sonoman wrote:How old are you, Robert?

I was born on 23 March 1963 so today is my 50th birthday.

Climax Social Evolution Theory at: http://biomystic.org./climax101.htm. This is the secular paradigm needed that will "naturally" lead to the best, sustainable, technological answers to human impact on world eco-systems.

I like your paper Sonoman - the best thing from you that I have read - but like all your writing it is far too arrogant and oversells its value. You are contributing to a new paradigm, not defining it.

I admit that I am arrogant too. since moving to the ocean and understanding precession as the framework of mythology are big transformative ideas. Nonetheless I try to present my ideas in a contestable and limited way, welcoming sensible questions and challenges.

MANY MANY HAPPY RETURNS Mr ROBERT TULIP!!!

and thanks a felt 'n meltin' million for all the posts and time.

Humans are a tricky addition to the earth.

We are the only animals that really has the ability to care for the planet, but our power also makes our indifference or mistakes into terrible dissaster.

Robert Tulip wrote:

sonoman wrote:How old are you, Robert?

I was born on 23 March 1963 so today is my 50th birthday.

Climax Social Evolution Theory at: http://biomystic.org./climax101.htm. This is the secular paradigm needed that will "naturally" lead to the best, sustainable, technological answers to human impact on world eco-systems.

I like your paper Sonoman - the best thing from you that I have read - but like all your writing it is far too arrogant and oversells its value. You are contributing to a new paradigm, not defining it.

I admit that I am arrogant too. since moving to the ocean and understanding precession as the framework of mythology are big transformative ideas. Nonetheless I try to present my ideas in a contestable and limited way, welcoming sensible questions and challenges.

Yeah, you are, Robert, and again you can't resist the atheist attack of EVERY concept I post no matter what it is. Even when you like it, and you should, because that's the response I get every time I present it to people concerned with environmental awareness. It is a grand concept, elegantly simple, like natural selection and a tremendous tool for culling out bad technology, bad ideas, with a sustainable standard of what really works and what doesn't. But still you have to sling the barb out. That's not only arrogance speaking but a vicious grudge against theists that seems always uppermost in atheist minds. I have yet to find the atheist on these talkboards who can admit that this theist has produced intellectual tools of highest quality for dealing effectively with environmental problems. I've been an environmental activist since formulating my first communitarian social change model in 1968, the Communiversity (http://biomystic.org/communiversities.htm) You were five years old. I'm an elder now and in our times elders are mostly ignored people which is one reason I like remaining in "Indian Country" because there they still are honoring their elders unlike most of America. I wish you many more years of being in this marvelous incredibly intricate world we live in and steward as its conscious awareness of itself as a living organism all connected. But for me, Robert, the connections go into the realm of spiritual experiences linking humanity together in a Grand Design that expands the mind, literally. Which is what it's supposed to do. Spring has sprung and it's a New Age. Please know I bear you or no atheist varmints any malice aforethought although it's Crossed my mind.
Prior to 1998 when I discovered EL Elyon as the true heavenly Father of Jesus, I was in the same boat as many Christians of conscience find themselves in with a Bible God of Israel that no moral person could ever respect let alone worship. The New Testament is unclear about the identity of Jesus' heavenly Father so it takes research into the Bible's roots to ferret out the true story of the two separate gods of Israel, EL and EL's son, Yahweh. Before 1998 I could only imagine the God who was guiding me into a new formulation of Christianity was not that awful Old Testament monster. I could and did identify with the Rastafarian's conception of God the Father as "Jah", a God of Love. I dropped my "GaiahJah" slogan in 1998 as EL replaced the need for any "Jah" of love. EL is a sweetheart of a God Most High already with Canaanite appellations "EL the Kindly One", "EL the Friendly One", immediately showing the difference between EL and Yahweh all gussied up as YHWH, the Fraud of Israel. But then in 2007 God came to me as a Voice for the first time in 28 years of spiritual reception and identified Itself as Father Jesus. I was told in spiritual revelation that while on earth Jesus Christ was the Son of God but once ascended to heaven he became one with God. I have the Elohim conception of the Godhead so that it is a Holy Family and that cannot be separated into only one masculine or feminine identity. It's an "Us", a "We" because it represents Humanity evolved into God. So once again I can use "GaiaJah" where "Jah" is Father Jesus, "Sky Father" to Mother Earth. For you, Robert, a Spring birthday present.

What have been your actual activities as an environmentalist? That's the question that first comes to my mind. If your religion has empowered you to live more sustainably than the rest of us, good for you and good for it (religion). I conceive of environmentalists (though not a word I like much) as rallied around one cause, regardless of religious or even political beliefs. Would you make common cause with an atheist for the larger sake of doing better by the planet?

Here are my latest comments on the environment, from other boards, relating to the mythology of the anthropocene.

Conventional patriarchal monotheism seeks to alienate spirit from nature by suppressing cosmic knowledge. If I can make a comparison, in ancient Babylon there was a mythopolitical conflict between Marduk, representing the Heavenly Control of the King, and Tiamat, representing the Oceanic Kaos of the Mother, as an archetype we could compare to Maxwell Smart versus Siegfried, or Rocky versus Natasha. The social consensus in ancient patriarchal times was that Marduk was Good Spirit and Tiamat was Evil Nature. Their battle represented the struggle for cultural progress, a battle which found its way into the Bible, informing ideas as various as dominion and fall, sweat of the brow, and the war in heaven between Michael and Satan.

The goal of dominion reflected in Genesis was to exercise control over nature. However, this simplistic consensus around dominion, which has been the basis of the patriarchal psychology of social control, fails to see how creativity emerges from the edge of chaos, through an openness to the mystery. By condemning chaos as evil, the attitude of control became rigid, narrow and misogynist, holding to a dogmatic exclusion of everything it did not understand.

So the wall built up around conventional faith throws out the astronomical baby with the astrological bathwater. This means that since ancient times scientific observation of the cosmos and how we connect to it has been condemned whenever a feared association with magical speculation has been seen. This is really important to explain the shuddering irrational hostility that greets astrotheology. People only want to recognise what they can control. Astral symbolism recognises the uncontrollable divine in nature, whereas conventional theology kicks God upstairs into an imaginary heaven as some sort of supernatural fat controller.

The idea that Tiamat was a matrifocal Goddess whose worship was replaced by the patriarchal Marduk is rejected by modern academic consensus. While this rejection is itself highly culturally interesting as showing prevailing misogynist bias, I find this suggestion of Tiamat as an earlier object of veneration plausible as a model for an older peaceful society in harmony with nature, replaced by the warlike imperial spirit of control. This is what Robert Graves discusses in The White Goddess.

So, with the question of Catholic alienation from nature, we see a patriarchal vision in which the power of the king, the Marduk archetype, is justified by hierarchy and dogma, whose social power is seen as more important than the Tiamat archetype of natural truth.

While I consider the Gospels to be purely fictional, I consider that the Jesus story provides our deepest understanding of the actual social conflict between good and evil, and can be reclaimed from the controllers. I see the gospel Jesus as harking back to an older vision of equality between the sexes. The cross and resurrection motif of the passion indicate how Jesus held to an integral vision respecting ancient chaotic understanding of peace and love, symbolised as Tiamat. The imperial society of his day, based on Marduk-style assumptions, rejected this natural vision of equality and its ultimate power. The resurrection is therefore a symbol of the return of Tiamat - that the eternal chaotic cosmic power of the oceanic feminine will overwhelm the alienated historic masculine efforts to exclude and control nature.

THis mythic conflict between Marduk and Tiamat is at the root of the observation that we are living in the anthropocene, a new geological epoch where human attempts to control nature are decisive for planetary ecology. The essential mutation, flowing from the earlier emergence of language, was the growth of technology, especially industrial agriculture. Language makes humans different in kind rather than in degree from dumb animals. The coordinating function of language means the Biblical concept of human dominion over nature is inevitable, because words enable humans to achieve unrivalled power through technology. Human control of nature has grown exponentially since the 'fall from grace' got underway around 4000 BC. And yet, the Bible also contains a message of redemption and atonement, through the comment at Rev 11:18 that the wrath of God is against those who destroy the earth.

God is Gaia, purely natural. Mother Earth is storing up wrath against the alienated human fantasy that dominion means spirit is in control, that humans are separate from and superior to nature. If we imagine we are aliens from mother earth she will kill us. That is why supernaturalism is evil. But the anthropocene can shift gear from the harsh Biblical hostility to nature expressed in the fall dictum of ‘sweat of the brow’. Dominion should mean stewardship, not control. Dominion can change to a humble stewardship of nature, respecting nature as encompassing culture. We have the brains to deliberately mutate into a global civilization of universal abundance and peace and ecological harmony.

As we move into a new paradigm of respectful dominion, we need new values that enable human productivity in harmony with nature. My view is that the core problems can be seen at various levels, both religious and political. The religious problem is about reconstructing myths to understand how we can atone for our sins against mother earth. The political problem can be approached through the lens of climate change, and the hostility of the alienated towards research and development into new energy technology.

My personal view on climate change is that the leading candidate for a new technology to achieve climate stability is large scale ocean based algae production to replace fossil fuels and provide abundant food, fertilizer and fabric. The technological key in my view is use of bags of floating fresh water to innovate new industrial oceanic processes, using energy from tide, wind, wave, sun and current to churn the oceans and build floating cities and factories. By moving to the ocean, using technology to achieve this shift on a vastly accelerated scale compared to whales, humans can achieve a sustainable global population many times our current level while giving back ecosystems to the wild animals. While this may read as science fiction, I remain interested to conduct laboratory tests to explore feasibility of these ideas.

We do not need sacrificial hair shirts or Jeremiads to transform the global economy. But we do need to recognise that the current apocalyptic problems facing our planet are prefigured in the Bible, for example in the war in heaven between Michael and Satan, which can be reconfigured and flipped on its traditional head to see the evil power of Satan as the prevailing patriarchal paradigm of alienated control, and the archangel Michael as representing the good forces symbolised by Gaia and Tiamat.

QUOTE=neilzero;2117788]These things are difficult without government and/or rich institutional incentives. [/QUOTE]Global warming is the primary threat to human security, so should be prevented through a new Apollo/Manhattan Project led by NASA and the Copenhagen Consensus. Research and development of geoengineering technology offers the promise of universal abundance through climate management and carbon mining, but has to be approached in a way that will guarantee ecological sustainability. [QUOTE=neilzero;2117788] We need to give the mad scientists some protection from punishment for their mistakes, otherwise few will move beyond ideas on paper. [/QUOTE]Group-think is a powerful force, for scientists just as much as for non-scientists. The sad fact is that the current strategy of emission reduction supported by scientific group-think is a useless failure. The equation is simple. We are exponentially increasing emissions, now standing at about 32 gigatonnes of CO2e per year. To stabilise the climate we need technology that can remove more than 40 gigatonnes of CO2e per year to stop the impending collapse of human civilization. Tinkering at the margins by carbon taxes, hair shirts, earth hour and other minor sacrificial stunts is worse than useless because it gives the false impression of activity. Carbon taxes are like pushing on a string – it does not move anything at the other end of the string. To pull the string we need a new Apollo Project to develop technology for climate management. [QUOTE=neilzero;2117788] I suspect thousands of underfunded and too small scale projects have been tried and abandoned, some of which would have been great had we persisted. [/QUOTE]Possibly, but I also think that most renewable projects lack a path to scaleability. For example solar cells and wind turbines are resource intensive. Leveraging oceanic energy using waterbags has a clear path to planetary scale, since the produced algae can be used to fabricate new bags, and all the needed power comes from the sea. [QUOTE=neilzero;2117788]Brain storming has seen some great success = a few additional details can change failure to success. [/QUOTE] I actually think the problems we are discussing involve quite a deep cultural paradigm shift, so conversation about the philosophical issues around climate management is valuable. [QUOTE=neilzero;2117788]
I agree the 800 meter breakwall I suggested will take all the profit and more. Possibly something like coral is possible on a platform that floats a meter or two below the surface = Barnacles thrive even on ships frequently moving though the water at moderate speeds. Neil[/QUOTE]
A related idea builds on work of James Lovelock, William Calvin and others for pipes to pump rich water from the deep to the surface. These pipes can be modelled on jellyfish, with a flat flexible waterbag platform floating just below the waves, using wave undulation to accumulate central energy to pump up water through tendrils reaching down to the deep, and with the rich water then spreading across the platform in a way designed to maximise algae growth. Tethered in the open sea, this will become a reef supporting abundant marine life. The ocean is so big that there is plenty of space to make and mark such machines without causing shipping hazards or other risks. Adding CO2 to the water mix, mined from the air, will further increase productivity and make the ocean deserts bloom. Start off in a lab with a one metre diameter model, and in a few decades we can aim to have jellyfish algae pumps across the world ocean with size up to many kilometres wide, as the operational problems of scaling up are solved.

Arguments that make the Bible or other mythologies responsible for our history of exploiting the earth run into a couple of problems. The Hebrew word translated as "dominion" has to do with ruling or governing. The choice of "dominion" yields a different connotation that isn't necessarily in keeping with the ethic of governing. What the Bible commands only reflects, of course, what people had already been doing for thousands of years, though much less successfully than we have been able to do lately. All romantic notions of being but a part of nature to the contrary, humans are all about, and must be about, governing nature. What the limits are, whether this should mean control, is where the debate comes in, with people like me believing that geo-engineering on any large scale is folly, an attempt to control that only continues hubristic beliefs.

Another problem is that, regardless of scriptural or mythological foundations, humans have basically the same instinct to alter or control the environment. The religions or philosophies of the East have not resulted in a kinder, gentler treatment of the earth. The causes of our exploiting the earth are not to be looked for in any writings or oral myths.

DWill wrote:What have been your actual activities as an environmentalist? That's the question that first comes to my mind. If your religion has empowered you to live more sustainably than the rest of us, good for you and good for it (religion). I conceive of environmentalists (though not a word I like much) as rallied around one cause, regardless of religious or even political beliefs. Would you make common cause with an atheist for the larger sake of doing better by the planet?

Starting in 1968 with the Communiversity proposal, and 11 years before my 1979 religious conversion and going to the present day, I have authored and organized the following social change ideas and projects: You can read about my experiences over 40 years of social change and environmental protection activism. And at 69, I'm still at it, currently waiting on an important tribal council election happening next month to see if my tribal partner on the Heartlands Project and I have any reason to hope for a new start of this grand ancestral land reclamation project and much more.

Http://biomystic.org/creatingclimaxciv.htm

Climax Social Evolution Theory
Communiversities
Communities Magazine
Communitarian Village
World Community Land Trust
Salmon Creek Land Trust
The Bridge
Sequoia County Initiative
Gardenville
Sequoia County Museum
Biovilles
Communitarian Activism
Minority Rights Amendment
Sacramental Rights Coalition
Legalization of Marijuana
General Social Change
Anti-Zionism
Environment of Truth
Peace and Quiet Revolution
Tax the Super Rich
A U.S. National Bank
Communitarian Capitalism
Communitarian Society
Communitarian Government
Communikits
Mateel Video College
Environmental Projects
Tribal Truth Institute
Headwaters and Heartlands
Heartlands Trust Company
Palco Community Corporation
Lifeline Lottery
Nacua
Biomystic Inc.

DWill wrote:Arguments that make the Bible or other mythologies responsible for our history of exploiting the earth run into a couple of problems. The Hebrew word translated as "dominion" has to do with ruling or governing. The choice of "dominion" yields a different connotation that isn't necessarily in keeping with the ethic of governing. What the Bible commands only reflects, of course, what people had already been doing for thousands of years, though much less successfully than we have been able to do lately. All romantic notions of being but a part of nature to the contrary, humans are all about, and must be about, governing nature. What the limits are, whether this should mean control, is where the debate comes in, with people like me believing that geo-engineering on any large scale is folly, an attempt to control that only continues hubristic beliefs.

Another problem is that, regardless of scriptural or mythological foundations, humans have basically the same instinct to alter or control the environment. The religions or philosophies of the East have not resulted in a kinder, gentler treatment of the earth. The causes of our exploiting the earth are not to be looked for in any writings or oral myths.

Traditional religions, including traditional (Pauline) Christianity have not recognized the Celestial Torah Christ as God's universal Humanitarian Model as the central core theology of the Near Eastern prophetic religions. Nationalism in terms of religious loyalty were the focus of these religions but underneath the tribal mythologies is this constant theme of "righteousness" being more about lovingkindness towards others than demand for absolute obedience to tribal law supposedly from God's commandment. Jesus took that type of "righteousness" to the highest level of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. In effect, Jesus was countering "biology" and it is God's Grand Strategy to do so. This is why I am a "Christian" because it appears only the Christ traditions have an inkling of the importance of producing a universal Model for a truly Humane Being. A truly humane being must sacrifice the otherwise "natural" instinct of men and women following men, to be subject to biological urges to establish and defend territories against perceived threats.

In order for men especially to learn the importance of Alpha leadership sacrificing power for love God provided the Christ crucifixion icon, the world's most psychologically powerful icon of self-sacrifice. An Alpha, must do this to provide the role model for other alphas to follow suit. If they don't, they continue the biologically based social and individual warfare. It only works by establishing a dominant Alpha Model who sacrifices and that's Christ. Buddha, somewhat.. but not the whole way like Christ sacrificed so Buddha comes in second place as universal Humanitarian Model. There are other problems with Buddhism too but here Buddha does fit into the sacrifice model of a highest Alpha changing the otherwise "normal" biological territorial imperative that governs human social life. The Biomystical meaning of Jesus' sacrifice: http://biomystic.org/biosacrifice.htm

sonoman wrote:

DWill wrote:What have been your actual activities as an environmentalist? That's the question that first comes to my mind. If your religion has empowered you to live more sustainably than the rest of us, good for you and good for it (religion). I conceive of environmentalists (though not a word I like much) as rallied around one cause, regardless of religious or even political beliefs. Would you make common cause with an atheist for the larger sake of doing better by the planet?

Starting in 1968 with the Communiversity proposal, and 11 years before my 1979 religious conversion and going to the present day, I have authored and organized the following social change ideas and projects: You can read about my experiences over 40 years of social change and environmental protection activism. And at 69, I'm still at it, currently waiting on an important tribal council election happening next month to see if my tribal partner on the Heartlands Project and I have any reason to hope for a new start of this grand ancestral land reclamation project and much more.

I get you to the extent that individual conversions of some kind seems to be the only way humans could possibly reduce their collective impact on the planet. Environmental laws mean unacceptable government coercion, and technological fixes are probably chimerical. The project does involve a sacrifice of what is thought of as God-given rights by the religious and simply the right to pursue happiness by the secular. I've disagreed with Robert that a technology like bio-fuel from algae is anything like a solution to threats to the environment.