It is generally agreed that Parmenides’ fragment B3 posits some type of relation between “thinking” and “Being.” I critically examine the modern interpretations of this relation. Beginning with the ancient sources and proceeding into modern times, I try to show that the modern rationalist reading of fragment B3 conflicts with its grammatical syntax and the context of the poem as a whole. In my critique, I suggest that rather than a statement about epistemological relations, it is, as it was originally (...) understood, a religious assertion of metaphysical identity. (shrink)

In Buddhism the idea of a transcendental or eternal self is denied as non-substantial and impermanent: a non-verifiable metaphysical entity that leads to grasping, craving and suffering. Buddhism posits that things continually change, are continually reducible and recyclable, and that no inherent existence or metaphysical “self” exists but rather a series of aggregates give rise to the experience so that consciousness itself is causally conditioned. As applied to the notion of no- self the one who is reborn and the one (...) who dies and the one who follows the path and the one who realizes enlightenment are neither the same nor different selves. With the Buddhist doctrine of impermanence an analysis of the notion of the “self” breaks down into layers to discover that the self does not exist independently at all. Because of simultaneous arising and falling of each moment the self exists as essentially empty. (shrink)

It is generally agreed that Parmenides’ fragment B3 posits some type of relation between “thinking” and “Being.” I critically examine the modern interpretations of this relation. Beginning with the ancient sources and proceeding into modern times, I try to show that the modern rationalist reading of fragment B3 conflicts with its grammatical syntax and the context of the poem as a whole. In my critique, I suggest that rather than a statement about epistemological relations, it is, as it was originally (...) understood, a religious assertion of metaphysical identity. (shrink)

This chapter seeks to contribute to the eco-feminist dialogue concerning the still present need for global advances in the status of both women and nature. Beginning with a cross-cultural comparative analysis of ancient myth, I propose to revive a dynamic “biophilic” ethics of interconnectedness and eco-justice. An examination of modern relationships between women and land leads us to conclude that our institutions and practices are woefully destructive. This situation is symptomatic of the fundamental oppression inherent to the dominant patriarchal paradigm. (...) Practices imbedded and deeply rooted within societal customs, traditions and attitudes frequently prevent women from equal access to land and deny women the right of being recognized as producers. By reclaiming our ancient goddess myths and indigenous sense of sacredness, we can heal some of the schisms of planetary oppression. Respecting women’s rights to land and their relationships with the earth, and encouraging women’s ownership of land, is a pragmatic, double-pronged step towards changing destructive thinking patterns about women and our planet. Women’s access and title tenure to land is a solution towards empowering women, adjusting ideologies and promoting global and ecological sustainability. (shrink)