I’m excited to present a paper this weekend at the Center for Process Studies’ conference (Pomona College, CA), “Is It Too Late?: Toward an Ecological Civilization.”
My paper is titled Relational Roots and Ecological Futures: Bridging Whitehead, Cobb, and Gullah Wisdom Toward a Decolonized Ecological Civilization and I’ll be posting that up after the conference this weekend!
Fascinating thoughts here on AI, religion, and consciousness from Matt Segall (one of my professors in my PhD work on Religion, Ecology, and Spirituality at CIIS who is helping to lead the way through the pluriverse)…
We might dismiss ancient religious as overly anthropocentric or indeed anthropomorphic. But I think from my point of view, we need to recognize that before we rush to transcend the human, we have to understand what we are, and all of our sciences are themselves inevitably anthropocentric.
Here’s a paper that I presented at this year’s American Academy of Religion, Western Region held at Arizona State University in March 2025 (Tempe is quite beautiful in March, btw!). It’s a good starting point for approaching my work and research called The Ecology of the Cross as a part of my PhD interests (and hopefully beyond)…
“This work explores the intersection of ecology and religion, theology, and phenomenology, drawing particularly on process thought, embodied consciousness, and participatory awareness via decolonization. I want to suggest that ecological intentionality offers a framework for peace that extends beyond Human interactions, challenging anthropocentric models of peace and instead envisioning peace as a relational, ecological, and more-than-human performance. I’ll begin by defining this concept of ecological intentionality within a phenomenological and process-relational framework, then explore its implications for peace beyond Human boundaries through examples drawn from both ecological and spiritual contexts. Finally, I’ll propose that peace, in this framework, is not simply an absence of conflict but a mode of relationality grounded in ecological reciprocity and mutual flourishing. This is part of a larger project for my PhD work that I’m calling Ecology of the Cross in reverence to Edith Stein and her influential work (on me), The Science of the Cross.”
Socrates:
“But my dear Crito, why should we pay so much attention to what ‘most people’ think? The most sensible people who have more claim to be considered, will believe that things have been done exactly as they have” (Plato, The Last Days of Socrates, trans. Tredennick and Tarrant, Penguin Classics, 2003, 80).
Here’s a paper I’ve written on the concept of re-thinking conservation attempts in modern societies based on technocratic and market-based ideas. Conservation and human action (and inaction) is a fascinating area to ponder. As part of my wider work on The Ecology of the Cross, this is a paper that explores some of the roots of our Western concepts of “conservation” and a possible middle way in these uncertain times using fire as a case study 🔥🌲.
Here’s the abstract:
“This paper proposes a paradigm shift in conservation, moving from technocratic and colonial frameworks toward an ethic of interspecies communion. Drawing on Juno Salazar Parreñas’ critique of biopolitical care, Mara Goldman’s analysis of Maasai narrative epistemologies, Barrett et al.’s model of intuitive interspecies communication, and philosophical reflections from Edgar Morin, William Desmond, and the emerging field of Ecocene fire practices, the paper articulates a vision of both conservation and understandings and uses of fire rooted in reciprocity, complexity, and ontological humility. It argues that communion, not control, must ground conservation in the age of ecological disruption.”
Merianna’s newsletter is one of the highlights of my newsfeed…
Morning Light – by Merianna Harrelson – Merianna’s Substack:
This time last year, I didn’t know we were moving cities, changing jobs, or starting new schools for all our children. Even as I write it, it feels strange that we didn’t know our present reality would exist…
While our lives are being turned upside by advances in technology, changing political climate, and more powerful natural disasters, may these changes remind us to love more deeply and work more compassionately for what is good and just.
This paper proposes a Process Ecology of the Cross, a theological and philosophical reframing of the Christian symbol of the cross through the lens of process-relational metaphysics, ecological kenosis, and more-than-human cosmopolitics. Drawing from the work of Alfred North Whitehead, Catherine Keller, Mihnea Tǎnǎsescu, Donna Haraway, and Indigenous fire stewardship practices, the paper explores how the cross can be reclaimed not as a juridical transaction or redemptive violence, but as a cosmopolitical threshold: a site of shared vulnerability, transformation, and planetary communion. The argument unfolds across seven sections, examining communion as an ontological principle, kenosis as an ethical-political descent, fire as a sacrament of regeneration, and ecological intentionality as a mode of participatory perception. Through phenomenology, posthuman theology, and lived ecological practices, this paper articulates a vision of salvation not as escape from the Earth but as a deepening within it. The cross becomes an altar of becoming-with, a liturgical site of composted grief, regenerative peace, and hope beyond the human.
Republican Budget Bill Aims to End I.R.A. Clean Energy Boom – The New York Times:
Over the past three years, companies have made plans to invest more than $843 billion across the United States in projects aimed at reducing planet-warming emissions, driven by lucrative tax credits for clean energy provided by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
But only about $321 billion of that money has actually been spent, with many projects still on the drawing board, according to data made public on Tuesday by the Clean Investment Monitor, a joint project of the Rhodium Group and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Now, much of the rest, about $522 billion, will depend on action playing out on Capitol Hill. Starting on Tuesday, Republicans in Congress will begin a contentious debate over proposals to roll back tax credits for low-carbon energy as they search for ways to pay for a roughly $4 trillion tax cut package favored by President Trump.
Recent political debates, such as those surrounding the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), highlight a troubling reliance on technocratic solutions to address the climate crisis. While investments in clean energy are essential, they are insufficient without a deeper transformation in our collective consciousness and ethical frameworks.
The IRA represents a substantial federal investment in clean energy, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote the development of renewable energy sources. However, as political dynamics shift, the stability and longevity of such initiatives come into question.
For instance, recent legislative proposals have sought to roll back key provisions of the IRA, including clean energy tax credits. These political maneuvers highlight the fragility of technocratic solutions that rely on shifting political will.
Addressing the climate crisis requires more than policy changes; it demands a fundamental shift in how we perceive our relationship with the natural world. Philosophers like Catherine Pickstock and William Desmond advocate for a return to liturgical language and metaphysical frameworks that emphasize communion and participation with the environment.
Pickstock argues that true language is inherently liturgical, fostering a participatory relationship with reality. Desmond’s concept of the “metaxological” emphasizes the importance of the “between”—the relational space that enables genuine connection and ethical engagement with others, including the non-human world.
By embracing liturgical practices and ecological ethics, we can cultivate a sense of reverence and responsibility toward the environment. This approach moves beyond viewing nature as a resource to be managed and instead recognizes it as a sacred community to which we belong.
Such a transformation encourages practices that are sustainable not only environmentally but also spiritually and culturally. It fosters communities that are attuned to the rhythms of nature and committed to the well-being of all life forms.
While technocratic solutions like the IRA play a role in mitigating climate change, they are insufficient on their own. Lasting change arises from a profound transformation in consciousness, one that reestablishes our connection to the natural world through liturgy, language, and ethical living. Only by addressing the metaphysical and psychological roots of our ecological crisis can we hope to create a sustainable and harmonious future.
This research from OpenAI (company behind ChatGPT) is certainly interesting with a large data set, but this part was particularly relevant for me and my work on phenomenology and empathy…
That said, this latest research does chime with what scientists so far have discovered about how emotionally compelling chatbot conversations can be. For example, in 2023 MIT Media Lab researchers found that chatbots tend to mirror the emotional sentiment of a user’s messages, suggesting a kind of feedback loop where the happier you act, the happier the AI seems, or if you act sadder, so does the AI.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this question from my context as an AP Physics and Physical Science teacher for close to 20 years previous to hopping in to my PhD studies in Ecology and Religion where I’m focusing on questions of consciousness and intentionality.
Electrons are just plain weird. I always thought it fascinating that we discovered them before protons and neutrons.
Philosophers don’t just philsophize… they help science move ahead by realizing that materialist reductionist viewponts don’t always point to where the data or truth is trying to lead us…
Good read here…
What is an Electron? How Times Have Changed:
I have argued strongly in my book and on this blog that calling electrons “particles” is misleading, and one needs to remember this if one wants to understand them. One might instead consider calling them “wavicles“, a term itself from the 1920s that I find appropriate. You may not like this term, and I don’t insist that you adopt it. What’s important is that you understand the conceptual point that the term is intended to convey.
