FACULTY OF ECOLOGY
said the ecology can be deep or shallow....
in fact they used to speak only about deep ecology – they
probably never speak about shallow ecology. At least I have
never heard anything about shallow ecology. But if anybody
speaks about deep ecology (even if it is but a misty, not
defined notion), with no doubt it is possible to speak also
about shallow ecology. It can be hardly imagined there is only
deep ecology. Could one imagine there was only deep water –
nowhere ankle-deep, knee-deep, waist-deep, neck-deep water,
everywhere many-metre deep water. All around us only abysses,
which means no possibilities for paddling and wading and
don't forget this is the Extreme University, so all faculties
are extreme, too, including ecology. Both extremely deep and
extremely shallow. As well as extremely middle. And
past ecology focused on the issue of balance in Nature. It was
really great time. Until they discovered that something like
equilibrium does not exist. Nature is the endless sequence of
disasters, calamities and catastrophes, small, big and huge.
Equilibrium could be defined as a state with no catastrophes.
But if the no-catastrophe-state is but an imaginable state (or
unimaginable – it depends on the power of imagination), then
the state of balance does not exist. Unless we speak about a
state of balance of catastrophes. I would risk to make a
statement (or it would be but a supposition), that the lack of
catastrophes, disasters and calamities of various sizes and
characters is (or can be) the greatest catastrophe for the
Nature. It's not impossible, that one day in the future the
Institute of Catastrophes will be founded within the Faculty
of Ecology. We shall see. However I think that we should start
with preparing a lecture tilted nicely:
The Catastrophic Equilibrium or The Equilibrium of Disasters and
great time now, too. No doubt. Maybe because ecology does not
focus now on balance in Nature, but on protecting it from a
pollution catastrophe – of course this is a bit malicious
simplification (it's hard to say whether “a bit” concerns
maliciousness or simplification – probably both).
simplifying even more, but only to complicate everything later
really extremely, it can be said, that all kind of ecological
issues, both in the past and now, as well as in the future,
can be reduced to the single issue of space. Well, every being
having appeared in the world takes a part of space for itself
thus making it impossible for other beings to occupy this very
part of space. A tree can't grow in the very same place where
I build a house – I will not build a house in the place where
a tree grows. Unless I cut it down. And if I don't want to cut
it down, than following the example of birds I can try to
build my house in or on a tree..... and right in this very
place endless complications, splitting hairs, start – however
these will be exciting subjects for lectures, workshops,
exercises and studies. For example:
Is it possible to live occupying no
place at all?
live occupying as little place as possible?
of them – the less of us. Is it true?
– has this idea any sense if such cities would occupy some
place in the sky?
well known that Liberland is a state build of letters and
words. Ecology of words and letters. This is really something.
SOMETHING EXTRAORDINARY! Probably nobody has been interested
in it so far – except censors, but I'm afraid they understood
it very differently.... Just try to imagine the abundance of
topics and subjects:
Do words occupy any space? >>>
can pollute the space? And which space?
words are litter?
letters are litter?
we segregate the rubbish words? Is the
organic – non-organic distinction enough? Should organic words be composted? How do words decay?.....
Do non-verbal notions (notions which are not words) occupy
less or more space that the verbal ones (or words)?
the production of words be reduced.
a vast, reaching far beyond horizon, field for studies and
experiments has just appeared in front of us...