Categoria: English

Some improvements to the current model of Sustainability

Leonardo Boff1 comentário

To be sustainable, development must be economically viable, socially just and environmentally correct. We have already criticized the standard model. But we must be fair. There have been analysts and thinkers who have noticed the deficiencies of this tripod, and have added other complimentary pillars. Let us examine some.

Conduct of the sustainable mind.

For there to be sustainable development, there must first be created a new mental scheme, which its formulator, professor Evandro Vieira Ouriques of the School of Communications of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, has called, conduct of the sustainable mind. It attempts to revive the value of sensible reason, through which the human being is aware of being part of nature, imposes self-control to limit productivity and consumerism, and seeks an integral development, not only economic, but with human dimensions. It is an undeniable advance. It would be better if it understood the Earth-Humanity-Development as a unique and great interconnected system, creating a new paradigm.

Generosity:

Rogerio Ruschel, editor of the electronics magazine \”Business of the Good\”, added another pillar: the ethical category of generosity. It is founded on a basic anthropologic fact: the human being does not just egotistically seek his individual good; the human being is much more of a social being, who puts the common good above the individual good or the interests of others at the same level as himself. Generous is the person who shares, who distributes knowledge and experiences, expecting nothing in return. A society is human when it goes beyond a necessary justice, to incorporate the generosity and spirit of cooperation of its citizens.

For Ruschel, generosity is in direct opposition to the basic tenet of speculative capital, that greed is good, namely, profit is good. Profit is not good, it is perverse, because it has almost destroyed the whole world economic system. There is in generosity something true, because it is specifically human. In the metaphor of the Marcondes journalist of the UN “Envolverde”, a distinction must be made between simple philanthropy and generosity, social responsibility and sustainability. Philantropy gives a fish to the one who is hungry; social responsibility teaches him how to fish; and sustainability cares for the river and allows for fishing and, with the fish, overcomes hunger. However, it seems to us that generosity alone is insufficient. It requires other solutions, such as overcoming inequality and the practices of consumption, and developing a concern for the community of life, that must also be nourished and preserved.

Culture:

In 2001, Australian John Hawkes launched «the fourth pillar of sustainability: the essential function of culture in public planning». In Brazil, credit goes to Ana Carla Fonseca Reis, founder of the enterprise, “Seeking Solutions” and author of the book, Economics of Sustainable Culture and Development, who has taken it on, and spread it through her many courses and lectures. This aspect of culture is fundamental, because it contains principles and values absent from the standard concept of sustainability. It favors cultivating such typically human dimensions as social cohesion, arts, religion, creativity and the sciences. It eliminates the obsession with profit, and is in better harmony with the logic of nature. As it happens, the dimension of culture has been kidnapped by commercial interests. It can only be truly efficacious when, liberated, it develops a creative relationship with nature.

The neuroplasticity of the brain:

Scientists have come to recognize that the neuronal structure of the brain is extremely plastic. Through critical analysis to the consumerist system, one can create habits of moderation, respectful of the cycles of nature. The brain co-evolves according to the exterior evolution, thus creating a relationship of inter-dependency.

And, finally, the essential caring:

I myself have developed the category of caring as essential for sustainability. As presented in two texts –Essential Caring: ethics of the human–compassion for the Earth (1999) and The necessary Caring (2012)–, I understand caring as a cosmological and biological constant. The details can be found in the afore-mentioned books.

In this phase of the search for more adequate means of guaranteeing the sustainability of the Earth and the future of our species, all contributions are welcome, and they always shed some light.

Panteism and Panenteism: a necessary Distinction

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

A radical and coherent cosmological vision holds that the ultimate subject of everything that happens is the universe itself. The universe causes the appearance of beings, complexities, biodiversity, consciousness, and the contents of that consciousness, of which we are a part.

Thus, before it arose as an idea in our heads, the reality of God was in the universe itself. Because the reality of God was in the universe, the idea of God could come forth in us. Starting from this concept, we can understand that God is inherent in the universe. God is mixed with all the processes, without being diluted by them. Better yet, God orients the arrow of time towards the formation of ever more complex and dynamic orders, (that, consequently, distance themselves from the equilibrium to seek new adaptations), that are filled with purpose. God appears, in the language of cross-cultural traditions, as the creative Spirit, and organizer of all that exists. God is mixed with all things, participating in their development, suffering with mass extinctions, feeling crucified with the impoverished, and happy with the advances towards more convergent and interrelated diversities, pointing towards an Omega end point.

God is present in the cosmos and the cosmos is present in God. The old theology expressed this mutual inter-penetration by the concept of «pericoresis» applied to the relationships between God and creation, and thereafter, to the Persons of the Divine Trinity. Modern theology has coined another expression, «panenteism» (in Greek: pan=all; en=in; theos=God). This is: God is in everything and everything is in God. This word was proposed by an Evangelical, Frederick Krause (l781-1832), who was fascinated by the divine splendor of the universe.

Panenteism must be clearly distinguished from panteism. Panteism (in Greek: pan = all; theos=God) affirms that all is God and God is all. It holds that God and the world are identical; that the world is not a creation of God, but the necessary mode of being of God. Panteism accepts no differentiation: heaven is God, the Earth is God, the rock is God and the human being is God. This lack of differentiation easily leads to indifference. All is God and God is all, consequently it makes no difference whether I concern myself for a girl abused in a bus of Rio, or about the Carnival, or the indigenous peoples facing extinction, or a law against homophobia. This is manifestly erroneous, because differences exist and persist.

Not all is God. Things are what they are: things. However, God is in things and things are of God, by reason of His act of creation. The creature always depends on God and without God the creature would return to the nothingness whence it came. God and the world are different, but they are neither separated nor closed, they are open one for the other. They are different so as to make possible mutual encounter and communion. Through it, transcendence and immanence, the contrasting categories of Greek origin, are left behind.
Immanence is this world, here. Transcendence is the world that is beyond this. Christianity, by the incarnation of God created a new category: transparence, that is the presence of the transcendence (God) within the immanence (world). When this happens, God and the world mutually make each other transparent. As Jesus said: \”who sees me, sees the Father\”. Teilhard de Chardin lived a moving spirituality of the transparence. In The Divine Milieu, an essay on the interior life, (Le milieu divin, 162), he said: «the great mystery of Christianity is not the apparition, but the transparence of God in the universe. Not only the ray that emerges, but the ray that penetrates. Not the Epiphany but the Diaphaneity».

The universe in cosmogenesis invites us to live the experience that underlies panenteism: in every minimal manifestation of being, in every movement, in every expression of life we are in the presence and action of God. Embracing the world we embrace God. Those who are sensitive to the Sacred and to the Mystery pull God out of anonymity, and give the Divine a name. They celebrate the Divine with hymns, songs and rites, through which they express their experience of God. They are witness to what Paul said to the Greeks from Athens: “We live, we move, we exist in God.” (17, 28).

How does God emerge in the evolutionary Process?

Leonardo BoffDeixe um comentário

The new cosmology, derived from the sciences of the universe, the Earth, and life, is set in the broad scope of evolution. This evolution is not lineal. It includes stops and starts, and experiences set backs, mass destructions, and rebirths. But, if we look back, the process shows a direction: forward and up.

We are aware that some well-known scientists refuse to accept directionality in the universe. It simply would make no sense. Others, such as the well-known British physicist, Freeman Dyson – to name only one– says: «The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe, somehow, had to have known that we were on the way».

Looking back at the process of evolution, that has been going on for 13.7 billion years, we cannot deny that there was an upward path: energy became matter, matter became filled with information, the destructive chaos turned generative, what was simple became complex, from a complex object sprang life, and from life, consciousness emerged. There is a purpose that cannot be denied. In effect, if things in their minuscule details had not occurred as they did, we would not be here talking about them.

As the well-known mathematician and physicist, Stephen Hawking, wrote in his 2005 book, A Very Brief History of Time: «The whole universe seems to have been finely tuned to allow for the development of life. For example, if the electric charge of the electron had been a little different, the equilibrium in the stars between the electromagnetic and gravitational forces would have been altered and, they either would have been incapable of turning hydrogen into helium, or they would have exploded». Either way, life could not have existed.

How does God emerge in the cosmogenic process? The idea of God arises when we posit this question: what was there before the big bang? What gave the initial impulse? Nothingness? But nothing comes from nothing. If despite that, beings appeared, it is a sign that Someone or Something called them into existence and maintains them in being.

What we can reasonably say is: before the big bang the Unknowable existed and the Mystery was present. About the Mystery and the Unknowable, by definition, we literally can say nothing. By their nature, they are before the word, the energy, before matter, space and time.

Well then, the Mystery and the Unknowable are precisely the names that religions, including Christianity, use to denote what we call God. In front of God silence is better than words. Nevertheless, God can be perceived by reverent reason and felt by the heart as a Presence that fills the Universe and generates in us the feelings of greatness, majesty, respect and veneration.

Sitting between heaven and Earth, when we see the night filled with stars, we are breathless and become filled with reverence. The questions naturally come: Who made all this? Who hides behind the Milky Way? As the great rabbi from New York City, Abraham Heschel, said: «We can say anything, or doubt everything in our air-conditioned offices or between the four white walls of the classrooms. But we cannot be silent when we are faced with the complexity of nature and drenched with its beauty. It is impossible to underestimate the morning dawn, to be indifferent when a flower blooms, or not to be amazed when we see a newborn child». Almost spontaneously we say: it was God who set it all in motion. God is the originating Source and the Abysm that nourishes everything.

There is another important question: what does God want to express with creation? Answering this is the concern not only of the religious consciousness, but of science itself. Let us use as an illustration what Stephen Hawking also said in his well-known book, Brief history of time, 1992: «If we were to find the answer to why we and the universe exist, we would have the definitive triumph of human reason; because then we would have reached the knowledge of the mind of God». Scientists are still searching for the hidden design of God.

From a religious perspective we can succinctly say: It would seem that the meaning of the universe and of our own conscious existence resides in the fact of being the mirror in which God sees the Divine. God creates the universe as an overflowing of the divine plenitude of being, of goodness and intelligence. There is creation, so that others may participate in the divine superabundance. The human being with consciousness is created in order to be able to hear the messages the universe wants to communicate to us, so that the human being may capture the histories of the beings of creation, of the heavens, the seas, the animals, and the human process itself, linking everything to the original Source, whence it all comes.

The universe is still being born. The tendency is to finish being born and to show the hidden potentialities. For that, expansion also means revelation. When all has been realized, then the design of the Creator will be completely revealed.

Liberation and the new Cosmology

Leonardo Boff3 Comentários

Some time ago, the U.S. Museum of Natural History conducted a survey among biologists, asking if they believed that we are in the middle of a mass extinction. 70% replied that yes, we are. The renown cosmologist Brian Swimme, who, with Thomas Berry, authored one of the most brilliant narratives on the history of the universe, The Universe Story, 1992, was asked what could we do, and he replied: «for some time now the universe has been doing its part to stop the disaster; but we must do our part. And we will do it through the awakening of a new cosmological consciousness, that is, if we adjust our behavior to the logic of the universe. But we are not yet doing enough.»

What does this reply mean? It points towards a new consciousness that assumes collective responsibility for the protection of our common house and caring for our civilization. To adjust our behavior to the logic of the universe means to answer the calls that arise from what is called the «cosmogenic principle». It is this principle that structures the expansion and generation of the universe, with all its inert and living beings. It manifests itself through three characteristics: difference/complexity, subjectivity/internalizing, and interdependency/communion.

In simpler terms: the more the universe expands, the more complex it becomes; when it becomes more complex, it acquires more internalizing and subjectivity, (each being has its own way of relating and of making its history). And the more internalizing and subjectivity the universe acquires, the more all beings enter into communion with each other, and reinforce their interdependency in the context of their belonging to a great Whole. Berry and Swimme comment: «if there had been no complexity (differentiation), the universe would have perished as a homogenous mass; if there had been no subjectivity, the universe would have become an inert and dead expanse; if there had been no communion, the universe would have been transformed into a number of isolated events.»

We, the liberation theologians, over 40 years of reflection, have tried to explore the economic, social, anthropologic and spiritual dimensions of liberation, as an answer to specific forms of oppression. In the context of the generalized ecologic crisis we are seeking to incorporate this cosmologic vision. This has forced us to break away from the conventional paradigm in which we organized our thinking, which is still linked to a mechanical and static cosmology. The new cosmology sees the universe differently, as an incommensurable process of evolution/expansion/creation that involves all that happens within it, including consciousness and society.

In cosmologic principle terminology, personal liberation means to free oneself from limitations, so as to experience a communion with all beings and with the universe, a phenomenon the Buddhists call «illumination» (satori), and the experience of no-duality that Saint Francis lived, in the sense of an open brotherhood and sisterhood with all beings. In social terms, liberation in light of the cosmogenic principle is the creation of a society without oppression, where diversities are valued and expanded (diversities of gender, cultures and spiritual ways). This means leaving behind the culture of the official thinking of the only approved politics, economy, and theology. This is the principal means of oppression and homogenization.

Liberation also requires a deepening of internalization. Internalization is no longer satisfied by the mere consumption of material goods; it asks for values linked to creativity, to the arts, meditation and the communion with Mother Earth and the universe. Liberation results from the forces of the «relational matrix», especially with those who suffer injustices and are excluded. This matrix makes us feel like members of the community of life, and sons and daughters of Mother Earth, who through us feels, loves, cares and is concerned for the common future.

Finally, liberation in a cosmologic perspective demands a new awareness of universal interdependency and responsibility. We are called upon to reinvent our species, as we have done in the past, during the different crises humanity has experienced. It is urgent now because we do not have much time and we must face up to challenges of the present crisis of the Earth.