I thought this article is relevant to Peter's article and this discussion.
" Lente called HB308 a “measure of last resort” to ensure that voters from those Pueblos can fully participate in the conservancy district’s election process."
New Mexico allows unique water conservation districts to hold separate elections.
with GREAT admiration and immense gratitude for your lifetime's work, talent, and heart-driven support, a comment you made in this post surprised me ... I presume your 'exhilaration' is for the 'good word fight within Lethality' ... sharing this just to welcome clarification or private chat ... as I am heavily reliant on your storyline / profession purview as a Stranded Native fighting his way back to his People ... and I don't wish to be misled. 🙏🏽
What I thought I was hearing was Joy in the debate of humans AS separate from nature. I would have hoped and you just confirmed, that your life experience assures they are not separate.
It is Indeed a good day within modernITy, when we can even have the debate about relativity and symbiosis.
You were ultimately suggesting what I hoped you were.
My 'exhilaration' relates to the fact that Stone called for discussion about 'ontology' — the underlying foundation — in relation to law ('lethality', 'domination', etc.). Too much discussion of law is superficial; for example, focused on "what was the decision?", instead of "what vision of life did the decision come from and enforce?
I tried to say that in the 'nutshell' sentence: The legal “Rights of Nature” rest on our ability to imagine the ontological “Being of Nature”.
Such a good article about helping moving, shifting, changing the colonial domination worldview to one of belonging, being part of, the sentient aliveness of living with beloved Mother Earth.
April, thanks for the phrase "colonial domination", as am working on an essay and had "colonialism" but changed it b/c much clearer/stronger way to label.
I'm going to have to mull on this one for a while. My intuitive sense is that there is some mismatch in the concept (not that you aren't aware of that and actually address it). I think the basic thing is that Nature is bigger than us (we are imbedded in it, proceed from it, etc...), so the notion that we would grant or recognize its 'rights' is a bit off. From a natural rights (vs rights of nature) perspective, we come to recognize that rights are entailed by Nature itself. Ie, it isn't the subject of rights but their source.
I realize the impetus behind this particular legislation is to protect ecosystems (which I'm all for) and the actual (positive) law is odd in many ways, so this might be just the legal strategy to employ- not debating that.
I guess it would be a big enough 'win' to get rights of Nature recognized. Getting an actual sacred aspect of Nature recognized is probably a bridge too far- is it even possible to formulate a conception of 'sacredness' within US law?
the discussion is, at least in part the dilemma posed by the English language and what remains out of focus in a typical “rights of nature” framing. I love the differentiation between “a way (path) to follow” and “take care of” expressed by JoDe’s grandfather. Thanks for adding such great insight to the discussion.
you an mankh and others are fellow explorers.. we navigate deep waters that are daunting to the best of sailors...
In this post, I aimed to come as close as I could to applauding 'rights of nature' while holding to the truth that 'nature' is beyond all 'rights' that we could imagine...
Actually, as I continue to mull, I think your story at the end points the way (as you clearly intended). I’m thinking the law needs not only an ontological basis but a religious one. Is it not ‘taboos’ and that sort of thing which mark off the Sacred and sort of set hedges around it we should respect? To some extent those could be codified into laws. I’m sure a million people have said this, but I’m new to trying to think of law in terms like you elucidate. Is the Sacred actually the basis of law? Schmitt talks like that a bit in places, but I don’t trust him a lot on that. This seems to almost have to be the case. What do you think?
I think we are on the brink of recognizing what was once 'common knowledge': the difficulty at present is that 'common knowledge' (like 'common sense') is not actually common... So we who are brave enough to enter these discussions are working to discover (as opposed to 'recover', which is to 'cover again') what was once understood easily...
Good add, Peter, and it's as with food, fighting like crazy and labeling everything "organic/non-gmo", in other words, to paraphrase your line, what was once grown and eaten easily (with hard work).
Am all for such "rights" as a way to protect and heal sacred waterways, and i wonder verbally, since so-called Nature, in this case water, is also in human beings, and since human beings interact with the waterways, recreationally, for survival, etc., i wonder if some other label than "rights of Nature" might help the cause. Certainly that label focuses attention on Nature, in this case waters, which is needed, yet maybe something like 'rights and responsibilities of working/relating with the natural world' would widen the context. How the labels play out in legal scenarios, i wouldn't know.
I live in WNY and have participated in several "water walks" here, which involve walking and kayaking waters here, praying for the water, and education about protecting our waters. It is held in conjunction with the Seneca Nation. Thank you for your article. Our waters are so important for not only humans but our entire ecosystem.
I've been involved with the CELDF team that has helped with drafting, advocating for the Great Lakes Bill of Rights, and ushering it through the New York legislative process. I'm very grateful you've written this excellent piece, Peter. Thank you very much.
Great to see you on Substack, Peter. I'm following. Thanks for this deeply thought-out piece. Yakoke, Jacki
I thought this article is relevant to Peter's article and this discussion.
" Lente called HB308 a “measure of last resort” to ensure that voters from those Pueblos can fully participate in the conservancy district’s election process."
New Mexico allows unique water conservation districts to hold separate elections.
https://sourcenm.com/briefs/new-mexico-allows-unique-water-conservation-districts-to-hold-separate-elections/
with GREAT admiration and immense gratitude for your lifetime's work, talent, and heart-driven support, a comment you made in this post surprised me ... I presume your 'exhilaration' is for the 'good word fight within Lethality' ... sharing this just to welcome clarification or private chat ... as I am heavily reliant on your storyline / profession purview as a Stranded Native fighting his way back to his People ... and I don't wish to be misled. 🙏🏽
https://open.substack.com/pub/peterderrico/p/great-lakes-and-state-waters-bill?r=5047y8&selection=2d556d76-63cd-4a88-b464-97fb7e618cd7&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web
Thank you so much. Cleared up.
What I thought I was hearing was Joy in the debate of humans AS separate from nature. I would have hoped and you just confirmed, that your life experience assures they are not separate.
It is Indeed a good day within modernITy, when we can even have the debate about relativity and symbiosis.
You were ultimately suggesting what I hoped you were.
Wado ꮹꮩ🙏🏽 Chi-Miigwech ᒮᒃᐌᑦᒡ 🙏🏽 Nia:Wen 🙏🏽
Thanks for your words...
My 'exhilaration' relates to the fact that Stone called for discussion about 'ontology' — the underlying foundation — in relation to law ('lethality', 'domination', etc.). Too much discussion of law is superficial; for example, focused on "what was the decision?", instead of "what vision of life did the decision come from and enforce?
I tried to say that in the 'nutshell' sentence: The legal “Rights of Nature” rest on our ability to imagine the ontological “Being of Nature”.
The basic questions are JoDe Goudy's Six Questions — https://peterderrico.substack.com/p/view-from-the-shore-vs-view-from ): "Who/What am I? Where do I come from? Where am I going? What is? What isn't? Why?"
Glad you asked me to clarify... I hope I have... if not, send another comment!
I never thought of nature having rights. Thank you
Such a good article about helping moving, shifting, changing the colonial domination worldview to one of belonging, being part of, the sentient aliveness of living with beloved Mother Earth.
Thank you Peter.
April, thanks for the phrase "colonial domination", as am working on an essay and had "colonialism" but changed it b/c much clearer/stronger way to label.
welcome Mankh
I'm going to have to mull on this one for a while. My intuitive sense is that there is some mismatch in the concept (not that you aren't aware of that and actually address it). I think the basic thing is that Nature is bigger than us (we are imbedded in it, proceed from it, etc...), so the notion that we would grant or recognize its 'rights' is a bit off. From a natural rights (vs rights of nature) perspective, we come to recognize that rights are entailed by Nature itself. Ie, it isn't the subject of rights but their source.
I realize the impetus behind this particular legislation is to protect ecosystems (which I'm all for) and the actual (positive) law is odd in many ways, so this might be just the legal strategy to employ- not debating that.
I guess it would be a big enough 'win' to get rights of Nature recognized. Getting an actual sacred aspect of Nature recognized is probably a bridge too far- is it even possible to formulate a conception of 'sacredness' within US law?
the discussion is, at least in part the dilemma posed by the English language and what remains out of focus in a typical “rights of nature” framing. I love the differentiation between “a way (path) to follow” and “take care of” expressed by JoDe’s grandfather. Thanks for adding such great insight to the discussion.
Yes, JoDe's grandfather expresses a "non-domination" relation between humans and the rest of Creation...
Excellent article as usual Peter. It seems to me though that the context of
you an mankh and others are fellow explorers.. we navigate deep waters that are daunting to the best of sailors...
In this post, I aimed to come as close as I could to applauding 'rights of nature' while holding to the truth that 'nature' is beyond all 'rights' that we could imagine...
Actually, as I continue to mull, I think your story at the end points the way (as you clearly intended). I’m thinking the law needs not only an ontological basis but a religious one. Is it not ‘taboos’ and that sort of thing which mark off the Sacred and sort of set hedges around it we should respect? To some extent those could be codified into laws. I’m sure a million people have said this, but I’m new to trying to think of law in terms like you elucidate. Is the Sacred actually the basis of law? Schmitt talks like that a bit in places, but I don’t trust him a lot on that. This seems to almost have to be the case. What do you think?
I think we are on the brink of recognizing what was once 'common knowledge': the difficulty at present is that 'common knowledge' (like 'common sense') is not actually common... So we who are brave enough to enter these discussions are working to discover (as opposed to 'recover', which is to 'cover again') what was once understood easily...
Good add, Peter, and it's as with food, fighting like crazy and labeling everything "organic/non-gmo", in other words, to paraphrase your line, what was once grown and eaten easily (with hard work).
W.D., the gists you mention is some of what my comment was going for.
Am all for such "rights" as a way to protect and heal sacred waterways, and i wonder verbally, since so-called Nature, in this case water, is also in human beings, and since human beings interact with the waterways, recreationally, for survival, etc., i wonder if some other label than "rights of Nature" might help the cause. Certainly that label focuses attention on Nature, in this case waters, which is needed, yet maybe something like 'rights and responsibilities of working/relating with the natural world' would widen the context. How the labels play out in legal scenarios, i wouldn't know.
That's why I ended with the Yakama grandfather... There's a depth in his story that encompasses all what you say....
Yes, Peter, i realized that about the story, and was looking further into how that all might play out with the labels, etc.
Thanks for sharing this, Peter!
and you for alerting me!
I live in WNY and have participated in several "water walks" here, which involve walking and kayaking waters here, praying for the water, and education about protecting our waters. It is held in conjunction with the Seneca Nation. Thank you for your article. Our waters are so important for not only humans but our entire ecosystem.
I've been involved with the CELDF team that has helped with drafting, advocating for the Great Lakes Bill of Rights, and ushering it through the New York legislative process. I'm very grateful you've written this excellent piece, Peter. Thank you very much.