posted on Oct, 15 2010 @ 10:54 AM
1/ Insofar as anything 'exists' at all, it does this through contextual relating to something else (and ofcourse vice versa). This is valid for
both the socalled 'physical' world as well as for concepts. A conceptual reality-tunnel, map-of-the-territory, model of existence, ideology etc. can
only present 'truth' according to the context is operates from. E.g. its basic assumptions, parameters and methodology.
No matter how 'selfproving' such conceptual models of existence postulate themselves to be, they will always be closed systems, bubbles of
self-reinforcing 'local' truth. And even taking bredth, width and depth of the basic epistemological tools into consideration, we can only talk
about approximative truth; the approximation decided by the extent of what such a 'bubble' initially encompasses.
2/ Amongst such 'bubble-models' organised religion clearly demonstrates the most narrow epistemological platform. And especially the Abramic
religions are examples of this. A few entangled doctrines, based on a narrative which practically doesn't relate to anything else than itself in any
meaningful way, forms the basis of the most powerful ideological movement in recent historical time.
3/ This said, I must admit to a great disappointment in the movie 'Avatar'. It isn't much better than organised religion. And I'm saying this
from a background of being a vegetarian, treehugger, environmentalist and whatever since 1965, the practical owner of an ecological farm since 1972,
and on a social level being practically involved in alternative lifestyle etc since the late seventies (fair-price healthfood businessman, healing,
organisational). The movie is primitive, not much better than any other superhero story and presents the 'nature' perspective in such a way, that I
found it embarrasing.
Two posters here have approached the topic from perspectives similar to the above. Durabys and Dr. Love.
NO-ONE having the slightest firsthand information on our Gaian eco-system can possibly postulate, that any great deal of symbiosis is intrinsic in our
global bio-sphere. Recycling, yes, but that's not quite the same. Nature-romantic ideas of symbiosis-potential are usually results of inspirational
propaganda or from spending one's whole life in a city.
And as to Dr. Love: You're right about the approach to the topic here. It deserves a broader debate-background than the black/white entrenchments
Personally I could suggest e.g. the mahayana buddhist: Illusion=reality (samsara=nirvana); Gandhi's spiritual/political basis (Jain); utilitarian
(and non-religious) morality; practical application of principles around liberal society etc.
I for one, don't want my ideological basis represented by such 'small bubbled' trash as 'Avatar'. People could think I'm retarded.