The International Journal of Ecopsychology (IJE)



Insofar as our sense of and appreciation of “nature aesthetics” is both culturally biased and subjectively determined (given our agentic proclivities and/or actual degrees of freedom), and while taking the more inclusive perspective that, objectively so, ‘nature’ are all the processes seen and unseen that existed, now exist, and will exist, from the infinitesimally small to those of cosmic proportions, and, that whatever we mean by a singular “self” stands, in reality, for a multiplicity of self-other and self-otherness references (i.e., intersectionality during the entire life of a given individual—see Fig. 3), then all characterizations easily or convolutely described as “self-nature relations” (i.e., “nature connection”), particularly within “ecopsychology,” are wantonly incomplete to such a remarkable degree that, and in particular, equivocal or obscure invocations of “spirit” or similar supernatural lore cannot even begin to suture a forever widening epistemological chasm. Any number or kind of epistemological unwarranted beliefs (EUBs) soon follow with incredibly, self-assured and grossly misunderstood assertions (Kruger & Dunning, 1999; Aarnio & Lindeman, 2005; Lobato et al., 2014; Pennycook et al., 2015; Cadena-Nogales et al., 2022).

Any person merging completely and integrally with ‘nature’ ceases being a ‘self.’ From this all-consuming singularity there remains no one to speak of ‘nature.’ Thus, under other and most circumstances, honestly, selfing and naturing is the best anyone can claim they do.