What is the payoff Gary for those pushing this desire to revert to ignorance and fairy tales? My mind is befuddled by the shear stupidity and nonsensical attraction to such primitive rubbish being spewed out throughout NZ education, law and so much of our ordinary day to day lives. Why?? Unless it is part of the propaganda machine for Maori Takeover. Thank you for your sanity and courage.
It is indeed difficult to understand why in 2024 anybody would interject primitive tribal beliefs into any serious activity, particularly coming from people that haven't been raised, steeped in the culture.
It appears to me to be that, setting aside tribal "aristocracy" with obvious vested interests, the driver is a kind of mass psychosis behaviour, where an extreme version of ideological "inclusion", as in the DEI subset of Critical Theory is being promoted under an illusion of righteous justice, with whatever societal disruption a price that must be paid. Hence science must include "traditional ways of knowing", the rule of law similarly, and so forth.
Well said Gary. The concept of New Zealand's supposed "first law" presumably includes if we defeat you in battle then it's a legitimate practise to eat your remains.
There seems to be an assertion that Maori spiritism is somehow unique. However, it's clear that it was universal prior to the spread of Christianity, from year 27 onwards. The Maori historical sense of isolation shouldn't be taken as a reason to consider it as outside the whole history of mankind.
Nevertheless, we should also consider that, pursuant to the 1840 Treaty, we now have a Head of State, the Monarch in Right of New Zealand, who bears the title, 'Defender of the Faith,' (Royal Titles Act 1974). The title of course refers to the Christian Faith, of which at least 60% of Maori, and almost all the Rangatira at Waitangi ascribed, to varying degrees perhaps. And they acted accordingly, freeing slaves, refraining from cannibalism, and so on. They were very serious about it at that time, perhaps even more so than some of the Pakeha settlers.
The wholly artificial revival of a 'Maori traditional spirituality,' for example the recent Matariki festivals, is as others have noted, a politically motivated project. But it has perhaps only become possible in the context of the later 20th century 'de-Christianization' of Maori. In perhaps 1950, there may have been a greater proportion of Maori children regularly attending in church and Sunday school, than Pakeha children.
Nevertheless, the Constitutional import of our Head of State being the defender of the Christian faith, on the Constantinopolitan model, should not escape our consideration,
Then we should ask ourselves, can the body act in ways at variance to the head?
The risk of not recognizing this reality, is that it could eventually lead to decapitation, and degradation of both portions.
But immediately, the continued (short-sighted) failure of our government(s) to uphold and protect the place of the historic Christian faith in our society is perhaps the direct cause of, or has allowed room for, this revival of pagan spiritism.
Not unique. On the contrary, it is likely that all peoples had backgrounds where natural phenomena were explained in this way. You are probably right that the revival is artificial and politically motivated.
I can't be outraged or shocked by this article. I don't wholly agree with the Consultation Report, but I can see some value in bringing this other perspective when it comes to caring for NZ's freshwater. I see the Maori version as metaphor, and I think it's good to consider a view that asks for the waterways to be respected and cared for, rather than simply as resources to be used.
I think we can all agree that waterways ought to be cared for, rather than simply used as resources. Healthy waterways are beneficial to human life in its widest sense and unhealthy ones the converse. That does not justify giving credence to the supernatural. That is not another perspective; it is a departure from the real world; it is what primitive people did when they did not have the benefit of knowledge derived from scientific observation, research and analysis.
The proposal demonstrates a funfamental categorical error between material phenomenon and spirit, which Atistotle and Newton resolved in part and resolved in thec19th and 20thc. See Eric Voegelin's 1948 essay on t
he same. The ancient Israelutes and the Romans opposed Caananite and Punic religion on its occult basis of sacrifice of children to get Moloch to alter the physical world. Not only is this teligious heresy it is also intellectual heresey about physical reality.
Spirituality belongs to the ontology of being- that is what Genesis is about- intellectual categories. The water proposals are hopelessly muddled.
It has a social dynamic of a return to neolithic thught where the human is not a subject as a person but as a collective. We simply cannot go back to a neolithic mentalite or consviousness despite Rousseau,'s inverted fable.
Ayan Rand's essays are exceptional. The essay you cite sits well with one on Apollo 11 and Woodstock. Her essay on the student riots is germane too.
If anyone has this essay, cited by Rand, I would be very grateful l for a copy:
Petersen, William. "What's Left at Berkeley," Columbia University Forum, Vol. 8,
Any comment appreciated Mr Judd KC - The Rule of Law: New Zealand operates under a system of rule of law, which means that laws must be clear, publicly known, and applied equally to everyone. Attempts to impose a compulsory acceptance of the Treaty would need to be supported by specific legislation? i.e. Local councils have codes-of-conduct that make it compulsory.
Making the Treaty's principles compulsory could be seen as a form of legislative overreach, as it would be imposing a specific worldview on the judiciary and executive branches. The judiciary should be independent to interpret and apply the law without undue influence from the legislature or executive??
Example:
Any failure by members to act in the manner described above represents a breach of this Code and
will be dealt with in accordance with the complaints process as set out in Appendix A.
5.4 Relationships with hapū and iwi
Te Kaunihera ā rohe o te Taitokerau (Northland Regional Council) commits to operating in a manner
that recognises and respects the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In doing so, the Northland
Regional Council recognises the importance of:
1. Tino Rangatiratanga: the principle of self-determination provides for iwi and hapū selfdetermination and mana motuhake. This requires local authorities to be open to working
with mana whenua as partners in the design and delivery of their work programmes;
2. Partnership: the principle of partnership implies that local authorities will seek to establish a
strong and enduring relationship with hapū and iwi , within the context of Te Tiriti o
Waitangi in Te Taitokerau. Council should identify opportunities, and develop and maintain
ways, for iwi and hapu to contribute to council decisions, and consider ways council can
build capacity of iwi and hapū to contribute to council decision-making;
3. Equity: the principle of equity requires local authorities to commit to achieving the equitable
delivery of local public services;
4. Active protection: the principle of active protection requires local authorities to be well
informed on the wellbeing of hapū and iwi within their respective rohe;
5. Options: the principle of options requires local authorities to ensure that its services are
provided in a culturally appropriate way that recognises and supports the expression of te ao
The Hidden Life of Trees is a good book about nature. Turns out the forest is a profound ecosystem and trees talk to each other. It makes you think the Maori way is true.
If it were clear that this talk about gods is metaphorical, I'd be quite happy with it. That god-talk is metaphorical is not a new idea. In 1923, for example, the writer Rēweti Kōhere said: "What the ancestors did was to study the powerful forces of nature and to personify them, i.e. to give them names as if they were actually people" (Ko te mahi a nga tūpuna he titiro ki nga mea kaha o te ao me te whakatangata i aua mea, arā, ka whakaahuatia nga ingoa me te mea nei he tangata tonu). But if this god-talk is being taken literally, by people whose thinking is less sophisticated than Kōhere's, then yes, we're in trouble, as Gary suggests. The problem is that it's just not clear how it is meant to be understood.
Yes, I can happily respect those who say they are restoring the "mauri" of a stream when they work to clean it up, as a harmless metaphor. It is a quite different proposition to dignify the supernatural in a document which is part of a process leading towards the imposition of legal obligations.
I completely agree with the Maori view on these matters. They are right - all things are alive and ought to be respected.
Modern science produces many wonderful things but it is also incredibly narrow-minded. Thanks to modern science the Earth is so polluted that some people like Elon Musk are seriously trying to colonise Mars to save our species. It is entirely possible that modern science could be fatal to humanity - if not by pollution then maybe by nuclear technology or gain of function research or some other stupid endeavour. The irony is that science is ultimately not rational enough and it would benefit from a wider perspective.
So while there are plainly political ambitions in the pushing of the Maori spiritual perspective - they are not wrong about nature. Every culture in every country through all history shares the same beliefs about the spirituality of nature. And these are not primitive beliefs - they are very common today all over the world. Describing them as primitive shows a lack of awareness of what millions (billions?) of people believe today.
Saying that rivers, oceans, trees, rocks are alive and have personalities is no different than saying that meat has a unique personality. Tell me how atoms in the form of meat come to life (ie become you) and then we can talk about the same in other things.
Oh dear. ‘Every culture in every country through all history shares the same beliefs about the spirituality of nature’. Oh really? Not the Judeo-Christian heritage. They took the sacred out of the ‘created order’ about 5,000 years ago. Which is why science fully developed in Europe and not elsewhere. Your post was full of so much nonsense it would take an entire article to unpick. There’s a big difference between good stewardship of the planet and animistic crap, but you stick with your tree gods and see how that works for you.
In the European culture - like everywhere - there were always people who recognised that life is sacred and that trees and rivers are alive. There are lots of references to Christians opposing tree-huggers - nearly a thousand years of torturing and burning them at the stake.
The irony of your comment is that Judeo-Christian teachings have been fully rejected by modern science which says you have no soul. Nor do dogs or trees or rivers. Yet at the same time Judeo-Christian embraces talking snakes, burning bushes, parting seas, turning water into wine, walking on water... but a river having life-force is somehow crap. Give me a break.
Ask ChatGPT about Jesus talking to trees and the sea.
Seems you missed my point. Namely that Judeo Christian history had plenty of myths too (good meaningful ones though) but their worldview was a desacralised one. You can’t do science in a Te Ao Maori world, it just doesn’t work. Inanimate objects are, well, inanimate. The name gives it away I would aver.
Te Ao Maori can be investigated scientifically - just like anything else. Does the Waikato River have a soul? Is a tree conscious - does it know you are there? These questions can be approached rationally. They are straightforward objective questions about the world around us. They are not questions about the psychology of the people seeing it or about myths.
In science this topic is called the hard problem of consciousness; how is matter conscious? You may slam the door on such rational investigation but other people are willing to look. There is a saying, "Those who say it is impossible shouldn't get in the way of those who are doing it."
Whoa grasshopper. Methinks you’re tilting at some rather odd windmills there, but regardless, pretty much nothing you’ve said passes for rational thought. It’s pretty hard to debate someone who thinks a worldview based on animism can be understood scientifically. Although I chopped down a tree yesterday, no god found hiding inside. Is that proof enough for you?
What is the payoff Gary for those pushing this desire to revert to ignorance and fairy tales? My mind is befuddled by the shear stupidity and nonsensical attraction to such primitive rubbish being spewed out throughout NZ education, law and so much of our ordinary day to day lives. Why?? Unless it is part of the propaganda machine for Maori Takeover. Thank you for your sanity and courage.
Well commented Gary, thank you.
It is indeed difficult to understand why in 2024 anybody would interject primitive tribal beliefs into any serious activity, particularly coming from people that haven't been raised, steeped in the culture.
It appears to me to be that, setting aside tribal "aristocracy" with obvious vested interests, the driver is a kind of mass psychosis behaviour, where an extreme version of ideological "inclusion", as in the DEI subset of Critical Theory is being promoted under an illusion of righteous justice, with whatever societal disruption a price that must be paid. Hence science must include "traditional ways of knowing", the rule of law similarly, and so forth.
Well said Gary. The concept of New Zealand's supposed "first law" presumably includes if we defeat you in battle then it's a legitimate practise to eat your remains.
The new wave primitives understand something their predecessors didn't. Money and how to extort it. The whole thing is really that base.
The Mauri of water is to run free!
There must be an end to all these pipes and drains.
There seems to be an assertion that Maori spiritism is somehow unique. However, it's clear that it was universal prior to the spread of Christianity, from year 27 onwards. The Maori historical sense of isolation shouldn't be taken as a reason to consider it as outside the whole history of mankind.
Nevertheless, we should also consider that, pursuant to the 1840 Treaty, we now have a Head of State, the Monarch in Right of New Zealand, who bears the title, 'Defender of the Faith,' (Royal Titles Act 1974). The title of course refers to the Christian Faith, of which at least 60% of Maori, and almost all the Rangatira at Waitangi ascribed, to varying degrees perhaps. And they acted accordingly, freeing slaves, refraining from cannibalism, and so on. They were very serious about it at that time, perhaps even more so than some of the Pakeha settlers.
The wholly artificial revival of a 'Maori traditional spirituality,' for example the recent Matariki festivals, is as others have noted, a politically motivated project. But it has perhaps only become possible in the context of the later 20th century 'de-Christianization' of Maori. In perhaps 1950, there may have been a greater proportion of Maori children regularly attending in church and Sunday school, than Pakeha children.
Nevertheless, the Constitutional import of our Head of State being the defender of the Christian faith, on the Constantinopolitan model, should not escape our consideration,
Then we should ask ourselves, can the body act in ways at variance to the head?
The risk of not recognizing this reality, is that it could eventually lead to decapitation, and degradation of both portions.
But immediately, the continued (short-sighted) failure of our government(s) to uphold and protect the place of the historic Christian faith in our society is perhaps the direct cause of, or has allowed room for, this revival of pagan spiritism.
?
Not unique. On the contrary, it is likely that all peoples had backgrounds where natural phenomena were explained in this way. You are probably right that the revival is artificial and politically motivated.
I can't be outraged or shocked by this article. I don't wholly agree with the Consultation Report, but I can see some value in bringing this other perspective when it comes to caring for NZ's freshwater. I see the Maori version as metaphor, and I think it's good to consider a view that asks for the waterways to be respected and cared for, rather than simply as resources to be used.
I think we can all agree that waterways ought to be cared for, rather than simply used as resources. Healthy waterways are beneficial to human life in its widest sense and unhealthy ones the converse. That does not justify giving credence to the supernatural. That is not another perspective; it is a departure from the real world; it is what primitive people did when they did not have the benefit of knowledge derived from scientific observation, research and analysis.
The proposal demonstrates a funfamental categorical error between material phenomenon and spirit, which Atistotle and Newton resolved in part and resolved in thec19th and 20thc. See Eric Voegelin's 1948 essay on t
he same. The ancient Israelutes and the Romans opposed Caananite and Punic religion on its occult basis of sacrifice of children to get Moloch to alter the physical world. Not only is this teligious heresy it is also intellectual heresey about physical reality.
Spirituality belongs to the ontology of being- that is what Genesis is about- intellectual categories. The water proposals are hopelessly muddled.
It has a social dynamic of a return to neolithic thught where the human is not a subject as a person but as a collective. We simply cannot go back to a neolithic mentalite or consviousness despite Rousseau,'s inverted fable.
Ayan Rand's essays are exceptional. The essay you cite sits well with one on Apollo 11 and Woodstock. Her essay on the student riots is germane too.
If anyone has this essay, cited by Rand, I would be very grateful l for a copy:
Petersen, William. "What's Left at Berkeley," Columbia University Forum, Vol. 8,
Spring, 1965. pp. 39-44.
Hi Graham, you can read a digitised copy at this link: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951001907909p&seq=47
Thank you very much. I appreciated you taking the trouble to send it to me.
Sorry about the typos. I shouldn't use the phone. There does not seem to be an edit function.
Any comment appreciated Mr Judd KC - The Rule of Law: New Zealand operates under a system of rule of law, which means that laws must be clear, publicly known, and applied equally to everyone. Attempts to impose a compulsory acceptance of the Treaty would need to be supported by specific legislation? i.e. Local councils have codes-of-conduct that make it compulsory.
Making the Treaty's principles compulsory could be seen as a form of legislative overreach, as it would be imposing a specific worldview on the judiciary and executive branches. The judiciary should be independent to interpret and apply the law without undue influence from the legislature or executive??
Example:
Any failure by members to act in the manner described above represents a breach of this Code and
will be dealt with in accordance with the complaints process as set out in Appendix A.
5.4 Relationships with hapū and iwi
Te Kaunihera ā rohe o te Taitokerau (Northland Regional Council) commits to operating in a manner
that recognises and respects the significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In doing so, the Northland
Regional Council recognises the importance of:
1. Tino Rangatiratanga: the principle of self-determination provides for iwi and hapū selfdetermination and mana motuhake. This requires local authorities to be open to working
with mana whenua as partners in the design and delivery of their work programmes;
2. Partnership: the principle of partnership implies that local authorities will seek to establish a
strong and enduring relationship with hapū and iwi , within the context of Te Tiriti o
Waitangi in Te Taitokerau. Council should identify opportunities, and develop and maintain
ways, for iwi and hapu to contribute to council decisions, and consider ways council can
build capacity of iwi and hapū to contribute to council decision-making;
3. Equity: the principle of equity requires local authorities to commit to achieving the equitable
delivery of local public services;
4. Active protection: the principle of active protection requires local authorities to be well
informed on the wellbeing of hapū and iwi within their respective rohe;
5. Options: the principle of options requires local authorities to ensure that its services are
provided in a culturally appropriate way that recognises and supports the expression of te ao
Māori and Matauranga Māori.
The Hidden Life of Trees is a good book about nature. Turns out the forest is a profound ecosystem and trees talk to each other. It makes you think the Maori way is true.
https://a.co/d/1ArgJem
If it were clear that this talk about gods is metaphorical, I'd be quite happy with it. That god-talk is metaphorical is not a new idea. In 1923, for example, the writer Rēweti Kōhere said: "What the ancestors did was to study the powerful forces of nature and to personify them, i.e. to give them names as if they were actually people" (Ko te mahi a nga tūpuna he titiro ki nga mea kaha o te ao me te whakatangata i aua mea, arā, ka whakaahuatia nga ingoa me te mea nei he tangata tonu). But if this god-talk is being taken literally, by people whose thinking is less sophisticated than Kōhere's, then yes, we're in trouble, as Gary suggests. The problem is that it's just not clear how it is meant to be understood.
Yes, I can happily respect those who say they are restoring the "mauri" of a stream when they work to clean it up, as a harmless metaphor. It is a quite different proposition to dignify the supernatural in a document which is part of a process leading towards the imposition of legal obligations.
I completely agree with the Maori view on these matters. They are right - all things are alive and ought to be respected.
Modern science produces many wonderful things but it is also incredibly narrow-minded. Thanks to modern science the Earth is so polluted that some people like Elon Musk are seriously trying to colonise Mars to save our species. It is entirely possible that modern science could be fatal to humanity - if not by pollution then maybe by nuclear technology or gain of function research or some other stupid endeavour. The irony is that science is ultimately not rational enough and it would benefit from a wider perspective.
So while there are plainly political ambitions in the pushing of the Maori spiritual perspective - they are not wrong about nature. Every culture in every country through all history shares the same beliefs about the spirituality of nature. And these are not primitive beliefs - they are very common today all over the world. Describing them as primitive shows a lack of awareness of what millions (billions?) of people believe today.
Saying that rivers, oceans, trees, rocks are alive and have personalities is no different than saying that meat has a unique personality. Tell me how atoms in the form of meat come to life (ie become you) and then we can talk about the same in other things.
Oh dear. ‘Every culture in every country through all history shares the same beliefs about the spirituality of nature’. Oh really? Not the Judeo-Christian heritage. They took the sacred out of the ‘created order’ about 5,000 years ago. Which is why science fully developed in Europe and not elsewhere. Your post was full of so much nonsense it would take an entire article to unpick. There’s a big difference between good stewardship of the planet and animistic crap, but you stick with your tree gods and see how that works for you.
In the European culture - like everywhere - there were always people who recognised that life is sacred and that trees and rivers are alive. There are lots of references to Christians opposing tree-huggers - nearly a thousand years of torturing and burning them at the stake.
The irony of your comment is that Judeo-Christian teachings have been fully rejected by modern science which says you have no soul. Nor do dogs or trees or rivers. Yet at the same time Judeo-Christian embraces talking snakes, burning bushes, parting seas, turning water into wine, walking on water... but a river having life-force is somehow crap. Give me a break.
Ask ChatGPT about Jesus talking to trees and the sea.
Seems you missed my point. Namely that Judeo Christian history had plenty of myths too (good meaningful ones though) but their worldview was a desacralised one. You can’t do science in a Te Ao Maori world, it just doesn’t work. Inanimate objects are, well, inanimate. The name gives it away I would aver.
Te Ao Maori can be investigated scientifically - just like anything else. Does the Waikato River have a soul? Is a tree conscious - does it know you are there? These questions can be approached rationally. They are straightforward objective questions about the world around us. They are not questions about the psychology of the people seeing it or about myths.
In science this topic is called the hard problem of consciousness; how is matter conscious? You may slam the door on such rational investigation but other people are willing to look. There is a saying, "Those who say it is impossible shouldn't get in the way of those who are doing it."
Whoa grasshopper. Methinks you’re tilting at some rather odd windmills there, but regardless, pretty much nothing you’ve said passes for rational thought. It’s pretty hard to debate someone who thinks a worldview based on animism can be understood scientifically. Although I chopped down a tree yesterday, no god found hiding inside. Is that proof enough for you?
From the Gospel of Thomas: "Jesus said, 'Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.'"