Eco/Civ Models & Objectives
AN OPEN MODEL FOR INCOMPLETENESS
Ecological civilization is a term that describes the final goal of social and environmental reform within a given society. It implies that the changes required in response to global climate disruption and social injustices are so extensive as to require another form of human civilization, one based on ecological principles. Broadly construed, ecological civilization involves a synthesis of economic, educational, political, agricultural, and other societal reforms toward sustainability.
A Set Theory Model
As introduction, it should be immediately noted that the concepts of “ecological civilizations” and “constructive postmodernism” have been associated with the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. As we have spoken at length on each subject, that of ecological civilizations and societies (ECS), constructive postmodernism and complimentary eras (CP/CE), and Whiteheadian process philosophy and theology (WPPT), it is the intention here to focus why all three go together as common subjects rather than viewing each area as separate from one another.
We might add a fourth area, that of all derivatives of green sciences and technologies (GST). And for good measure let's include All natural Sciences and CryptoEconomics (AS/CE). This must necessarily include all social models expressing the common good such as social equality and justice (SE/SJ) including environmental justice (EJ) models expressing balance and harmony of biophyllic communities. These communities must necessarily include mankind in them - and not apart for them - in order to be complete and workable biophyllic communities (BC). Combined, lets designate this latter as SE/SJ + BC as Communities of Completeness (CoC).
Process thought then takes all these elements in together as a complex web of non-interchangeable component parts, each part as infinite as the other, and just as incomplete by nature of its unfolding process. As such, one could understand these together as integral theorems (IT) expressing the fullness and variety of process philosophy. Each positing a fully insufficient world alone while striving to be wholly contiguous and wholly self-affirming together bearing elements of agency, chaos, randomness, and novelty, building upon past novelty towards present and future novelities.
In terms of set theory, the greatest power set (PS) of all would be the set of all five areas working together as one in their infinitely, incomplete forms:
(WPPT) ⊃ {∅, {EC}, {CE}, {S/E}, {GT}, {CoC}, {{EC}, {CE}, {S/E}, {GT}, {CoC}}}
IT = WPPT - Whiteheadian Process Philosophy & Theology
EC = ECS = Ecological Civilizations & Societies
CE = CP/CE - Constructive Postmodernism & Complimentary Eras
S/E = AS/CE - All Sciences & CryptoEconomics
GT = GST - Green Sciences & Technologies
SJ/EJ + BC = CoC - Communities of Completeness
*if a mathematician could write this up for me using Godel's
Incompleteness Theorems it would be deeply appreciated. BUT
keep it simple using theorem 1, then 2, then both together.
Godel's first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency. - Wikipedia
If a system only creates true statements and allows the construction of the sentence: "A: This statement cannot be proved" in the system. Then by definition it is a true statement, so that A is true and cannot be proved." - Kurt Godel. [As corollary, neither can that system demonstrate its own consistency.]
Kurt Gödel & the Limits of Mathematics
Contemporary culture is still enthralled with the 17th century view of nature articulated by philosophers Rene Descartes and reinforced by Immanuel Kant who each objectified the world about us reducing its cosmic-natural understanding to mechanistic structure alone to be used, consumed, destroyed, and controlled.(1) In the aftermath of modernity's long industrialization of the planet there was, and still is, no healthy ecological civilization plans for living equitably with one another nor sustainably with the earth which gives us life and breath.
To break this binary system of mind over matter, or nonsymbiotic "I-Thou "relationship between man and nature we must propose to enter into a new kind of civilization. Promoting an attitude which leaves an ecosystem's biophyllia better than it was when we came to it when deeply disrupted it "organic QI," if you will, through misappreciation of its being, misunderstanding of its becoming, and misuse of its "organic soul". To supplant mankind's brutish efforts with a process attitude willing to relearn nature's rhythms and balances so that its biotic communities may increase in complexity and richness as both it, and we ourselves, learn to flourish together in nurturing harmony. A biotic harmony which creates polycultures of biophyllia rather than human monocultures of invasive plants and weeds, not unlike our green lawns of death to bugs and insects found throughout America residential zoning laws.
Further, process cultures learn to build architectural ecologies which Paolo Soleri speaks of as "arcologies." These are the urban(e) communities willing to reduce their carbon footprints to incorporate multiplexes of sustainability infrastructures from buildings to roads, from environmental/human research to consumerism, agricultural production to distribution, focused on healthy social contracts with nature and back again. Each serving the other and all serving the whole.
A rich and diverse ecological society fully dedicated to the enrichment of biophyllically designed communities through ecological charters created to enrich deeply complex ecosystems between man and nature. And in every way: from education to economics; and, from technology to science. By rethinking every part of humanity's impact on the earth until it walks in harmony learning to leave no disturbance on the earth but every possibility of regeneration back to a process filled, and thriving, biota of the "circles of life" heathily moving along in evolutionary character.
A Short History of Eco/Civ
One last in closing. Ecological Civilization originated in Russia in the 70s but was fully developed by China in the 90s. It is not a new idea but is one that has been around for 35-50 years. And, as can be historically demonstrated, should work in the communist and maoist economies of "being and event," as philosopher Alain Badiou has come to describe them.
In promoting what China has come to think of as "it's second enlightenment," it seems to be working well its culturally agrarian past and historical religious traditions of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism marking the essence of Chinese culture. Lately, it has become connected with Alfred North Whitehead's process thought. In recent years (2005? 2007? onwards) Process Philosophy has become even more pronounced through conferences between Whiteheadian think tanks in America and China. And as process philosophy is taking flight, it is now being adopted more fully across the world in amazing progressive conclaves rethinking the 21st century's postmodern future with the industrial collapse of the past 500 years of modernism.
However, let us be mindful that the transition to organic, systemic, and ecological thinking is not dependent on a single philosopher, leader, or country. Many are reaching these basic ideas of earthcare independently within their own localities dedicated to clean water, green spaces, breathable air, in movement's akin to Aldo Leopold's "Green Fire" endeavors. Other notables which come my American mind is the environmentalist Bill McKibben, the Terrapin Bright Green organization, the Green Infrastructure Center, and many, many more.
There are many reasons to hope as cities and rural communities begin asserting within their own localities and regions what is necessary to a global world of reform. It is to these efforts of individuals and grassroots organizations which are purposely designing in their own fashion ecological civilization thinking for a globally committed, and locally effected, effort of green industrial and community sustainability, regeneration, and success.
R.E. Slater
February 21, 2021
edited February 22, 2021
*The second part of this Introduction reviews Philip Clayton's Preface and
John Cobb Jr's Forward in the book What Is Ecological Civilization?
(1)What Is Ecological Civilization, by Philip Clayton, Preface
(1)What Is Ecological Civilization, by Philip Clayton, Preface
* * * * * * * * * *
Ecological civilization
Ecological civilization is a term that describes the final goal of social and environmental reform within a given society. It implies that the changes required in response to global climate disruption and social injustices are so extensive as to require another form of human civilization, one based on ecological principles. Broadly construed, ecological civilization involves a synthesis of economic, educational, political, agricultural, and other societal reforms toward sustainability.
Although the term was first coined in the 1980s, it did not see widespread use until 2007, when “ecological civilization” became an explicit goal of the Communist Party of China (CPC). In April 2014, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations and the International Ecological Safety Collaborative Organization founded a sub-committee on ecological civilization. Proponents of ecological civilization agree with Pope Francis who writes,
"We are faced not with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather with one complex crisis which is both social and environmental. Strategies for a solution demand an integrated approach to combating poverty, restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature."
As such, ecological civilization emphasizes the need for major environmental and social reforms that are both long-term and systemic in orientation.
History
In 1984, former Soviet Union environment experts proposed the term “Ecological Civilization” in an article entitled “Ways of Training Individual Ecological Civilization under Mature Socialist Conditions,” which was published in the Scientific Communism, Moscow, vol. 2.
Three years later, the concept of ecological civilization was picked up in China, and was first used by Qianji Ye (1909―2017), an agricultural economist, in 1987. Professor Ye defined ecological civilization by drawing from the ecological sciences and environmental philosophy.
The first time the phrase “ecological civilization” was used as a technical term in an English-language book was in 1995.
The term is found more extensively in Chinese discussions beginning in 2007. In 2012, the Communist Party of China (CPC) included the goal of achieving an ecological civilization in its constitution, and it also featured in its five-year plan. In the Chinese context, the term generally presupposes the framework of a “constructive postmodernism,” as opposed to an extension of (i) modernist practices or a (ii) “deconstructive postmodernism,” which stems from the deconstruction of Jacques Derrida.
Both “ecological civilization” and “constructive postmodernism” have been associated with the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. David Ray Griffin, a process philosopher and professor at Claremont School of Theology, first used the term “constructive postmodernism” in his 1989 book, Varieties of Postmodern Theology. A more secular theme that flowed out of Whitehead's process philosophy has been from the Australian environmental philosopher Arran Gare in his book called The Philosophical Foundations of Ecological Civilization: A Manifesto for the Future.
The largest international conference held on the theme “ecological civilization” (Seizing an Alternative: Toward an Ecological Civilization) took place at Pomona College in June 2015, bringing together roughly 2,000 participants from around the world and featuring such leaders in the environmental movement as Bill McKibben, Vandana Shiva, John B. Cobb, Jr., Wes Jackson, and Sheri Liao. This was held in conjunction with the 9th International Forum on Ecological Civilization--an annual conference series in Claremont, CA established in 2006.
Out of the Seizing an Alternative conference, Philip Clayton and Wm. Andrew Schwartz co-founded the Institute for Ecological Civilization (EcoCiv), and co-authored the book What is Ecological Civilization: Crisis, Hope, and the Future of the Planet, which was published in 2019.
Since 2015, the Chinese discussion of ecological civilization is increasingly associated with an “organic” form of Marxism. “Organic Marxism” was first used by Philip Clayton and Justin Heinzekehr in their 2014 book, Organic Marxism: An Alternative to Capitalism and Ecological Catastrophe. The book, which was translated into Chinese and published by the People’s Press in 2015, describes ecological civilization as an orienting goal for the global ecological movement.
See also
- Deep ecology
- Ecological crisis
- Ecological economics
- Ecological modernization
- Ecomodernism
- Environmentalism
- Environmental movement
- Sustainability
External links
- United Nations Environment Programme Report: Green is Gold - the Strategy and Actions of China's Ecological Civilization
- Institute for Ecological Civilization
- Institute for Postmodern Development of China
- Pando Populus
* * * * * * * * * *
ADDENDUM 1
Consistency Systems always hold within them Inconsistent
The LIAR PARADOX: "This sentence is false".
Bertrand Russell's Set: {x: x∉x}, a set x, such that x is not a member of itself. But logically x is a member of itself. Thus the paradox making the statement inconsistent. (Later proofs have shown x to both be a member of itself and not a member of itself.)
The power set of A is the set of all subsets of A: P(A) = {x:x⊆A}
Example: P({0,1}) = {Ø, {0}, {1}, {0,1}} = the set expression of the power set A
In Cardinality terms of "size": | P({0,1}) | = | {Ø, {0}, {1}, {0,1}}| = 4 = 2^2 = 2² > |{0,1}| = 2
Observations
- The size of the power set will always be bigger than any elements of that set
- Closed System logic games are exercises in absurdum
- Finite Systems cannot be used to prove Open Systems; this would be illogical
ADDENDUM 2
Godel's Incompleteness Theorems
Incompleteness Theorem 1 - Take all sets G (for Godel) such that if a formal system is consistent, then G is not a Theorem (T), nor is it not a Theorem. G says "I am not provable. If I am true then I am false. And if I am false, then I am true. This then says to all formal, closed systems that they are inconsistent. Now if that formal system is open, then it is a moot question and doesn't matter.
Incompleteness Theorem 2 - There is no consistent Theorem (T) which can prove its own consistency:
Example 1: If T is consistent then G is not derivable in T.
Example 2: If T is consistent the G is derivable in T.
Summation: Consistency Theorems are inconsistent in-and-of themselves since G cannot both be derivable and not derivable in Theorem T.
This then presents a crisis in set theory but like quantum sciences, math and physics move on, living in tension with their logic and systems to be solved or left unsolved for another day. The fact is, like science, mathematics has blind spots within its system. And it are these blind spots which may be placed into the upper level of mathematical philosophies we might call "Metamathematics." Mathematics which are left to another time to be solved from another direction as has lately been done since Godel's propositions by work arounds, assumptions, limit mathematics, probability and statistics, and so on.
ADDENDUM 3
"If a truth theorem is complete, it's closed.
If a truth theorem is incomplete, then it's open."
- re slater
I asserted in Integral Hermeneutics ala Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems that there can never be a final hermeneutic to help interpret God or His Word fully (sic, the bible, nature, event, experience, or enlightened insight). Nor can there be a final hermeneutic for one's life. There are many systems out there. Some closed, some open. Some are preferred over others such as we are using now with Process Philosophy and Process Theology. They seem to address both the divine and the creational in expressive, uplifting terms of hope. These systems can inform us how God operates in the world and how we must live in symmetry with the world. Such helpful systems can help break other systematic modes of self-imposed, or religiously-imposed, constrictions we chain or bind ourselves and others to.
And like Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, no one system is ever enough in the infinite, open-ended streams of life. Or, processes of life. Some come and go while others stay and expand. But they can never be complete because the (cosmopanpsychic) process of evolving life is ever evolving towards a process future of becoming. All events and experiences are incomplete and it is best to learn how to flow with them while learning to unlearn our set boundaries in order to relearn and expand them if we are to be testimonies to the God of grace and mercy.
As such, all of life is a never-ending process and there will never be a time on this earth, or in the life to come, where process isn't bubbling forth newness, novelty, creativity, or redemption. It is who God is. It is how God's creation works. It is what God's Love means when enacted through the process creational system expressed from His ontic being and essence.
In conclusion, let me propose a new axiom:
"If a truth theorem in complete, it's closed. If a truth theorem is incomplete, then it's open." - re slater
Any formal dogmatic systems of religion, regardless of that religion, be it Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian, must always be rightly expanding and growing from all previous instances of itself. Thus, it would be wise to affirm that all religionists should be careful of what they plant in this world - be it good or be it bad.
As seems all too familiar with too many historical examples of good religion gone bad in this world. (I think of American evangelical faiths moving towards neofacism having lost its center in God's Love and Jesus' examples of service of ministry through grace and mercy, forgiveness and hope.
From this we can see that the former statement re closed dogmas have sealed themselves off from outside criticism becoming insular within itself alone shunning all other voices. Whereas the latter statement has attracted more open religions to examine themselves in healthy ways of reflection, revision, and enlightenment, much like the many disciplines of science attempting by their own assertions, explorations, and continual revisions of its set theorems, objectives, and momentary conclusions.
Open systems live in tension with themselves and are the better for it. Closed systems do not and are the worse for it. Learn to live in tension. And in the tension exploit your inner creativity towards goodness, love, and peace.
* * * * * * * * * *
RESOURCES
INDEXES
Toward Ecological Civilization, Chapter 1
Toward Ecological Civilization, Chapter 2
Toward Ecological Civilization, Chapter 3
Toward Ecological Civilization, Chapter 4
Toward Ecological Civilization, Chapter 5
Toward Ecological Civilization, Chapter 6
Toward Ecological Civilization, Chapter 7
Toward Ecological Civilization, Chapter 8
Toward Ecological Civilization, Conclusions