Gaia Theory

M. Katii Holism in Deep Ecology and Gaia-Theory: A Contribution to Eco-Geological...
The Holistic Approach to Environment 3(2013)1, 3-14 Page 3

ISSN 1848-0071
UDC 171+179.3=111
Recieved: 2013-02-25
Accepted: 2013-03-25
Original scientific paper

HOLISM IN DEEP ECOLOGY AND GAIA-THEORY: A CONTRIBUTION
TO ECO-GEOLOGICAL SCIENCE, A PHILOSOPHY OF LIFE OR A NEW
AGE STREAM?

MARINA KATINI

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb, Croatia
e-mail: [email protected]

In the second half of 20th century three approaches to phenomenon of life and environmental crisis relying to a
holistic method arose: ecosophy that gave impetus to the deep ecology movement, Gaia-hypothesis that evolved into
an acceptable scientific theory and gaianism as one of the New Age spiritual streams. All of this approaches have
had different methodologies, but came to analogous conclusions on relation man-ecosystem. The goal of the paper is
to introduce the three approaches' theoretical and practical outcomes, compare them and evaluate their potency to
stranghten responsibility of man towards Earth ecosystem which is a self-regulating whole which humanity is part of.
Key words: holism, ecosophy, deep ecology movement, gaia-theory, new age, responsibility.

Holizam u dubinskoj ekologiji i teoriji Geje: doprinos ekogeolokoj znanosti, filozofija ivota ili struja New
agea? U drugoj polovici 20. stoljea pojavila su se tri pristupa fenomenu ivota i ekolokoj krizi s osloncem u
holistikoj metodi: ekozofija koja je dala poticaj razvoju pokreta dubinske ekologije, hipoteza Geje koja se razvila u
prihvatljivu znanstvenu teoriju i gajanizam kao jedna od New Age duhovnih struja. Ova su se tri pristupa sluila
razliitim metodama, no dola su do analognih zakljuaka o odnosu ovjek-ekosustav. Cilj je rada predstaviti
navedena tri pristupa, usporediti ih i vrednovati njihovu snagu u podupiranju ovjekove pdgovornosti prema sustavu
Zemlje, samoregulativnoj cjelini koje je ovjeanstvo dio.
Kljune rijei: holizam, ekozofija, pokret dubinske ekologije, teorija geje, new age, odgovornost.

INTRODUCTION

After having observed the Earth from
space in 1966, J. Lovelock, English chemist
and inventor, started to ponder upon a
definition and metamechanism of life as a
global phenomenon. As such he
metaphorically described the Planet as a
superorganism./and had a metaphorical
vision of the Planet as a superorganism.
Starting from that vision, not only did he
come to significant results in Gaia-theory,
but he also gave a constructive critic of a
modern scientific methodology. He criticised
the methodology as being reductive and
tribalistic as microbiology and ecology
investigated geoevolution and bioevolution
as two separated objects of research.
Eventually, he developed a certain
philosophy of life that depends on an
integral epistemology comprising intuition,
experimental science and aesthetical
fascination.
The ideas of A. Naess' ecosophy T
and the deep ecology movement turned to
have many parallels with Lovelock's notion
of Gaia. Interestingly, both conceptions got
their spiritual and (pseudo)religious


recognition and interpretation in some New
Age discourses, as they both suggest not just
a cosmic interdependency of beings, but a
certain holism refering to human self.
A philosophical approach to an
ecological crisis comes down to a
fundamental question which relies on a
paradoxical question: how can life, at a
certain stage of its natural existence in time
the subjectivity of homo faber come to the
point of addressing its own life in form of
threat to his survival? The solution to this is
highly problematic as it deals with
contradictory moments in human condition.
However, it is a crucial question to
establishing a solid theoretical ground to
human responsability towards life [1:25].
The paper aims to expose and briefly
compare the two variants of eco-holism;
deep ecology and Gaia theory, with special
regard to position of Croatian historian and
ecological writer Tomislav Markus. It also
aims to shortly consider the relation between
all the three dimensions of relation man
Earth System scientific, philosophical and
(pseudo) religious, as well as between
holism and reductionism, in order to value it
critically as possible theoretical paths
towards responsibility and sustainability.

DEEP ECOLOGY AND
EVOLUTIONARY DARWINISM

Terms ecosophy and deep ecology
were introduced in 1972 by Norwegian
philosopher and environmental activist Arne
Naess, meaning philosophy of ecological
harmony or equilibrium:
A philosophy as a kind of sofia (or)
wisdom, is openly normative, it contains
both norms, rules, postulates, value priority
announcements and hypotheses concerning
the state of affairs in our universe. Wisdom
is policy wisdom, prescription, not only
scientific description and prediction. The
details of an ecosophy will show many
variations due to significant differences
concerning not only the facts of pollution,
resources, population, etc. but also value
priorities. [2:8]
Naess precursors were Aldo
Leopolds land ethics (1887-1848) and
Rachel Carsons environmentalism (1907-
1964) that suggested that man should hold
back from deserting nature for short-term
purposes of civilisation.
However, ecosophy must be distinguished
from deep ecology movement which,
although related to it, is theoretically broader
and practice-driven. In ecosophical
framework cosmos is perceived as an
organic whole, with species being equal
partners in maintenance of the equilibrium,
which opposes ecoanthropocentric paradigm.
Naess differs two possible types of
environmetalism which need not be
neccessarily compatible: a long-range, deep
ecology and a shallow ecological movement
based on mainstream anthropocentric and
technoconsumer thinking, that rely on
instrumental rationality. In Naess the
attribute deep suggests a grade of
theoretical questioning on purposes and
norms.[3] The proccess that he advocates
seeks to move from initial theoretical
(deep) assumptions towards practical
actions a cyclic method having a deductive
beginning that strives towards concrete, to
come again to the original point.
However, deep ecology gives primate
to ontology, not ethics, arguing that
settlement of a mentality preceeds social
action. Deep means an ecology asking basic
philosophical questions such as man's
position in the cosmos, mehcanism and
meaning of life as a complex and global
phenomenon. At the other hand, Naess was


aware that ecological movements often have
populistic and international character, having
their actors starting from different
philosophies and worldviews, implying
variety of cultural and social structures that
aim to solve ecological conflicts, depending
on local context so more peculiar
ecosophies are possible.
The core of Naess concept of any
possible ecosophy is thesis that all beings
have value in themselves and that
biodiversity and cultural variety are values
per se. He calls his personal philosophy
ecosophy T [4], as being influenced by
Norwegian movement of living in the open
air (friluftsliv), Mahayana buddhism (all
world is unity) and Spinozian pantheism.
This means understanding an
ecosystem in terms of interdependence,
interconnectedness and life network in
opposition to anthropocentrism which
suggests a hierarchy of beings and
instrumentalizing the other species to man's
purposes. The underlying goal that Naess
promotes is self-realization the obsession
of modern man however, not only for
humanity, but for all living beings. The
author distinguishes a narrow egoistic self
from a broadened, ecological Self. The
broadend self can be reached in more ways:
Naess mostly speaks of extension of
identification. Man has a natural capacity to
identify with the other and should cherish
this. Insofar he manages to identify with
other human nonhuman beings, he
acomplishes an inner integration and a sane,
extended ego. Thus, Self-realization for all
beings! becomes a norm based on
transcending the narrow self.
Given that, a shift from
anthropocentrism to ecocentrism is on its
way. In favouring life in small energy-saving
communities outside of urban, economic
growth and technical expansion-driven
world, deep ecology (a practical realization
of ecosophy) provides a framework to
solidarity and responsibility, which H. Jonas
argues be a fundamental human attitude
towards life. Flourishing of mankind is
possible only if the other species fulfill their
full evolutionary potential, too.
Consequently, deep ecology
advocates biospheric egalitarianism,
diversity, social symbiosis, anticlass posture,
complexity instead of complication, local
authonomy and decentralisation.[5]
The other authors have developed
somewhat different ecosophies oriented
towards social theory of communication,
transpersonal psychology or religious
thought. As being aware of the differences
between various deep ecological
backgrounds, in 1984 Naess has developed
(in cooperation with George Sessions) well-
known eight fundamental principles that
integrate deep ecology movement providing
a platform, distinguishing it from more
general ecological movement. Four of them
are highlighted as directly relevant for the
topic:
1. The well-being and flourishing of
human and non-human life on Earth have
value in themselves. These values are
independent of the usefulness of the non-
human world for human purposes.
2. Richness and diversity of life
forms contribute to the realization of these
values and are also values in themselves.
3. Humans have no right to reduce
this richness and diversity except to satisfy
vital needs.
7. The ideological change is mainly
that of appreciating quality (dwelling in
situations of inherent worth) rather than
adhering to an increasingly higher standard
of living. There will be a profound
awareness of the difference between big and
great.
Significantly, in his private letters
Naess claimed that mentioning biodiversity


and life did not refer to individual oganisms,
but totality of organic and inorganic
processes in ecosystem [7: 31]. The other
principles proclaim that present human
interference with the non-human world is
excessive, advocate a decrease in human
population, require changes in policies, but
this is not as significant for a pondering upon
holism. Naess also held that different
ecosophies could be built on different
traditions and that the eight principles
platform were still open to discussion.
Naess called deep ecology new
philosophy of nature, though he insisted that
it was not an academic philosophical
discourse, religion or ideology but
composition of different positions and ideas
[8:199].
Despite some general principles, a
plurality of ecosophies emerged [7: 33-
70]. This, as well as idea of extended
ecological self, as being close to
transpersonal psychology and its idea of
transpersonal self, linked some aspects of
deep ecology to New Age, liberal secular
religion that permits plurality of streams.
Naess himself firmly claimed that deep
ecology was not a religion, but had a
religious dimension. It encourages re-
sacralisation of nature as mysterious cradle
of all life, an appropriate whole in which
man finds its true maternal home. For its
ecocentristic shift, majority of deep ecologist
have been reluctant to conform to
Judeochristian tradition and more prone to
adopt some views of buddhism (source of
discontentment is wish to possess), hinduism
(omnipresence of divinity, unity of cosmos),
taoism (living in harmony with the supreme
principle) and jainism (Jaina dharma or
nonviolence principle). In general, deep
ecology movement insists in change of
conscience of an individual and his lifestyle,
it does not encompass far-reaching political
programmes.
In Tomislav Markus' view,
perceiving progress as expansion of
technical production is incompatible with
Darwininan adaptation principle which he
adheres to. Following Riley Dunlap and
William Cuttton's critic of modern social
constructivism that defines man as primarily
a mutable being through cultural
interpretation/ creation of environment,
Markus criticizes overlooking man's natural
constitution dveloped through ages lived in
wild ecological surroundings, in small tribal
hunter-gatherer communities. He holds that
man's alleged detachment from nature in
ontological and phisical terms is a fallacy,
even an illusion. Starting from naodarwinian
thinking, he defines man as an animal
marked by its evolutionary past and
optimally adapted to life in small groups and
wild organic environment, which very teko
and with great difficulties can survive in
essentially different circumstances [7: 11] .
This leads to Rousseauan perception
of technical civilisation as man's alianation
from his genuine position. Markus, further
analyzing the biological and anthropological
data, adopts a rather radical view that in
biological evolution progress cannot occur
because bacteria and all of the lower
biosphere had adopted optimally to all
circumstances, as well as because of the
optimal adaptation of more complex
organisms to the realm of bacteria. In human
history progress cannot occur for man's
accomodation to tribal lifestyle [which has
comprised 99 % human and 99% hominide
history] and his inaptitude to abrupt cultural
changes such as building up civilisations
and, in particular, modern cities. [7:36]
Also, there is no ontological
discontinuity between man and the other
species, opposite to what has been held by
dominant Western philosophical tradition.
Markus sees in neodarwinism (Darwinism
combined with Mendelian genetics) a solid
scientific ground for main deep ecological
holistic views that man is a part of the
whole of nature and not a being that can
transcend, master and overcome it so his


position is (neo)darwinian deep ecology.
This view is permeated with critic of settled
culture that started with a turning point
discovery of agriculture: man's immanence
man in wilderness was natural, as a result of
long and slow evolution, and man's
transcendence, expansion and affecting the
environment (a mark of settled culture) is an
artificial deviation of man's natural
constitution (In Markus, pathological atti-
tude towards aging, pain, sexuality and death
is a risult of man's incapacity to adapt to the
technical environment of urban civilisation).
Given that, Baconian project of mastering
the nature and instrumental rationality that
brought to its technical realization, is an
ontological fallacy.
The ecological crisis is a material
consequence of a false philosophical
paradigm exemptionism which suggests
that man, as distinguished from other species
in terms of superiority and dignity, is not
restricted with ecological limitations. In
Markus' view, what links neodarwinian
evolutionism to deep ecology is holism.
Accordingly, while humanistic
constructivsm (the idea that main is
primarily a cultural being so the notion of
nature is a culturale construct) nourishes
individualism, liberal policies and
ecoanthropocentrism which urge ecological
destruction, the core of crisis cannot be
addressed unless one gets back to the basic
truths, namely that man is fully independent
on other species and that no specie has real
evolutionary superiority but perhaps those
that have best adopted and survived for the
longest period of time, the microorganisms.
Markus rejects evolutionary
determinism as concept of survival of the
fittest and considers the cooperation factor as
important for successful adaptation.
Most of the deep ecologists consider
sustainable developement concept shallow
and unrealistic as they do not believe that
sophisticated technology can help preser-
vation of the key ecosystems (rainforests,
oceans etc.), as it maintains the logic or
urban, technicized framework that defines
man as ontologically dettached from nature
[7: 72-73]. Markus follows this view,
suggesting that only preservation of
wilderness and readopting appropriate small-
community lifestyles could direct ecology to
the right way. How this be realized he does
not propose, as this is not an issue of deep
ecology and evolutionary biology.
Markus remindes of reliable
scientific evidence which explains man's
natural constitution in terms of
interdependence and holism, giving a
constructive critic of modern/postmodern
constructivism. Also, he emphasizes positive
contributions of deep ecology to a right
approacht to ecsoystems. However, he left a
ground problem intact: the anthropological
evidence that man as such has ever since
been both natural and cultural being
relatively emancipated from his instincts,
capable of intepreting experience through
symbolic systems and radicaly change the
nature, including himself. The inner clash
between those two human realities, the core
of ecological crisis, lays in condicio humana
itself. Also, he does not say wheather
hystorical processes are reversible or not.

GAIA-THEORY AND ITS
IMPLICATIONS

When J. Lovelock first in 1966
formulated Gaia-hypothesis, which would be
later developed into Gaia-theory, it was first
ignored in scientific circles, later it bore
citic, provoking a sparkling debate and
research activity. It was based on chemical
science, intuition and an aesthetical
experience in observing planet Earth as a


whole from the space: a chance to look at the
azure-green Earth from a spacecraft gave
rise to author's thought of the planet as a
living organism. Emotional response to the
complex beauty he was touched with urged
his further research and reflections. Later
Lovelock find out that Y. M. Korolenko and
V.I.Vernadskij aldredy had formulated idea
of Earth-being, as well as that James
Hutton had in 1785 called Earth a
metaorganism whose phisiology should be
explored.
As a starting point, Lovelock tried to
explore possible answers to question what is
life and how it can be recognized. He noted
the incapacity of microbiology, biology and
ecology to define and understand life on
Earth in its logic and totality. The living
beings, he held, once they have developed,
interact with their environment and affect it,
making it suitable for further developement
of life forms. Lovelock noted that
compositional changes in planetary
atmosphere were associated with the
presence of lifeFurthermore, any planetary
biota which interacts with its atmosphere
will drive that atmosphere to a state of
disequilibrium which, if recognized, would
also constitute direct evidence of life,
provided the extent of the disequilibrium is
significantly greater than abiological
processes would permit. [9]
The pivotal hypothesis he proposed
was that the planet Earth with its four
components atmosphere, hydrosphere,
pedosphere and biosphere was an integral
self-regulating system. Through cybernetic
feedback mechanism, evolution of living
oganisms has been tightly coupled with the
general geoevolution, making Earth a
suitable habitat for life. Evidently, biota
influence abiotic world in terms of
regulation of temperature, composition of
atmosphere and salinity of the oceans.
The state of dynamic homeostasis is
reached as long a significant impact is not
made, to be regained. Apart from self-
regulation, Lovelock defined an important
trait of all life through termodinamics:
reversal of entropy through exchange of
energy.
In first edition of his first book
Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (1969)
he explained that by term Gaia he did not
meant biosphere but the superorganism
composed of all life tightly coupled with the
air, the oceans, and the surface rocks.
[10:10]
He described Gaia using a
metaphorical language, talking of her as if
she were known to be sentient:
...the quest for Gaia is an attempt to find the
largest living creature on Earth. [10:1]
When idea that chemical composition
of the atmosphere and oceans was
biologically controlled got spread, it
provoked twofold critic by microbiologist
Ford Doolittle and biologists R. Dawkins
and S. J.Gould. Firstly, they objected that
hypothesis suggested teleology in evolution
which would contradict Darwinian principles
of accidental mutations, adaptation and
natural selection. In a consequent evolutio-
nionism, organisms do not act purposefully
and no predeterminism is possible. All
lliving beings have no influence but to their
phenotype, argued Dawkins. Also,
climatologist Stephen Schneider and
geochemist H. D. Holland argued that
geological evolution schould be attributed
solely to chemical and phisical forces, not
biota.
In The Ages of Gaia (1979)
Lovelock admitted the first criticism,
explainig that his metaphoric discourse did
not aim to suggest that Gaia was a
superbeing with some kind of personal
consciousness. The evolution process could
not be intended or planned; the cybernetic
feedbek of the self-regulating Gaia has been
automatic. Gaia-theory, Lovelock argued,
was not a denial but an altering complement
to Darwinism, to adaptation and natural
selection principle. The second criticism he


mostly refuted as there was a clear evidence
that Earth's crust and sediments were either
product of living beings or changed by them.
Moreover, Lovelock argues, living beings do
adapt to the environment that is affected by
the other living beings. Atmospheric oxygen
and nitrogen have originated from plants and
microorganisms. Given that, Lovelock
maintained, on the planetary level, living
world is so connected with the environment
that ordinary meaning of adaptation is
useful no longer.
Lovelock suggested that growth of an
organism affects its physical and chemical
environment; so the evolution of the species
and the evolution of the rocks are tightly
coupled as a single, indivisible process.
Therefore, evolution should be observed as
evolution of Gaia, not of biosphere or solid
Earth matter alone, which makes core of his
holism.
... even pieces of wood and metal when
specifically designed and assembled may
achieve a composite identity with its own
characteristic signature, as distinct from
being the mere sum of its parts. [11:18]
Lovelock rejects tribalism of
overspecialized natural science: in his view,
biology, ecology and Earth sciences should
join together in a new Gaia-appropriate
science geophisiology. His holism is
descernible also in his claim that life should
be explored as a global phenomenon, as it
shows its essential traits as widespred on the
planet:
There can be no partial occupation of a
planet by living organisms. It would be as
impermanent as half an animal. The
presence of sufficient living organisms on a
planet is needed for the regulation of the
environment. Where there is incomplete
occupation, the ineluctable forces of physical
and chemical evolution would soon render it
uninhabitable [12: 78].
There rose a question whether a
number of species mattered for maintanance
of optimal habitable conditions in an
ecosystem led to two opposite views first,
that a large number od species is redundant
and second, that biodiversity enables
equilibrium be maintained. An eleven year
study has shown that biodiversity is really
functional for an ecosystem's stability. [6:
137-142]
Whereas deep ecology is generally
critical towards green consumism and
highly distrustful towards technology as
means to sustainability, Lovelock has had
different views. In 1966 he argued that
pollution was a natural proccess,
omnipresent in the self-regulating chemistry
of Earth system. In addition, Gaia-theory
observes life as a whole, in its totality; as a
whole, life does need to reproduce. A
prognosis that man's industrial activities are
fouling the nest and pose a threat to the total
life of the planet are unrealistic as the first
and most resistent forms of life anaerobic
bacterial and other microscopic organisms
have maintained their presence in Gaia
through eons.
However, distruction of the vital
areas of Gaia that are crucial for ensuring the
living conditions (littoral areas, rainforests
and oceans) would greatly harm human and
some other species. The core problem he
sees in reductionist and partial scope of
modern natural sciences, which do not
encourage holistic thinking that all the
matter and chemicals in the system are
connected. In addition, problem is generated
in carnivore tribe mentality of partial
interes prevailing in avrage man. Although
personally incredulous towards sustainable
developement concept as tied to liberal
market economies, Lovelock does not
believe that preservation of major living
conditions for humans could succeed
without a sophisticated technology.
In The Revenge of Gaia (2006) he
warns that the Gaia system has its
limitations; when dynamic equilibrium is
sufficiently disturbed, Gaia would give a
risponse:


We have grown in number to the
point where our presence is perceptibly
disabling the planet like a disease. As in
human diseases there are four possible
outcomes: destruction of the invading
desease organisms; chronic infection;
destruction of the host; or symbiosis a
lasting relationship pf mutual benefit to the
host and the invader. [11: 8]
Alhough Lovelock himself in The
Ages of Gaia refuted his preliminary thesis
(that life on Earth actively keeps the surface
conditions always favourable for whatever is
the contemporary esemble for organisms)
and revisted the concept, with course of time
Gaia-theory got its recognition from
scientific research and application in
biogeochemistry, Earth System Science and
climatology. To present the theory, Lovelock
also developed Daisy world, a model that
has proved stable in mathematical terms.
The Amsterdam Declaration of 2001
was first to publicly affirm the concept:
The Earth System behaves as a single, self-
regulating system comprised of physical,
chemical, biological and human components.
The interactions and feedbacks
between the component parts are complex
and exhibit multi-scale temporal and spatial
variability. The understanding of the natural
dynamics of the Earth System has advanced
greatly in recent years and provides a sound
basis for evaluating the effects and
consequences of human-driven change.
[13]
Gaia Conference in 2006 in
Arlington, Virginia, USA was a second great
academic event dedicated to promotion of
the concept.
One of Lovelock's notes tend to
affirm deep ecological point about holistic
approach as a wisdom shared by pleople
when atteched to nature:
Scientists are usually condemned to lead
urban lives, but I find that country people
still living close to the Earth often seem
puzzled that anyone should need to make a
formal proposition of anything as obvious as
the Gaia hypothesis. For them it is true and
always has been. [10:26]

HOLISM AND NEW AGE

New Age developes at the beginning
of second half of 20
th
century on foundations
of destructed Enlightenments myth of
progress. It grew out of disappointment with
Western scientific-technological project
driven by instrumental rationality that had
evidently failed to solve social problems it
has been generating. New Age is a
phenomenon of postsecular desire for the
sacred, a variant of what Mircea Eliade calls
religious nostalgy and ontological
obsession.[18:58] It is hard to define it as it
is a heterogene compilation of numerous
elements from various scientific, religious,
esoteric, occult and philosophical traditions.
Rejection of dogmas, syncretism, holism,
plurality, pseudosciences, experience-
seeking, sacralisation of psychology as well
as oriental and esoteric teachings conformed
with Western subjectivism are major traits of
New Age paradigm; it is best defined as a
patchwork postsecular spirituality whose
central goal is to lead an individual towards
self-fulfillment through the extension of
counsciousness. New Age greatly favours
naturalistic pantheism. From its beginning, it
has contributed to growth of ecological
sensibility.
As foretold, deep ecology has some
ovelapping elements with transpersonal
psychology which is characteristic for New
Age: one should pursuit for the extended
ecological Self through identification with
other beings in the universal life network.
Some New Age streams promote living in
simple and sustainable manner. Both deep


ecological and Gaian holism are potent to
affect postsecular subject. The example of
tihs is James Cameron' successful use of it in
his famous science fiction movie, Avatar
(2009). Harmony with nature and its lows as
an automatic harmony with oneself is
strongly encouraged in New Age, with
holistic approach being one of its
identification cards.
As Gaia-theory was named after
Greek mythological godess-Earth, some
authors incorporated it in New Age
teachings thus constructing gaianism, a
spirituality that considers cherishing
connectedness with Gaia life network
necessary for man's fullfilment, global
homeostasis and world peace realization.
Accordingly, anthropogene influence to Gaia
should be minimized. Some more radical
variants of gaianism hold that Gaia has
counsciousness so consciousness of living
beings, not exclusively humans, is preserved
after their bodies get disintegrated. A Gaian
manifesto (General Statements of Belief)
of sorts proclaims:
Sacred Evolution!
This Universal power imbued in all things
Toward preservation
In ever-changing manifestation
Beloved Gaian expression
I sing Your song Great Mother
For we know ourselves
And all of our siblings
Through You! [16]
The understanding of divinity in
gaianism is left to individual definition.
Gaia-theory has had some echoes in
feministic theology, too. [17]
However, whereas deep ecology and
Gaia-theory are rationally worried for the
human future in life network, New Age/
Next Age paradigms are permeated by a
futurist optimism, looking foward to close
future where a turning point will take place
a new enlightened mentality will lead the
West towards true blossom of freedom and
harmony. Also, New Age holism differs
from deep ecological or Gaia-tehorety one.
Whereas the letter are theoretical views that
tend to be routed in science (in case of Gaia-
theory) and disciplined philosophy (in case
of deep ecology), New Age holism is
expressed in mixed terminologies, often in
very general or hermetic terms that coquet
both with theoretical phisics, Eastern
religions and hermetic philosophical
streams.
Generally, it suggests that the energy
which makes the whole universe consists of
consciousness, which is an universal mind
that in a mysterious way supports the
material world as its basic matter. Intending
to take quantum physics into consideration,
Amit Goswami suggests:
As the real experiencer [of the nonlocal
consciousness] I operate from outside the
system transcending my brain-mind that is
localized in space-time from behind the
veil of the tangled hierarchy of my brain-
minds systems. My separateness my ego
emerges only as the apparent agency for the
free will of this cosmic I, obscuring the
discontinuity in space-time that the collapse
of the quantum brain-mind state represents
[17:192] .
An another example of New Age
holism-approach is found in bestselling self-
help manual The Secret (2006) by Rhonda
Bryne:
Everything is energy. You are an energy
magnet, so you electrically energize
everything to you and electrically energize
yourself to everything you want.
We are all connected and we are all One.
[19: 191]
Quantum mechanics confirms it [the
Secret]. Quantum cosmology confirms it.
That the Universe essentially
emerges from thought and all of this matter
around us is just precipitated thought.
Ultimately we are the source of the
Universe, and when we understand that
power directly by experience, we can start to
exercise our authority and begin to achieve


more and more. ...[...]...Know anything from
within the field of our own consciousness,
which ultimately is Universal consciousness
that runs the Universe. . . . So we are the
creators, not only of our own destiny, but
ultimately we are the creators of Universal
destiny. [...] If everything is One Universal
Consciousness that as a whole exists
everywhere, then this whole Conciousness is
in You! [19:191-912]
As evident, New Age discourse
expresses the idea of unity of the cosmos
using a holistic approach, which would
comprehend both science and mysticism.
However, it is usually a
terminological and methodological syncre-
tism which carefully avoids scientific
discipline and theoretical consistency. It is
ecocentricly oriented, however, not very
interested in bringig proposals of social
action.
There are two reasons for that. First,
similarly to deep ecology, New Age is not
directed towards coordinated social action,
but towards extension of an individual
consciousness, in order to increase an
individual life's quality.
Secondly, it rejects dogmas and
norms so is meek in morality. Given these
traits, it turns to be a peculiar postsecular
pseudoreligion.

CONCLUSION

Life is a complex phenomenon, not
apprehensible by methodological apparatus
of one single science, not even of natural
sciences exclusively. It is characterized by
attributes that stay wondrous and fascinating,
both for urban scientist and people that live
close to nature: from formation of the first
living matter on, all the organic systems
have been transactive, entropy-reductive,
self-regulating, self-differentiating and
developing towards greater complexity. As a
natural being, man is dependent on other
forms of life and part of the great self-
regulating natural system.
Techical civilization, driven by
instrumental rationality and economical
growth as supreme value, penetrates the
areas of key importance for mantaining the
habitable conditions for humans in the Earth
system. There is anthropological evidence
that man has ever since been both natural
and cultural specie, the latter being his
differentia specifica among higher primates.
Culture is related to restraint of
instincts and self-transcendence which in a
peculiar way dettaches man from his
material ground nature. The critic of this
self-distructive dettachment can go so far to
call civilization a form of sickness, a
complete self-alienation of man a
Nietzschean idea which Markus adopts
through neodarwinism joined to deep
ecology.
Comparatively, as a rational subject,
man is the only being whose appropriate
attitude towards the ecosystem is
responsibility. It is mans self-transcendent
and mutable nature that enables his eventual
identification with other species and the life-
guarding network which Naess proposes.
Ony man can articulate the idea of other
species right to fulfill their evovutionary
potential and excercise it, which Naess
advocates.
Lovelock's methodological holism
which brought him to Gaia-theory and
pleading for Earth System Science as an
appropriate discipline to life-research, is a
science-accepted fruit of independent
holistic thinking. [13] Rejecting every kind
of scientific reductionism, he correctly
argued that a better look at life is achieved if
it is observed as a phenomenon of a whole
which is of a different quality than a mere


summation of its parts: Gaia is a new
telescope for observing life on Earth, a new
theoretical model. [12:46]
New Age mentality brings
environment and transpersonal self into
focus. However, its pseudoscientific and
pseudoreligious holism (all is one and one is
all) is shallow as it does not meet criteria of
consistency and does not nourish austere
responsibility for there lacks ground of
morality.
The problem of anthropogene
intervention in the self-regulating Earth
system that supports (also) human habitation
and the quality of life is the most urgent. The
solution is abong the most challenging and
most difficult to find, as the problem springs
from condicio humana as such. Considering
man's culturality as a fallacy, as well as
proposing the return to premordial tribal
lifesyle in wilderness, does not seem
realistic.
However, deep ecology and Gaia-
theory may be a source of motivation to
developing risponsibility in terms of simple
and fulfilling lifestyles, as well as
sustainable policies. A form of liberating
ascetism is to be suggested and discovered.
As a risponsible, both natural and cultural
being, man is capable of this.

REFERENCES

[1] H. Jonas, Pokuaj jedne etike za
tehnoloku civilizaciju, Veselin
Maslea, Sarajevo, 1990.

[2] A. Drengson, Y. Inoue (eds), The Deep
Ecology Movement: An Introductory
Anthology, North Atlantic Books,
Berkeley (1995).

[3] Naess differs four grades of
quastioning and articulation of the
environmental attitudes: the first grade
consists of ground assumptions, the
second of the principles that underline
the deep ecology movement, the third
of policies and the fourth practical
actions.

[4] T comes from Tvergastein, a
Norwegian mountain where Naess
used to stay. Tolkining is
Norwegian for interpretation.

[5] In context of deep ecology movement
some peculiar concepts appear:
bioregionalism, natural capitalism,
transpersonal ecology, psychoecology
etc. Besides, value of genuine
idigenous people lifestyles and
technological solutions that they may
offer is particularly appreciated.

[6] R. E. Leakey; R. Lewin: The Sixth
Extinction: Biodiversity And Its
Survival, Phoenix (1996) pp. 137
142.

[7] T. Markus, Dubinska ekologija i
suvremena ekoloka kriza. Jedan
bioekoloki pogled, Hrvatsko
socioloko drutvo i Institut za
drutvena istraivanja, Zagreb (2006).

[8] M. Zimmerman (ed.), Environmental
Philosophy, Prentice Hall, New York
(2001).

[9] J. Lovelock, Life Detection by
Atmospheric Analysis, Icarus:
International Journal of the Solar
System, Vol. 7 (1967), No.4.

[10] J. Lovelock, Gaia A New Look at
Life on Earth, Oxford University
Press (1979).



[11] J. Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaia.
Why the Earth is fighting back and
How we can still save humanity,
Penguin Books Ltd., London (2007).

[12] J. Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia. A
Biography of Our Living Earth,
W.W.W Norton & Company, New
York (1988).

[13] The Amsterdam Declaration On
Global Change (2001),
http://www.essp.org/index.php?id=41.

[14] M. Eliade, Sveto i profano, AGM,
Zagreb (2002).

[15] Starhawk (M. Simos), The Earth Path.
Grounding Your Spirituality in the
Rythms of Nature, HarperCollins
Publishers, Inc., San Francisco (2004).

[16]
http://www.gaianism.com/index.php?o
ption=com_content&view=article&id=
4&Itemid=.

[17] A. Primavesi, Gaia' s Gift: Earth,
Ourselves and God after Copernicus,
Routlege, New York (2004).

[18] A. Geoswami, Self-aware Universe,
Penguin Putnam Inc., New York
(1993).

[19] R. Brne, The Secret, Atria Books,
New York (2006).

Gaia Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gaia Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gaia Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

M. Katii Holism in Deep Ecology and Gaia-Theory: A Contribution to Eco-Geological...

The Holistic Approach to Environment 3(2013)1, 3-14 Page 3

You might also like