of economics? Could there be anything better than living simply and taking it easy?” (Fukuoka, 158). Often we let this pride take over, necessitating scientific creation of further solutions, when much simpler solutions, solutions which are in balance with existence, lie within the ideological frame of mind I have outlined in this paper. The technological solutions we have come to endorse are growing not so much out of their successes but out of necessity to cover their tracks.
We need to realize and grasp the extending reach of our innovational consumption which lends a hand in perpetuating an ill we think we are working to eradicate. Existence is one, and making as much of a shift in this ideological direction as we can is the first step to understanding our relationship of personal breath to what we call global sustainability. “If we do have a food crisis it will not be caused by the insufficiency of nature’s productive power, but by the extravagance of human desire” (Fukuoka, 104). We need to take off our blindfolds and stop selectively seeing the world. If we all act in this way, choosing when to see our being as one and choosing when to see the interconnection of existence, then we are consciously choosing to perpetuate the current state of “global crisis.” There needs to be an end to the illusion that I exist independently of the Other. I believe this end goes hand in hand with the end of our narrow perception of truth which we validate by a believed superiority of our human intellect.
With this end comes an end to the assumption that the answer lies in technological advancement. These assumptions are often not addressing the root of our problems, but are creating alternative technological solutions with unknown affects, as we continue to avoid recognizing the implications of our global culture of commodity. We consume knowing the implications, but are afraid to step outside of what we “know,” choosing to explain rather than experience the crisis we are in. “Most of us are aware of the destruction of our planet at the deepest level, but we do not face it, do not integrate it for fear of experiencing the despair that such information provokes” (Seed, 8). We need to experience the far reaching effects of our actions, not move forward blindly into an innovational world of the human intellect.
If deforestation is the issue, stop and plant more trees. We are currently indulging in elitist luxuries, supporting industrial technological evolution, perpetuating a socio-economic disparity. “We are told that the pollution and destruction caused by technology will be solved by technology, that we need more power to clean up what the generation of power has created, an argument so absurd that it merits no response” (Hawken, 126). We have bought into the paradigms of technological advancement and economic development, learning to “make hybrids that can grow bigger and faster than their parent stock. The size, shape, and even colour of plants altered by methodically applying all our knowledge of genetic manipulation. We can even grow square tomatoes that can be machine picked and compactly shipped. The fact that the tomatoes tasted like the cardboard they were wrapped in seems somehow to be lost in all the hoopla and self-congratulatory publicity” (Hawken, 125). We refuse to look to the root of our consumption, as we divert our energy towards new innovations of consumption and energy stores which allow us to perpetuate our commodification of life. Think about the technological innovation of solar panels, a beautiful idea of energy storage on a small scale, but now envision every single household on the planet using solar panels; mass production alone would make this ingenious idea another product using up the earth faster than it can regenerate itself. Manufacturing and processing on that scale, the additional upkeep, eventual disposal of these materials, and an inability to regenerate themselves leaves solar panels and the majority (if not all) other technological advancements out of the running towards a sustainable global future.
Through the disparity between technological innovations and sustainability we can be found perceiving living beings as things, “mere resources to be exploited for economic profit. We are choosing to exist in a paradigm where ‘all individuals, families, communities, classes, societies and nations must seek their own, separate self-interest” (Kumar, 180). As a part of social, economic, and scientific developmental self interest, we have begun to make assumptions regarding what is necessary to survive. Whatever it is that we are now consuming, whatever we think we need to consume to live, is nothing more than something we have thought up. Scientific knowledge has become the basis of living. “People nowadays eat with their mind, not with their bodies” (Fukuoka, 137). Material consumption from the mind must end. In recognizing existence just as it is, there is no longer an assumed need to create knowledge which enables us to “lord it over the earth.” We can step back and observe Gandhi’s way of a method-less method, existing without the need to go anywhere or seek any victory. We can begin to free ourselves from “seeking victory through the skillful, yet self-conscious application of technique…acting because it is the best and most efficient way to put nature to use” (Fukuoka, 119). We can create distance from our current culture of commodity. We can step back away from this lens of complexity and just be.
To be in this way is to inter-be, realizing all existence just as it is and just as you are, ultimately enabling communication between ourselves and the earth. “Conversations can only take place among equals. If anyone feels superior, it destroys conversation. Words are then used to dominate, coerce, and manipulate. Those who act superior can’t help but treat others as objects to accomplish their cause and plans. When we see each other as equals, we stop misusing them” (Wheatley,141). A radical shift in our ideological base will work to bring us closer to a more conscious existence, steering away from the misuse of the world around us. As our consciousness evolves we will act as one, in the interest of one, seeing existence as one. Our perception of home will shift and we will no longer derive our identity from labels of the human intellect and scientific truths. We will open up communication with all life. “Communication, at its best, is called love; when it breaks down completely, we call it war. And it is a sort of war that is going on now between human beings and the earth. It’s not that nature refuses to communicate with us, but that we no longer have a way to communicate with it” (Devall & Sessions, 95). We feel safe within our narrow perspective of home, as home in this sense does not represent the earth and all existence, but it represents the physical structure we most closely identify with, the walls which keep out “danger.” But when we expand our identity, shift our ideological perspective, close this ontological gap, open up pathways of communication, we will see that danger and war is within our home, within our earth, within our existence, within us.
Lets expand our identities past the narrow self, past our mother who birthed us, past the names given to us, past our home towns, past our current physical location. Lets expand our identities to realize the vastness of our existence that is. To truly realize and include all that we experience, all that is the earth, the matter that is you and that is me, and that is the ground beneath our feet. Realize the matter that maybe matters or maybe does not, but that is.
“The search is over, the quest complete, close the books, shut the libraries, let the air waves be still, the cortex twitches from fatigue, it has become taut, sinewy, ropy, and inflexible. Let it rest,” as we no longer think (Hawken, 79).
