we are part of the “common flesh” of the world; we are in a sense the world thinking itself

環境に倫理をくっ付ける人は、『環境のために君は死んで』と言うから嫌われるわけだ。温暖化の議論でも、ファッション・リベラルであって、仮に電気自動車が製造過程で炭酸ガス排出が多くても、充電池廃棄が環境を汚染しても、正義の顔をしてやってくるだろう。

— buvery (@buvery) December 23, 2020

しかし、 

 Environmental Ethics

環境倫理っておもしろそうだなあ。　時間がないのでめちゃくちゃに斜めにパラっと見て、気に入ったところを拾うと

As a counter to egoism at both the individual and species level, Næss proposes the adoption of an alternative relational “total-field image” of the world. According to this relationalism, organisms (human or otherwise) are best understood as “knots” in the biospherical net. The identity of a living thing is essentially constituted by its relations to other things in the world, especially its ecological relations to other living things. 

As developed by Næss and others, the position also came to focus on the possibility of the identification of the human ego with nature. The idea is, briefly, that by identifying with nature I can enlarge the boundaries of the self beyond my skin. My larger—ecological—Self (the capital “S” emphasizes that I am something larger than my body and consciousness), deserves respect as well. To respect and to care for my Self is also to respect and to care for the natural environment, which is actually part of me and with which I should identify. “Self-realization”, in other words, is the reconnection of the shriveled human individual with the wider natural environment.

More poetically, David Abram has argued that a phenomenological approach of the kind taken by Merleau-Ponty can reveal to us that we are part of the “common flesh” of the world, that we are in a sense the world thinking itself (Abram 1995).

おれの形而上学というか神秘主義的直感というか・・・・そんなものに合致するところがあるな。

・・・時間のあるときゆっくり読んでみたいなあ。