To the Lurkers<grin>!

Joseph Zorzin redoak at
Sat Sep 20 07:56:50 EST 1997

Jostnix wrote:
> Hot dang!  There are people that view this site beyond Stapes and Zorzin
> (and with no disrespect to you two).  Ya'll (southern for you guys) hold
> the fort and keep the flames coming.

Well, we old geezers, being highly prosperous entrepreneurs in the new
world order dedicated to laissez-faire capitalism- feel an obligation to
offer our wisdom to the young pups entering this noble profession. <G>

> On a serious note I would like you to review a foresters take (mine) on
> The Environmentalist.  It is written by a forester with twenty five years
> of baggage that comes with the experience. I'm trying to clean myself up
> and am attending the Waldon Pond "well rounded" Finishing School.  I would
> not have written this this way even five years ago.

Well, once we delve into metaphysics, for sure we'll all dissagree. <G>

On the page you refer to you say-

The Pantheist... 

Webster defines a pantheist as "one who equates God with
the forces and laws of the universe."  The pantheist
believes that we are part of nature, not above it.  He or she
would define nature as our mother, our home, our security,
our peace, our past and our future - our eternal refuge.
Much of the environmental movement is based on these

This pantheistic belief can be persuasive - particularly if
you see a profoundness in nature and the universe.  You
cannot have worked and played in the outside world and
not felt the spiritual forest.  

Do you take the (traditional) mosaic position of tending the
forest; or the (radical) pantheistic approach ...all hands off.
The modern, "Deep Ecology" movement has taken this
pantheistic bend and it is the basis of the radical movement
and a significant portion of the channelled movement.

This is a false interpretation of pantheism. I consider myself a
pantheist and have no problem practicing forestry and even doing an
occaisional clearcut. Pantheism doesn't mean worshiping nature in the
sense that primitive people worhip idols or that monotheists worship a
"Creator", one that we need to bow down to and obey His laws. Pantheism
is more like recognizing that nature is the only thing that there is-
the Creator and the Creation are the same thing. There is no fundamental

That being the case (in pantheism)- we all must go about our business.
And as humans we have to go about our role playing- in whatever role we
find ourselves- it's all the Great Game or as Shakespeare said, "All the
world's a stage". The natural world includes our seemingly un-natural
modern civilization which will proceed to tame almost all of nature
including ourselves. There's nothing particularly wrong with this, since
this is the game of "higher life form playing God"- but since our
evolution proceeded for millions of years with humanoids and early
humans struggling as just another animal- the entire DNA of our bodies
and structure of our minds are finely tuned to live in and appreciate
the wilderness having been part of if for so long- which is the
fundamental reason we NEED to preserve some of nature in parks and
wilderness areas- because the human spirit will wither without some
wilderness- into a mechanistic, weak creature susceptible to airheads
like Rush Limbaugh. As Thoreau said, "Shall we not have intelligence
with the Earth, for are we not partly leaves and vegetable mold

And what better wilderness on the planet than primeval redwoods? The
largest and oldest living things on the planet, magnificent and not
worthy of being turned into decks on the back of ugly suburban homes-
when there are millions of acres of low priced timber on boring looking
woodlots that could serve this purpose.

So, in conclusion- some folks mistakenly use pantheism as some argument
to leave nature along, but it is a weak argument. There are better
arguements to do so.
"The ONLY forester's web page in the otherwise sophisticated state of

And for proof that Rush Limbaugh is a rubber head, go to

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list