Annual Interdisciplinary Graduate Symposium presented by the Anthropology Graduate Student Association

Acknowledgements. This paper is a revised version of one originally appearing in Indigenous Policy Journal, "With Anything Manmade There Is Going to Be Danger": The Cultural Context of Navajo Opinions Regarding Snowmaking on the San Francisco Peaks” (Dunstan 2010). That paper was the product of several helping hands. The initial field research would have been impossible without support from the BYU Field Studies office as well as the Dine’ Policy Institute (Tsaile, AZ). My research was ultimately under the direction of the Institute and it is with gratitude to them that I publish some early findings based on my data. Edwin Andrus and John Hawkins provided significant theoretical insights into my data at an early writing stage and helped me to distil my post-field ideas into actual conclusion. Larry, Jacqueline, and Matthew Dunstan, and Tessa and Dan Harker provided personal assistance during and after research. Countless others provided insight which has shaped this revised version of my original paper.

Aldenderfer, Mark

2011 Envisioning a Pragmatic Approach to the Archaeology of Religion. Archaeological

Papers of the American Anthropological Association 21(1):23-36.

Carpenter, Kristen

2006 “Interest of Peoples in the Cooperative Management of Sacred Sites” Tulsa Law

Review 37.

Cragun, Boone

2005-2006 “A Snowbowl Déjà vu: The Battle Between Native American Tribes and the

Arizona Snowbowl Continues”. American Indian Law Review 30:165-184.

Douglas, Mary

1988 (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.

New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul Inc.

Gale Courey Toensing, Gale Courey

2012 “Ninth Circuit Allows Recycled Sewage on Sacred San Francisco Peaks”, Indian

Country Today 02/10/2012,

Glowacka, Maria, Dorothy Washburn, and Justin Richland.

2009 Nuvatukya’ovi, San Francisco Peaks: Balancing Western Economies with Native

American Spiritualisties. Current Anthropology 50(4):547-561.

Holder, Oksana P.

2011 Snowbowl: No Green Deed Goes Unpunished. Arizona Journal of Environmental Law

and Policy 2:1013-1019.

Kelin, Zackeree S.

2010 “Dramatically Narrowing RFRA’S Definitino of “Substantial Burden” in the Ninth

Circuit- the Vestiges of Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetary Protective Association in

Navajo Nation et al. v. United States Forest Service et al.” South Dakota Law Review 55.

King, Thomas F.

2010 “Commentary: What Burdens Religion? Musings on Two Recent Cases Interpreting the

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)” Great Plains Natural resources Journal 13.

Kluckhohn, Clyde and Dorothea Leighton

1974 [1946] The Navaho. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Knapp, Jonathan

2009 Making Snow in the Desert. Ecology Law Quarterly 36.

Lane, Belden C.

2001 “Giving Voice to Place: Three Models for Understanding American Sacred Space”.

Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation 11(1):53-81.
Pinxten, Rik, Ingrid van Dooren, and Franck Harvey

1983 Anthropology of Space: Explorations into the Natural Philosophy and Semantics of

the Navajo. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Schlosberg, David

2010 “Indigenous Struggles, Environmental Justice and Community Capabilities. Global

Environmental Politics 10(4):12-15.

Sefiha

2008 Sacred Mountain and Profane Dollars. Social & Legal Studies 17(4):491-511.

2008 Contemporary Western Ethnography and the Definition of Religion,.

Continuum International Publishing Group: London.

Tsosie, Rebecca

2005 “Challenges to Sacred Site Protection”. Denver University Law Review 83:963 -980.

Chapter 7

Philosophy

The human being is the individual living a life of positive development, realizing their unique place in reality, in a universe that affords them a magnificent potential and position that can be rightly called divine¹⁷. When an individual manifests their being as human, they positively contribute to the development of themselves, other individuals and the mind-external universe. This manifestation (or actualization, realization), can take many forms, limited only by the imagination. Part of understanding what it is to be human involves understanding the human mind’s capability. We need only look to history, perhaps also to some of our family and friends, to find individuals who have actualized this potential. These persons are engaging in, or using, the rational, moral and creative powers afforded by free, conscious and self-aware existence, a power stemming possibly from the universe, itself a rational dynamic interconnected and developing totality. The human being has many aspects—moral, rational, emotional, physical, creative—all being interrelated. Each aspect, whether individually or as a collective, is in turn related to the world.

The notion of our place (of humanity as a whole) or the place (of an individual human being) can be communicated in the form of a question: (Q1) What is the relationship between humanity, the individual human being and the universe? This and similarly profound questions have a home in the hearts and minds of every individual. They are formally addressed in the disciplines of philosophy, theology and religion broadly construed. They often have answers in God (or, at least, the idea of God). The question becomes: (Q2) What is the relationship between the human being, humanity as a whole, the universe and God?

I approach this inquiry with a background belief that we are to explore, discover or develop ideas that will elevate the human mind and the human condition. Is that not what we should do in all our endeavors (particularly in scientific inquiry): rationally and humbly pursue truth in such a way that we uplift humanity, increasing our quality of life, and our conceptual and physical grasp of existence, all of which is (non-exhaustively?) seeking God. The question (Q3) ‘How can I (we) uplift the individual mind, the human condition and the totality of humanity through ideas and works?’ should always, in some form, be present in one’s mind. Indeed, perhaps the self-actualized person, the human being as human, implicitly, naturally, and (sub)consciously acts in the vein of (Q3).

Many texts, particularly The Holy Bible communicate similar positive ideas, encouraging the Good, the True and love. These ideas may be communicated in a direct literal form or a symbolic or metaphorical form (among others). Herein, I explore a number of interrelated ideas and show how they are communicated via Biblical metaphors toward the understanding humanity and our place in the universe. Consider the following.

As presented in religious works and in philosophical arguments (Martin and Bernard 2003), God is interpreted literally by some as an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent and omnibenevolent being. I will discuss a symbolic understanding of these commonly held properties, as well as other Biblical ideas, in order to unpack their symbolic nature and their vital import for humanity. The aim is not, by any means, to explicitly or implicitly refute the existence of (the Judeo-Christian) God¹⁸, nor to support atheism whatsoever. Aside from understanding the nature of the human being, I endeavor to communicate that God and related notions, if only understood in a symbolic fashion, does not and need not diminish our sense of value, purpose, meaning, and morality in life¹⁹. Rather, it can enhance our sense of self, purpose and moral impetus by contributing to our understanding of what it is to be human.²⁰ Indeed, questioning and reasoning are part of seeking (and glorifying) God (Pope John Paul II 1994). Passages on God and related notions are, at least, metaphorical/allegorical/symbolic in nature. Grasping what it is to be human is to comprehend the relationship between ourselves, God, truth, the related (practical) notions of reason or rationality, love, and finally, reality (the universe) as a whole. This is one idea I will explore. Note that given the rather broad scope of this paper, it perhaps best serves as an introduction for future, more focused work.

In this communication I aim, then, to explore some aspects of what it is to be human. I do so by explaining some preliminary interrelated notions in section 2, discuss Biblical metaphors and ideas in 3 and 4, and finally, in 5, I put forth these ideas in terms of the preliminary notions.
2.0 Preliminary Notions and Assumptions

Note the following terminological points. I use these groups of terms and phrases synonymously: ‘totality’, ‘unity’, ‘whole’; ‘laws of nature’, ‘natural laws’, ‘natural principles’ and their cognates; ‘reason’, ‘rationality’; ‘the world’, ‘reality’, ‘the universe’ (including mind-internal and mind-external reality). I may, at times, use ‘world’ in a more general sense, as in ‘the mental world’. I hold that there is one reality (P1). By ‘phenomenon’ and ‘phenomena’ I mean both what is presented to the senses and what lies beyond the senses. That is, what we sensibly perceive and what requires comprehension and reasoning beyond that which our biological senses provide, namely the actual causes and realities²¹ of the objects of perception.

Man is the gatekeeper of the worlds of appearance and reality, a gatekeeper who, when cognizant of both worlds, can chose which to enter, which to promote, and which to dwell in. Among our social community individuals can (un)intentionally create countless worlds of (harmful) appearance, (un)intentionally altering the mind’s course from reality and thus truth. Alternatively, humanity can navigate the waters of the real and transcend (and ultimately harness and tame) its tumultuous but rational waves.
2.1 Reality - The Universe

I hold, as many do, that the world is intelligible (the Principle of Intelligibility). The human mind is capable of understanding the universe and specific realities²² therein or thereof. Reality is intelligible or knowable (P2). I also start with the idea that the universe is a continuously changing/unfolding, rational (ordered), dynamic and naturally-directed unity. Science proceeds from the admission…of the unity of the cosmos (Vernadsky 1997).

It is dynamic in an intuitive sense, in a scientific sense, as well as in the sense that the so called ‘parts’ or ‘contents’ of the universe are causally or nomologically interacting²³ and interrelated. Natural phenomena in the universe are nomologically or causally structured, exhibiting patterns that are identifiable and discoverable by the mind. The world is ordered in a similar sense: being so structured or principled. In short, there are laws of nature (P3) guiding the development of processes in the universe. The ancient Greek idea of logos seems to correspond to this nomological and rational structure of the world. In saying the world is rational we may be referring to its intelligibility and/or to it being ordered. Both are related.

The universe is naturally-directed in that it develops in this lawful, intelligible manner toward future states of being (P4). The dynamically interacting entities in the world typically do so in a manner contributory to the existence of these future states. The idea of telos, meaning purpose or end (Peters 1967), is comparable. Natural processes in the universe have physical and potential teloi toward which they unfold. We may also describe natural-directedness using the idea of physical (or non-human/non-conscious) intentionality, roughly meaning that the universe or the processes therein develop in a non-consciously intentional manner.

These can be understood, perhaps, as properties or governing principles of the physical universe. The universe as a spatio-temporal totality, a physical gestalt²⁴, is a natural, mind-external unity in which the parts or constituents contribute to the unfolding, evolution or continued existence of the whole. What these properties—the causal or nomological underpinnings, natural-direction/physical intention, constant change, intelligibility—ensure, and what their discovery or conception stress is that the universe is neither random, chaotic nor in a constant state of degeneration. Consider a concrete example representative of these ideas and demonstrative of the “directedness of the evolutionary life process in the biosphere” (Vernadsky 1997).

An example of a smaller-scale (finer or lower granularity) principled, naturally-directed developing unity found in biology is embryonic development. The parts or sub-processes of the development of an embryo all contribute to (i) the realization of the whole entity or process, and (ii) the becoming (the coming into existence) of a new unity—the living organism—that itself will engage in various processes contributory to the development of its environment. There is a regular, ordered and recurrent process at work unfolding toward a future physical state. The complex and interrelated biological entities behave and interact toward the creation of the living being. The parts contribute and behave to that end but also toward their own development (self-development). In this sense, all the parts unfold in time being naturally-directed toward one or more teloi.

As in a symphony, they play their part in harmony to produce the masterpiece of life under a naturally lawful direction and a trans-temporal causal unification²⁵ that bounds them (at least conceptually) as a whole. The universe is similar: the causal structure, interconnectedness and ordered character of the world at varying granularities makes it a unity, a whole, but perhaps its telos is the process of constant self-development or becoming. In short, we can describe the universe as a nomologically-guided, or causally-structured dynamic spatio-temporal totality.
2.2 Creativity

Related to natural directedness and intentionality is creativity. Typically creativity is associated with human beings, with cognitive agents, understood as a capability²⁶ or cognitive faculty, but perhaps it is also conceivable as a natural process in (or a property or principle of?) the universe.²⁷ An existing idea is that what the universe does is to be creative (C1). With such a more general notion of creativity we can understand how human creativity may be a type of creativity. Human creativity is creativity of self-aware beings. Assuming (C1), call this naturally creative aspect of the universe Universal Creativity. What does this mean, can we even apply ‘creative’ to the universe, and how can we know that the universe is creative?

It means, I think: (P5) the universe is naturally creative in that it unfolds, evolves or develops in a manner that increases the existing (lawful) complexity, producing more organized material states of affairs that afford, perhaps necessitate, the existence of life and thus of self-aware willful conscience beings (such as humanity). Life, just as it is an example of natural-directedness, is also an example of a product of natural universal creativity and of the spatio-temporal complexity that is present, persisting and developing in or of reality. At minimum, it should be uncontroversial (if general) to say that the creative processes in nature resulted in the creation or creative development of humanity.
2.3 The Human Being

The human being is naturally inquisitive, seeking the telos and logos of phenomena in the world, as well as the world in toto. The quest for truth—the mission of philosophy and science²⁸—is simultaneously (in some sense) a motivation, a capacity, a natural inclination and a process that the human being engages in. Truth is directly connected with the sphere of cognition (Wojtyla 1981), and scientific thought, as a consciously directed force (Vernadsky 1997) to discover truth, is willful direction analogous to the natural directedness in/of the world.

Human beings may be irreducibly multi-aspectual. We are, in part, biological; this is the physical or material aspect (HB1) that affords an inner life. Science classifies humans as members of the species Homo sapiens. We are living creatures that have, in part, a very concrete (spatio-temporal, non-abstract) and material existence lawfully related to the physical universe. Each human being shares properties common to our species, and some common with others, but the individuating characteristics of humanity can be identified in our inner life and in the name of our species (which means wise or knowing man).

Some common individuating characteristics of the human being, of self-aware living beings more generally, are: (1) the wisdom attainable, communicable, livable by the mind and the individual person, (2) self-awareness and introspection, and (3) reason and love (themselves related to wisdom). The human being “is endowed with an inner self” (Wojtyla 1981). These characteristics distinguish us (from other biotic forms of life) as being noetic. They are representative of the mental and moral aspect(s) of humanity, the noetic aspect more generally (HB2). Moreover, our “creative activities make us sharply distinct from those of the surrounding life”, and we possess “the power of the living organism over the biosphere, his greater independence from its conditions (as compared with any other organisms)” (Vernadsky 1997).

While reason is not defined in this communication, I consider the following to gain some insight. Reason is fascinatingly described by Leibniz as the linking together of truths “but especially…of those whereto the human mind can attain naturally without being aided by the light of faith” (Leibniz 1996). This, it seems to me, is a beautiful description because it is precisely in truths that (proper) science has its telos. It is Truth, reality, we (must) seek, not simply to inspire and peek curiosity, but to survive and thrive, that is, the mission for truth is forward-looking for posterity. Leibniz is referring to science, to the natural human drive to learn, to inquire. He is communicating that reason transcends the supposed partition between science and religion (or even science and philosophy), that reason is the process used by both. If some will assert that science seeks only an explanation for reality, for physical processes in the world, rather than truth per se, it remains that science seeks reality.

Related to HB2, and if distinct, is the spiritual aspect (HB3) related to the (notion of a) soul, and involves the human inclination toward transcendental thought. This latter characteristic may be communicated, in part, as the power to abstract (Clarke 2002) and as the cosmic religious feeling (Einstein 1982). Humanity is a creation, a part of the developing universe; we are that part of the universe that is self-aware. Some may consider humanity as the universe become self-aware. We are self-aware, conscious and willful beings (HB4) ²⁹.

If the universe naturally develops in a positive direction (P5 above), then as part of the universe—as a unique creation in that process of upward self-development—the human species, in virtue of being self-aware (HB2) and willful (HB4), developmentally inherits creativity as a cognitive property, potential or capability, felt as that inclination toward positive self-development that must be willfully manifested. Perhaps this is psychologically manifested as: wonder and curiosity; the search for truth and the love of wisdom; our natural understanding of good and evil; empathy, love, and our comprehension of the natural and inalienable value of human life. It is natural, I think, to conclude that if the developing universe is creative, then humanity as part of that development has some form of creativity. We inherit properties of the universe in our creation: those of rationality and creativity. This is one sense of the idea that humanity was created in the image of God.

Human creativity is the willful application of human reason to produce (positive) works, ideas and deeds. Indeed, the emergence of reason and its exact manifestation, the organization of science, is the foremost fact in the history of the planet (Vernadsky 1997). With the inception of human consciousness and freewill that positive development became, in us, a willful possibility. These are senses in which we are (and come from that which is) divine. The human being can willfully actualize increases in ordered complexity (P5) in a number of domains. It can occur in individual thought (ways of thinking), societal or interpersonal relations, artistic works, via scientific progress and technological advancement. It is our choice to manifest what continues naturally (C1) in the non-self-conscious universe.
2.5 Morality and The Good

If this is true, then we see the necessary value of (choosing to) positively developing ourselves and pursuing the Good³⁰. It is part of our nature and a necessary process to engage in. We must not think of ourselves as independent (certainly not isolable) entities, contained in an otherwise divorced or disconnected physical universe. Human beings are “a definite regular part of the biosphere” (Vernadsky 1997) and through our noetic powers we shape the world. We are creations of a naturally developing dynamically interrelated reality (just as we are creations of God).

As willful agents of the unfolding universe we are duty-bound to contribute to that positive process, lest we stifle the light of creation (and our own rational creative imagination). If we abandon that duty, the universe will treat us as any other species at our expense, presenting us with natural events that would otherwise be noetically grasped (comprehended), and physically harnessed and protected against by a humanity actualizing its potential. It is our responsibility to see to it that we progress individually and collectively, and that where we start to fall (or fail)³¹ it is our responsibility to take rational action to remedy the situation and return ourselves to that divine path. While this may be easier said than done, particularly given many harmful socio-psychological conditioning that takes place at all social granularities, it is what must be done. In doing otherwise we risk extinction, if not directly from ourselves, at the hands of an ever-changing universe, and therefore indirectly by our own hand.

With self-awareness comes the freedom to choose. In choice comes the distinction between good and evil. Evil is identified in ideas, and in the manifestation of ideas, that are contrary to the positive development of the human mind, counter to reason, truth and love. If we are the self-aware universe, then counteracting the healthy progress of the mind is to harm part of the world, divorcing us from it (from reason and truth). It is to create, or increase, a gulf between us and Truth, a gulf that is bridgeable only if we willfully construct the bridge.

If we assume that, as a principle, the universe unfolds or evolves in a positive direction, i.e., in a manner such that conditions and states of existence come to be that afford greater ordered complexity in and among physical and biological systems, then we, as individuals and as collectives (societies, nations, as a species) must behave similarly if we are to persist, to survive and progress. To stagnate morally and scientifically is to die slowly. We must constantly be moving forward, constantly using our divine gifts of mind, volition, self-awareness, love, morality, reason, imagination and creativity. Moreover, it is only through the practical application of love and morality (living morally) that humanity can continue in the mission it has, and inspire present and future generations.

All of these notions are interrelated. To live morally and to love is to behave in an uplifting and upward self-developmental manner toward oneself and others (including our progeny). Pope John Paul II eloquently described love, in part, as an affirmation of the value of the person (Wojtyla 1998). It is desiring the good of the other (and acting accordingly). Love of another has similarly been described as bringing the beloved to an awareness of their potentialities (Frankl 2006). In this way there is a relation between love and the future. Morality is, therefore, found in choosing to elevate the person and community via ideas, works and deeds. Albert Einstein urged free and responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his powers freely in the service of all mankind (Einstein 1982).

***

The function of reason is to discover truth, identify falsity, and bring the latter into the light (into awareness). Perhaps religion (or religious works) is the metaphorical communication of moral truth, of “comprehensible moral laws, appealing to every man’s heart” (Tolstoy 1884). With the preceding ideas in mind, I hope to demonstrate that they (as well as moral truths) can be seen communicated through some religious notions and passages. More specifically, I will now discuss the common properties of God and metaphors found in scripture.