Monthly Archives: July 2016

A Message from Mother Earth to Her Human child

Walk in the Mud

This letter was in response to a challenge I was given to speak about climate change in terms that Mother Earth would speak to her children.  Here is my response…

To Native Americans, the Deer is a symbol of gentleness and unconditional love. To Native Americans, the Deer is a symbol of gentleness and unconditional love.

My dear child,

As a mother, sometimes one of the most painful experiences can be having to impose radical consequences upon your own child. But, after giving warning after warning, it is time to do so. Your actions have endangered and caused irrevocable harm to our family system. Time and time again, I sent you messages and warnings to change your behavior. I even suggested ways that this could be done. But you wouldn’t listen.

I understand, as a child, pleasure seeking can be part of your nature. But, when it has become an irrational addiction, it’s time to set boundaries and kick you out of the…

View original post 295 more words

“Sanctuary for the visitors”

By Matt Licata

I really enjoy his writings.

“When you find yourself triggered. When your emotional world is on fire and you are hooked into shame, blame, and rage. When you notice you are practicing self-aggression, spiraling into addictive behavior, or complaining about your life… slow way down. Return into the aliveness of your body and listen. For your need yourself now more than ever.

Something is attempting to break through, out of the murky darkness and into conscious awareness. Some unmet feeling, some abandoned aspect of yourself, some underlying state of vulnerability. What is it? What is knocking on the door of your heart, longing to be reorganized and integrated back into the wholeness?

As a little one, it was intelligent to split off from overwhelming experience and aspects of yourself that you could not metabolize at the time. But these pieces are looking for you. They come as emissaries of revelation and carriers of an untamed intelligence and creativity. As ambassadors of the somatic world, they serve as gatekeepers of portals into aliveness, connection, and intimacy with all things.

Whether you choose to provide a home for these ones – or you do not – they will never relinquish their search, and will continue to appear as your friends, your children, your emotions, your lovers, and your life circumstances. They will even come in disguise as the mountains, the ocean, the blue, and the purple, to remind you of something you may have forgotten.

Look carefully as your unlived life is always appearing before you. Provide sanctuary for these visitors and their wisdom will be revealed.”

http://alovinghealingspace.blogspot.com/2016/07/sanctuary-for-visitors.html?m=1

Via Claims of Virtue

Thank you, Derrick Jensen.

“For years I’ve been haunted by a fantasy involving someone like Jesus. This person — woman or man, it doesn’t matter — comes into a community and talks about love. She, or he, tells people they should treat each other with respect, and that this respect must extend to humans and nonhumans alike. A crowd gathers as this person says they should do unto others as they’d have others do unto them, and they begin to murmur quietly as they hear that they should share with each other everything they own. The discomfort of especially the crowd’s children grows more noticeable as this stranger tells them they should love each other, love the land. (He or she says nothing about loving the enemy.) The children hide giggles behind their hands, and now even the adults bite the insides of their cheeks. Finally, after much hesitation, one of the community members responds, “Friend, we respect what you have to say, and thank you for telling us, but can’t you tell us something we don’t already know?” The stranger looks closely, and seeing the obvious well-being of the people, realizes that her (or his) words are redundant. The stranger merges into the community, and all continue with the dailiness of their lives.

The reality of our Judeo-Christian culture is of course far different. A primary purpose of Judeo-Christianity has NOT been to move us toward a community where the teachings of someone like Jesus — simple & necessary suggestions for how to get along with each other — are made manifest in all aspects of life, BUT INSTEAD TO PROVIDE A THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR A SYSTEM OF EXPLOITATION. Easy as this is to say, not many people say it (at least in public). It is more convenient for exploiter and exploited alike to pretend their parasitic relationship is Natural, ordained by God. It is easier to believe in a logic that leads directly from original sin to totalitarianism — Because human beings are selfish, evil creatures, they must be controlled; therefore might, guided by an all-seeing God as interpreted by an elite priesthood, makes right — than it is to take personal responsibility or one’s own actions, and to fight for egalitarianism. It is easier to listen to the voice of ‘God’ than it is to listen to the voice of one’s conscience, suffering, and outrage. And it is easier to follow the well-worn yet faulty logic leading once again from original sin this time to apocalypse — Because human beings are evil, and have sinned, they must die. All beings on Earth die. Therefore, all beings on Earth must be evil, and must have sinned. Death is the flower of sin. To avoid death requires the annihilation of evil: therefore, all things on Earth must be annihilated — far easier than it is to accept one’s death as natural. It is also easy, so sanctimonious, to shift responsibility for your own choices and their consequences onto the divine plan of some invisible ‘God’.

If you feel like raping a woman, don’t just do it; have your God decree that under some circumstances such behavior is not only acceptable, but righteous, your God-given right: “And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her . . . then thou shalt bring her home to thine house . . . . If thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go wither she will; but thou shall not sell her for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.”

Rape alone is problematic as a method of social domination, in that it only temporarily provides the rapist control; to extend this over time, to permanently “make merchandise of her”, you must have your God issue a series of decrees hemming women in, binding them to you as your property. Have your God say (while hoping no one notices your own lips moving) that because Eve listened to the serpent — remember, my father never beat anyone who didn’t have it coming — every woman “shall welcome [her] husband’s affections, and he shall be [her] master.” Have your God say any woman who has sexual intercourse freely will be put to death (her body not being her own). Any man, too, who has sex with another man’s wife shall die, because he has diddled with another man’s property, although no punishment shall be meted out on the man who has intercourse with an unmarried woman (but we’ll put her to death for good measure). Small wonder that one of the daily Orthodox prayers reads: “I thank thee, O Lord, that thou has not created me a woman.””

(From ‘A Language Older Than Words’ — highly recommended “decolonize” read)

“To the One Who Tried to Break Me”

“We met before the time I knew myself.

It was the time when your approval mattered—when your approval became the foundation of the fragmented woman I was.

“You tell me who I am,” I would say, as I awaited your instruction, wide-eyed and so very eager to please. And you told me who I needed to be to win your approval, and your love so laced with conditions and strings attached to heights I would never reach. You drew your lines and wooed me into them.

But your lines soon grew into walls. Walls so wide and tall and deep I could no longer see over them or around them. They closed in around me and I became captive to them as they seethed with your hushed expectations.

I could never leave, for if I did I would know of your rejection, your disapproval, your criticism, and abuse. And you were the one to build me, so I could not bear that you would break me.

Though afraid of the darkness, I stayed in your walls so fraught with conditional love and approval. Sometimes I would see a shard of light, fleetingly, and I would believe for one whimsical moment in the love you were never capable of; that perhaps you would see beyond the surface so smeared with scars and recognize the purity of the heart underneath.

But I would soon learn your love was not light, nor hope, nor truth, nor freedom. It was the sound of the door as it closed behind you, the lock and key to your walls of darkness. I molded and shaped and bent myself to fit within your walls, but no matter how small I became for you, my efforts were futile when the walls would always change shape on your irrational whims.

The darkness grew thicker, more pungent with your dissatisfaction, until my heart too became dark, filled with a blackness that poisoned my mind and wasted away my soul. I began to hate myself almost as much as you did, this girl who could do no right. Worthless, hopeless, useless.

You nearly broke me.

But not quite.

Because you didn’t hear the primal roar that began to swell inside the pit of my stomach before it made its way into my bones and out through my scream. You didn’t know what I had already survived through, the tenaciousness of my strength, my courage, my resilience. You didn’t know of my fighting spirit that may have lay down short of hope for a time, but never without defeat.

For I cannot be defeated.

I am a warrior, made of the dust and the stars and the oceans and the skies.

I am a phoenix that has risen once again, a force of nature, a hurricane, a storm, a raging fire.

I am certain, I am sure. I am complete.

My feet stand firm upon the earth and she carries me, her energy rising up within me, and though the winds may blow I cannot be moved. The shard of light was never you. It was always the light within me, the embers of a powerful spirit you never quite burned out.

Your walls have no hold on me as I walk away now, light on the wings of my freedom. You tried, but you did not break me. You will try again, you always do. But I refuse. I know who I am now. I hear the voice of truth as it whispers in the stillness of the place you used to be. And I know I will never again be found captive within the dark walls of your approval.

For my light can no longer be contained.”

By Kathy Parker on Elephant Journal

To the One Who Tried to Break Me.

“Science, Nature and Gender”

lemme just share some of this from Vandana Shiva’s ‘Staying Alive’…
of course, this is just another piece of “their” puzzle. but it’s all relative.

Science, Nature and Gender

“The recovery of the feminine principle is an intellectual and political challenge to maldevelopment as a patriarchal project of domination and destruction, of violence and subjugation, of dispossession and the dispensability of both women and nature. The politics of life centered on the feminine principle challenges fundamental assumptions not just in political economy, but also in the science of life-threatening processes.
Maldevelopment is intellectually based on, and justified through, reductionist categories of scientific thought and action. Politically and economically each project which has fragmented nature and displaced women from productive work has been legitimised as ‘scientific’ by operationalising reductionist concepts to realise uniformity, centralisation and control. Development is thus the introduction to ‘scientific agriculture’, ‘scientific animal husbandry’, ‘scientific water management’ and so on. The reductionist and universalising tendencies of such ‘science’ become inherently violent and destructive in a world which is inherently interrelated and diverse. The feminine principle becomes an oppositional category of non-violent ways of conceiving the world, and of acting in it to sustain all life by maintaining the interconnectedness and diversity of nature. It allows an ecological transition from violence to non-violence, from destruction to creativity, from anti-life to live-giving processes, from uniformity to diversity and from fragmentation and reductionism to holism and complexity. [aka, how Life was; how Life was intended to BE.]

It is thus not just ‘development’ which is a source of violence to women and nature. At a deeper level, scientific knowledge, on which the development process is based, is itself a source of violence. Modern reductionist science, like development, turns out to be a patriarchal project, which has excluded women as experts, and has simultaneously excluded ecological and holistic ways of knowing, which understand and respect nature’s processes and interconnectedness as science.

 


 

[ MODERN SCIENCE AS PARTIARCHY’S PROJECT ]
Modern science is projected as a universal, value-free system of knowledge, which has displaced all other belief and knowledge systems by its universality and value neutrality, and by the logc of its method to arrive at objective claims about nature. Yet the dominant stream of modern science, the reductionist or mechanical paradigm, is a particular response to a particular group of people. It is a specific project of western man which came into being during the 15th and 16th centuries as the much-acclaimed Scientific Revolution. During the last fear years feminist scholarship has begun to recognise that the dominant science system emerged as a liberating force not for humanity as a whole (though it legitimised itself in terms of universal betterment of the species), but as a [perverted] masculine and partiarchal project which necessarily entailed the subjugation of both nature and women. Harding has called it a ‘western, bourgeois, masculine project’, and according to Keller

  • Science has been produced by a particular sub-set of the
    human race, that is, almost entirely by ‘white’, middle class
    males. For the founding fathers of modern science, the reliance
    on the language of gender was explicit; they sought
    a philosophy that deserved to be called ‘masculine’, that
    could be distinguised from its ineffective predecessors
    by its ‘virile’ powers, its capacity to bind Nature to
    man’s service and make her his slave.

 

Bacon (1561-1626) was the father of modern science, the originator of the concept of the modern research institute and industrial science, and the inspiration behind the Royal Society. His contribution to modern science and its organisation is critical. From the point of view of nature, women and marginal groups, however, Bacon’s programme was not humanly inclusive. It was a special programme benefiting the middle class, European, male entrepreneur through the conjunction of human knowledge and power in science.

In Bacon’s experimental method, which was central to this masculine project, there was dichotomising between male and female, mind and matter, objective and subjective, rational and emotional, and a conjunction of masculine and scientific dominating over nature, women and the non-west. His was not a ‘neutral’, ‘objective’, ‘scientific’ method — it was a masculine mode of aggression against nature and domination over women. The severe testing of hypotheses through controlled manipulations of nature, and the necessity of such manipulations if experiments are to be repeatable, are here formulated in clearly sexist metaphors. Both nature and inquiry appear conceptualized in ways modelled on rape and torture — on man’s most violent and misogynous relationships with women — and this modelling is advanced as a reason to value science. According to Bacon, ‘the nature of things betrays itself more readily under the vexations of art than in its natural freedom.’ The discipline of scientific knowledge and the mechanical inventions it leads to, do not ‘merely exert a gentle guidance over nature’s course; they have the power to conquer and subdue her, to shake her to her foundations.’

In ‘Tempores Partus Masculus’ or ‘The Masculine Birth of Time’, translated by Farrington in 1951, Bacon promised to create ‘a blessed race of heroes and supermen’ who would dominate both nature and society. The title is interpreted by Farrington as suggesting a shift from from the older science, represented as female — passive and weak — to a new masculine science of the scientific revolution which Bacon saw himself as heralding. In ‘New Atlantis’, Bacon’s Bensalem was administered from Solomon’s House, a scientific research institute, from which male scientists ruled over and made decisions for society, and decided which secrets should be revealed and which remain the private property of the institute.

Continue reading