A little bit less either/or

A great insight by the always intriguing Micheal Pollan. The notion of wilderness is a beautiful thing but it has made it all too easy for us to dismiss the not-wilderness as beyond redemption – as outside the circle of care. What’s needed is an ethic of sustainability that applies to all the other part of nature not given wilderness status.

Here he is:

We’ve had in this country what I call a wilderness ethic that’s been very good at telling us what to preserve. You know, eight percent of the American landmass we’ve kind of locked up and thrown away the key. That’s a wonderful achievement and has given us things like the wilderness park.

This is one of our great contributions to world culture, this idea of wilderness. On the other hand, it’s had nothing to say of any value for the ninety-two percent of the landscape that we cannot help but change because this is where we live. This is where we grow our food, this is where we work. Essentially the tendency of the wilderness ethic is to write that all off. Land is either virgin or raped. It’s an all or nothing ethic. It’s either in the realm of pristine, preserved wilderness, or it’s development– parking lot, lawn.

The Definition of Vice

A vice is something that you repeatedly do even though you know it will make you unhappier in the long run.

Politics, capitalism, and morality

The ever-brilliant  Jürgen Habermas reflecting on the proper role of politics and capitalism with respect to morality:

“Politics turns itself into a laughing stock when it resorts to moralising instead of relying upon the enforceable law of the democratic legislator. Politics, and not capitalism, is responsible for promoting the common good.”

It is not inherently the business of business to promote the public good and we abdicate our responsibility as political actors if we act as if it were. It’s the job of politics to enforce the public good and to pass and enforce legislation which compels business to do what needs to be done to achieve it.

Strange Brouhaha

So there’s a bit of a political tempest going on up here north of the 49th parallel. The opposition parties have made a legal but highly unusual (unprecedented?)  move to replace the current government with a coalition.  Joey de V posts an excellent summary of the goings on in Ottawa.

Over on Making Light, Graydon does an excellent job of discussing the legal and tactical issues facing the Governor General in comments.

Typically, the PM requests proroguation when the business of the house has been concluded. That means that either the agenda laid out in the throne speech has been dealt with or the government no longer intends to complete it. When the house of commons returns after proroguing, the government is supposed to give a new speech from the throne which sets a new legislative agenda. So, proroguing is a process which sends parliament into recess in order to allow the government to figure out a new agenda.

If the PM’s entire purpose in proroguing the house is to avoid a confidence vote and thus the fall of his/her government then the Governor General should probably not grant this request. The government is only allowed to stay the government as long as it has the confidence of the house and the fact of the Liberal/NDP coalition establishes that it no longer has it. Proroguation doesn’t, therefore, serve the interests of Parliament or the people. It only serves the interests of the party which currently forms the government.

Canadians should remember what it is all too easy to forget. We don’t elect parties or governments directly. We elect representatives who then form the government and who may or may not become part of it.

Stop the Bridge

The Powers-That-Be have all but decided that a bridge needs to cross the river from Gatineau and land on the front doorstep of our neighbourhood. Of all the options that could have been chosen, this one affects (negatively) the most people. Check out the fine purveyors of bridge-related information at Stop the Bridge.

It’s so simple

It’s so simple that it’s difficult to fathom. One thing you do not want, enlightenment-wise, is to act like a zen master. The whole point is to stop acting and to be. Who are you supposed to be? Whoever you are and that includes you with all your failings. Once you stop trying to pretend that you are someone you are not, growth can happen.

Most people do, in fact, grow. And I imagine it happens because most of us don’t manage to pretend to be someone we’re not 100% of the time. When we fail at it, that’s when the growth gets to occur.

Vigo Mortenson on CBC Radio’s Q

…quoted Shaw (as in George Bernard).

“A life spent making mistakes is not only more honourable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.”

Pessimism, Optimism, and Realism

“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts his sails”
William Arthur Wood

Heaven and Hell

According to David Chadwick in Crooked Cucumber, Shunryu Suzuki once told this story about heaven and hell.

In hell, everyone was gathered around a large table laden with edible delights of all kinds. But their arms were exceedingly short and the chopsticks were exceedingly long. As a result, noone could get the food into their mouths and they were frustrated and hungry and fighting with each other.

 In heaven, everyone was gathered around the same table laden with the same delightful foods. Their arms too were exceedingly short and the chopsticks too long. But in heaven everyone was feeding each other. In heaven, everyone was smiling.

Patience and Pain

There’s a correlation, I think, between the capacity to voluntarily tolerate discomfort or pain (as in zazen) and patience. If you’re willing to tolerate discomfort or pain then you have at least practiced being able to tolerate the discomforts and self-denial associated with being patient.

I am also reminded of something attributed to Shunryu Suzuki in Crooked Cucumber: by David Chadwick:

“Hell isn’t punishment. It’s training.”