Last winter I watched Life on Our Planet on Netflix. It was produced by Spielberg. The documentary chronicles the history of the Earth, as much as we know. Very well done, but it raised questions, too, for me as a biologist. But what really struck me, having not learned anything about Paleobiology 50 years ago, was that species other than Homo sapiens rose to dominance before the various mass extinctions. And theasz extinctions were grand. We were not always " Top Dog " on planet Earth and it changed my view of our importance. Why would creation happen in that way if life worshipping an all powerful being was always the goal, which is what we are taught regarding our reality. Really thought provoking.
Thank you for elegantly naming the quest I've been on my whole life: If I/we believe this, how then should I/we live? At its best (which it often is not), the discipline of ethics engages the question. However, too many ethicists do exactly what you describe: they start from a worldview they want to prove and then move to the question. My studies have shown that no worldview is privileged when it comes to the prior question: given that we are a person-in-community with varieties of worldviews, how then do we live so that all have a chance to flourish? Thanks for the clarity.
It occurs to me that defending a worldview is never really what I wanted. I thought I was suppose to find the “right” worldview and stick with it. Inhabit it. Be able to explain it. Justify it. Use it. Perhaps even gather others who share, close enough, my worldview. But prior to worldview, to concepts, is the human animal who wants to survive and flourish with dignity, grace, and purpose. Thank you so much for naming this thing I did not know needed so desperately to be named.
My deconstruction path took me towards Buddhism as I still found the need to return to some basic understanding of reality since I was without (by choice) the structural compass to make decisions by. Buddhism by design points me within my experience of the current moment to get comfortable in and work from. The mechanisms of Zen Buddhist practices are helping me see and get comfortable with my experienced reality. It sounds like more exploration in this area could provide some very helpful and meaningful language, especially for people needing to understand why religion failed them when it seems to work for others. Looking forward to hearing more as you distill this path you're on!
A tad on the lengthy side, but worth reading in portions if you prefer. I interpret the existence of life as being akin to how a flower grows, buds, spreads out its petals, exposes its reproductive organs, is pollinated by others (pollinator critters), unfurls itself as far as it can go, then - when all benefits have been taken and others received - begins to die back, refold its ‘bits’, produces a fruit (where possible or capable), and then dies and falls away from the main plant, a plant that either continues living in its current form or transforms or dies back to the ground itself. I’ve likened it to the life cycle of, say, a brier rose. Mine flowers briefly in the grand scheme of existing life cycles and then what’s left is a rose hip. What will that do next? I intend to watch.
As someone who you permitted to look at an early draft of your upcoming book, this article certainly encapsulates much of the thinking contained there. The Killers got it right when they asked 'Are we human?' (Couldn't work out the 'are we dancer' bit, but here we are.)
Oh, Jim, I think there is a wonderfully compelling idea here. But as I kept reading, it felt as though you kept making the ski jump longer while gradually reducing its pitch. Instead of sending me into flight, I found myself sliding farther and farther, wondering where I was going to end.
Last winter I watched Life on Our Planet on Netflix. It was produced by Spielberg. The documentary chronicles the history of the Earth, as much as we know. Very well done, but it raised questions, too, for me as a biologist. But what really struck me, having not learned anything about Paleobiology 50 years ago, was that species other than Homo sapiens rose to dominance before the various mass extinctions. And theasz extinctions were grand. We were not always " Top Dog " on planet Earth and it changed my view of our importance. Why would creation happen in that way if life worshipping an all powerful being was always the goal, which is what we are taught regarding our reality. Really thought provoking.
Thank you for elegantly naming the quest I've been on my whole life: If I/we believe this, how then should I/we live? At its best (which it often is not), the discipline of ethics engages the question. However, too many ethicists do exactly what you describe: they start from a worldview they want to prove and then move to the question. My studies have shown that no worldview is privileged when it comes to the prior question: given that we are a person-in-community with varieties of worldviews, how then do we live so that all have a chance to flourish? Thanks for the clarity.
It occurs to me that defending a worldview is never really what I wanted. I thought I was suppose to find the “right” worldview and stick with it. Inhabit it. Be able to explain it. Justify it. Use it. Perhaps even gather others who share, close enough, my worldview. But prior to worldview, to concepts, is the human animal who wants to survive and flourish with dignity, grace, and purpose. Thank you so much for naming this thing I did not know needed so desperately to be named.
My deconstruction path took me towards Buddhism as I still found the need to return to some basic understanding of reality since I was without (by choice) the structural compass to make decisions by. Buddhism by design points me within my experience of the current moment to get comfortable in and work from. The mechanisms of Zen Buddhist practices are helping me see and get comfortable with my experienced reality. It sounds like more exploration in this area could provide some very helpful and meaningful language, especially for people needing to understand why religion failed them when it seems to work for others. Looking forward to hearing more as you distill this path you're on!
A tad on the lengthy side, but worth reading in portions if you prefer. I interpret the existence of life as being akin to how a flower grows, buds, spreads out its petals, exposes its reproductive organs, is pollinated by others (pollinator critters), unfurls itself as far as it can go, then - when all benefits have been taken and others received - begins to die back, refold its ‘bits’, produces a fruit (where possible or capable), and then dies and falls away from the main plant, a plant that either continues living in its current form or transforms or dies back to the ground itself. I’ve likened it to the life cycle of, say, a brier rose. Mine flowers briefly in the grand scheme of existing life cycles and then what’s left is a rose hip. What will that do next? I intend to watch.
In the meantime, enjoy Jim’s essay…
As someone who you permitted to look at an early draft of your upcoming book, this article certainly encapsulates much of the thinking contained there. The Killers got it right when they asked 'Are we human?' (Couldn't work out the 'are we dancer' bit, but here we are.)
Oh, Jim, I think there is a wonderfully compelling idea here. But as I kept reading, it felt as though you kept making the ski jump longer while gradually reducing its pitch. Instead of sending me into flight, I found myself sliding farther and farther, wondering where I was going to end.