I would, first, like to discuss the meaning of "ecological intelligence" with the rest of the class, because though I have my own ideas about what the term might mean, I want to hear what everyone else's interpretations were so that I can develop my own and understand it better. Then, I want to talk about colonization in the linguistic sense, and how this impacts the natural world. It was very interesting to me that Bowers said that Western thinkers did not consider environmental limits when they were drafting the contemporary meanings of words that we still employ today in our language. Something I've been thinking about more and more, based on the recent readings we've been doing, is the idea that language is inadequate when it comes to expressing ourselves and conveying meanings.

I appreciated that Bowers said that change is not always progress, which I think is true; we do not always go forward, sometimes we go backward.

While reading "Steps to the Recovery of Ecological Intelligence", the lexicon of archaic terms from Oreskes and Conway's book and our class discussion on the word enironment constantly kept coming up in my mind. I would like to know how a word's usage becomes obsolete and how we can stop using particular words if we don't have any alternatives to express that concept? Moreover, Bowers characterizes western education and philosophy as a purporter of individual thinking. I would like to know about culutural variations in the education system and subsequently, in life style, of people from varying cultural backgrounds. Do people in our class from different cultures have anything to share on this topic? How does the philosophy of their education system differ?

I find it interesting how cultural diversity can also be helpful to the environment. The connection being that the more cultural diversity that there is the smaller carbon footprint you leave. Though I'm not exactly how that connection is made. Bower's talks about how important it is to have ecological intelligence, I don't know what they are saying when they talk about the lack of environmental intelligence in western culture. Many people seem to be pretty aware of their carbon footprint, but I guess as many people are aware of their carbon footprint, many are not. I'd like to discuss what exactly Environmental Intelligence means and how it is related to the western society.

"Steps to the Recovery of Ecological Intelligence" by C.E. Bowers

I would like for us to talk about what exactly "an ecological form of intelligence" is, because Bowers talks about it but I'm not entirely sure what this would entail. Does this mean that though we think of intelligence as differing on an individual level, it is in fact whole populations who are not ecologically intelligent, and this is why we view the environment ignorantly? I think she is talking about intelligence on the population scale rather than on the individual level. 

since jody had us read the chapter of her and anne’s wip, i’ve been thinking a lot about it. on the reflections that i have on our work in the prison, and the reflections that i don’t have because i don’t want to think about certain things.

the question, ‘why are we here?’ is asked, but remained/s unanswered.

i want to learn from these incarcerated individuals, but how? how do we do that when we’re the ones structuring the classroom? i want them to have the space to learn as well – and arguably that is the focus, to use our access to provide a space for learning and a space for connecting to ‘the outside’.

First of all, I was really excited to read about "western philosophy" after writing an essay on it! Bowers's essay seems to validate my point about "western" being a descriptor of ideology more than location, and more complicated than what I wrote. The connection between cultural diversity and ecology makes sense to me but it is something I would like to explore deeper through discussion. I am also very interested in how linguistic diversity and cultural diversity allows for cultures to live with a small carbon footprint.

An expansion of my last paper: this picture explores a sliver of what I have been contemplating in the recent weeks and days. There is much that I need to add and expand upon.

Generally, I appreciated Bowers' article- the content was informative and progressive. However, one point stood out to me with which I did not agree. Bowers talks about how technologies induce lack of understanding of interdependency in the environment. He then transitions to say that "Phrases 'I think', 'I want,' and 'what do you think?' continually reinforce the myth of not being part of the independent and cutural natural ecosystems, but rather being a separate observer, thinker, and actor" (46). I agree that humans, throughout history, have distanced themselves from their surroundings, yet, such phrases are not always evil. If one is expressing his or her individual thoughts with good intention, is he or she contributing to this myth? No.