Book of Shadows

[Harconen]

The Nature of Investigation:

Most of the science done today is based on a problem solving technique called the "Scientific Method." The Scientific Method is a well-established way to start from the basic principles behind a problem and develop an experimentally based explanation of a given phenomenon. It has been used successfully for centuries. There is one problem with this method, though: it can be very difficult to incorporate any newly discovered facts that do not fit the structure of the current scientific theory. This point has been raised repeatedly when scientists try to discover the nature of ghosts, ESP, etc.

I think it is natural to take the viewpoint that any axiomatic structure, such as the sciences, can only explain certain types of phenomena. Other systems, such as magick, can explain other phenomena. It is interesting that these different axiomatic structures can overlap: they can explain the same types of phenomena, but they explain them in different ways. One might call different axiomatic systems as "paradigms," or "representations." Whatever you call them, it is important not to mix the different systems, because the any term defined in one representation are not likely to have the same meaning in another. For example, anyone trying to explain a magickal phenomenon in terms of Physics needs to be careful of how the word "energy" is used. Energy in magick will not necessarily mean the same thing as it does in Physics. (Incidentally, energy is not a well-defined concept in Physics!)

In the remainder of this article I am going to discuss the Physics representation known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics (CI) and, within that representation, provide an explain of visualization magick.

[Harconen]

Schrodinger's Cat and Quantum Reality:

When most people think of Physics, they think of equations, math, and all sorts of difficult problems. In actuality, Physics is based on very simple arguments and can often be put in the form of puzzles that illustrate the basic principles. For instance, Classical Physics can usually be put into the form of some little guy (or person, for you extreme liberalists) firing a cannon over a ravine. Classical Physics describes what we see and touch in everyday life. We are familiar with it and it is the representation that makes the most sense to us. Another representation, which is more basic, is that of Quantum Reality. Classical Reality is fully contained within Quantum Reality, but Quantum Reality contains more phenomena, much of it things we do not see in day-to-day life. Not really accepting Quantum Reality for what it is, Erwin Schrodinger devised a thought experiment to show the odd nature of what Quantum Physics implies. He was essentially trying to ridicule the interpretation of the science he was helping to develop. The thought experiment is known as "Schrodinger's Cat."

We start with building a switch device based on quantum principles. We are going to take an atom of a radioactive material and place it inside a detector. The detector sends a signal to a switch if the atom decays. Now, all atoms decay eventually, and the amount of time it takes for half the amount of a radioactive material to decay is called the "half-life" of the material. So the chance our one atom will decay in one half-life is 50%. Thus, after one half-life, our switch has an equal chance of being "on" or "off." We now connect a vial of the deadliest poison to the switch; if the switch is "off" then the poison vial is closed, if the switch is "on" then the poison vial is open and any creature in contact with the poison will die instantly. Now place the quantum switch and vial of poison along side a cat in a sealed box. The question is after one half-life has elapsed, is the cat alive or is it dead?

Since there is a 50% chance that the atom has decayed in one half-life, our "logical" answer must be that the cat has a 50% chance of being alive or dead. No other answer in our (Classical Reality) experience makes any sense. We cannot say with certainty if the cat is either alive or dead.

However, we are asking a question that requires a specific answer. Is the cat alive, or is it dead? Quantum Reality gives us a third, and actually the only valid, answer to this problem. The cat is in a mixed quantum state of both alive and dead as far as anyone outside the sealed box is concerned. That is, the cat is only in a specific state of alive or dead when someone called a "quantum observer" looks inside the box to determine the state of the cat. This leads us to all sorts of metaphysical problems about the cat as well as the problem of what defines a quantum observer.

[Harconen]

The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Reality:

The Quantum Reality representation of the result of the Schrodinger's cat experiment does not make any sense as far as Classical Reality is concerned. Nevertheless, it has good basis in Physics. Many of the top Physicists of the time (around the 1930's I believe) met in Copenhagen to discuss Quantum Mechanics. Several topics were on the board there and eventually a consensus was made as to the nature of a quantum system: if a system is not measured it exists in a superposition of all possible quantum states. When the system is measured, it falls into one specific state. (For you Physics buffs, this is the concept behind the Born interpretation of the wave function.) This representation has become known as the "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics." (CI) According to the CI, Schrodinger's cat is both alive and dead until someone opens the box to look.

There is one other way to look at Quantum reality, but you pay a severe price. The representation, called the "Many Worlds Theory," states that every time a quantum level decision is made, the Universe splits into two or more copies, one for each outcome of the decisions. The Many Worlds interpretation of Schrodinger's cat states that the Universe splits into two copies: one with a dead cat and the other with a live cat. When we open the box we find out which Universe we are in. Personally, I find this representation to be a bit ridiculous, but you may feel free to choose which one you like the most. Both the Many Worlds and the CI make exactly the same predictions and we cannot tell which one is correct (if either!).

[Harconen]

The Double Slit Experiment:

The Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment does not really tell us anything about the real world unless we can prove it. Obviously, we are not going to learn anything from killing cats (and why would we want to anyway?) so we need to turn to another experiment to give us some facts. The Young's double slit experiment does just that and is almost as simple as Schrodinger's Cat. First though we need to talk about light.

When Sir Isaac Newton was doing his experimentation on light he decided, based on his experiments on reflection, refraction, and the sharpness of shadows, that light was made of little particles, which he dubbed "corpuscles." (We now call corpuscles photons.) Later on, interference experiments (such as the Young double slit) showed that light was made of waves, not particles. Was the great Sir Isaac wrong?? Not entirely. In the early 1900s, a man named DeBroglie showed that electrons, which are "obviously" particles, could be thought to have a wavelike character. Eventually scientists realized that all subatomic particles have both wave and particle properties...subatomic "particles" are neither particles nor waves, but are something else which we have come to call by the badly punned name of "wavicles." (If you are a John Gribbon fan, as I am, then you may like to call subatomic particles "slivey toves.") When we run an experiment that assumes light is a particle, light behaves as if it were made of particles; when we run an experiment that assumes light is a wave, light behaves as if it were a wave.

Young's double slit experiment assumes light is going to behave as a wave. We start with a monochromatic (single colored) light source and pass it through a slit so that we obtain a set of equally spaced wave fronts. We pass these wave fronts through a wall that has two tiny holes in it, equally spaced from the center point. Beyond the wall is our "detector:" essentially a TV that records the wave pattern striking the screen. A diagram of the double slit experiment may be found in any introductory Physics text, just look under the term "interference" in the index.

When we turn the light source on, we see a pattern of light and dark areas on the TV screen. This is the expected result since light is a wave and the two slits create an interference pattern: the peaks and troughs of the wave cancel out in different regions on the TV screen. This is entirely due to the fact of those two little holes in the wall...if there was only one tiny hole in the wall then we would only see one point of light on the TV screen and no interference. The one hole experiment is more like treating light as a particle rather than a wave, and we get no interference from it since particles do not interfere with themselves.

Now let us play with the experiment a bit. We are going to presume that light is made of particles and install detectors in both holes in the wall to see which hole the photon goes through. What kind of pattern do we get on the TV screen now? According to Classical Reality it had better be an interference pattern again. Nope. We get two little points of light on the TV screen. Why? Because we are thinking of light as particles we detected the particles, so they cannot interfere with each other. Let's play with this again. We are going to take the original double slit experiment and this time put the photon detector right in front of the light source and then we are going to run the double slit experiment only letting one photon through at a time. Obviously, we only get a point of light on the TV screen each time a photon passes through. However, let us record where each photon hits and run a bunch of single photons through the experiment. What do we get on the TV screen? We might expect to see two little points of light on the screen, but we do not. We now get a full-fledged interference pattern! Remember, this is a composite pattern made up of individual photons going through the experiment, not a bunch of waves. This is truly weird.

There are only two ways to explain this last result, neither of them comfortable. Consider a photon passing through hole #1 as a photon in state 1 and a photon going through hole #2 as a photon in state 2. The only way we can get an interference pattern is if we have something going through BOTH holes at the same time. This implies that the photon is traveling through the double slit apparatus in both states at the same time. Remember we are not trying to detect which state the photon is in as it goes through the holes, so the CI predicts that the photon is in both states, just as the results say it must be. (We can make a similar argument for the Many Worlds case as well). This is hard experimental evidence for the CI and has not been contradicted in the last 70 years or so. Just the opposite...other experiments have lent validity to the CI. (By the way, this same experiment has been done with electrons and, I believe, neutrons as well.)

[Harconen]

The Extreme Copenhagen Interpretation and Your Quantum Universe:
What follows is my personal interpretation of the Physics mentioned above.

Let us go back to Schrodinger's Cat since it is the simpler experiment. We need to discuss what makes a quantum observer again, because it is a tricky point. A quantum observer is some nebulous thing that takes a measurement of a system. What is it that creates the measurement process? Presumably, we have two systems to consider: the first is the actual experiment that we want to measure, and the second is the system that does the measuring. Therefore, if we take the measurement process to its most basic level, a measurement is the process by which the experimental system "gives" information to the observer's system. This information exchange is mediated by photons (or W, Z, gluons, etc. Basically any boson you wish. That's another topic.) To make a long story short, the observer gets information from the experiment by absorbing a photon. This means that an electron can serve as a quantum observer since a absorbing a photon will alter the electron's state. A quantum observer does not actually need to have an intelligence to function; it merely needs to respond to the experiment in some way.

So. Let us go back to Schrodinger's Cat. According to the scientist running the experiment the cat is both alive and dead until the box is opened. Say that he opens the box and knows the state of the cat. Now look at the people in the next room who are waiting to hear from the scientist in the room with the cat. According to them, the cat is STILL in that odd alive and dead mixed state. We can go further and state that the whole lab we ran the experiment in is in an undetermined state since the scientist in the lab might take different actions depending on the state of the cat. No one outside the lab can possibly know what is going on in the lab. Now look at the people in the next room beyond that, etc. What we have is a nested set of "Schrodinger's Cats." Until the information is passed between different rooms, the set of rooms inside exists in a mixed state.

We can take this argument to an (I feel logical) extreme. Since the individual particles in our bodies act as quantum observers the only pertinent information we have about the state of the Universe at large is what we perceive through our senses. Therefore, anything that we do not perceive through our senses exists in a mixed state similar to Schrodinger's alive/dead cat: nothing exists in a definite state unless we are sensing it. This is what I call the "Extreme Copenhagen Interpretation." (ECI) What this implies, then, is that each of us exists in our own personal universes and everything exterior to that universe exists in an undetermined state until we sense it. Note: I am going to ignore the question of other people existing...I will assume other people exist and our knowledge of their reality comes from the "interference" of these multiple universes. To give a quick example consider the question: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to see it fall, does it make any noise?" The ECI states that since no one was around, the tree is in a mixed state of existance/non-existance. Furthermore it has fallen/not fallen, much less made any noise/silence. Since the tree does not directly influence your universe, you cannot say anything definite about it even existing, even though you may have seen the tree an hour ago.

[Harconen]

The Basic Principle of Visualization Magick:

The ECI tells us that what we sense is what is contained in our universe. In order to do magick we need (at least) one more principle. When we do visualization magick, we actually feel what it is that we visualize. The ECI says that what we feel makes up our reality. Combining these two statements, we have what I call the "Basic Principle of Visualization Magick." What we visualize becomes real in our universe. This principle can be demonstrated by a simple spell, which I call an "empowering" spell. First, enter a light meditative state. (This first step may also be achieved by casting a circle.) Next visualize a blanket of white fire surrounding you, starting at your feet and working its way up to encompass your whole body. Hold this visualization until you can actually feel the fire surrounding you, cleansing your spirit and not letting any darkness penetrate your being. Now visualize your hands held outward from your body and let a globe of white fire come into being between your hands. Hold the globe there until you can feel it. This globe of fire represents your inner strength and the longer you hold it the more in touch with your strength you will be. The result of this spell is that you will feel empowered and more able to cope with the challenges of your life.

Is this magick, physics, or psychology? Remember, how we view our universe depends on the representation we use. In this case, the empowering spell may be viewed in any one of these representations. Using the ECI to describe the spell what we are doing is literally bringing up our inner strength as a concrete object and physically contacting it. We know it is there because we can feel it, therefore according to the ECI it has an actual existence. A similar argument holds for essentially any magick that has its basis in visualization or feelings.

The ECI explains how magick can affect our own universe, what about someone else's? After all many witches (warlocks, sorcerers, etc.) will claim that their magick affects other people, not just their own universe. We can use visualization magick to show how this might work, so there is not necessarily any conflict here. You (presumably) put some clothes on today so anyone that sees you will see those clothes and all of them will be able to describe the same set of clothing. You know you are wearing a certain set of clothes, and your best friend came up to you and mentioned something about the outfit, so you know she saw them. Both of you agree on the set of clothes because both of your universes came into contact, i.e. the two universes interfere because they both contain quantum observers. Now, can your best friend say anything about what you are wearing three hours after you parted? No, because you might have changed clothes. (Or Heck, you might be skinny-dipping in the local watering hole!) Once the universes are out of contact they no longer interfere.

To continue the analogy, if you feel something in your universe then it is real in your universe and thus, because your universe interferes with other universes the effect may well be real in someone else's universe. Say you know a spell to create a rainstorm. It will happen in your universe. Whether or not it happens in someone else's universe depends on the strength of the interference between your universe and theirs. I would suppose that the strength of the interference depends on the strength of your belief (and that of others) that you can make it rain. Taking things at face value, I would say that it would take a tremendously powerful mage to create an effect in someone else's universe seeing how difficult it is to create a magickal effect in our own universe. Note: I am aware the rain spell probably has nothing to do with visualization magick. I am also aware that other magickal principles could come into play here. Remember that I am using a representation, the ECI, to explain an effect. The ECI is probably not a good representation to discuss a rainmaking spell!

[Harconen]

Summary:

The way we explain an effect depends on the representation we use. The rules for which a representation is a good representation to explain an effect are not known, though we may certainly use common sense to guide us. The CI is a well-established representation that is used in modern day Physics. A logical extension to the CI is the ECI, which states that we all live in our own individual universe and that the Universe is composed of the interference of these personal universes. The ECI provides a way for Physics to explain the phenomenon of visualization magick by stating that what we feel is what is real in our universe.

[Harconen]

Greetings and Aloha,
 
 As a mother witch I have come up with a chant that is quite appropriate for any birthing ritual. Use and enjoy:
 
  Tiny bud, swelling nub, resting in the womb
  Unleashing spark, in the dark, birthing to be soon
  Healthy child, labor mild, mother safe and strong
  Nature flow, now to growm a household before long
   
   
   Bright Blessings , Me Aloha Pumehana
   Lady Maeve Moerae Coven
   Honolulu, Hawaii

[Harconen]

Brujeria

Brujeria. For many, it is nothing more than the Spanish word for witchcraft. But for a growing number of North Americans, Brujeria is something much more complex--it is a religion, not unlike Wicca.

I would like to volunteer to contribute some articles to the archive on this Pagan path. Myself, I am what is known as the Roja, or Red Priestess, of a temple here in Philadelphia. One does not need to be of Hispanic/Latin descent to celebrate Brujeria--I am not.

As a sample, allow me to offer you what is known as the Rule of the Brujo. Much of Brujeria is done in Spanish or in the native language of Nahuatl, but much is being brought into English.

"The one who made the Rule known is not known, but from this person the Rule spread unto the Olmecs, unto the Toltecs, unto the Aztecs, and ultimately the Rule has come down to us. That there is one piece of the rule for every full moon in the solar year is a certainty.

The universe is a living thing (which is an idea brought into modern Brujeria from Aztec cosmology), and Brujeria is a method of interacting with the living energy of the universe.

A brujo/bruja practices what could be termed magic by attuning himself/herself to this living energy.

This living energy can seize a brujo/bruja at any time, or through the concentrated work of an impromptu and inspired ritual.

An individual enters Brujeria through a personal encounter with the living energy.

Once a brujo, always a brujo. It is something that cannot be shaken off.

Brujos are born and cannot be made, even if they do not come to realize their place in Brujeria until much later in life.

A brujo has no ethical laws or limits to restrict his magic. However, he must also assume complete responsability for his actions and be willing to submit to the consequences.

'A dead brujo is more powerful and more dangerous than a living brujo.' What exactly this means is up for interpretation.

As Mexican Presidente Beinito Juarez said, "Respect for the rights of others is peace."

Brujos are free to use their abilities for non-brujos. Example situations are healing, spiritual counselling, and the creation of hechizos ("spellwork").

Brujeria is a community bound together by the living energy of the universe, and all brujos are brothers and sisters. A brujo is pledged to assist a fellow brujo wherever and whenever needed.

Some of what makes Brujeria can be revealed to non-brujos but most of Brujeria must remain between brujos alone.

Brujeria is learned from brujo to brujo, and through interaction with the living energy."

I hope I can make a contribution that will enhance the archive.

AmberJaguar

[Harconen]

Gender and Nature in Contemporary
NeoPaganism
                                 
                                 
                           by Salamantis
                    Email: joedees@bellsouth.net
                                 
   In recent decades, several social and political movements have
       had profound impacts upon the popular Western psyche.
    Collectively, they pose a powerful challenge to religiously
    grounded relational paradigms which until recently have been
   accepted almost without question. These movements include the
human rights trio (ethnic/racial civil rights, lesbian/gay rights and
                  feminism) and environmentalism.
                                 
  The last two of these, feminism and environmentalism, have been
  converging to the degree that a common discipline, ecofeminism,
  has been born. Although some affinities exist between these two
  and the others, the only solid connection seems to be the choice
 by some feminists of lesbianism on ideological grounds in spite of
  their personal sexual preferences. What could the womenÌs rights
      movement have in common with the attempt to preserve and
  protect our planetary ecology which the homosexual and nonwhite
  rights movements do not share? To answer this question, we must
   take a look at the paradigm they are all opposing, and in what
                    ways each of them oppose it.

[Harconen]

Our Present Paradigm
                                 
  This paradigm is drawn from the moral laws set down in the holy
        texts of the religions comprising mainstream Western
        Monotheism. These religions mainly include Judaism,
  Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism; their texts include the
  Bible, the Koran and the Zend Avesta. For purposes of simplicity
         and brevity, we shall call this the JCIZ paradigm.
                                 
   JCIZ postulates a single omniscient, omnipotent and relatively
   benevolent male deity (Jahweh, Jehovah, God or Lord, Allah or
      Ahura Mazda), who created and populated the world but is
 essentially transcendent with respect to it. This deity is opposed
     by another somewhat less knowing and powerful, relatively
  malevolent male deity (Lucifer, the Devil, Shaitan or Ahriman),
 who is also essentially supernatural. These two opposed forces of
   good and evil, light and darkness, contend with each other by
  intervening in our affairs. Each of us shall spend eternity with
  whichever one he or she allies with; in any case this earth is a
    temporary inconvenience, unimportant in the greater order of
things. It is in our interest to ally ourselves with the Ïgood guyÓ,
   and we know how to do this because HeÌs thoughtfully sent us a
    male savior or prophet or avatar (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or
                   Zarathustra) to so inform us.
                                 
    We are now in a position to understand the special affinity
      between feminism and environmentalism. Homosexuality is
      condemned and slavery condoned in the JCIZ, but if these
       tendencies were reversed, it would not compromise the
   underpinnings of the theological structure; gay/lesbian rights
 identical to those of straights and white/nonwhite equality are no
 metaphysical threat to the integrity of the system. The religious
  ramifications of feminism and environmentalism, however, strike
it to its very core. By criticizing the consequences of following the
 JCIZ, they indict as immoral or unwise the premises upon which it
     is based, and do so from the perspective of an alternative
      paradigm which derives from many pagan sources past and
            present, but which is crystallized in Wicca.
                               

[Harconen]

Feminism
                                 
In the JCIZ, all deities are male, the first human is male, and any
  central prophets or saviors are male. In the cosmic play, women
    are relegated to the roles of dupe, slave, rebellious ****,
   broodmare and submissive saint. Mary DalyÌs dictum that if God
 is male, the male is God has the existential corollary, within the
   JCIZ, of reducing females to nothing. In order to follow GodÌs
 plan, women must submit to their husbandsÌ rule in particular, and
 to male authority in general. Men may have to attend the school of
   hard knocks, but women are stuck with their homework. They are
to raise their many children but not their voices, for fear of getting
    knocked about themselves. This excision of the feminine from
spiritual significance and their resulting societal subservience has
   provoked, within many contemporary women, a soul alienation of
    Marxian proportions. Revolt against the predominance of this
   divine chain of being has followed, and the guerillas have not
    been exclusively female. Some men have come to feel cramped
     and pigeonholed in the role of overseer on the domination
  plantation and degraded and ashamed of what is expected of them
  there. They have therefore joined the rebellion against the JCIZ
 gender hierarchy, agreeing with Martin Luther King that you canÌt
   hold folks down in a ditch unless you climb down in there with
    them. As women and men come to the practical conclusion that
 only equality of rights, responsibilities and opportunities works,
  however, they also tend to come to the spiritual conclusion that
  this is true because the sexes equally approach divinity. This,
  however, would require deity to be comprised of masculinity and
 femininity in equal measure, which of course directly contradicts
                             the JCIZ.
                             

[Harconen]

 Environmentalism
                                 
 In the JCIZ, the Creator packed a hostile and bountiful world like
   a reluctant lunchbox for fallen humanity (read man) to suffer,
   endure, dominate, subdue and exploit for his own benefit. This
 divine license for exploitation without regard to consequences in
 the name of greed has borne bitter fruit. Because we have not held
   our common home in reverence, or honored her as sacred to us,
 we have felt free to pollute, pillage, **** and otherwise profane
  her. Yet, after fouling our own nest, we seem surprised to find
       ourselves surrounded by human filth, with the blood of
   extinguished comrade species crying out inconsolably from the
  bleak bare ground. We are coming painfully to the understanding
that the earth is our source and foundation, and that poisoning and
      impoverishing her can only hasten our own hollow demise.
    However, the grasping of the fact that we are only a part of
     something much older, wiser, grander and more complex than
     ourselves draws us inexorably to an experience of awe and
  sublimity in the presence of the sheer marvel of it. We begin to
 see ourselves as tiny threads, which, by some miracle, are able to
 sense the weave of a gigantic dancing tapestry (and the reality is
   much more wondrous than that). The earth becomes hallowed for
 us. But this contradicts the JCIZ premise that it is transcendent
      Deity which is holy, not a nature which, compared to the
               supernatural, must remain substandard.
                         

[Harconen]

 ForbiddenFruit
                                 
    Ecological degradation may be divided into natural resource
  depletion and biosphere pollution, but both have overpopulation
   as a root cause. Overpopulation drives us like lemmings to mow
 our global lungs for farmland, lumber and cattle pasture, sapping
  species diversity in the process. It drives us to strip-mine our
eroding soil to build skyscrapers, cars and soda cans. It drives us
      to burn our fossil fuels, overheating our atmosphere and
  decimating our ozone sunscreen for the sake of light, mobility,
     plastic containers and air-conditioned comfort for a small
 percentage of our teeming billions. It drives us to turn our over-
    fished oceans into toxic cesspools when our rivers bear our
       pesticides, factory byproducts and sewage to the seas.
  Furthermore, the resulting competition for room and resources on
a shrinking sphere has led our infant race to nurse the barrel of the
                            nuclear gun.
                                 
     It is ecologically imperative that we control our rate of
   reproduction generally, and the fundamental pillar of feminism
  that women must have the right to control their own reproduction
 individually. To this dovetailing of the calls of personal freedom
    and global necessity, the JCIZ responds with an iron demand
   frozen for thousands of years in the face of catastrophically
     changing circumstances; you must be fruitful and multiply.
                                 

[Harconen]

 Ecofeminism
                                 
    The realization that birth control is both a feminist and an
      environmental issue is one of many pattern matches which
 ecofeminists have found. They follow the clue given by the phrase
  ÎMother NatureÌ to the conclusion that women and the earth have
     both been victimized by the same attitudes of subjection,
rapaciousness, violation, penetration of virgin territory, stripping,
   despoiling and defloration. They consider this an unfortunate
  result of the separation of the sexes into godlike, transcendent
     man and earthy, immanent woman, into man as mind and woman
  as body, found in the JCIZ. This partition, for ecofeminists, is
    based on the differing positions of the sexes with regard to
  childbirth; men observe, women participate. Women also, like the
 earth, produce food, and can be planted with seed when in season;
       hence the ancient occurrence of the term ÎplowingÌ for
                            intercourse.
                                 
 Sexist theological Cartesianism, however, is untenable; the JCIZÌs
gender-based spirit/flesh dichotomy has been an injurious illusion.
    Self-aware parts of nature are still woven into the web they
    perceive. Mind, whether abstract or concrete, and of either
   gender, is a bodily based, earthly and evolutionarily emergent
                            phenomenon.
                                 
    The main division within ecofeminism is between ÎgenderÌ and
   ÎnatureÌ ecofeminists. The ÎgenderÌ ecofeminists believe that
  male-female relationships are the source of a domination pattern
 that is generalized to apply to culture-nature relationships, and
that if we replace it with an egalitarian sexual partnership pattern,
  our environmental abuse will stop. ÎNatureÌ ecofeminists believe
 just the opposite; that replacing the egocentric, exploitative and
  uncaring attitudes underlying environmental abuse with valuing,
       consequence based stewardship will repair male-female
  relationships by osmosis. I think that the domination pattern is
   imprinted during child-rearing, and that to end it, we have to
       embrace noncoercive methods of socializing our young.