165. self, ecnomy and other
July 19, 2009 § Leave a comment
If we think of humans and the environment co-evolving, and our human capacities being what they are because of a more or less fit to the environment, then there are no meanings independent of us – except for how other beings themselves interpret the universe from their place in it. But that is conjecture on our part, since we have no direct link into their experience except by analogy and close observation (the “eyes” on butterfly wings are there to scare predators, and since the eyes look like eyes to us, and must to the predator, then the predator and humans share some deep similarities). Anything that involves us “independent of us” still is only discussable because we are made aware of it, and are in some very complex integration with it.
On the other and there are no humans without meaning in their world view, because meaning comes simply from what we do, especially if it is repetitive. One cannot be a cynic without a frame of meaning. Nature and humans are all mixed up in it together. To deny meaning is to have meaning as a frame.Self defined evolution is not a reasonable concept. The idea of a “self” is a concept emerging out of a complex social evolution within a particular society that is private property and market driven. Self defined implies defining self without a context, but there is no idea of self without a context and a history.
The reason this may be important is because we, many of us, are trapped in a world where inner and outer, self and other, are treated, post Descartes, as real, and this serves power and finance which wants us folks to be isolated elements of consumerism, not related citizens in kinship and friendship networks.
We have no experience of inner and outer, but we do have our experience. The inner-outer distinction is totally false and might be called the dead end of the west. Compare
Heaven and earth, perceiving mutually, bring down sweet dew (Lao Tzu 32).