Union News

Join us!

Join EEIULIST!

New Links

Brochures

Chapters

Resources

Fellows

Members

Sponsors

Letters and Discussions

Constitution

Contact

Disclaimer

EEIU Pakistan / Layyah ECO Club Reports & Letters

Update, 11 October 2004 (from Chair Prof. A. Mirani)

Article, January 27, 2003 (by Chair Prof. A. Mirani)

The phrase 'philosophy of social sciences' suggests that there is scientific study of the social and that the aims and methods of such study may differ from those of science in general. Once, mankind took itself as the measure of all things and explained nature anthropomorphically; the result of the scientific revolution was to overthrow anthropomorphism, to depersonalize nature and explain it by postulating orderly and law-like processes that unfold mechanically.

The controversy over what is natural and what is conventional has been reshaped by the success of natural sciences. It is widely held that the success of natural sciences is the result of the application of the empirical method. As European society changed from simple to systematic through industrialization, more systematic thought had to be given to altering current convention, which initiated the individualism/holism debate among scholars. One party, the individualists, hold that only individual human beings are real and large-scale social entities are aggregates which can be reduced to theories about individuals. The opposing holists party questions the reality of individuals when they can be explained as creatures of society, but they both usually accept the same methodological form of empirical observation.

Everyday organic life and sciences (biological and social) are not strictly universal but admit exceptions. The laws of daily life are relatively loose or normic laws. These laws dominate not only sciences such as biology, psychology, social sciences, and the humanities but also technology. These differ significantly from laws of physics. These laws express a certain kind of prototypical normality which is independent of statistical majority. The laws of basic nature sciences (physics and chemistry) are closed system laws and are expressed as universal generalizations. No real system is strictly closed. Closed or isolated systems are systems in which there is no exchange between system and environment. Physical system laws (closed) are idealizations which cannot be true without employing approximation procedures. In contrast, all sciences (biological to social) are concerned with open systems, especially the living systems with their cultural and technical products. These living systems have the capacity of self-regulation and constantly adjust their real states in order to attain norm states. Their compensatory power is limited — if external influences exceed it, the system is destroyed. Evolutionary theory explains why the phenomenological behavior of evolutionary systems obeys normic laws. Green plants can normally perform photosynthesis. However, it is possible that due to a catastrophic event, all green plants might lose this ability and become extinct after a short evolutionary period. In short, prototypical normality and statistical normality are connected by the laws of evolutionary selection, which ultimately support the laws of social science. This oversimplification gives us the idea that self-regulatory systems have evolved through evolution, yet does not explain any analytic truth resulting from concept explication (of which modern western philosophy is considered champion). It expresses a contingent truth resulting from philosophical analysis of empirical knowledge. As a matter of fact, almost all of the self-regulatory systems that exist in our world have evolved through biological or cultural evolution.

The metaphysical and cultural reconstruction of our time is not merely tinkering with environmental problems, but is addressing ourselves to the fundamental causes underlying our multiple crises. These causes go beyond the economic and technological. They even go beyond the moral. These crises are embedded in the underlying matrix of our worldview. If we want to get rid of this crisis, we need to make changes in our worldview on the conceptual level.

Living organisms (animals, insects, plants and human) and their nonliving (a biotic) environment are inseparably interrelated (holistic approach), act upon each other and form a single global ecosystem (in its genereralized form). From the nourishment standpoint an ecosystem has two components: (a) self-nourishing, in which fixation of light energy, use of simple inorganic substances, and buildup of complex substances predominate (plants), and (b) other- nourishing, in which utilization, rearrangement, and decomposition of complex materials predominate (animals).

From the functional standpoint an ecosystem may be conveniently analyzed in terms of the following: (1) energy circuits, (2) food chains, (3) diversity patterns in time and space, (4) nutrient cycles, (5) development and evolution, (6) control (cybernetics). No life is possible alone or without all components of an ecosystem. By this approach, life and nature form a complex unity. To maintain order in a life ecosystem, energy must be expended to pump out disorder; but human ambitions and desires to control nature and maximize profit (industrial) are stresses that increase the maintenance costs of this self-regulating system. The more we demand from our surroundings (nature) the less energy nature has for maintenance and, therefore, the more it costs man to prevent disorder. Man is acting as a parasite in the life ecosystem, taking what he wants with little regard for the welfare of his companions (animals, plants, rocks) and environment.

Religious institutions and historic belief systems have been identified as important conduits in shaping social attitudes toward nature and these life ecosystems (nature and environment). Historical theses suggest that Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs have cherished the domination of nature. The impact of Abrahamic beliefs (Jews, Christians and Muslims) on life ecosystems and our attitudes toward nature is highly questionable. The conception of nature as an object of exploitation is found in all the sacred books of this Abrahamic tradition. God gave control and mastery of the Earth to humans: "Then God said: Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all creatures (even women) that move along the ground" (Genesis 12:6). This divine message is unique and different among all other religious traditions (especially Indian religions) that tend to have a more benign view of nature as an end in itself. Contrary to all other religious traditions, the Judeo/Christian/Muslim world has developed a materialistic and exploitative perspective on nature as a consequence of this religious-turned-cultural command (Hayes 2001). Historically, materialism was never propagated by these religions and an instrumental view of nature did not develop; nature was viewed in symbolic and anti-materialistic terms, and the life ecosystem was not conceptualized in utilitarian terms. Later reformers radically transformed views of nature. When the so-called enlightenment evolved out of this Abrahamic religious tradition, the holistic view of God and nature (mystic) was abandoned and nature became the means as well as the end of investigation. With the loss of a holistic world view, material progress, at the expense of nature, became the prominent cultural feature evolved through Abrahamic traditional beliefs. This led to an attitude of domination without adaptation. Although the theoretical and empirical relationship between religion and nature remains a highly complex issue, the argument of key differences between Abrahamic versus non-Abrahamic religions is a quite valid one. The former believe that God created nature to serve humans, while the latter worship nature.

Indian religions teach that the relationship between man and life ecosystem (nature) is not one of opposition but of natural dependence. In Hinduism it is said that all living beings are of the same in essence (Pre-Vedic literature). Killing animals is forbidden because life is sacred. Even the animals and nature are worshiped. Buddhism, as a pan-Asian religion, philosophy and supreme reflection of spiritual, cultural and social life in the eastern world, teaches mutual dependence between man and nature (Esho Funi). Sho is the independent life entity; eho stands for the environment supporting life. Buddhist thought finds the ultimate basis of the unity of subject and environment in a cosmic life force. Buddhists formulated a set of criteria for spiritual judgment based on a belief in harmony between man and the life ecosystem. Jaina-darsana has religious as well as philosophical aspects: Ahimsa, or nonviolence with a universal love which results from recognizing kinship among all living beings, is the chief religious idea (Onekanta Veda — looking at reality from many points of view). The influence of forests and animals is quite evident in the life and thinking of the Indian people: (1) idol worship along with contemplation of the divine in a concrete form, (2) elevation of animals, birds, and trees to a higher position in the scheme of the life ecosystem, and (3) the exaltation of the female aspect of divine.

The adherents of the Abrahamic tradition are handicapped by their paralyzing tradition of exclusiveness and intolerance, which is the practical outcome of higher degree of monotheism and materialism in their belief systems. Among the Hindus, Buddhists and the East Asian people (Sufis) there has been a tradition of mutual tolerance and respect toward nature. The notion of globalization as a market society (advocated by western thinkers) in which atomized individuals are bound together only by a pattern of exchange of goods and services, and in which the state is night-watchman and belief, an instrument to fulfill the economic greed then the concept of sustainability in life ecosystem, is a false one. Is there anything that can be done to avoid this 'normal' course of events? The answer is yes. There is a reasonable way of avoiding what appears to be unavoidable. In systems literature it is called learning and adaptation. A system that wishes to adopt the survival strategy of avoiding the unavoidable would acquire all the characteristics of a learning (complex) system. A learning life system would continually monitor its conceptual foundations, external and internal, and assess its degree of usefulness. Successful concepts and experiences would be repeated and unsuccessful ones would be abandoned. It is the human quest to evolve a strategy to secure meaning, well-being and a sense of harmony in life ecosystem. On the instinctive level of existence the quest involves how to secure food, shelter and enough amenities for satisfying instincts. At the time when human knowledge was in its infancy, when human tools were limited and the environment was harsh, the forces of nature and co-existing species were seen as threatening. To protect himself from these potential threats man created deities and feelings of hatred toward his surroundings. In a universe so conceived, values are predominantly personal. They regulate the relationship of nature to human, human to animals, plants and environment, and human to human. The importance of global life eco-system or nature as a value in itself does not enter the picture because: (a) nature is regarded as a threat, (b) because in the monotheistic belief tradition all power and value is vested in a personal but invisible deity, so that the visible is left helpless.

The heritage of the myths evolved throughout human history and now stored in the human psyche (especially those of Abrahamic tradition) is full of love of power and hatred of the unknown. The reckless thinking of progress, high sense of conquest, lust for power and domination, and lack of a sense of harmony are all related to a sense of hatred and drive for domination. The devastation of the natural environment and the elimination of other living species (plants and animals) resulted in a disappearance of social cohesion and environmental imbalance that cannot be rationally justified. Twentieth century western philosophy is a tribute to reasoning. It is knowledge-focused in its abstraction and human-focused in its moral terms. Western philosophers have attempted to construct a structure for a value system based on reasoning with reference to human ambitions and desires. It is necessary to understand a deeper nature of the objects in the universe. Instead of designing a value system taking man as the frame of reference, it is necessary to develop a more diverse and sustainable system of values. This sustainable system of values means a system of values that is diverse in nature and is life-focused (not human focused). A life-focused value system refers to a system of values that takes all the components of the life ecosystem (plants, animals, rocks, humanity and the environment) as a frame of reference. Its foundational value is rooted in the idea of the sanctity of life in all its forms and manifestations. The acceptance of the idea of sanctity of life as a whole prompts us to protect other forms of life and to have respect for nature and natural habitats as well as natural environment (life eco-system). Bio-ethical principles (eco-ethics, see Kinne 2003) justify our rational strategies and practical choices toward sustainability of the life eco-system. To postulate a sustainable values system does not mean to postulate either absolute or objective values, but rather values that bind diverse components of the life eco-system tighter with certain attributes, propensities and common life imperatives. We need such a value system as a basic concept of our ethical reconstruction, conservation, and maintenance strategies.

The relationship between power and knowledge, and the impact of policy-making (government decisions in relation to public interest and sustainability) are central to philosophy and anthropology. The debate on the impact of policy must be extended by exploring its mechanisms, disguises, implications for cultural practices in different societies and life eco-system. Human policies construct their subjects as objects of power and economic gain in the same manner that ritual or kinship would. Power and desire for economic gain define what counts as knowledge, rationality and reality (in society). Power and economic desire often find ignorance, deception, self-deception, rationalization and lies more useful for their purposes than social truth and rationality, despite the costs. Our experience teaches us the ambiguity of the concepts that 'knowledge is power', that the more knowledge we have, the better the society, and that rational and technical argument will prevail over power. These ideas have deeply disturbing consequences for life as a whole, since most of our decision-making and choices are based on the force of reason. But one of the most important and historically proven truths about humanity is that it has the capacity to be open-minded: the capacity to live non-defensively with the question of how to live. It is the human strategy of defense against the varieties of social challenge. Human beings share their essence with living and non-living surroundings. The triumphant march of the human worldview evolving from Abrahamic traditions of religion and philosophy (including science) signified the rise of scientific technological values, instrumental and relativist, which are leading us to nihilism.

Bioethical (ecological) values bind us to our life ecosystem (nature), to the earth, the environment, and other living species. These are intrinsic in nature but not replicas of the religious absolute values of the past. These are eco-specific (species specific) and inter-subjective. These values bind us together and connect us with life, rocks and the environment in a specific way.

Eco-philosophy elevates protection of life, conservation, and sustainability in a global life eco-system as a core moral value. It reminds us that socio-ethical issues surrounding the production and uses of scientific and technological knowledge are bound to become increasingly important in human lives.

The laws of physics and chemistry are statistical throughout. The structure of living organisms' vital parts differs entirely from that of any piece of matter. The laws of physics cannot be applied to the behavior of complex systems. These are the normic laws, which can explain the behavior of complex systems. The mechanistic world view was once a path to freedom from the constraints and oppressions of religious consciousness. But in the twenty first century, technological consciousness appears as a trap with its uncontrolled power and its lack of sensitivity toward the life ecosystem. Thus, we should seek to re-establish a new balance in our own lives.

Bioethical (ecological) consciousness is a synthesis of human efforts to blend spiritual to material or logical to concrete. Ecological bioethical consciousness is like Buddhism, which does not evoke any notion of deity but rather teaches us that through one's own karma, one can attain levels of spiritual enlightenment like other old Indian spiritual concepts emerging out of their material manifestations. Thus, enlightenment comes through physical practices for the right tuning of the human consciousness. It is the historical legacy of the materialist worldview of nature that formulated the present human attitude toward the life ecosystem. This historically derived relationship can best be understood in terms of difference between the cultural traditions that emerged through Abrahamic religions and the cultural traditions of Indian civilization. It is only via the use of culturally and religiously diverse materials that humanity can investigate and formulate the genuine relationship between concepts and attitudes towards the life eco-system.

Man does not exist independently of the life eco-system, so he needs a mind tuned into the biotic world in a holistic and symbiotic manner. A participatory mind may play a more environmentally friendly and creative role that ties different components of life eco-systems together in flexible and harmonious ways. The process of 'greening' and diversifying the consciousness is not an automatic one. It requires great energy, spiritual will and a high degree of altruism. It is commonly assumed that evolution will ultimately deliver us some promised land, and it is only a matter of time until mankind will become enlightened, spiritually charged and behaviourally kind. This viewpoint is far too optimistic and dangerously simplistic. If mankind wants to save himself from the future retaliatory violence of nature, he needs to evaluate and reconstruct his strategies and social concepts.

The human consciousness works through an enormous number of tributaries of life. In changing consciousness, we are required to alter our behavioral system, which needs an open mystic mind, ready to accept diversity in materials, plurality in cultures and attitudes, and a holistic spirit of oneness in the life eco-system.

----- (2001) Luna Florencia is best proven a useless criteria. Jour. Bioethics 2001(4)
China NH (1999) Basic Buddhism. Juico Pub House, Delhi
Drake JM (2002) Two cultures and the two cultures. Jour Hist Philo of Life Sciences 22(2)
Heyes, BC (2001) Religion and attitude toward nature. British Journal of Sociology 52(1)
Kinne O (2003) EEIU Brochure. English Original. Inter-Research, Oldendorf/Luhe
Odum EP (??) Fundamentals of ecology. WB Saunders, London
Rosenberg A (2001) How is biological explanation possible? British Journal Philo Science 2001(4)
Schurz G (2001) What is normal? an evolution theoretic foundation of normic law. Jour Philo Science 2001(4)
Skolimowski H (1992) Living philosophy. Arkan Penguin Group, London
Schrodinger E (1995) What is life? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Still AG (2001) The environmentally sustainable organization. Jour Ethics and the Environment 2001(2)
Toynbee A, Toynbee I (1989) Choose life: a dialogue. Oxford Uni. Press, Oxford
Williams RB (1984) A new face of Hinduism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

This page was last updated on 12 October 2004.