The Triglav Circle will meet in Switzerland from the 13 -15 July, 2012. The gathering will take place in Les Charbonnières, [CH 1343] in the Canton de Vaud, very close to Geneva, Switzerland.
The proposed topic for the gathering is “Violence against Nature and Man, and the Search for the Common Good.” Two assumptions explain the choice of this subject. The first is that all forms of violence are related and feed each other: violence against the environment feeds violence in international and personal relations, and violence in the public discourse and policies feeds violence in schools and homes. The second assumption is that a coherent and shared perception of the values that constitute universal good can generate the peace and respect for all life without which humankind would find great difficulty freeing itself from the likely consequences of this violence, be it an ecological catastrophe, an atomic or chemical warfare, or the development of new forms of oppression and slavery. For more elaboration of this topic see notes added to this letter.
The agenda for discussion on this vast subject was already been touched upon at the last Triglav meeting, in Manchester, NH, 2011 when the notion of harmony with nature was debated and a contribution was made to the preparation by the United Nations of the forthcoming conference on environment and development (Rio + 20). http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?type=12&page=view&nr=285&menu=20&str=Harmony+with+Nature&x=58&y=17 When you get here click on Triglav Circle at the top of the list of contributions.
Notes elaborating ideas relevant to the proposed topic:
The points of entry into the discussion on the linkages between the objectives of peace and harmony with nature is that all forms of violence are related and feed each other are multiple. [See for example writings of John Locke on this subject].
1. Violence against the environment feeds violence in international relations and in personal relations. A public discourse justifying institutionalized violence, for instance the torture of prisoners, feeds violence in schools and in the homes, and violence against other species. Corruption is a form of violence. There is a continuum between shadow banking or tax havens and the deliberate use of pesticides or fertilizers known to be pollutants. Cynicism is a form of violence. There is also a continuum between, for example, corporate money buying legislatures and the advertising of products harmful to their consumers. Such connections occur through the strategies of various actors on the world scene, but also, and perhaps more deeply, through what is being called the spirit of the time.
2. To contain and hopefully eliminate violence, it is therefore necessary to at least modify, if not transform the spirit of the time, that is this vague and complicated set of ideas and beliefs, of intellectual and moral reflexes and constructions, which lead individuals and groups to think and act in a certain manner rather than in a different one. Since the opposite of violence is love, the task of those who are not satisfied with the current state of the world is to work for a more prominent place of Love in the spirit of the time.
3. And, as Nature –what is commonly called the “environment”- is so central to humanity, or, rather, is inseparable from the human condition, Love and Respect for Nature ought to be a privileged means of transforming the spirit of the time and a dominant objective of the world civilization to be constructed. Put differently, the assumption is that a widespread Love and Respect for Nature is not only a condition for addressing efficiently and durably environmental problems and threats, but would also help building a more peaceful, more just and more creative world. For links and connections between thoughts and acts and love are as strong as they are between thoughts and acts of violence.
4. The words “love,” “respect” and “nature” deserves some elaboration. As there is no love without respect, and as respect without love is formal and superficial, the juxtaposition of the two terms implies some redundancy. But it is probably still difficult to use “love” in the public discourse without a companion concept giving it…respectability. Regarding nature as well as other human beings, to love is to give. To love is to create the self by losing all selfishness and all self-centeredness. To love is to avoid all forms of instrumentalism in the relation with the Other, be it a human being, an animal, or a plant, or a “natural resource.” To reject instrumentalism, is to relate without oppressing, to use while refraining from misuse. Love excludes possession.
5. Why “Nature” rather than “environment”? The “environment” is external to us, human beings. We can harm it, or protect it, we can try to ignore it, or recognize that we depend on it, but we are not part of it. We are ontologically separated from “our” or “the” environment. “Nature” includes us, human beings. Protecting it, is to protect us, the human race. Loving it and respecting it, in all its forms and manifestations, is to love and respect ourselves and our descendants.
6. Obviously, love and respect for nature is not a new sentiment. And it is not a sentiment that is absent from today’s world. In all probability, it is shared by more people than fifty years ago, as the “environmental consciousness” has grown. But, again, it is a sentiment and a manner of thinking and acting that plays an insignificant, or at least an insufficient role in the multiple political and economic decisions that shape the contours of the world, and its future. The list of channels, or instruments, or means through which this sentiment could be disseminated and could become a stronger force than violence and its various manifestations, including greed and unrestrained competition, is open-ended. Every action, made with the right motives, matters. Some contend that every thought does matter. Three such channels are briefly evoked here, for the purposes of illustration and debate: philosophy, education, and the political discourse.