- GTA-PeDAGoG - lists.ourproject.org

Re: [PeDAGoG] Los colores de la raíz: agrobiodiversity, food autonomy, and Gandhi (Out of office: end of assignment )
by MarionRegina Mueller 03 Oct '26

03 Oct '26

Thank you for your message! My assignment with Heinrich Boell Stiftung has ended on June 30th, 2026. Your Email may not be forwarded automatically. For further contact, questions and information regarding Heinrich Boell Stiftung Regional Office for Southeast Asia, please kindly contact my colleagues: Daniel.Abunales(a)th.boell.org (English language please!) & Ruth.Streicher(a)boell.de With best wishes! >>> Pallavi Varma- Patil <pallavi.vp(a)gmail.com> 3.10.26 09:58 >>> Dear PeDAGoG and GTA colleagues, In many of your time zones, it might still be 02 October, so I thought I would send out a publication that invokes Gandhi and his ideas ( Oct 02 being his birth date, when many in India mark it with reflections on what his ideas and his work means in contemporary times). Last year I had the privilege of co-authoring a small illustrated book on the theme of agro-biodiversity in Spanish meant for children and young adults with Elena Lazos Chavero (a member of this group) and Giselle Lazos Rodarte. It is called *Los colores de la raíz: Defendiendo nuestra agrobiodiversidad* (*The Colours of the Root: Defending Our Agrobiodiversity*). It is offered as an open access publication via UNAM's Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales. Open-access book, UNAM repository <https://ru.iis.sociales.unam.mx/handle/IIS/6121> . A pdf is also attached with this email. In this book we ask the children what it means to govern ourselves-- in what we wear, what we grow, and what we eat. It combines a short illustrated story about the lives of maize-growing farmers in Tlaxcala,Mexico with a chapter on what Gandhi's ideas can teach us today about farming, seeds, and food sovereignty. We argue that if you really wish to conserve agro-biodiversity then you certainly must work towards food autonomy. We briefly discuss the shared history of the Green Revolution between Mexico and India and the state of both countries today in terms of food autonomy (how few agro-food industries have such a large control). We also introduce children to some work in the space of agroecology and seed-sovereignty in India - taking examples form Vikalp Sangam and our own personal involvements; and invite children in Mexico to learn from these struggles, as well as from their own country, Elena has done some book reading sessions with young adults in Mexico already. And so we offer this book to mark 02 October to the PeDaGoG and GTA community of educators in the hope it fosters new connections. I would (and am sure so will Elena) be very glad to hear your thoughts on the same. Once again, the book is in Spanish but you can explore online translations for English. With regards, Pallavi

1 0

Lessons from 35 Years on the Frontlines of Community Empowerment - Online Event
by Steven J. Klees 03 Oct '26

03 Oct '26

*The Alternatives Project (TAP),* in partnership with *Tostan,* will host a joint webinar titled *“Lessons from 35 Years on the Frontlines of Community Empowerment.”* The event will explore how community-led education can strengthen the agency of individuals and communities, enabling them to organize grassroots action and promote *lasting social transformation.* Through their experiences, the speakers will discuss how *participatory and community-centered* approaches to education can *foster leadership, collective decision-making, local ownership, and sustained social change*. The conversation will offer important lessons for educators, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners interested in *alternative approaches to education,* community empowerment, and grassroots development. *When: Oct 07, 2026 at 12 p.m. (EST)* *Where: Online* *REGISTER HERE to receive the link <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffNy13LkiCGZQy_PdVpWPqJmkb1z8J1Ut…>* [image: TAP PRESENTS TOSTAN OCT 07.png] -- In Solidarity, The Alternatives Project https://www.thealternativesproject.org/cies-sig

2 1

Re: [PeDAGoG] Lessons from 35 Years on the Frontlines of Community Empowerment - Online Event (Out of office: end of assignment )
by MarionRegina Mueller 18 Sep '26

18 Sep '26

Thank you for your message! My assignment with Heinrich Boell Stiftung has ended on June 30th, 2026. Your Email may not be forwarded automatically. For further contact, questions and information regarding Heinrich Boell Stiftung Regional Office for Southeast Asia, please kindly contact my colleagues: Daniel.Abunales(a)th.boell.org (English language please!) & Ruth.Streicher(a)boell.de With best wishes! >>> "Steven J. Klees" <sklees(a)umd.edu> 18.9.26 15:48 >>> *The Alternatives Project (TAP),* in partnership with *Tostan,* will host a joint webinar titled *“Lessons from 35 Years on the Frontlines of Community Empowerment.”* The event will explore how community-led education can strengthen the agency of individuals and communities, enabling them to organize grassroots action and promote *lasting social transformation.* Through their experiences, the speakers will discuss how *participatory and community-centered* approaches to education can *foster leadership, collective decision-making, local ownership, and sustained social change*. The conversation will offer important lessons for educators, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners interested in *alternative approaches to education,* community empowerment, and grassroots development. *When: Oct 07, 2026 at 12 p.m. (EST)* *Where: Online* *REGISTER HERE to receive the link <https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffNy13LkiCGZQy_PdVpWPqJmkb1z8J1Ut…>* [image: TAP PRESENTS TOSTAN OCT 07.png] -- In Solidarity, The Alternatives Project https://www.thealternativesproject.org/cies-sig

1 0

Re: [PeDAGoG] [WSMDiscuss] [REDlistserve] Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging [New REDWeb articles]
by Aseem Shrivastava 13 Sep '26

13 Sep '26

The students and I are already working with a range of communities, in very different ecological and cultural contexts, in Delhi, Chandigarh, Uttarakhand, MP, and Varanasi. You will get a glimpse of the work if you scroll through <https://pagdandi.substack.com/> this.. On Sun, 13 Sept 2026 at 18:05, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > For sure as Aseem says - we humans are more than our bodies > and as Anna says - it's time to think beyond dualisms. > > But we are talking at cross purposes here I think, > Global Tapestry of Alternatives, WSM, etc, are political lists. > > So how do we apply such meditative principles in everyday life > to help communities that are suffering? > > Can we explore ecosophy in a way that meets people’s needs? > Again to raise the case of Dalit communities …? > Ariel > > > > On 11 Sep 2026, at 3:41 am, Aseem Shrivastava <yebhiaseem(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear Anna, > > You got the essence of what I have been trying to say. We, each of us, is > much much more than our bodies. We can never forget that. It is quite easy > in a world so conditioned - if not corrupted - by the visual sense. One > must experience something that does not allow our senses to be placed on > auction. And anyone can find this with due effort. > > Thank you! > aseem > > On Fri, 11 Sept 2026 at 11:51, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: > > 'There is a greater Reality in reference to which the distinctions appear > as diverse manifestations of the one, selfsame Truth of existence'. > > Indeed even the distinction between male and female is overcome there. For > me it is time to leave behind all such distinctions and experience the > wholeness as a living reality. That is where we bring together thought and > action, it begins within us, that’s where the work starts. That is the > possibility the future holds. > > Thank you for this interesting discussion. > Anna > > > On Thu, 10 Sept 2026, 13:28 Ariel Salleh via WSM-Discuss, < > wsm-discuss(a)lists.openspaceforum.net> wrote: > > > On 9 Sep 2026, at 2:10 pm, Aseem Shrivastava <yebhiaseem(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, indeed, Ariel. > Dvaita implies duality. So advaita points to the non-dual. > So there's a good start Aseem, for thinking about women’s all but > universal inferiorisation. > How could we apply Pannikar’s thought further here? > > Let me quote a page from 'The Rhythm of Being' which may be of interest > and relevance. This extract is from a section of the book where Panikkar > tries to explain in many different ways the title of his (posthumously > published) book. Here is one such: > “Theology is not reducible to anthropology, nor physics to theology. The > three disciplines are mutually irreducible, yet also inseparable. This may > be the trayī vidyā, the “triple knowledge” of the Indic tradition. > "As an expression of this Rhythm of Being I may give two examples from > that same tradition: > "That from which beings are born, > that by which, when born, they live, > that into which, when dying, they enter, > that you should desire to know: > that is Brahman." > (Taittiriya Upanishad) > > "This stanza probably inspired the following one, which speaks about > Sarvaṁ (the all, everything), here translated throughout as Whole: > "In whom the Whole [is], from whom the Whole [comes], > who [is] Whole and who [is] in Whole [everywhere], > who, eternal, [is] immanent in the Whole, > Him the ātman of (the) Whole, I adore." > (Abhinavagupta, Paratrisikā) > > "We find here all the ingredients we discovered in our description of > rhythm. There is a rhythm in each and every being. No being is isolated; > each reflects and is reflected by the Whole. The one text speaks of brahman > and the other of ātman. It is not as if there were one special being, a > supreme entity pervading the others, somewhat interfering with the others. > Everything is in everything precisely because every being is more than an > isolated entity. The vision of the Whole does not blind us to the > particulars. It just does not make us shortsighted with respect to the All. > The buddhist notion of pratītyasamutpāda (radical relativity or dependent > origination) is a homeomorphic equivalent of the same insight." > > To Panikkar, reality is cosmotheandric. Its three universal nodes - > cosmos, theos, anthropos - hold each other in a delicate triadic balance, > which constitutes 'the Whole'. It is up to human maturity to keep it so. > This is what cosmic responsibility entails. > To be true to ourselves and each other, we will need to realise that > Reality is non-dual. It is indivisible. Distinctions between beings and > entities can and must be made. But distinction is not the same as > separation. There is a greater Reality in reference to which the > distinctions appear as diverse manifestations of the one, selfsame Truth of > existence. > In the dominant dualistic traditions of modern Western thought emanating > from Descartes, the splits between mind and body, man and nature, self and > other are on account of this separative core of the cognitive legacy of the > tradition. And these three hard separations have become the root of what I > call 'the triple alienation' embedded deep in the modern Western tradition > - in both thought and practice. This has caused much havoc. Our entire > modern world rests on these deeply hidden assumptions. And so the > alienations compound remorselessly… > Yes ecological feminists write a lot about the so called Scientific > Enlightenment - not only in terms of the techno-industrial damage that the > Earth has suffered ever since - but also, because millions of women > (herbalists and midwives) were systematically murdered in state authorised > witch hunts in order to clear the way for the new patriarchal science. > However, masculinist misogyny and violence was not caused by this event, > it was propagated at least since the rise of great religions - Judaism, > Islam, Christianity, and indeed the Hindu tradition. This is one reason why > activists like ourselves need to see patriarchal domination as the first > and foundational stage in todays global situation. In fact, like I said > earlier - the three systems patriarchal-colonial-capitalist are mutually > reinforcing, and all built on the cultural-psychological dualism > Man=Humanity v Woman-Nature. > > From an ecosophical perspective, to face our ecological predicament, our > cultural and psychic condition will have to be faced simultaneously. > Yes this is it, absolutely > Only this can free us from the triple alienation. The triple alienations > feed each other. They can only be overcome through something like an > advaitic transcendence (in a critically large number of people, not > necessarily everyone), which renders all our relations - with nature and > the cosmos, with each other, and with our own mysterious selves - clear and > transparent. > But it is not so straightforward. For a start who is the ‘We’ you talk > about: ie What would a Dalit woman say? Would anyone bother to ask her? > > This is what I mean by "advaitic ecological intelligibility." It offers a > new horizon of meaning and value which can help us see through modern > opacities in all the three dimensions of existence, in order to perceive > the possibility of the freedom that lies beyond... > I hope this helps! > aseem > There’s a clear convergence here Aseem. > If you are interested, ecological feminists across many cultures have a > political-philosophical literature criticising dualism and proposing > alternative holistic ways of knowing. These ideas are inspired by the kinds > of reproductive labours they do - grounded in the energy flows of Nature. > Here are your living allies in the worldwide move to decolonise and > ecologise. > > And it would be great to hear from women on these lists too, about how > they bring action and thought together. > > PS Pooja, I tried copying Ariel's request and this mail in the Comments > box below the essay on the RED site. It wouldn't let me! Maybe you can do > it. > I hope I’m not being censored! > > On Wed, 9 Sept 2026 at 16:24, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Aseem > Where you write — In 'The Rhythm of Being' he speaks about an 'advaitic > ecological intelligibility' all but foreign to modern sensibilities, > attuned to structural opacities and encryptions all around. > Can you share a bit more here on the advaitic sensibility? > Ariel > > > On 9 Sep 2026, at 5:09 am, Aseem Shrivastava <yebhiaseem(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Shrishtee and Friends, > > Thank you for taking time to read my long two-part essay. It is always > encouraging to also receive comments. So, thank you also for sending those! > > I think we are in broad agreement, though perhaps the relative emphasis - > between law and renewal of cosmologies/customs/traditions - may vary > slightly. In the transition, they are complementary, of course. And I > completely accede to your greater recent experience of actually > participating in the struggles of indigenous peoples. So you must know the > significance of legal strategies much better than me. > > I appreciate the stories you have shared about Ecuador and elsewhere. And > I can see where the right-minded judge is coming from. It is certainly > worth noting that he takes recourse to the language of indigenous cosmology > while also treading the thin ridge of the 'world-ling' you mention. > > As I write in the essay I fully accept the transitional value of the > rights of nature movement. I am only trying to contextualise the > (temporary) meaning of 'the rights of nature' struggles in the wider > background of the collision of cosmologies, one which has survived the test > of centuries, often millennia, the other which has proved its ruinous > dysfunctionality within a few centuries of generalised global growth and > 'development'. > > In my broader work on ecosophy I am also trying to say that there is no > surprise in the fact that modern cosmology, with its original scientistic > core, is ecologically, culturally, psychically dysfunctional. The cognitive > roots are already there since the 17th century Scientific Revolution, > further consolidated by the predatory Industrial Revolution, never mind the > pleasant fables told every day in university social science courses and > seminars. That is what my forthcoming book 'The Alphabet of Ecosophy: A > Morphology of Twilight Modernity' is concerned to show. > > It would seem, given the enormity of American and Western power, even in > its chapter of inevitable decline, that there is really no other way than > to adopt the flawed Enlightenment discourse on law and rights to bring > about a measure of ecological sanity. However, we also need to be prepared, > intellectually, culturally, spiritually for the great flux of this frenzied > time which is already upon us. We need new concepts and fresh ideas from > unlikely places to negotiate these decades. > > A few more things. 'Naming' is helpful in a court of law. But one cannot > lose sight of the many unnameable and intangible things which are of great > significance, and not only to indigenous people. This is why I say in my > essay that > > "Metropolitan skepticism wants to know reasons, without realising that > reasons of heart and spirit in traditional cultures are often not even > consciously articulated, let alone be understood by observers from > elsewhere, trained exclusively in modern systems of knowledge." > > So yes, while we must try to name all we can, we must keep the above close > by as well. > > Finally, I actually do not use only Western categories and ideas to assess > and critique the rights of nature. Panikkar is much more than a Western > thinker, even if he wrote mostly in English and European languages. In 'The > Rhythm of Being' he speaks about an 'advaitic ecological intelligibility' > all but foreign to modern sensibilities, attuned to structural opacities > and encryptions all around. > > In my other book on Rabindranath Tagore, also on the way, I am developing > a spiritual-ecological vision to build further on the ecosophical > perspective developed in the first book. > > So that is my own little stance with respect to the great question of our > time.. > > Thanks again for taking the time! > > Warm wishes, > aseem > > PS I read your 2024 piece with Ashish when it came out, and find myself > mostly in accord, with the above caveats. > > On Mon, 7 Sept 2026 at 10:05, Shrishtee Bajpai <shrishteebajpai(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > Dear Assem, > > Thanks for your wonderful piece. > > Ariel, I look forward to now reading your piece. > > Assem, since I have been thinking about this subject for the last few > years, I couldn’t help but jump in with some of the threads it opened up > for me. Some reflections below. Excuse me for any lack of understanding... > > In many of my writings, written along with others, we have critically > examined the Rights of Nature discourse, arguing about its limitations and > cautioning that proponents of the discourse must be aware that it is a > ‘means’ towards a larger systemic transformation, rather than a > transformation, an end in itself. > > Where I might slightly depart from your analysis is in how we understand > the history of the movement itself. If one were to look at the examples in > Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and New Zealand, I would argue that many of > these emerge from ontological conflicts. By this, I mean that Rights of > Nature emerges as a strategic and directional discourse to protect a > relationship from separating (humans and their habitats) for communities > and activists. > > On the one hand, communities that believe that the river is alive and > sentient are fighting a massive modernist ontological perspective that sees > rivers as sources of hydropower that can be mined, dammed or otherwise > destroyed for profit or for ‘national interest’, or managed through > conservation. A community that includes the rest of nature in its > decision-making is largely unthinkable within the modern state. Rights of > Nature therefore emerges in this onto-epistemic (Escobar el al 2023), > in-between space (Graeber 2007)—as an interface that enables such a system > to partially recognise the inseparability of humans and rivers, mountains > and the rest of nature, and the entanglements between them. > > It is important to recognise the many ‘worldlings’ that are in play here. > RoN, in that sense, is a space in between that enables two worlds or > worldlings to meet: the world of absolute destruction and the one that > understands humans, nature, rivers and the cosmos as inseparable. > > I don’t think the intention is necessarily to transform the law and the > state—which, as you rightly mentioned, are designed in ways that can > perpetuate systems of domination and can never fully understand these > concepts. The intention, rather, is to open cracks. > > To infiltrate courtrooms that have never heard a mountain speak as a > law-maker—for instance, Niyam Raja (literally, ‘Lord of the Law’), who is > understood by the Dongria Kondh as the protector, keeper and provider of > the forests—and to possibly enable a judgement that is cognisant of such > cultural beliefs. The 2013 Supreme Court judgement in the Niyamgiri case is > an important example. > > Another powerful example is the ruling recognising Los Cedros Protected > Forest as a living being in Ecuador. Agustín Grijalva, the judge involved > in this important ruling, told some of us last year in Australia- “The > forest defeated the mining company and was able to protect itself. I didn’t > write the ruling. The forest wrote it through me.”He went on to say that > local communities, artists, musicians, poets, scientists, naturalists, > lawyers and activists had all become part of writing the ruling, describing > this as a form of radical democracy—not just about ‘us’, but drawing on a > Global South wisdom in which social processes and movements become an > important force. As he put it, “the ruling sits on the efforts of a lot of > people.” > > Listening to a judge speak of forests writing through him is, to me, > precisely the emergence of these cracks. > > And though these might be one-off or temporary moments, they do interrupt > the coloniality of practices that seek to move away from diversity and > towards homogenisation. What they enable is the potential for more > fundamental transformations, and a potential eruption of diversity. > > As for the language of personhood itself, I think one of the most > pertinent points is about beginning with ‘naming’. Naming is, in many ways, > the beginning of justice. As some indigenous scholars, like Robin Wall > Kimmerer, say that the linguistic imperialism replaced the language of > animacy with one of objectification of nature, which renders nature as > lifeless and inanimate. Legal personhood is therefore a tool (however > insufficient) through which there is an attempt to change the existing > language and narrative- challenging the ontological assumption of the > western legal system that only humans can have rights. Hence, there is a > lot more unraveling in the diverse articulations of the movement, I would > also caution against simply using western and eurocentric discourses to > critique rights of nature, as that can, in some ways, mean remaining > trapped within the very framework one is trying to critique. > > These are just some thoughts in relation to the use of law. There are many > more questions I hold around implementation, cross-boundary issues, > customary governance, international agreements, and so on.As someone > working within and involved in this emergent movement, I remain very > critical of several aspects of it, and especially cautious about the > potential co-option of the language itself—as happens with many > alternatives more generally. > > Hence, the continued emphasis on seeing Rights of Nature as part of a > broader systemic transformation that also requires us to speak about the > economy (local, care, sharing economies), politics (the need for Earthy, > bioregional governance), and social justice (including questions of gender, > caste and race) and importantly rekindling spiritual and deeper connections > (which you beautifully articulated in your piece) > > Ashish K. and I wrote about this in our paper on Earthy Governance, > arguing for precisely for suchbroaderframing. > https://news.mongabay.com/2024/10/if-all-life-mattered-what-would-decision-… > > Thanks again for this thoughtful piece. > > Warmly, > Shrishtee > > > > > Shrishtee Bajpai > > Linkedin > Other writings and publications > Substack > > > On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 at 5:41 PM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Friends all, I was deeply moved by Aseems’s beautiful essay - > and agree with his critique of the political limitations of Rights of > Nature environmentalism. > Here I would like to add to his remarks by sharing a paper I wrote some 4 > decades ago. > It was a response to 'the deep ecology movement’ popular in Europe and USA > at the time. > > As Aseem says - if we are to build new communities that live in harmony > with the world, > then we will all need to recover a sense of our Human selves 'as part of > nature’. > The problem is that almost universally, patriarchal cultures accord > Humanity only to Men, > meanwhile Women are said to belong to Nature - and bodily ‘resourced' as > such. > > The contradiction will need to be faced before we can move towards an > Earth Democracy. > All good energies > Ariel > www.arielsalleh.info > > > Ariel Salleh (1984) 'Deeper than Deep Ecology: the ecofeminist > connection’, > Environmental Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 4, 335-341:www.cep.unt.edu/enethics.html > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… > . > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2026, at 12:34 am, Pooja Kishinani <poojakishinani99(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Our latest articles on RED may be of interest- > > Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging by Aseem > Shrivastava > > This two-part essay interrogates the “rights of nature” discourse, arguing > that it extends one of modernity’s most anthropocentric concepts—individual > rights—onto nature rather than questioning the framework of rights itself. > Drawing on Raimon Panikkar’s cosmotheandric vision, Martin Buber’s > philosophy, and Mary Midgley’s essay on dolphin personhood, Aseem > Shrivastava argues that rights discourse presupposes separateness before > relation, which risks feeding the financialisation of nature rather than > healing “ecological alienation”— a deeper ontological wound that legal > personhood cannot address. > > Aseem traces a fourfold progression from rights to duties to > responsibility to belonging, arguing that law should follow custom and > relationship rather than substitute for them. The conclusion calls for > moving “from claim to communion”— recovering rootedness, kinship, and > cosmic responsibility over legal entitlement, since law can restrain harm > but cannot teach belonging to the earth. > > Read the essays here: > > https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… > (Part One) > > > https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… > (Part Two) > > I have copied the author on this thread if you'd like to share comments > and reflections with him directly. > > In solidarity, > Pooja > > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAA7bu_MiJZd… > . > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… > . > _______________________________________________ > GTA-PeDAGoG mailing list > GTA-PeDAGoG(a)lists.ourproject.org > http://lists.ourproject.org/mailman/listinfo/gta-pedagog > > > ________________________________________ > ** Inspired by the World Social Forum, WSMDiscuss – the successor to a > list named ‘WSFDiscuss’ started in 2005 - is an open, unmoderated, and > self-organising forum for the exchange of information and views on the > experience, practice, and theory of social and political movement at any > level (local, national, regional, and global), including the World Social > Forum. Join in ! ** > _______________________________________________ > World Social Movement Discuss mailing list > POST to LIST : Send email to wsm-discuss(a)lists.openspaceforum.net > SUBSCRIBE : Send empty email to > wsm-discuss-subscribe(a)lists.openspaceforum.net > UNSUBSCRIBE : Send empty email to > wsm-discuss-unsubscribe(a)lists.openspaceforum.net > LIST ARCHIVES : https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/ > LIST INFORMATION : > https://lists.openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/wsm-discuss > POSTING GUIDELINES : > http://openspaceforum.net/twiki/tiki-index.php?page=Mailing+List+Posting+Gu… > Old / previous WSFDiscuss List Archives : > http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum… > >

1 0

Re: [PeDAGoG] [WSMDiscuss] [REDlistserve] Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging [New REDWeb articles]
by Aseem Shrivastava 11 Sep '26

11 Sep '26

Dear Anna, You got the essence of what I have been trying to say. We, each of us, is much much more than our bodies. We can never forget that. It is quite easy in a world so conditioned - if not corrupted - by the visual sense. One must experience something that does not allow our senses to be placed on auction. And anyone can find this with due effort. Thank you! aseem On Fri, 11 Sept 2026 at 11:51, Anna Harris <anna(a)shsh.co.uk> wrote: > > 'There is a greater Reality in reference to which the distinctions appear > as diverse manifestations of the one, selfsame Truth of existence'. > > Indeed even the distinction between male and female is overcome there. For > me it is time to leave behind all such distinctions and experience the > wholeness as a living reality. That is where we bring together thought and > action, it begins within us, that’s where the work starts. That is the > possibility the future holds. > > Thank you for this interesting discussion. > Anna > > > On Thu, 10 Sept 2026, 13:28 Ariel Salleh via WSM-Discuss, < > wsm-discuss(a)lists.openspaceforum.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2026, at 2:10 pm, Aseem Shrivastava <yebhiaseem(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Yes, indeed, Ariel. >> Dvaita implies duality. So advaita points to the non-dual. >> *So there's a good start Aseem, for thinking about women’s all but >> universal inferiorisation.* >> >> *How could we apply Pannikar’s thought further here?* >> Let me quote a page from 'The Rhythm of Being' which may be of interest >> and relevance. This extract is from a section of the book where Panikkar >> tries to explain in many different ways the title of his (posthumously >> published) book. Here is one such: >> “Theology is not reducible to anthropology, nor physics to theology. The >> three disciplines are mutually irreducible, yet also inseparable. This may >> be the trayī vidyā, the “triple knowledge” of the Indic tradition. >> "As an expression of this Rhythm of Being I may give two examples from >> that same tradition: >> "That from which beings are born, >> that by which, when born, they live, >> that into which, when dying, they enter, >> that you should desire to know: >> that is Brahman." >> (Taittiriya Upanishad) >> >> "This stanza probably inspired the following one, which speaks >> about Sarvaṁ (the all, everything), here translated throughout as Whole: >> "In whom the Whole [is], from whom the Whole [comes], >> who [is] Whole and who [is] in Whole [everywhere], >> who, eternal, [is] immanent in the Whole, >> Him the ātman of (the) Whole, I adore." >> (Abhinavagupta, Paratrisikā) >> >> "We find here all the ingredients we discovered in our description of >> rhythm. There is a rhythm in each and every being. No being is isolated; >> each reflects and is reflected by the Whole. The one text speaks >> of brahman and the other of ātman. It is not as if there were one special >> being, a supreme entity pervading the others, somewhat interfering with >> the others. Everything is in everything precisely because every being is >> more than an isolated entity. The vision of the Whole does not blind us to >> the particulars. It just does not make us shortsighted with respect to the >> All. The buddhist notion of pratītyasamutpāda (radical relativity or >> dependent origination) is a homeomorphic equivalent of the same insight." >> >> To Panikkar, reality is cosmotheandric. Its three universal nodes - >> cosmos, theos, anthropos - hold each other in a delicate triadic balance, >> which constitutes 'the Whole'. It is up to human maturity to keep it so. >> This is what cosmic responsibility entails. >> To be true to ourselves and each other, we will need to realise that >> Reality is non-dual. It is indivisible. Distinctions between beings and >> entities can and must be made. But distinction is not the same as >> separation. There is a greater Reality in reference to which the >> distinctions appear as diverse manifestations of the one, selfsame Truth of >> existence. >> In the dominant dualistic traditions of modern Western thought emanating >> from Descartes, the splits between mind and body, man and nature, self and >> other are on account of this separative core of the cognitive legacy of the >> tradition. And these three hard separations have become the root of what I >> call 'the triple alienation' embedded deep in the modern Western tradition >> - in both thought and practice. This has caused much havoc. Our entire >> modern world rests on these deeply hidden assumptions. And so the >> alienations compound remorselessly… >> *Yes ecological feminists write a lot about the so called Scientific >> Enlightenment - not only in terms of the techno-industrial damage that the >> Earth has suffered ever since - but also, because millions of women >> (herbalists and midwives) were systematically murdered in state authorised >> witch hunts in order to clear the way for the new patriarchal science.* >> *However, masculinist misogyny and violence was not caused by this event, >> it was propagated at least since the rise of great religions - Judaism, >> Islam, Christianity, and indeed the Hindu tradition. This is one reason why >> activists like ourselves need to see patriarchal domination as the first >> and foundational stage in todays global situation. In fact, like I said >> earlier - the three systems patriarchal-colonial-capitalist are mutually >> reinforcing, and all built on the cultural-psychological dualism >> Man=Humanity v Woman-Nature.* >> >> From an ecosophical perspective, to face our ecological predicament, our >> cultural and psychic condition will have to be faced simultaneously. >> *Yes this is it, absolutely* >> Only this can free us from the triple alienation. The triple alienations >> feed each other. They can only be overcome through something like an >> advaitic transcendence (in a critically large number of people, >> not necessarily everyone), which renders all our relations - with nature >> and the cosmos, with each other, and with our own mysterious selves - clear >> and transparent. >> *But it is not so straightforward. For a start who is the ‘We’ you talk >> about: ie **What would a Dalit woman say? Would anyone bother to ask >> her?* >> >> This is what I mean by "advaitic ecological intelligibility." It offers a >> new horizon of meaning and value which can help us see through modern >> opacities in all the three dimensions of existence, in order to perceive >> the possibility of the freedom that lies beyond... >> I hope this helps! >> aseem >> *There’s a clear convergence here Aseem.* >> *If you are interested, ecological feminists across many cultures have a >> political-philosophical literature criticising dualism and proposing >> alternative holistic ways of knowing. These ideas are inspired by the kinds >> of reproductive labours they do - grounded in the energy flows of Nature. **Here >> are your living allies in the worldwide move to decolonise and ecologise.* >> >> *And it would be great to hear from women on these lists too, about how >> they bring action and thought together.* >> >> PS Pooja, I tried copying Ariel's request and this mail in the Comments >> box below the essay on the RED site. It wouldn't let me! Maybe you can do >> it. >> *I hope I’m not being censored!* >> >> On Wed, 9 Sept 2026 at 16:24, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Aseem >> Where you write — In 'The Rhythm of Being' he speaks about an 'advaitic >> ecological intelligibility' all but foreign to modern sensibilities, >> attuned to structural opacities and encryptions all around. >> Can you share a bit more here on the advaitic sensibility? >> Ariel >> >> >> On 9 Sep 2026, at 5:09 am, Aseem Shrivastava <yebhiaseem(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Dear Shrishtee and Friends, >> >> Thank you for taking time to read my long two-part essay. It is always >> encouraging to also receive comments. So, thank you also for sending those! >> >> I think we are in broad agreement, though perhaps the relative emphasis - >> between law and renewal of cosmologies/customs/traditions - may >> vary slightly. In the transition, they are complementary, of course. And I >> completely accede to your greater recent experience of actually >> participating in the struggles of indigenous peoples. So you must know the >> significance of legal strategies much better than me. >> >> I appreciate the stories you have shared about Ecuador and elsewhere. And >> I can see where the right-minded judge is coming from. It is certainly >> worth noting that he takes recourse to the language of indigenous cosmology >> while also treading the thin ridge of the 'world-ling' you mention. >> >> As I write in the essay I fully accept the transitional value of the >> rights of nature movement. I am only trying to contextualise the >> (temporary) meaning of 'the rights of nature' struggles in the wider >> background of the collision of cosmologies, one which has survived the test >> of centuries, often millennia, the other which has proved its ruinous >> dysfunctionality within a few centuries of generalised global growth and >> 'development'. >> >> In my broader work on ecosophy I am also trying to say that there is no >> surprise in the fact that modern cosmology, with its original scientistic >> core, is ecologically, culturally, psychically dysfunctional. The cognitive >> roots are already there since the 17th century Scientific Revolution, >> further consolidated by the predatory Industrial Revolution, never mind the >> pleasant fables told every day in university social science courses and >> seminars. That is what my forthcoming book 'The Alphabet of Ecosophy: A >> Morphology of Twilight Modernity' is concerned to show. >> >> It would seem, given the enormity of American and Western power, even in >> its chapter of inevitable decline, that there is really no other way than >> to adopt the flawed Enlightenment discourse on law and rights to bring >> about a measure of ecological sanity. However, we also need to be >> prepared, intellectually, culturally, spiritually for the great flux of >> this frenzied time which is already upon us. We need new concepts and fresh >> ideas from unlikely places to negotiate these decades. >> >> A few more things. 'Naming' is helpful in a court of law. But one cannot >> lose sight of the many unnameable and intangible things which are of >> great significance, and not only to indigenous people. This is why I say in >> my essay that >> >> "Metropolitan skepticism wants to know reasons, without realising that >> reasons of heart and spirit in traditional cultures are often not even >> consciously articulated, let alone be understood by observers from >> elsewhere, trained exclusively in modern systems of knowledge." >> >> So yes, while we must try to name all we can, we must keep the above >> close by as well. >> >> Finally, I actually do not use only Western categories and ideas to >> assess and critique the rights of nature. Panikkar is much more than a >> Western thinker, even if he wrote mostly in English and European languages. >> In 'The Rhythm of Being' he speaks about an 'advaitic ecological >> intelligibility' all but foreign to modern sensibilities, attuned to >> structural opacities and encryptions all around. >> >> In my other book on Rabindranath Tagore, also on the way, I am developing >> a spiritual-ecological vision to build further on the ecosophical >> perspective developed in the first book. >> >> So that is my own little stance with respect to the great question of our >> time.. >> >> Thanks again for taking the time! >> >> Warm wishes, >> aseem >> >> PS I read your 2024 piece with Ashish when it came out, and find myself >> mostly in accord, with the above caveats. >> >> On Mon, 7 Sept 2026 at 10:05, Shrishtee Bajpai <shrishteebajpai(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Dear Assem, >> >> Thanks for your wonderful piece. >> >> Ariel, I look forward to now reading your piece. >> >> Assem, since I have been thinking about this subject for the last few >> years, I couldn’t help but jump in with some of the threads it opened up >> for me. Some reflections below. Excuse me for any lack of understanding... >> >> In many of my writings, written along with others, we have critically >> examined the Rights of Nature discourse, arguing about its limitations and >> cautioning that proponents of the discourse must be aware that it is a >> ‘means’ towards a larger systemic transformation, rather than a >> transformation, an end in itself. >> >> Where I might slightly depart from your analysis is in how we understand >> the history of the movement itself. If one were to look at the examples >> in Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and New Zealand, I would argue that many of >> these emerge from ontological conflicts. By this, I mean that Rights of >> Nature emerges as a strategic and directional discourse to protect a >> relationship from separating (humans and their habitats) for communities >> and activists. >> >> On the one hand, communities that believe that the river is alive and >> sentient are fighting a massive modernist ontological perspective that sees >> rivers as sources of hydropower that can be mined, dammed or otherwise >> destroyed for profit or for ‘national interest’, or managed through >> conservation. A community that includes the rest of nature in its >> decision-making is largely unthinkable within the modern state. Rights of >> Nature therefore emerges in this onto-epistemic (Escobar el al 2023), >> in-between space (Graeber 2007)—as an interface that enables such a system >> to partially recognise the inseparability of humans and rivers, mountains >> and the rest of nature, and the entanglements between them. >> >> It is important to recognise the many ‘worldlings’ that are in play here. >> RoN, in that sense, is a space in between that enables two worlds or >> worldlings to meet: the world of absolute destruction and the one that >> understands humans, nature, rivers and the cosmos as inseparable. >> >> I don’t think the intention is necessarily to transform the law and the >> state—which, as you rightly mentioned, are designed in ways that can >> perpetuate systems of domination and can never fully understand these >> concepts. The intention, rather, is to open cracks. >> >> To infiltrate courtrooms that have never heard a mountain speak as a >> law-maker—for instance, Niyam Raja (literally, ‘Lord of the Law’), who is >> understood by the Dongria Kondh as the protector, keeper and provider of >> the forests—and to possibly enable a judgement that is cognisant of such >> cultural beliefs. The 2013 Supreme Court judgement in the Niyamgiri case is >> an important example. >> >> Another powerful example is the ruling recognising Los Cedros Protected >> Forest as a living being in Ecuador. Agustín Grijalva, the judge involved >> in this important ruling, told some of us last year in Australia- “The >> forest defeated the mining company and was able to protect itself. I didn’t >> write the ruling. The forest wrote it through me.”He went on to say that >> local communities, artists, musicians, poets, scientists, naturalists, >> lawyers and activists had all become part of writing the ruling, describing >> this as a form of radical democracy—not just about ‘us’, but drawing on a >> Global South wisdom in which social processes and movements become an >> important force. As he put it, “the ruling sits on the efforts of a lot of >> people.” >> >> Listening to a judge speak of forests writing through him is, to me, >> precisely the emergence of these cracks. >> >> And though these might be one-off or temporary moments, they do interrupt >> the coloniality of practices that seek to move away from diversity >> and towards homogenisation. What they enable is the potential for more >> fundamental transformations, and a potential eruption of diversity. >> >> As for the language of personhood itself, I think one of the most >> pertinent points is about beginning with ‘naming’. Naming is, in many ways, >> the beginning of justice. As some indigenous scholars, like Robin Wall >> Kimmerer, say that the linguistic imperialism replaced the language of >> animacy with one of objectification of nature, which renders nature as >> lifeless and inanimate. Legal personhood is therefore a tool (however >> insufficient) through which there is an attempt to change the existing >> language and narrative- challenging the ontological assumption of the >> western legal system that only humans can have rights. Hence, there is a >> lot more unraveling in the diverse articulations of the movement, I would >> also caution against simply using western and eurocentric discourses to >> critique rights of nature, as that can, in some ways, mean remaining >> trapped within the very framework one is trying to critique. >> >> These are just some thoughts in relation to the use of law. There are >> many more questions I hold around implementation, cross-boundary >> issues, customary governance, international agreements, and so on.As >> someone working within and involved in this emergent movement, I remain >> very critical of several aspects of it, and especially cautious about the >> potential co-option of the language itself—as happens with many >> alternatives more generally. >> >> Hence, the continued emphasis on seeing Rights of Nature as part of a >> broader systemic transformation that also requires us to speak about >> the economy (local, care, sharing economies), politics (the need for >> Earthy, bioregional governance), and social justice (including questions of >> gender, caste and race) and importantly rekindling spiritual and deeper >> connections (which you beautifully articulated in your piece) >> >> Ashish K. and I wrote about this in our paper on Earthy Governance, >> arguing for precisely for suchbroaderframing. >> https://news.mongabay.com/2024/10/if-all-life-mattered-what-would-decision-… >> >> >> Thanks again for this thoughtful piece. >> >> Warmly, >> Shrishtee >> >> >> >> >> Shrishtee Bajpai >> >> Linkedin >> Other writings and publications >> Substack >> >> >> On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 at 5:41 PM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Friends all, I was deeply moved by Aseems’s beautiful essay - >> and agree with his critique of the political limitations of Rights of >> Nature environmentalism. >> Here I would like to add to his remarks by sharing a paper I wrote some 4 >> decades ago. >> It was a response to 'the deep ecology movement’ popular in Europe and >> USA at the time. >> >> As Aseem says - if we are to build new communities that live in harmony >> with the world, >> then we will all need to recover a sense of our Human selves 'as part of >> nature’. >> The problem is that almost universally, patriarchal cultures accord >> Humanity only to Men, >> meanwhile Women are said to belong to Nature - and bodily ‘resourced' as >> such. >> >> The contradiction will need to be faced before we can move towards an >> Earth Democracy. >> All good energies >> Ariel >> www.arielsalleh.info >> >> >> Ariel Salleh (1984) 'Deeper than Deep Ecology: the ecofeminist >> connection’, >> Environmental Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 4, 335-341: >> www.cep.unt.edu/enethics.html >> >> -- >> To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the >> whole list, select "reply to all". >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24 Aug 2026, at 12:34 am, Pooja Kishinani <poojakishinani99(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Our latest articles on RED may be of interest- >> >> Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging by Aseem >> Shrivastava >> >> This two-part essay interrogates the “rights of nature” discourse, >> arguing that it extends one of modernity’s most anthropocentric >> concepts—individual rights—onto nature rather than questioning the >> framework of rights itself. Drawing on Raimon Panikkar’s cosmotheandric >> vision, Martin Buber’s philosophy, and Mary Midgley’s essay on dolphin >> personhood, Aseem Shrivastava argues that rights discourse presupposes >> separateness before relation, which risks feeding the financialisation of >> nature rather than healing “ecological alienation”— a deeper ontological >> wound that legal personhood cannot address. >> >> Aseem traces a fourfold progression from rights to duties to >> responsibility to belonging, arguing that law should follow custom and >> relationship rather than substitute for them. The conclusion calls for >> moving “from claim to communion”— recovering rootedness, kinship, and >> cosmic responsibility over legal entitlement, since law can restrain harm >> but cannot teach belonging to the earth. >> >> Read the essays here: >> >> https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… (Part >> One) >> >> >> https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… (Part >> Two) >> >> I have copied the author on this thread if you'd like to share comments >> and reflections with him directly. >> >> In solidarity, >> Pooja >> >> >> -- >> To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the >> whole list, select "reply to all". >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAA7bu_MiJZd… >> . >> >> -- >> To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the >> whole list, select "reply to all". >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… >> . >> _______________________________________________ >> GTA-PeDAGoG mailing list >> GTA-PeDAGoG(a)lists.ourproject.org >> http://lists.ourproject.org/mailman/listinfo/gta-pedagog >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> ** Inspired by the World Social Forum, WSMDiscuss – the successor to a >> list named ‘WSFDiscuss’ started in 2005 - is an open, unmoderated, and >> self-organising forum for the exchange of information and views on the >> experience, practice, and theory of social and political movement at any >> level (local, national, regional, and global), including the World Social >> Forum. Join in ! ** >> _______________________________________________ >> World Social Movement Discuss mailing list >> POST to LIST : Send email to wsm-discuss(a)lists.openspaceforum.net >> SUBSCRIBE : Send empty email to >> wsm-discuss-subscribe(a)lists.openspaceforum.net >> UNSUBSCRIBE : Send empty email to >> wsm-discuss-unsubscribe(a)lists.openspaceforum.net >> LIST ARCHIVES : https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/ >> LIST INFORMATION : >> https://lists.openspaceforum.net/mailman/listinfo/wsm-discuss >> POSTING GUIDELINES : >> http://openspaceforum.net/twiki/tiki-index.php?page=Mailing+List+Posting+Gu… >> Old / previous WSFDiscuss List Archives : >> http://openspaceforum.net/pipermail/worldsocialforum-discuss_openspaceforum… >> >

1 0

Re: [PeDAGoG] [REDlistserve] Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging [New REDWeb articles]
by Aseem Shrivastava 09 Sep '26

09 Sep '26

Yes, indeed, Ariel. *Dvaita* implies duality. So *advaita* points to the non-dual. Let me quote a page from 'The Rhythm of Being' which may be of interest and relevance. This extract is from a section of the book where Panikkar tries to explain in many different ways the title of his (posthumously published) book. Here is one such: “Theology is not reducible to anthropology, nor physics to theology. The three disciplines are mutually irreducible, yet also inseparable. This may be the *trayī vidyā*, the “triple knowledge” of the Indic tradition. "As an expression of this Rhythm of Being I may give two examples from that same tradition: "That from which beings are born, that by which, when born, they live, that into which, when dying, they enter, that you should desire to know: that is Brahman." (Taittiriya Upanishad) "This stanza probably inspired the following one, which speaks about *Sarvaṁ* (the all, everything), here translated throughout as Whole: "In whom the Whole [is], from whom the Whole [comes], who [is] Whole and who [is] in Whole [everywhere], who, eternal, [is] immanent in the Whole, Him the ātman of (the) Whole, I adore." (Abhinavagupta, Paratrisikā) "We find here all the ingredients we discovered in our description of rhythm. There is a rhythm in each and every being. No being is isolated; each reflects and is reflected by the Whole. The one text speaks of *brahman* and the other of *ātman*. It is not as if there were one special being, a supreme entity pervading the others, somewhat interfering with the others. Everything is in everything precisely because every being is more than an isolated entity. The vision of the Whole does not blind us to the particulars. It just does not make us shortsighted with respect to the All. The buddhist notion of *pratītyasamutpāda* (radical relativity or dependent origination) is a homeomorphic equivalent of the same insight." To Panikkar, reality is cosmotheandric. Its three universal nodes - cosmos, theos, anthropos - hold each other in a delicate triadic balance, which constitutes 'the Whole'. It is up to human maturity to keep it so. This is what cosmic responsibility entails. To be true to ourselves and each other, we will need to realise that Reality is non-dual. It is indivisible. Distinctions between beings and entities can and must be made. But distinction is not the same as separation. There is a greater Reality in reference to which the distinctions appear as diverse manifestations of the one, selfsame Truth of existence. In the dominant dualistic traditions of modern Western thought emanating from Descartes, the splits between mind and body, man and nature, self and other are on account of this separative core of the cognitive legacy of the tradition. And these three hard separations have become the root of what I call 'the triple alienation' embedded deep in the modern Western tradition - in both thought and practice. This has caused much havoc. Our entire modern world rests on these deeply hidden assumptions. And so the alienations compound remorselessly... >From an ecosophical perspective, to face our ecological predicament, our cultural and psychic condition will have to be faced simultaneously. Only this can free us from the triple alienation. The triple alienations feed each other. They can only be overcome through something like an advaitic transcendence (in a critically large number of people, not necessarily everyone), which renders all our relations - with nature and the cosmos, with each other, and with our own mysterious selves - clear and transparent. This is what I mean by "advaitic ecological intelligibility." It offers a new horizon of meaning and value which can help us see through modern opacities in all the three dimensions of existence, in order to perceive the possibility of the freedom that lies beyond... I hope this helps! aseem PS Pooja, I tried copying Ariel's request and this mail in the Comments box below the essay on the RED site. It wouldn't let me! Maybe you can do it. On Wed, 9 Sept 2026 at 16:24, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Aseem > Where you write — In 'The Rhythm of Being' he speaks about an 'advaitic > ecological intelligibility' all but foreign to modern sensibilities, > attuned to structural opacities and encryptions all around. > Can you share a bit more here on the advaitic sensibility? > Ariel > > > On 9 Sep 2026, at 5:09 am, Aseem Shrivastava <yebhiaseem(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Shrishtee and Friends, > > Thank you for taking time to read my long two-part essay. It is always > encouraging to also receive comments. So, thank you also for sending those! > > I think we are in broad agreement, though perhaps the relative emphasis - > between law and renewal of cosmologies/customs/traditions - may vary > slightly. In the transition, they are complementary, of course. And I > completely accede to your greater recent experience of actually > participating in the struggles of indigenous peoples. So you must know the > significance of legal strategies much better than me. > > I appreciate the stories you have shared about Ecuador and elsewhere. And > I can see where the right-minded judge is coming from. It is certainly > worth noting that he takes recourse to the language of indigenous cosmology > while also treading the thin ridge of the 'world-ling' you mention. > > As I write in the essay I fully accept the transitional value of the > rights of nature movement. I am only trying to contextualise the > (temporary) meaning of 'the rights of nature' struggles in the wider > background of the collision of cosmologies, one which has survived the test > of centuries, often millennia, the other which has proved its ruinous > dysfunctionality within a few centuries of generalised global growth and > 'development'. > > In my broader work on ecosophy I am also trying to say that there is no > surprise in the fact that modern cosmology, with its original scientistic > core, is ecologically, culturally, psychically dysfunctional. The cognitive > roots are already there since the 17th century Scientific Revolution, > further consolidated by the predatory Industrial Revolution, never mind the > pleasant fables told every day in university social science courses and > seminars. That is what my forthcoming book 'The Alphabet of Ecosophy: A > Morphology of Twilight Modernity' is concerned to show. > > It would seem, given the enormity of American and Western power, even in > its chapter of inevitable decline, that there is really no other way than > to adopt the flawed Enlightenment discourse on law and rights to bring > about a measure of ecological sanity. However, we also need to be prepared, > intellectually, culturally, spiritually for the great flux of this frenzied > time which is already upon us. We need new concepts and fresh ideas from > unlikely places to negotiate these decades. > > A few more things. 'Naming' is helpful in a court of law. But one cannot > lose sight of the many unnameable and intangible things which are of great > significance, and not only to indigenous people. This is why I say in my > essay that > > "Metropolitan skepticism wants to know reasons, without realising that > reasons of heart and spirit in traditional cultures are often not even > consciously articulated, let alone be understood by observers from > elsewhere, trained exclusively in modern systems of knowledge." > > So yes, while we must try to name all we can, we must keep the above close > by as well. > > Finally, I actually do not use only Western categories and ideas to assess > and critique the rights of nature. Panikkar is much more than a Western > thinker, even if he wrote mostly in English and European languages. In 'The > Rhythm of Being' he speaks about an 'advaitic ecological intelligibility' > all but foreign to modern sensibilities, attuned to structural opacities > and encryptions all around. > > In my other book on Rabindranath Tagore, also on the way, I am developing > a spiritual-ecological vision to build further on the ecosophical > perspective developed in the first book. > > So that is my own little stance with respect to the great question of our > time.. > > Thanks again for taking the time! > > Warm wishes, > aseem > > PS I read your 2024 piece with Ashish when it came out, and find myself > mostly in accord, with the above caveats. > > On Mon, 7 Sept 2026 at 10:05, Shrishtee Bajpai <shrishteebajpai(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > Dear Assem, > > Thanks for your wonderful piece. > > Ariel, I look forward to now reading your piece. > > Assem, since I have been thinking about this subject for the last few > years, I couldn’t help but jump in with some of the threads it opened up > for me. Some reflections below. Excuse me for any lack of understanding... > > In many of my writings, written along with others, we have critically > examined the Rights of Nature discourse, arguing about its limitations and > cautioning that proponents of the discourse must be aware that it is a > ‘means’ towards a larger systemic transformation, rather than a > transformation, an end in itself. > > Where I might slightly depart from your analysis is in how we understand > the history of the movement itself. If one were to look at the examples in > Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and New Zealand, I would argue that many of > these emerge from ontological conflicts. By this, I mean that Rights of > Nature emerges as a strategic and directional discourse to protect a > relationship from separating (humans and their habitats) for communities > and activists. > > On the one hand, communities that believe that the river is alive and > sentient are fighting a massive modernist ontological perspective that sees > rivers as sources of hydropower that can be mined, dammed or otherwise > destroyed for profit or for ‘national interest’, or managed through > conservation. A community that includes the rest of nature in its > decision-making is largely unthinkable within the modern state. Rights of > Nature therefore emerges in this onto-epistemic (Escobar el al 2023), > in-between space (Graeber 2007)—as an interface that enables such a system > to partially recognise the inseparability of humans and rivers, mountains > and the rest of nature, and the entanglements between them. > > It is important to recognise the many ‘worldlings’ that are in play here. > RoN, in that sense, is a space in between that enables two worlds or > worldlings to meet: the world of absolute destruction and the one that > understands humans, nature, rivers and the cosmos as inseparable. > > I don’t think the intention is necessarily to transform the law and the > state—which, as you rightly mentioned, are designed in ways that can > perpetuate systems of domination and can never fully understand these > concepts. The intention, rather, is to open cracks. > > To infiltrate courtrooms that have never heard a mountain speak as a > law-maker—for instance, Niyam Raja (literally, ‘Lord of the Law’), who is > understood by the Dongria Kondh as the protector, keeper and provider of > the forests—and to possibly enable a judgement that is cognisant of such > cultural beliefs. The 2013 Supreme Court judgement in the Niyamgiri case is > an important example. > > Another powerful example is the ruling recognising Los Cedros Protected > Forest as a living being in Ecuador. Agustín Grijalva, the judge involved > in this important ruling, told some of us last year in Australia- “The > forest defeated the mining company and was able to protect itself. I didn’t > write the ruling. The forest wrote it through me.”He went on to say that > local communities, artists, musicians, poets, scientists, naturalists, > lawyers and activists had all become part of writing the ruling, describing > this as a form of radical democracy—not just about ‘us’, but drawing on a > Global South wisdom in which social processes and movements become an > important force. As he put it, “the ruling sits on the efforts of a lot of > people.” > > Listening to a judge speak of forests writing through him is, to me, > precisely the emergence of these cracks. > > And though these might be one-off or temporary moments, they do interrupt > the coloniality of practices that seek to move away from diversity and > towards homogenisation. What they enable is the potential for more > fundamental transformations, and a potential eruption of diversity. > > As for the language of personhood itself, I think one of the most > pertinent points is about beginning with ‘naming’. Naming is, in many ways, > the beginning of justice. As some indigenous scholars, like Robin Wall > Kimmerer, say that the linguistic imperialism replaced the language of > animacy with one of objectification of nature, which renders nature as > lifeless and inanimate. Legal personhood is therefore a tool (however > insufficient) through which there is an attempt to change the existing > language and narrative- challenging the ontological assumption of the > western legal system that only humans can have rights. Hence, there is a > lot more unraveling in the diverse articulations of the movement, I would > also caution against simply using western and eurocentric discourses to > critique rights of nature, as that can, in some ways, mean remaining > trapped within the very framework one is trying to critique. > > These are just some thoughts in relation to the use of law. There are many > more questions I hold around implementation, cross-boundary issues, > customary governance, international agreements, and so on.As someone > working within and involved in this emergent movement, I remain very > critical of several aspects of it, and especially cautious about the > potential co-option of the language itself—as happens with many > alternatives more generally. > > Hence, the continued emphasis on seeing Rights of Nature as part of a > broader systemic transformation that also requires us to speak about the > economy (local, care, sharing economies), politics (the need for Earthy, > bioregional governance), and social justice (including questions of gender, > caste and race) and importantly rekindling spiritual and deeper connections > (which you beautifully articulated in your piece) > > Ashish K. and I wrote about this in our paper on Earthy Governance, > arguing for precisely for suchbroaderframing. > https://news.mongabay.com/2024/10/if-all-life-mattered-what-would-decision-… > > Thanks again for this thoughtful piece. > > Warmly, > Shrishtee > > > > > Shrishtee Bajpai > > Linkedin > Other writings and publications > Substack > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 at 5:41 PM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Friends all, I was deeply moved by Aseems’s beautiful essay - > and agree with his critique of the political limitations of Rights of > Nature environmentalism. > Here I would like to add to his remarks by sharing a paper I wrote some 4 > decades ago. > It was a response to 'the deep ecology movement’ popular in Europe and USA > at the time. > > As Aseem says - if we are to build new communities that live in harmony > with the world, > then we will all need to recover a sense of our Human selves 'as part of > nature’. > The problem is that almost universally, patriarchal cultures accord > Humanity only to Men, > meanwhile Women are said to belong to Nature - and bodily ‘resourced' as > such. > > The contradiction will need to be faced before we can move towards an > Earth Democracy. > All good energies > Ariel > www.arielsalleh.info > > > Ariel Salleh (1984) 'Deeper than Deep Ecology: the ecofeminist > connection’, > Environmental Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 4, 335-341:www.cep.unt.edu/enethics.html > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… > . > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2026, at 12:34 am, Pooja Kishinani <poojakishinani99(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Our latest articles on RED may be of interest- > > Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging by Aseem > Shrivastava > > This two-part essay interrogates the “rights of nature” discourse, arguing > that it extends one of modernity’s most anthropocentric concepts—individual > rights—onto nature rather than questioning the framework of rights itself. > Drawing on Raimon Panikkar’s cosmotheandric vision, Martin Buber’s > philosophy, and Mary Midgley’s essay on dolphin personhood, Aseem > Shrivastava argues that rights discourse presupposes separateness before > relation, which risks feeding the financialisation of nature rather than > healing “ecological alienation”— a deeper ontological wound that legal > personhood cannot address. > > Aseem traces a fourfold progression from rights to duties to > responsibility to belonging, arguing that law should follow custom and > relationship rather than substitute for them. The conclusion calls for > moving “from claim to communion”— recovering rootedness, kinship, and > cosmic responsibility over legal entitlement, since law can restrain harm > but cannot teach belonging to the earth. > > Read the essays here: > > https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… > (Part One) > > > https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… > (Part Two) > > I have copied the author on this thread if you'd like to share comments > and reflections with him directly. > > In solidarity, > Pooja > > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAA7bu_MiJZd… > . > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… > . > _______________________________________________ > GTA-PeDAGoG mailing list > GTA-PeDAGoG(a)lists.ourproject.org > http://lists.ourproject.org/mailman/listinfo/gta-pedagog > >

1 0

Re: [PeDAGoG] [REDlistserve] Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging [New REDWeb articles]
by Shrishtee Bajpai 09 Sep '26

09 Sep '26

Dear Assem, Thanks for your wonderful piece. Ariel, I look forward to now reading your piece. Assem, since I have been thinking about this subject for the last few years, I couldn’t help but jump in with some of the threads it opened up for me. Some reflections below. Excuse me for any lack of understanding... In many of my writings, written along with others, we have critically examined the Rights of Nature discourse, arguing about its limitations and cautioning that proponents of the discourse must be aware that it is a ‘means’ towards a larger systemic transformation, rather than a transformation, an end in itself. Where I might slightly depart from your analysis is in how we understand the history of the movement itself. If one were to look at the examples in Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and New Zealand, I would argue that many of these emerge from ontological conflicts. By this, I mean that Rights of Nature emerges as a strategic and directional discourse to protect a relationship from separating (humans and their habitats) for communities and activists. On the one hand, communities that believe that the river is alive and sentient are fighting a massive modernist ontological perspective that sees rivers as sources of hydropower that can be mined, dammed or otherwise destroyed for profit or for ‘national interest’, or managed through conservation. A community that includes the rest of nature in its decision-making is largely unthinkable within the modern state. Rights of Nature therefore emerges in this onto-epistemic (Escobar el al 2023), in-between space (Graeber 2007)—as an interface that enables such a system to partially recognise the inseparability of humans and rivers, mountains and the rest of nature, and the entanglements between them. It is important to recognise the many ‘worldlings’ that are in play here. RoN, in that sense, is a space in between that enables two worlds or worldlings to meet: the world of absolute destruction and the one that understands humans, nature, rivers and the cosmos as inseparable. I don’t think the intention is necessarily to transform the law and the state—which, as you rightly mentioned, are designed in ways that can perpetuate systems of domination and can never fully understand these concepts. The intention, rather, is to open cracks. To infiltrate courtrooms that have never heard a mountain speak as a law-maker—for instance, Niyam Raja (literally, ‘Lord of the Law’), who is understood by the Dongria Kondh as the protector, keeper and provider of the forests—and to possibly enable a judgement that is cognisant of such cultural beliefs. The 2013 Supreme Court judgement in the Niyamgiri case is an important example. Another powerful example is the ruling recognising Los Cedros Protected Forest as a living being in Ecuador. Agustín Grijalva, the judge involved in this important ruling, told some of us last year in Australia- “The forest defeated the mining company and was able to protect itself. I didn’t write the ruling. The forest wrote it through me.”He went on to say that local communities, artists, musicians, poets, scientists, naturalists, lawyers and activists had all become part of writing the ruling, describing this as a form of radical democracy—not just about ‘us’, but drawing on a Global South wisdom in which social processes and movements become an important force. As he put it, “the ruling sits on the efforts of a lot of people.” Listening to a judge speak of forests writing through him is, to me, precisely the emergence of these cracks. And though these might be one-off or temporary moments, they do interrupt the coloniality of practices that seek to move away from diversity and towards homogenisation. What they enable is the potential for more fundamental transformations, and a potential eruption of diversity. As for the language of personhood itself, I think one of the most pertinent points is about beginning with ‘naming’. Naming is, in many ways, the beginning of justice. As some indigenous scholars, like Robin Wall Kimmerer, say that the linguistic imperialism replaced the language of animacy with one of objectification of nature, which renders nature as lifeless and inanimate. Legal personhood is therefore a tool (however insufficient) through which there is an attempt to change the existing language and narrative- challenging the ontological assumption of the western legal system that only humans can have rights. Hence, there is a lot more unraveling in the diverse articulations of the movement, I would also caution against simply using western and eurocentric discourses to critique rights of nature, as that can, in some ways, mean remaining trapped within the very framework one is trying to critique. These are just some thoughts in relation to the use of law. There are many more questions I hold around implementation, cross-boundary issues, customary governance, international agreements, and so on.As someone working within and involved in this emergent movement, I remain very critical of several aspects of it, and especially cautious about the potential co-option of the language itself—as happens with many alternatives more generally. Hence, the continued emphasis on seeing Rights of Nature as part of a broader systemic transformation that also requires us to speak about the economy (local, care, sharing economies), politics (the need for Earthy, bioregional governance), and social justice (including questions of gender, caste and race) and importantly rekindling spiritual and deeper connections (which you beautifully articulated in your piece) Ashish K. and I wrote about this in our paper on Earthy Governance, arguing for precisely for suchbroaderframing. https://news.mongabay.com/2024/10/if-all-life-mattered-what-would-decision-… Thanks again for this thoughtful piece. Warmly, Shrishtee Shrishtee Bajpai Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/shrishtee-bajpai-18055390/> Other writings and publications <https://linktr.ee/shrishteebajpai> Substack <https://substack.com/@aequusaltus665891> On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 at 5:41 PM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Friends all, I was deeply moved by Aseems’s beautiful essay - > and agree with his critique of the political limitations of Rights of > Nature environmentalism. > Here I would like to add to his remarks by sharing a paper I wrote some 4 > decades ago. > It was a response to 'the deep ecology movement’ popular in Europe and USA > at the time. > > As Aseem says - if we are to build new communities that live in harmony > with the world, > then we will all need to recover a sense of our Human selves 'as part of > nature’. > The problem is that almost universally, patriarchal cultures accord > Humanity only to Men, > meanwhile Women are said to belong to Nature - and bodily ‘resourced' as > such. > > The contradiction will need to be faced before we can move towards an > Earth Democracy. > All good energies > Ariel > www.arielsalleh.info > > > Ariel Salleh (1984) 'Deeper than Deep Ecology: the ecofeminist > connection’, > Environmental Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 4, 335-341:www.cep.unt.edu/enethics.html > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… > . > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2026, at 12:34 am, Pooja Kishinani <poojakishinani99(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Our latest articles on RED may be of interest- > > Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging by Aseem > Shrivastava > > This two-part essay interrogates the “rights of nature” discourse, arguing > that it extends one of modernity’s most anthropocentric concepts—individual > rights—onto nature rather than questioning the framework of rights itself. > Drawing on Raimon Panikkar’s cosmotheandric vision, Martin Buber’s > philosophy, and Mary Midgley’s essay on dolphin personhood, Aseem > Shrivastava argues that rights discourse presupposes separateness before > relation, which risks feeding the financialisation of nature rather than > healing “ecological alienation”— a deeper ontological wound that legal > personhood cannot address. > > Aseem traces a fourfold progression from rights to duties to > responsibility to belonging, arguing that law should follow custom and > relationship rather than substitute for them. The conclusion calls for > moving “from claim to communion”— recovering rootedness, kinship, and > cosmic responsibility over legal entitlement, since law can restrain harm > but cannot teach belonging to the earth. > > Read the essays here: > > https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… > (Part One) > > > https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… > (Part Two) > > I have copied the author on this thread if you'd like to share comments > and reflections with him directly. > > In solidarity, > Pooja > > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAA7bu_MiJZd… > . > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… > . >

2 1

Re: [PeDAGoG] [REDlistserve] Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging [New REDWeb articles] (Out of office: end of assignment )
by MarionRegina Mueller 09 Sep '26

09 Sep '26

Thank you for your message! My assignment with Heinrich Boell Stiftung has ended on June 30th, 2026. Your Email may not be forwarded automatically. For further contact, questions and information regarding Heinrich Boell Stiftung Regional Office for Southeast Asia, please kindly contact my colleagues: Daniel.Abunales(a)th.boell.org (English language please!) & Ruth.Streicher(a)boell.de With best wishes! >>> Aseem Shrivastava <yebhiaseem(a)gmail.com> 9.9.26 10:09 >>> Dear Shrishtee and Friends, Thank you for taking time to read my long two-part essay. It is always encouraging to also receive comments. So, thank you also for sending those! I think we are in broad agreement, though perhaps the relative emphasis - between law and renewal of cosmologies/customs/traditions - may vary slightly. In the transition, they are complementary, of course. And I completely accede to your greater recent experience of actually participating in the struggles of indigenous peoples. So you must know the significance of legal strategies much better than me. I appreciate the stories you have shared about Ecuador and elsewhere. And I can see where the right-minded judge is coming from. It is certainly worth noting that he takes recourse to the language of indigenous cosmology while also treading the thin ridge of the 'world-ling' you mention. As I write in the essay I fully accept the transitional value of the rights of nature movement. I am only trying to contextualise the (temporary) meaning of 'the rights of nature' struggles in the wider background of the collision of cosmologies, one which has survived the test of centuries, often millennia, the other which has proved its ruinous dysfunctionality within a few centuries of generalised global growth and 'development'. In my broader work on ecosophy I am also trying to say that there is no surprise in the fact that modern cosmology, with its original scientistic core, is ecologically, culturally, psychically dysfunctional. The cognitive roots are already there since the 17th century Scientific Revolution, further consolidated by the predatory Industrial Revolution, never mind the pleasant fables told every day in university social science courses and seminars. That is what my forthcoming book 'The Alphabet of Ecosophy: A Morphology of Twilight Modernity' is concerned to show. It would seem, given the enormity of American and Western power, even in its chapter of inevitable decline, that there is really no other way than to adopt the flawed Enlightenment discourse on law and rights to bring about a measure of ecological sanity. However, we also need to be prepared, intellectually, culturally, spiritually for the great flux of this frenzied time which is already upon us. We need new concepts and fresh ideas from unlikely places to negotiate these decades. A few more things. 'Naming' is helpful in a court of law. But one cannot lose sight of the many unnameable and intangible things which are of great significance, and not only to indigenous people. This is why I say in my essay that "Metropolitan skepticism wants to know reasons, without realising that reasons of heart and spirit in traditional cultures are often not even consciously articulated, let alone be understood by observers from elsewhere, trained exclusively in modern systems of knowledge." So yes, while we must try to name all we can, we must keep the above close by as well. Finally, I actually do not use only Western categories and ideas to assess and critique the rights of nature. Panikkar is much more than a Western thinker, even if he wrote mostly in English and European languages. In 'The Rhythm of Being' he speaks about an 'advaitic ecological intelligibility' all but foreign to modern sensibilities, attuned to structural opacities and encryptions all around. In my other book on Rabindranath Tagore, also on the way, I am developing a spiritual-ecological vision to build further on the ecosophical perspective developetime.. Thanks again for taking the time! Warm wishes, aseem PS I read your 2024 piece with Ashish when it came out, and find myself mostly in accord, with the above caveats. On Mon, 7 Sept 2026 at 10:05, Shrishtee Bajpai <shrishteebajpai(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Assem, > > Thanks for your wonderful piece. > > Ariel, I look forward to now reading your piece. > > Assem, since I have been thinking about this subject for the last few > years, I couldn’t help but jump in with some of the threads it opened up > for me. Some reflections below. Excuse me for any lack of understanding... > > In many of my writings, written along with others, we have critically > examined the Rights of Nature discourse, arguing about its limitations and > cautioning that proponents of the discourse must be aware that it is a > ‘means’ towards a larger systemic transformation, rather than a > transformation, an end in itself. > > Where I might slightly depart from your analysis is in how we understand > the history of the movement itself. If one were to look at the examples in > Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and New Zealand, I would argue that many of > these emerge from ontological conflicts. By this, I mean that Rights of > Nature emerges as a strategic and directional discourse to protect a > relationship from separating (humans and their habitats) for communities > and activists. > > On the one hand, communities that believe that the river is alive and > sentient are fighting a massive modernist ontological perspective that sees > rivers as sources of hydropower that can be mined, dammed or otherwise > destroyed for profit or for ‘national interest’, or managed through > conservation. A community that includes the rest of nature in its > decision-making is largely unthinkable within the modern state. Rights of > Nature therefore emerges in this onto-epistemic (Escobar el al 2023), > in-between space (Graeber 2007)—as an interface that enables such a system > to partially recognise the inseparability of humans and rivers, mountains > and the rest of nature, and the entanglements between them. > > It is important to recognise the many ‘worldlings’ that are in play here. > RoN, in that sense, is a space in between that enables two worlds or > worldlings to meet: the world of absolute destruction and the one that > understands humans, nature, rivers and the cosmos as inseparable. > > I don’t think the intention is necessarily to transform the law and the > state—which, as you rightly mentioned, are designed in ways that can > perpetuate systems of domination and can never fully understand these > concepts. The intention, rather, is to open cracks. > > To infiltrate courtrooms that have never heard a mountain speak as a > law-maker—for instance, Niyam Raja (literally, ‘Lord of the Law’), who is > understood by the Dongria Kondh as the protector, keeper and provider of > the forests—and to possibly enable a judgement that is cognisant of such > cultural beliefs. The 2013 Supreme Court judgement in the Niyamgiri case is > an important example. > > Another powerful example is the ruling recognising Los Cedros Protected > Forest as a living being in Ecuador. Agustín Grijalva, the judge involved > in this important ruling, told some of us last year in Australia- “The > forest defeated the mining company and was able to protect itself. I didn’t > write the ruling. The forest wrote it through me.”He went on to say that > local communities, artists, musicians, poets, scientists, naturalists, > lawyers and activists had all become part of writing the ruling, describing > this as a form of radical democracy—not just about ‘us’, but drawing on a > Global South wisdom in which social processes and movements become an > important force. As he put it, “the ruling sits on the efforts of a lot of > people.” > > Listening to a judge speak of forests writing through him is, to me, > precisely the emergence of these cinterrupt > the coloniality of practices that seek to move away from diversity and > towards homogenisation. What they enable is the potential for more > fundamental transformations, and a potential eruption of diversity. > > As for the language of personhood itself, I think one of the most > pertinent points is about beginning with ‘naming’. Naming is, in many ways, > the beginning of justice. As some indigenous scholars, like Robin Wall > Kimmerer, say that the linguistic imperialism replaced the language of > animacy with one of objectification of nature, which renders nature as > lifeless and inanimate. Legal personhood is therefore a tool (however > insufficient) through which there is an attempt to change the existing > language and narrative- challenging the ontological assumption of the > western legal system that only humans can have rights. Hence, there is a > lot more unraveling in the diverse articulations of the movement, I would > also caution against simply using western and eurocentric discourses to > critique rights of nature, as that can, in some ways, mean remaining > trapped within the very framework one is trying to critique. > > These are just some thoughts in relation to the use of law. There are many > more questions I hold around implementation, cross-boundary issues, > customary governance, international agreements, and so on.As someone > working within and involved in this emergent movement, I remain very > critical of several aspects of it, and especially cautious about the > potential co-option of the language itself—as happens with many > alternatives more generally. > > Hence, the continued emphasis on seeing Rights of Nature as part of a > broader systemic transformation that also requires us to speak about the > economy (local, care, sharing economies), politics (the need for Earthy, > bioregional governance), and social justice (including questions of gender, > caste and race) and importantly rekindling spiritual and deeper connections > (which you beautifully articulated in your piece) > > Ashish K. and I wrote about this in our paper on Earthy Governance, > arguing for precisely for suchbroaderframing. > https://news.mongabay.com/2024/10/if-all-life-mattered-what-would-decision-… > > > Thanks again for this thoughtful piece. > > Warmly, > Shrishtee > > > > Shrishtee Bajpai > > Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/shrishtee-bajpai-18055390/> > Other writings and publications <https://linktr.ee/shrishteebajpai> > Substack <https://substack.com/@aequusaltus665891> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 at 5:41 PM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> Friends all, I was deeply moved by Aseems’s beautiful essay - >> and agree with his critique of the political limitations of Rights of >> Nature environmentalism. >> Here I would like to add to his remarks by sharing a paper I wrote some 4 >> decades ago. >> It was a response to 'the deep ecology movement’ popular in Europe and >> USA at the time. >> >> As Aseem says - if we are to build new communities that live in harmony >> with the world, >> then we will all need to recover a sense of our Human selves 'as part of >> nature’. >> The problem is that almost universally, patriarchal cultures accord >> Humanity only to Men, >> meanwhile Women are said to belong to Nature - and bodily ‘resourced' as >> such. >> >> The contradiction will need to be faced before we can move towards an >> Earth Democracy. >> All good energies >> Ariel >> www.arielsalleh.info >> >> >> Ariel Salleh (1984) 'Deeper than Deep Ecology: the ecofeminist >> connection’, >> Environmental Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 4, 335-341: >> www.cep.unt.edu/enethics.html >> >> -- >> To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the >> whole list, select "reply to all". >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. >> To unsubscr>> email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24 Aug 2026, at 12:34 am, Pooja Kishinani <poojakishinani99(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Our latest articles on RED may be of interest- >> >> Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging by Aseem >> Shrivastava >> >> This two-part essay interrogates the “rights of nature” discourse, >> arguing that it extends one of modernity’s most anthropocentric >> concepts—individual rights—onto nature rather than questioning the >> framework of rights itself. Drawing on Raimon Panikkar’s cosmotheandric >> vision, Martin Buber’s philosophy, and Mary Midgley’s essay on dolphin >> personhood, Aseem Shrivastava argues that rights discourse presupposes >> separateness before relation, which risks feeding the financialisation of >> nature rather than healing “ecological alienation”— a deeper ontological >> wound that legal personhood cannot address. >> >> Aseem traces a fourfold progression from rights to duties to >> responsibility to belonging, arguing that law should follow custom and >> relationship rather than substitute for them. The conclusion calls for >> moving “from claim to communion”— recovering rootedness, kinship, and >> cosmic responsibility over legal entitlement, since law can restrain harm >> but cannot teach belonging to the earth. >> >> Read the essays here: >> >> https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… >> (Part One) >> >> >> https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… >> (Part Two) >> >> I have copied the author on this thread if you'd like to share comments >> and reflections with him directly. >> >> In solidarity, >> Pooja >> >> >> -- >> To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the >> whole list, select "reply to all". >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAA7bu_MiJZd… >> . >> >> -- >> To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the >> whole list, select "reply to all". >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… >> . >> > _______________________________________________ > GTA-PeDAGoG mailing list > GTA-PeDAGoG(a)lists.ourproject.org > http://lists.ourproject.org/mailman/listinfo/gta-pedagog >

1 0

Re: [PeDAGoG] [REDlistserve] Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging [New REDWeb articles] (Out of office: end of assignment )
by MarionRegina Mueller 07 Sep '26

07 Sep '26

Thank you for your message! My assignment with Heinrich Boell Stiftung has ended on June 30th, 2026. Your Email may not be forwarded automatically. For further contact, questions and information regarding Heinrich Boell Stiftung Regional Office for Southeast Asia, please kindly contact my colleagues: Daniel.Abunales(a)th.boell.org (English language please!) & Ruth.Streicher(a)boell.de With best wishes! >>> Shrishtee Bajpai <shrishteebajpai(a)gmail.com> 7.9.26 06:35 >>> Dear Assem, Thanks for your wonderful piece. Ariel, I look forward to now reading your piece. Assem, since I have been thinking about this subject for the last few years, I couldn’t help but jump in with some of the threads it opened up for me. Some reflections below. Excuse me for any lack of understanding... In many of my writings, written along with others, we have critically examined the Rights of Nature discourse, arguing about its limitations and cautioning that proponents of the discourse must be aware that it is a ‘means’ towards a larger systemic transformation, rather than a transformation, an end in itself. Where I might slightly depart from your analysis is in how we understand the history of the movement itself. If one were to look at the examples in Ecuador, Bolivia, Colombia and New Zealand, I would argue that many of these emerge from ontological conflicts. By this, I mean that Rights of Nature emerges as a strategic and directional discourse to protect a relationship from separating (humans and their habitats) for communities and activists. On the one hand, communities that believe that the river is alive and sentient are fighting a massive modernist ontological perspective that sees rivers as sources of hydropower that can be mined, dammed or otherwise destroyed for profit or for ‘national interest’, or managed through conservation. A community that includes the rest of nature in its decision-making is largely unthinkable within the modern state. Rights of Nature therefore emerges in this onto-epistemic (Escobar el al 2023), in-between space (Graeber 2007)—as an interface that enables such a system to partially recognise the inseparability of humans and rivers, mountains and the rest of nature, and the entanglements between them. It is important to recognise the many ‘worldlings’ that are in play here. RoN, in that sense, is a space in between that enables two worlds or worldlings to meet: the world of absolute destruction and the one that understands humans, nature, rivers and the cosmos as inseparable. I don’t think the intention is necessarily to transform the law and the state—which, as you rightly mentioned, are designed in ways that can perpetuate systems of domination and can never fully understand these concepts. The intention, rather, is to open cracks. To infiltrate courtrooms that have never heard a mountain speak as a law-maker—for instance, Niyam Raja (literally, ‘Lord of the Law’), who is understood by the Dongria Kondh as the protector, keeper and provider of the forests—and to possibly enable a judgement that is cognisant of such cultural beliefs. The 2013 Supreme Court judgement in the Niyamgiri case is an important example. Another powerful example is the ruling recognising Los Cedros Protected Forest as a living being in Ecuador. Agustín Grijalva, the judge involved in this important ruling, told some of us last year in Australia- “The forest defeated the mining company and was able to protect itself. I didn’t write the ruling. The forest wrote it through me.”He went on to say that local communities, artists, musicians, poets, scientists, naturalists, lawyers and activists had all become part of writing the ruling, describing this as a form of radical democracy—not just about ‘us’, but drawing on a Global South wisdom in which social processes and movements become an important force. As he put it, “the ruling sits on the efforts of a lot of people.” Listening to a judgprecisely the emergence of these cracks. And though these might be one-off or temporary moments, they do interrupt the coloniality of practices that seek to move away from diversity and towards homogenisation. What they enable is the potential for more fundamental transformations, and a potential eruption of diversity. As for the language of personhood itself, I think one of the most pertinent points is about beginning with ‘naming’. Naming is, in many ways, the beginning of justice. As some indigenous scholars, like Robin Wall Kimmerer, say that the linguistic imperialism replaced the language of animacy with one of objectification of nature, which renders nature as lifeless and inanimate. Legal personhood is therefore a tool (however insufficient) through which there is an attempt to change the existing language and narrative- challenging the ontological assumption of the western legal system that only humans can have rights. Hence, there is a lot more unraveling in the diverse articulations of the movement, I would also caution against simply using western and eurocentric discourses to critique rights of nature, as that can, in some ways, mean remaining trapped within the very framework one is trying to critique. These are just some thoughts in relation to the use of law. There are many more questions I hold around implementation, cross-boundary issues, customary governance, international agreements, and so on.As someone working within and involved in this emergent movement, I remain very critical of several aspects of it, and especially cautious about the potential co-option of the language itself—as happens with many alternatives more generally. Hence, the continued emphasis on seeing Rights of Nature as part of a broader systemic transformation that also requires us to speak about the economy (local, care, sharing economies), politics (the need for Earthy, bioregional governance), and social justice (including questions of gender, caste and race) and importantly rekindling spiritual and deeper connections (which you beautifully articulated in your piece) Ashish K. and I wrote about this in our paper on Earthy Governance, arguing for precisely for suchbroaderframing. https://news.mongabay.com/2024/10/if-all-life-mattered-what-would-decision-… Thanks again for this thoughtful piece. Warmly, Shrishtee Shrishtee Bajpai Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/shrishtee-bajpai-18055390/> Other writings and publications <https://linktr.ee/shrishteebajpai> Substack <https://substack.com/@aequusaltus665891> On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 at 5:41 PM, Ariel Salleh <arielsalleh7(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Friends all, I was deeply moved by Aseems’s beautiful essay - > and agree with his critique of the political limitations of Rights of > Nature environmentalism. > Here I would like to add to his remarks by sharing a paper I wrote some 4 > decades ago. > It was a response to 'the deep ecology movement’ popular in Europe and USA > at the time. > > As Aseem says - if we are to build new communities that live in harmony > with the world, > then we will all need to recover a sense of our Human selves 'as part of > nature’. > The problem is that almost universally, patriarchal cultures accord > Humanity only to Men, > meanwhile Women are said to belong to Nature - and bodily ‘resourced' as > such. > > The contradiction will need to be faced before we can move towards an > Earth Democracy. > All good energies > Ariel > www.arielsalleh.info > > > Ariel Salleh (1984) 'Deeper than Deep Ecology: the ecofeminist > connection’, > Environmental Ethics, Vol. 6, No. 4, 335-341:www.cep.unt.edu/enethics.html > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and st> To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… > . > > > > > > On 24 Aug 2026, at 12:34 am, Pooja Kishinani <poojakishinani99(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear All, > > Our latest articles on RED may be of interest- > > Beyond the Rights of Nature: Toward an Ecosophy of Belonging by Aseem > Shrivastava > > This two-part essay interrogates the “rights of nature” discourse, arguing > that it extends one of modernity’s most anthropocentric concepts—individual > rights—onto nature rather than questioning the framework of rights itself. > Drawing on Raimon Panikkar’s cosmotheandric vision, Martin Buber’s > philosophy, and Mary Midgley’s essay on dolphin personhood, Aseem > Shrivastava argues that rights discourse presupposes separateness before > relation, which risks feeding the financialisation of nature rather than > healing “ecological alienation”— a deeper ontological wound that legal > personhood cannot address. > > Aseem traces a fourfold progression from rights to duties to > responsibility to belonging, arguing that law should follow custom and > relationship rather than substitute for them. The conclusion calls for > moving “from claim to communion”— recovering rootedness, kinship, and > cosmic responsibility over legal entitlement, since law can restrain harm > but cannot teach belonging to the earth. > > Read the essays here: > > https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… > (Part One) > > > https://radicalecologicaldemocracy.org/beyond-the-rights-of-nature-toward-a… > (Part Two) > > I have copied the author on this thread if you'd like to share comments > and reflections with him directly. > > In solidarity, > Pooja > > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/CAA7bu_MiJZd… > . > > -- > To reply to the author of this message, select "reply"; to reply to the > whole list, select "reply to all". > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Radical Ecological Democracy" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to radical_ecological_democracy+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/radical_ecological_democracy/89312233-1A5… > . >

1 0

Re: [PeDAGoG] �� ¡Convocatoria abierta de IGVI para investigadores en Latinoamérica! (Out of office: end of assignment )
by MarionRegina Mueller 11 Aug '26

11 Aug '26

Thank you for your message! My assignment with Heinrich Boell Stiftung has ended on June 30th, 2026. Your Email may not be forwarded automatically. For further contact, questions and information regarding Heinrich Boell Stiftung Regional Office for Southeast Asia, please kindly contact my colleagues: Daniel.Abunales(a)th.boell.org (English language please!) & Ruth.Streicher(a)boell.de With best wishes! >>> Andrea González Andino <andreagonzalezandino(a)gmail.com> 11.8.26 17:57 >>> Reenvío esta información por si es de su interés: �� ¡Convocatoria abierta de IGVI para investigadores en Latinoamérica! El Instituto de Investigación sobre Valores Globales (IGVI) busca integrantes para su nuevo grupo internacional de investigación "Abundancia, Libertad y Límites", que operará de septiembre de 2026 a abril de 2030 - Objetivo: Investigar concepciones de abundancia no capitalistas en comunidades marginadas (indígenas, quilombolas, campesinas) como herramienta de transformación - Requisitos: Ciudadanos residentes en América Latina con doctorado (o estudiantes de doctorado) en ciencias sociales o humanidades, con dominio de inglés y español - Beneficios: Beca mensual de entre €500 y €1,500 (según perfil) e integración en una red global de colaboración - Postulación: Enviar CV, carta de interés y propuesta de investigación (máx. 1000 palabras) antes del 6 de septiembre �� Contacto y envío: info(a)igvi.org �� Consulta las bases completas aquí: https://igvi.org/opportunities-posts/research-scholar-abundance-freedom-and… Saludos y gracias de antemano! -- At. Andrea González Andino Relational and connector artist Ecoversities <https://ecoversities.org/> - What might the university look like if it were at the service of life? Re-imagining education conference <https://re-imagining.education/> Unleashed Learning <https://unleashedlearning.org/> - How will you unleash your potential? +593 984583118

1 0