Featuring the Orphic and the Promethean. David Anthony Pittaway 2017

289 Pages·2017·2.76 MB·English

Broadening the Context of the Ecological Crisis:
Featuring the Orphic and the Promethean.

David Anthony Pittaway

2017
Broadening the Context of the Ecological Crisis:
Featuring the Orphic and the Promethean.

By

David Anthony Pittaway

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy: Philosophy (Research) in the Faculty of the Humanities
at the University of the Free State

October 2017

Promoter: Prof Bert Olivier
Declaration
I, David Anthony Pittaway, hereby declare that Broadening the Context of the Ecological Crisis:
Featuring the Orphic and the Promethean is my own work, and has not previously been submitted
for assessment to another University or for another qualification. Further, all the sources that I have
used and/or quoted within this work have been clearly indicated and acknowledged by complete
references.
October 2017
David Anthony Pittaway

____________________
Table of contents
Acknowledgements
Conventions
Abstract
Summary
Comments on some central terms
Hypotheses
Aims and methodology
Introduction and Background
Part one: The Promethean
Chapter 1: What constitutes the ecological crisis?
1.1 Introduction to Chapter 1
1.2 Loss of biodiversity
1.3 Greenhouse gases, carbon emissions and climate change
1.4 Deforestation
1.5 Loss of topsoil
1.6 Water
1.7 Landfill waste, associated pollution, toxic and chemical waste
1.8 Genetically Modified Organisms
1.9 Overpopulation
1.10 Conclusion to Chapter 1

Chapter 2: What are the direct physical causes of the ecological crisis?
2.1 Introduction to Chapter 2
2.2 The fossil-fuel industry
2.3 The petrochemical industry
2.4 The agricultural industry
2.5 The construction industry
2.6 The mining industry
2.7 The meat and fish industries
2.8 The 'bio-tech' industry
2.9 The fractional reserve money industry
2.10 Conclusion to Chapter 2

Chapter 3: What are the attitudinal causes of the ecological crisis?
3.1 Introduction to Chapter 3
3.2 Christianity
3.3 Technology
3.4 Science
3.5 Capitalism
3.6 On the Industrial Growth Society, or ACID
3.7 Promethean timeline
3.8 Summary: Promethean characteristics
3.9 Conclusion to Chapter 3
Chapter 4: What perpetuates the attitudinal factors causing the ecological crisis?
4.1 Introduction to Chapter 4
4.2 Mill's dangers of Democracy
4.3 Democracy in a ‘free-market’ neoliberal Capitalist system
4.4 One-dimensionality
4.5 Societies of Control
4.6 Princen's 'traffic control measures'
4.7 Conclusion to Chapter 4

Part two: The Orphic
Chapter 5: Are there alternatives to the ‘drivers’ of the ecological crisis?
5.1 Introduction to Chapter 5
5.2 Older cultures
5.3 Civilization with amnesia
5.4 Morphic resonance
5.5 Blessed unrest
5.6 Sacred economics
5.7 The Occupy Movement
5.8 The Zeitgeist Movement
5.9 Deep Ecology
5.10 Conclusion to Chapter 5

Chapter 6: What role can permaculture play?

6.1 Important disclaimer
6.2 Introduction to Chapter 6
6.3 The urgency to transition
6.4 Sources of information
6.5 Permaculture: definition, ethics, and initial comments
6.6 The twelve principles
6.6.1. Observe and Interact
6.6.2. Catch and Store Energy
6.6.3. Obtain a Yield
6.6.4. Apply Self-regulation and Accept Feedback
6.6.5. Use and Value Renewable Resources and Services
6.6.6. Produce no Waste
6.6.7. Design from Patterns to Details
6.6.8. Integrate rather than Segregate
6.6.9. Use Small and Slow Solutions
6.6.10. Use and Value Diversity
6.6.11. Use Edges and Value the Marginal
6.6.12. Creatively Use and Respond to Change
6.7 Immediate priorities
6.8 Some Criticisms of Permaculture
6.9 Conclusion to Chapter 6
Chapter 7: What is the role of philosophy in view of the context established so far?
7.1.1 Introduction to Chapter 7
7.2.1.1 The philosopher’s ‘personal views’ versus philosophy itself
7.2.1.2 Badiou: what is a situation for philosophical thought?
7.2.1.3 Žižek: philosophy as the creation of new problems – the biogenetics example
7.2.1.4 Philosophy: cutting through particulars to reach the universal
7.2.2.1 Philosophy is not a dialogue: Incommensurability, mutual exclusivity, and paradoxical
relations
7.2.2.2 Philosophy and the creation of new problems
7.2.2.3 Changing the concepts of the debate
7.2.2.4 No certainty of ‘being at home’; internal foreignness; the breakdown of organic society
7.2.2.5 Elucidating choice
7.2.2.6 Shedding light on the distance between power and truths
7.2.2.7 Redefining human nature
7.2.2.8 Singularity participating in universality
7.2.2.9 Preconceived ideas of human nature
7.2.2.10 Humanity as it has been historically constituted / The established model of humanity
7.2.2.11 Thinking the ‘transformation of life’
7.2.2.12 Comments on the structure on this study: example of a philosophical progression
7.3.1.1 Hadot on Philosophy as a transformative process
7.3.1.2 Discourse about philosophy / Philosophical discourse
7.3.1.3 Philosophy as a way of life (á la Hadot) is Orphic: the Philo extract
7.3.1.4 Philosophy as a way of life is Orphic: Hadot’s analysis
7.3.1.5 The Sage and the Wold: Habitual perception and Philosophical perception
7.3.1.6 On philosophical transformation
7.3.1.7 On the Orphic theme of inner peace
7.3.1.8 On communitary engagement
7.4.1 Conclusion to Chapter 7

Recommendations and suggestions
- Points relating to philosophy
- General points
- On the paradoxical need to discriminate
- Specific actions

Conclusion
References: books and articles
References: online sources
Acknowledgements
Here I acknowledge the Great Mystery, and thank the people who have worked to reveal how it is
possible to be initiated into it. I also thank those who have denied the Great Mystery and instead
advocated spurious ‘truths’ and ideologies: some of our best lessons in life are about how not to live
it.
More specifically, I acknowledge the pivotal role Bert Olivier has played during the undertaking that
culminated in this study, and throughout my academic journey – and not only my academic journey,
but the academic journeys of so many people with enquiring minds. His friendship has been
unconditional, his philosophical guidance invaluable, and his generosity commendable.
I acknowledge the steadfastness of Emma Hay – her unwavering commitment to treading softly on
our beautiful planet and in our interconnected ecologies, to making a tangible positive ecological
difference, and to living ‘true to ourselves’, are often reminders that at every moment we are free to
choose our reactions to the stimuli offered to us in life. In the battle for the human-induced life or
death of natural systems, Emma is on the side of life.
I acknowledge my family, who have done exceptionally well to tolerate the ‘alternative views’ of a
son and brother.
Finally, Andrea Hurst is here acknowledged for the invaluable contributions she has made to my
philosophical journey, and for her friendship. Circumstances withdrew her from co-supervision of
this study, but her influence in the planning phase set me on a ‘productive path’ that made all the
difference.

1
Conventions
In this study I employ the following conventions:
• I refer to this PhD text as a study.
• I capitalise the ‘C’ and employ a numerical digit when referring to the names of chapters, i.e.
Chapter 1, Chapter 2, and so on.
• I capitalise the first letter of certain words denoting what I consider to be ‘institutions’ with
specific traceable histories. I do this in light of the attention Speth (2008:31) draws to the
difference between idealised models versus what actually is the case in reality. Speth draws this
distinction (though he does not capitalise the word like I do) in the case of Capitalism: “I use
‘modern capitalism’ here in a broad sense as an actual, existing system of political economy, not
as an idealized model”. Capitalism is one case in point; for the same reason as the one I have
just highlighted, I also capitalise the words Christianity, Science, Technology, and Democracy
throughout the study when I refer to them as actual, existing systems (as per Speth’s
distinction)1; my reasons for viewing these as institutions will become clear as the study
progresses. When a quotation is used, I stick to the original case (usually lower-case) used
within the quotation itself, but revert back to the upper-case when ‘outside’ of the quotation. I
must add that, in practice, this method of distinguishing between the two (i.e. actual existing
systems versus idealised models) is not always a straightforward matter, and I request that
‘grey areas’ are tolerated regarding the use of uppercase and lowercase first letters for the use
of the relevant words.
• I adhere to the South African English standard of using the letter “s” in words such as
“idealised” instead of the American English standard where a “z” is used. When a quotation is
used, I adhere to the original spelling used within the quotation itself, but revert back to the
South African English standard when ‘outside’ of the quotation. This is demonstrated in the
previous point of this section, where I first used “idealised”, but then quoted Speth, who used
“idealized”.
• When I have used a quotation in which a term or phrase is used, and then wish to use the term
shortly after the appearance of the quotation in a manner where I allude to the phrase or term
as it appeared in the quote, I use either single inverted commas (‘’) or double inverted commas
(“”) to draw attention to the fact that the phrase or term came from the relevant quotation.
Sometimes I drop this convention when a phrase or term is used several times after it has
appeared in quotation format. I occasionally italicise a phrase or term to highlight it as one that
has already been encountered.
• In this study I avoid the use of writing conventions that seem to me too formalised, to the point
of obscuring the fact that, in the final analysis, statements made by authors represent their
own, singular perspectives. Here it is no different: the analyses or interpretations offered
regarding the many conceptual issues to be presented and clarified, as well as the overall

1 I often capitalise the word ‘Business’ to denote something coterminous with ‘Capitalism’.
2
argumentative progression of the study, is a particular, singular individual’s work, albeit through
the medium of language. Language is, after all, not any individual subject’s exclusive domain,
but something that pre-exists individuals and in which all share, in accordance with
Wittgenstein’s famous remark, that there is no such thing as a ‘private language’ (Wittgenstein
1967). My use of the first person singular (‘I’) should therefore be seen as signifying a singular
perspective on a conceptually or linguistically constituted ‘world’ that is variously accessible
from the perspectives of different subjects.
3
Abstract
There is an ecological crisis, categorised by various ecological indicators, and demonstrably propelled
by specific large-scale human practices. These ecologically-destructive human practices could spread
and grow historically because of the 'attitudinal' components accompanying various 'shapers of
discourse', namely the versions of Christianity, Science, Technology, and Capitalism (and to a lesser
degree, Democracy), that have historically dominated the discursive platforms from which human
beings access their assumptions, and thereby form their attitudes, regarding what are acceptable
human actions within given contexts and environments. Considering that White (1971:11) says the
following, “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in
relation to the things around them”, and also considering that the historically-dominant and
dominating versions of Christianity, Science, Technology, and Capitalism all spread the dominion-
imperative (where, among other 'objects', nature is that which is dominated), the current ecological
crisis is to be expected. Furthermore, various forces or factors exist in 'Advanced'-Competitive-
Consumer-Capitalist-Industrial-'Democratic'-Dominion (ACID) that perpetuate the 'Promethean'
status-quo, forces or factors that effectively prevent alternatives to the status-quo from being able to
spread and influence human attitudes (and therefore actions, considering White's comment above)
in a manner formidable enough to achieve a diversity of ecologically-sensitive human systems
needed to diminish harmful ecological phenomena. That said, alternative, 'Orphic' ideas and
attitudes, arenas and phenomena, do exist: they offer attitudinal components working to effect
radically different interactions between human beings and their environments, versus the
problematic 'action-against-nature' characteristic of the Promethean. Permaculture is an example of
actualised Orphic attitudes and approaches: it is a design system constituted by twelve principles
(the first of which is 'observe and interact', immediately setting the scene for ecological-sensitivity)
that together provide one with a flexible, context-bound approach to change human systems of all
sizes, and importantly, to change the impacts the systems have on ecology in general. With the
foregoing in mind, philosophy as characterised by Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek, and by Pierre Hadot,
respectively, provides for interesting conceptual frameworks for the contextualisation of various
features of the ecological crisis, its physical causes, its attitudinal causes, and alternatives to its
attitudinal and physical causes. Badiou and Žižek, for example, are in agreement that philosophy is
not a dialogue, that philosophy is the creation of new problems, that in philosophy the terms of the
debate are changed; they list and discuss a number of intriguing features of philosophy relevant to
the broad focal areas of this study. One such feature is the notion that each “time that philosophy
confines itself to humanity as it has been historically constituted and defined, it diminishes itself, and
in the end suppresses itself. It suppresses itself because its only use becomes that of conserving,
spreading and consolidating the established model of humanity” (2009:74-75). As argued in this
study, the “established model of humanity” is Promethean, so Badiou and Žižek do provide indirect
support for the imperative to broaden focal areas in general to include, for example, aspects of the
Orphic. Pierre Hadot's work on the notion of 'philosophy as a way of life' directly identifies the
imperative in ancient philosophy to actualise ostensibly Orphic ways of thinking and being, with the
two-fold effect of arriving at personal 'inner-peace' (which is surely valuable considering the 'worry'
that justifiably accompanies knowledge of the ecological crisis), as well as the effect of nurturing
'wise' individuals (Hadot 1995:265-266) who strive for “cosmic consciousness” and who involve
themselves in what Hadot calls “communitary engagement” (1995:274), which surely can be helpful
in the broad context of the ecological crisis.
4