Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Amanda DeSalme, Unsettling of America
Wendell Berry discusses health and the separation of body and soul in his book The Unsettling of America. I agree with him when he is talking about health and wholeness, but as he ties it together with the isolation of the body, he starts to sound rather doomsday-like. He tends to sound very cynical throughout this book. Here is an example of his exaggerated style: "By dividing body and soul, we divide both from all else. We thus condemn ourselves to a loneliness for which the only compensation is violence-against other creatures, against the earth, against ourselves"(Berry, 106). To an extent, what he is saying is true. But not everyone resorts to violence when feeling despair over the conflictions of body and soul. I guess what rubs me the wrong way about this passage is that he uses the all encompassing "we," assuming we are all spiraling downwards in a flurry of self-destruction and violence towards other beings. I don't consider myself a violent being and I have many friends who I know are not violent. We have very convivial relationships, rather than the competitive, exploitive relationships Berry claims we have. Maybe it is just a recent development since this book was written, but I know plenty of people who strive to be nuturing rather than exploitive. Berry makes some nice points about why things are wrong, but I don't agree that they are really huge problems today. The only problem I really do agree with is that farmlands are incredibly exploited and people don't always realize the connection of their body to the earth. Some people do realize it, but for any change to happen there needs to be "more walking and less talking" so to speak. I would enjoy this book much more if it were written in a different style.
Abigail Thomas, The Unsettling of America
“The nurturer ... has always passed with ease across the boundaries of the so-called sexual roles.”
I can’t see why either exploiter or nurturer couldn’t have bypassed ‘so-called sexual roles.’ Anyone can be an exploiter or nurturer and not be limited by sexual roles. I think Berry might be biased to ‘nurturers’ in as many ways. I’m not sure I believe in sexual roles anyway, don’t have to and what would be their purpose. People that believe in sexual roles make some things awkward anyways. It’s kind-of random too.
“He does not have a definition of his relationship to the world that is sufficiently elaborate and exact.”
By this Berry is saying that people shouldn’t generalize their relationship but have specific actions, habits and traditions that pertain and acknowledge a person’s effects on their place, system and world. This kind-of seems like a religious way for someone to live: it includes what they believe they should strive for and ultimately appease till the end. For instance would a person strive to be an exploiter or nurturer. In the earlier chapter The Unsettling of America Berry identified two groups of people: exploiters and nurturers. Exploiters want to get as much as possible with little cost as possible and nurturers promote health and care while using resources. He uses strip miners as his good example for exploiters and old fashioned farmers as nurturers.
But based on Berry’s choice words I think this pertains more to nurturers. The words “sufficiently elaborate” seems to fit into the characteristic of nurturers to consider carrying capacity in use of resources.
Not specifically to nurturers but Berry’s use of “exact” in this statement is to take this idea and apply it to practical uses.
I agree with this statement to ‘consider your own definition of your relationship to the world.’ It’s a good activity, practice, and start in evaluating how you want to live in relationship with everyone and everything, and considering a these relationships to their results, effects and long term. The more elaborate and considerate the more precise you can be, and the more caring and nurturing can be realized to give. Applying this statement to how someone considers themselves and the world around them, promotes awareness which if one chooses to apply, aids effectiveness in carrying out the actions one thinks they should.
I can’t see why either exploiter or nurturer couldn’t have bypassed ‘so-called sexual roles.’ Anyone can be an exploiter or nurturer and not be limited by sexual roles. I think Berry might be biased to ‘nurturers’ in as many ways. I’m not sure I believe in sexual roles anyway, don’t have to and what would be their purpose. People that believe in sexual roles make some things awkward anyways. It’s kind-of random too.
“He does not have a definition of his relationship to the world that is sufficiently elaborate and exact.”
By this Berry is saying that people shouldn’t generalize their relationship but have specific actions, habits and traditions that pertain and acknowledge a person’s effects on their place, system and world. This kind-of seems like a religious way for someone to live: it includes what they believe they should strive for and ultimately appease till the end. For instance would a person strive to be an exploiter or nurturer. In the earlier chapter The Unsettling of America Berry identified two groups of people: exploiters and nurturers. Exploiters want to get as much as possible with little cost as possible and nurturers promote health and care while using resources. He uses strip miners as his good example for exploiters and old fashioned farmers as nurturers.
But based on Berry’s choice words I think this pertains more to nurturers. The words “sufficiently elaborate” seems to fit into the characteristic of nurturers to consider carrying capacity in use of resources.
Not specifically to nurturers but Berry’s use of “exact” in this statement is to take this idea and apply it to practical uses.
I agree with this statement to ‘consider your own definition of your relationship to the world.’ It’s a good activity, practice, and start in evaluating how you want to live in relationship with everyone and everything, and considering a these relationships to their results, effects and long term. The more elaborate and considerate the more precise you can be, and the more caring and nurturing can be realized to give. Applying this statement to how someone considers themselves and the world around them, promotes awareness which if one chooses to apply, aids effectiveness in carrying out the actions one thinks they should.
Ben Wiehl: A Continuous Harmony #2
Think Little: "In this state of total consumerism--which is to say a state of helpless dependence on things and services and ideas and motives that we have forgotten how to provide ourselves--all meaningful contact between ourselves and the earth is broken."
In our search for the best anti-wrinkle cream or the plastic diamonds made specifically for decorating your cell phone, we have become a nation literally consumed by consumerism. Materialism is glorified all throughout the media - magazines, televisions, tabloids. Buy this new car, customize it, and then show it off on your facebook profile. None of all that new stuff matters if no one gets to see it! Through our ignorance we have let ourselves become one of the most wasteful societies in the world. In our time, mealtimes have become a sort of ritualized process. This cuts out the cultivation process and allows the consumer access to a finalized product of which they cannot pronounce half of the ingredients on the back of the box. Although we do not practice reciprocity in our relationship with the earth there has been a movement back to the organic seen. At least this is what it seems like in some of the grocery stores. You see a bigger and more diverse crowd out shopping consciously making an effort to better themselves and the world around them. It saddens me to think about the farmers who have always gotten the raw end of the deal it seems. They are the ones who take the responsibility of providing for the masses, but with little return in comparison to the big businesses and such that take in earnings much MUCH greater than any farmer. I feel that it is necessary to support the local farmers markets more then chain grocery stores anyways. Besides, part of what your paying that grocery store if for shipping costs anyways. Buying local removes the need to transport the goods as far as usual - thus making it easier on the environment. Plus direct support to the local growers will do much more for them, and will give their products more value in the long run. I think they would be much happier if they could visibly see a market for their products instead of just a list of numbers on an order form to stack in the back of a truck. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
In our search for the best anti-wrinkle cream or the plastic diamonds made specifically for decorating your cell phone, we have become a nation literally consumed by consumerism. Materialism is glorified all throughout the media - magazines, televisions, tabloids. Buy this new car, customize it, and then show it off on your facebook profile. None of all that new stuff matters if no one gets to see it! Through our ignorance we have let ourselves become one of the most wasteful societies in the world. In our time, mealtimes have become a sort of ritualized process. This cuts out the cultivation process and allows the consumer access to a finalized product of which they cannot pronounce half of the ingredients on the back of the box. Although we do not practice reciprocity in our relationship with the earth there has been a movement back to the organic seen. At least this is what it seems like in some of the grocery stores. You see a bigger and more diverse crowd out shopping consciously making an effort to better themselves and the world around them. It saddens me to think about the farmers who have always gotten the raw end of the deal it seems. They are the ones who take the responsibility of providing for the masses, but with little return in comparison to the big businesses and such that take in earnings much MUCH greater than any farmer. I feel that it is necessary to support the local farmers markets more then chain grocery stores anyways. Besides, part of what your paying that grocery store if for shipping costs anyways. Buying local removes the need to transport the goods as far as usual - thus making it easier on the environment. Plus direct support to the local growers will do much more for them, and will give their products more value in the long run. I think they would be much happier if they could visibly see a market for their products instead of just a list of numbers on an order form to stack in the back of a truck. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
Ben Wiehl: A Continuous Harmony #1
A Secular Pilgrimage - "Do we really hate the world? Are we really contemptuous of it? Have we really ignored its nature and its needs and the problems of its health? The evidence against us is everywhere."
This relates directly to the way that I felt about some of the readings in Berry's The Unsettling of America. It would seem that out of all the countries in the world, we have the most wreckless abandonment when it comes to the treatment of the world. A good part of the population will fail to recycle that bottle of beer they were drinking, or newspaper they were reading. An even bigger part of the population will flick their cigarette butt out the window - landing anywhere from the side of the road to a drainage ditch that leads into the bay. These are lighter examples of gross pollution level that is allowed to go unchecked. Even walking around in the woods out by my Mom's house you can find ancient beer cans almost rusted all the way through, or plastic beef jerkey wrappers - evidence of the hunters travelling through the area. Even more surprising is in the case of coal plants and water treatment plants where the technology is available to upgrade so that they will produce significantly less gases that contribute to the "enhanced greenhouse effect". As a collective, 5% of the population representing almost 25% of the greenhouse gases does not seem like a balanced ratio. Instead of spending government money on out of proportion defense budgets, among other things, this money could be better spent bettering our own situation. It makes me slightly worried that it has taken this long for us to realize what kind of irreversible damage we have been causing to the only planet that we know of able to sustain life as we know it. Unfortunately it is hard to honor profit above anything besides victory in this country.
This relates directly to the way that I felt about some of the readings in Berry's The Unsettling of America. It would seem that out of all the countries in the world, we have the most wreckless abandonment when it comes to the treatment of the world. A good part of the population will fail to recycle that bottle of beer they were drinking, or newspaper they were reading. An even bigger part of the population will flick their cigarette butt out the window - landing anywhere from the side of the road to a drainage ditch that leads into the bay. These are lighter examples of gross pollution level that is allowed to go unchecked. Even walking around in the woods out by my Mom's house you can find ancient beer cans almost rusted all the way through, or plastic beef jerkey wrappers - evidence of the hunters travelling through the area. Even more surprising is in the case of coal plants and water treatment plants where the technology is available to upgrade so that they will produce significantly less gases that contribute to the "enhanced greenhouse effect". As a collective, 5% of the population representing almost 25% of the greenhouse gases does not seem like a balanced ratio. Instead of spending government money on out of proportion defense budgets, among other things, this money could be better spent bettering our own situation. It makes me slightly worried that it has taken this long for us to realize what kind of irreversible damage we have been causing to the only planet that we know of able to sustain life as we know it. Unfortunately it is hard to honor profit above anything besides victory in this country.
Ben Wiehl The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture #2
A line out of Wendell Berry's book sparked a stream of thoughts for me: "What might be the importance of these "marginal" lands, and of an agricultural technology and economy appropriate to them, in light of population growth." The "marginal" lands that I feel Berry is talking about here should not be put to the use that he suggests. Berry suggests that there is still a place for these "marginal" lands in the the agricultural realm. I feel instead that these lands should be allowed to resume a sort of natural state. In this way we will better the land around us. If more areas were allowed to resume an undisturbed state, untrammeled by man, then I feel like we would be leaving less of a negative impact on the Earth. At the rate we are going right now, we may not have an Earth that is as stable and predictable for the future generations to come. Is not every man and woman entitled to an life on the Earth and the chance to live it to the fullest? It would be unfortunate if we were to ruin what we have been so lucky to have in the first place. Also, I think that it would be beneficial to find a better way of producing the most we can out of the land we are using now, instead of clearing more and more land for crops, businesses, and residential areas. What we need now is better management of the resources that we have available to us, contrary to our usual policy of "take what you can get, because if you don't someone else will."
Megan Nisbet: Outside Reading #3
I came upon another wonderful website titled "Barefoot Hikers," which can be accessed at http://www.barefooters.org/hikers/. I read many articles on this website, from news articles of journalists who had visited the weekly hiking sessions, to information about the various chapters of the organization, the closest of which is in Boston. I also read some of the book the founder, Richard Kieth Franzine, wrote about safety and advice for walking barefoot on trails.
The key points that the Barefoot Hikers say are why they choose to hike barefoot are that there is a reduced risk of twisting your ankle, you are able to sense the ground with your feet, and are reducing the erosion that is caused by hiking boots. These people walk on a variety of surfaces, ranging from rocks to pine needle covered forest floors, and believe that this is the best way to hike. I personally disagree.
I do admit that walking without boots will reduce the erosion caused by them, and that there will be a reduction in the amount of twisted ankles, but I don't believe it necessarily gives you a better hiking experience. Though I love the feeling of sand between my toes when I go to the beach, I hate when there are things in the sand and I step on them--it hurts! I don't know how these people can find it enjoyable to have to be cautious about every step they take, because it might mean a punctured foot. If they have to look at the ground in front of them before every step they take, they are not able to enjoy the surrounding beauty, but are forced to focus on if they are going to step on something. They do get the nice feeling of the earth beneath them, but this is truely only when they are walking on soft ground, or if they have been hiking like this for years. However, if they have been hiking like this for years, they had to endure those two years of pain and the cliche of "walking on pins and needles" before they were truly able to enjoy their experience. But, to each his own!
The key points that the Barefoot Hikers say are why they choose to hike barefoot are that there is a reduced risk of twisting your ankle, you are able to sense the ground with your feet, and are reducing the erosion that is caused by hiking boots. These people walk on a variety of surfaces, ranging from rocks to pine needle covered forest floors, and believe that this is the best way to hike. I personally disagree.
I do admit that walking without boots will reduce the erosion caused by them, and that there will be a reduction in the amount of twisted ankles, but I don't believe it necessarily gives you a better hiking experience. Though I love the feeling of sand between my toes when I go to the beach, I hate when there are things in the sand and I step on them--it hurts! I don't know how these people can find it enjoyable to have to be cautious about every step they take, because it might mean a punctured foot. If they have to look at the ground in front of them before every step they take, they are not able to enjoy the surrounding beauty, but are forced to focus on if they are going to step on something. They do get the nice feeling of the earth beneath them, but this is truely only when they are walking on soft ground, or if they have been hiking like this for years. However, if they have been hiking like this for years, they had to endure those two years of pain and the cliche of "walking on pins and needles" before they were truly able to enjoy their experience. But, to each his own!
Ben Wiehl: The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture #1
At the beginning of chapter 7, the two quotes on the left hand caught my eye. The first was "But just stop for a minute and think about what it means to live in a land where 95 percent of the people can be freed from the drudgery of preparing their own food" and the other was "Find the shortest, simplst way between the earth, the hands and the mouth." I'm not sure if this was a reference to the fast food industry or the amount of Americans that actually grow their own vegetables for slaughter their own animals for meat. I will assume it means the latter because I would hate to think that 95% of Americans spend their time eating fast food meals as a majority of their diet. Unfortunately, I do believe that 95% of Americans are saved the trouble of growing their own crops or raising chickens and such. I can admit that I have been saved the trouble of this most of my life, although my Mom does have a garden at home - fresh veggies are the best. We have become so commercialized that it would be literally impossible for America to run any other way. I feel like most people would be disgusted by the idea of taking care of their own garden, or raising their own chickens. It is just easier for them to not have to worry about those types of things - they want the easy way out; just go to the grocery store and buy a pre-packaged deal and you're set. This makes me feel like most Americans living in this country fail to realize the value of what they take for granted 95% of then time. I bet that a good percentage of the 95% won't ever stop to think about where any of the pre-packaged items in the store come from, or the processes that it takes to get to the finalized product that they hold in their hand. Some say ignorance is bliss, but I beg to differ. Maybe what people need to do is relinquish some of the everyday commodities that they feel they need so much. If 95% of Americans could grow some of their own products in their backyard I feel that it would certainly have more then one beneficial factor on the lives of people. On another note - specifically the quote talked about the "drudgery" of preparing ones own food. I feel that in the places where the people do take the time to prepare their own food it would definetly not be considered "drudgery". By taking the time to prepare the food, it imbues the food with an attribute that you can't find anywhere else - making it an authentic experience. And what more is there to life then to seek out the authentic?
Megan Nisbet: Outside Reading #2 4/29/08 Lecture
The "Leave No Trace" topic of yesterday's lecture interested me, and I decided to read further on it. I found a website that was sponsored by an organization called Tread Lightly! and came upon a page that listed responsible hiking strategies for leaving as little trace as possible, which expand upon and restated what we have been learning through the entire semester. As said in many classes, when people enter the wilderness, they are entering the home of the animals that live there, and should make as little of an impact on the wilderness as possible--they should be merely visitors, and not make a permanent mark on the land. As stated in class yesterday, the "Leave no Trace" ethic says that fires should have as little of an impact as possible, waste should be disposed of appropriately, and footprints and damage to vegetation can last for decades or centuries, and should therefore be left to a minimum.
The website I read confirms and expands upon the information we have learned in class. It confirms that trials should be followed, even when muddy, because it will create erosion in other areas as well then. A solution to muddy and bog areas that has been talked about in class has been the bog bridges that are simply made of planks of wood that help to protect the area from erosion. When following a trail, hikers should walk in single file, so they will not widen the trail from erosion, which creates more of an impact. Also, in open country where there are no signs of trails, hikers should disperse and not walk near each other, as this may eventually create trails where there were none before. Hikers should also conscientious about other hikers on the trail, and should keep noise levels down, and be generally considerate of the others on the trail with them.
In addition to the ethic of the wilderness area in which hikers encounter, they should also be responsible for themselves in case they are injured on their hike. Tread Lightly! suggests that hikers carry a compass, and let others who are not hiking, or may be hiking separately from their group know their hiking goals, so they can be concerned if the group does not show up near their goal time. Appropriate footwear and outerwear should be worn for the hike. A hiker should always have water and a jacket on hand, even if the hike is supposed to be a short one. Weather conditions can change suddenly, especially in high altitudes, which can become very dangerous for the hikers. Also, if hikers are planning on backpacking for a period of time, their pack should not be more than 1/3 of their own weight.
This site turned out to be a great resource for expanding upon the knowledge I gained from class!
The website I read confirms and expands upon the information we have learned in class. It confirms that trials should be followed, even when muddy, because it will create erosion in other areas as well then. A solution to muddy and bog areas that has been talked about in class has been the bog bridges that are simply made of planks of wood that help to protect the area from erosion. When following a trail, hikers should walk in single file, so they will not widen the trail from erosion, which creates more of an impact. Also, in open country where there are no signs of trails, hikers should disperse and not walk near each other, as this may eventually create trails where there were none before. Hikers should also conscientious about other hikers on the trail, and should keep noise levels down, and be generally considerate of the others on the trail with them.
In addition to the ethic of the wilderness area in which hikers encounter, they should also be responsible for themselves in case they are injured on their hike. Tread Lightly! suggests that hikers carry a compass, and let others who are not hiking, or may be hiking separately from their group know their hiking goals, so they can be concerned if the group does not show up near their goal time. Appropriate footwear and outerwear should be worn for the hike. A hiker should always have water and a jacket on hand, even if the hike is supposed to be a short one. Weather conditions can change suddenly, especially in high altitudes, which can become very dangerous for the hikers. Also, if hikers are planning on backpacking for a period of time, their pack should not be more than 1/3 of their own weight.
This site turned out to be a great resource for expanding upon the knowledge I gained from class!
Abigail Thomas, The Unsettling of America,Wendell Berry
"Exploitation" verses "nurture"
'Exploitation' without looking the history he goes into reminds me of indirect competition in ecology terms, where a competitor uses resources and which fellow competitors can’t use anymore or at least the resource is not constantly replenishing/ renewing. I worry that people are such exploitive competitors that directly as well as indirectly we have used up resources, and have reduced species diversity. The reduction of species diversity people have caused where otherwise there would have been more is not healthy for the ecosystems and this effects not just ecosystems but people too as we are very entwined and effective to all systems on this planet. There’s enough suffering without unnecessary exploitation; suffering is part of life and natural systems but it’s important to mind how much more suffering to promote.
As he explains the nature of exploiters, the nature seems to be narrow-minded as the long term does not seem to be considered. That’s amazing because if exploiters want profit so much they don’t research carrying capacity (as “specialists” or “experts”)of the to be used resource which would allow exploiters to use the resource forever even through their generations of progeny.
When I say carrying capacity all authentics in a system, that has the resource to be exploited, are sustainable and not permanently ruined as well as the resource. Not only should that guarantee protection of the resource, but also by ruining a other authentic besides the resource authentic could violate the carrying capacity of the system as everything is connected. Even if there is not enough scientific data to support consequential damage to a system, there’s still a big chance that an authentic totally exploited would change the system as it is known, and the big chance of change includes unhealthy results or changes for the worse. This theory of playing it safe doesn’t require expert study or data and may be a more ‘nurturing’ approach.
'Exploitation' without looking the history he goes into reminds me of indirect competition in ecology terms, where a competitor uses resources and which fellow competitors can’t use anymore or at least the resource is not constantly replenishing/ renewing. I worry that people are such exploitive competitors that directly as well as indirectly we have used up resources, and have reduced species diversity. The reduction of species diversity people have caused where otherwise there would have been more is not healthy for the ecosystems and this effects not just ecosystems but people too as we are very entwined and effective to all systems on this planet. There’s enough suffering without unnecessary exploitation; suffering is part of life and natural systems but it’s important to mind how much more suffering to promote.
As he explains the nature of exploiters, the nature seems to be narrow-minded as the long term does not seem to be considered. That’s amazing because if exploiters want profit so much they don’t research carrying capacity (as “specialists” or “experts”)of the to be used resource which would allow exploiters to use the resource forever even through their generations of progeny.
When I say carrying capacity all authentics in a system, that has the resource to be exploited, are sustainable and not permanently ruined as well as the resource. Not only should that guarantee protection of the resource, but also by ruining a other authentic besides the resource authentic could violate the carrying capacity of the system as everything is connected. Even if there is not enough scientific data to support consequential damage to a system, there’s still a big chance that an authentic totally exploited would change the system as it is known, and the big chance of change includes unhealthy results or changes for the worse. This theory of playing it safe doesn’t require expert study or data and may be a more ‘nurturing’ approach.
Megan Nisbet: Choice Topic #2: Wilderness RESORT?!
I Googled wilderness to see if I could find some good articles for my outside reading journal entries, and one of my results returned me a link to a resort's site that is named the Wilderness Territory. The Wilderness Territory, "America's largest waterpark resort," is complete with an indoor waterpark (with the message that you can tan inside, no matter the season!), golf courses, fitness centers, and a luxurious spa that you are transported to in a limo. I don't know about you, but this is the farthest thing I've seen away from "wilderness" in a while.
The entire theme is centered around wilderness terms, down to the restaurant names, which range from an Italian restaurant named Sarentos at the Wilderness, to the Wild Canyon Cafe, which serves guests all meals in a "Gold Mine" theme. The golf course is even included in the theme, and is named Wild Rock Golf. Though the idea is cute, the use of wilderness in this way is very incorrect. However, I started thinking about ways that this place could be seen as a wilderness, some comical, and some more thoughtful.
I'll start with the thoughtful--> This resort can in a sense be seen as a wilderness because of the escape it offers it's guests from everyday life. Many people go to the wilderness and hike the AT to get away from problems in their life, to celebrate an important event, or just for the fun and adventure. It is obvious that in this age, many people aren't willing to go out into the wilderness to escape and relax, so in this way, this resort is slightly comparable to wilderness. Of course it is the exact opposite physically, but the mental relaxation they both can offer people are comparable. People are different, and the times are different--some people don't enjoy walking trails and not taking showers, so resorts are their way of escaping life.
Now on to the comical--> This resort can also be seen as a wilderness because of the people that visit it. This resort is obviously very upscale and expensive (note that they escort you to the spa in a limo), so the people that will be visiting it are mainly going to be rich people. Now, I haven't met many extremely rich people, but I did get my taste of them when I went to private school for a few years in elementary school, and when I continuted to attend the church and youth group associated with the school right up until high school. I've also seen many movies and TV shows that depict rich people as snobby people that talk behind each other's backs and ruin each other's lives with gossip. I know I couldn't survive long in a place like this, and in this way, the people in this place can be seen as wild animals that are out to get each other, but over gossip instead of who's for dinner. The people in here that devour each other's lives with gossip can be seen like wild animals in this "wilderness."
The entire theme is centered around wilderness terms, down to the restaurant names, which range from an Italian restaurant named Sarentos at the Wilderness, to the Wild Canyon Cafe, which serves guests all meals in a "Gold Mine" theme. The golf course is even included in the theme, and is named Wild Rock Golf. Though the idea is cute, the use of wilderness in this way is very incorrect. However, I started thinking about ways that this place could be seen as a wilderness, some comical, and some more thoughtful.
I'll start with the thoughtful--> This resort can in a sense be seen as a wilderness because of the escape it offers it's guests from everyday life. Many people go to the wilderness and hike the AT to get away from problems in their life, to celebrate an important event, or just for the fun and adventure. It is obvious that in this age, many people aren't willing to go out into the wilderness to escape and relax, so in this way, this resort is slightly comparable to wilderness. Of course it is the exact opposite physically, but the mental relaxation they both can offer people are comparable. People are different, and the times are different--some people don't enjoy walking trails and not taking showers, so resorts are their way of escaping life.
Now on to the comical--> This resort can also be seen as a wilderness because of the people that visit it. This resort is obviously very upscale and expensive (note that they escort you to the spa in a limo), so the people that will be visiting it are mainly going to be rich people. Now, I haven't met many extremely rich people, but I did get my taste of them when I went to private school for a few years in elementary school, and when I continuted to attend the church and youth group associated with the school right up until high school. I've also seen many movies and TV shows that depict rich people as snobby people that talk behind each other's backs and ruin each other's lives with gossip. I know I couldn't survive long in a place like this, and in this way, the people in this place can be seen as wild animals that are out to get each other, but over gossip instead of who's for dinner. The people in here that devour each other's lives with gossip can be seen like wild animals in this "wilderness."
Megan Nisbet: Outside Reading #1
Moran, Jeffrey. "A Manufactured Wilderness: Summer Camp and the Shaping of American Youth, 1890-1960. Journal of Social History. 14.3. (2008): 787-89. ProQuest. CNU Library, Newport News, VA. April 30, 2008.
This journal article tells about the way that the structure of summer camps has changed over time. When summer camps were first introduced, they were meant to give children a "wilderness" experience, which was beginning to disappear during the late 1800s because of changing technology (nowhere near today, but people seemed to think they should start early). Now, however, summer camps are merely a way for parents to get rid of their children so that their children are being sent away to do the things they already do everyday, just more intensly. Summer camps are now places for children to intensely learn tennis, an instrument, or math. Rarely do children sit around a campfire, go hiking, and fishing at summer camp anymore.
I agree with this article--summer camp used to be a fun time when children got a little bit of a wilderness experience, and got away from the things they do everyday. Now, it's just more intense and they're away from their parents. I also agree with the article that the camps in the beginning weren't really wilderness camps in the first place. They contained sewage disposal, perfectly placed trash cans, and cabins that the children lived in instead of tents and tarps. If the goal was a real wilderness experience, the children should've camped in tents and backpacked through real wilderness without toilets and trash cans. Around the 1920's and later, the children could've hiked the Apalachian Trail for a few weeks, which would've given them a true wilderness experience.
This journal article tells about the way that the structure of summer camps has changed over time. When summer camps were first introduced, they were meant to give children a "wilderness" experience, which was beginning to disappear during the late 1800s because of changing technology (nowhere near today, but people seemed to think they should start early). Now, however, summer camps are merely a way for parents to get rid of their children so that their children are being sent away to do the things they already do everyday, just more intensly. Summer camps are now places for children to intensely learn tennis, an instrument, or math. Rarely do children sit around a campfire, go hiking, and fishing at summer camp anymore.
I agree with this article--summer camp used to be a fun time when children got a little bit of a wilderness experience, and got away from the things they do everyday. Now, it's just more intense and they're away from their parents. I also agree with the article that the camps in the beginning weren't really wilderness camps in the first place. They contained sewage disposal, perfectly placed trash cans, and cabins that the children lived in instead of tents and tarps. If the goal was a real wilderness experience, the children should've camped in tents and backpacked through real wilderness without toilets and trash cans. Around the 1920's and later, the children could've hiked the Apalachian Trail for a few weeks, which would've given them a true wilderness experience.
Megan Nisbet: Choice Topic #1--Frogs
This is a sort of follow up to my previous post about Annie Dillard when she talked about the frog. I stated that though frogs are my favorite animal, I do not actually know much about them, except that they eat insects with their long tounges. Because of this, I decided to research them so I could find out more about these cute amphibians. I even used to have a frog as a pet, but it was a very low maintanence one because it simply lived in all water, and ate little pellets that resembled fish food. In reality, it was more like a fish than a frog, since I didn't have to feed it live crickets or beetles. A place called allaboutfrogs.org gave me some interesting facts and information about frogs and taught me a lot. I found that frogs can range from 1cm (found in Brazil), to a whopping 30cm (found in West Africa). To put the size of these frogs into perspective, the smallest isn't even as big as a quarter, and the largest is the size of a torso of a baby deer! The actual lifespan of a frog in the wild isn't known because it is often hard to find frogs when they are just hatched, and stay with them until they are full grown. However, the best estimate of lifespan is somewhere between 4 and 15 years in captivity, but there are some species that have lived in captivity for up to 40! Frogs have very odd eating habits, and actually have a row of top teeth, contrary to popular belief. These top teeth aren't used to actually chew the food they eat, but are used to hold their prey still before they swallow it whole. They swallow their prey by closing their eyes and making them go down into their head, which applys pressure to the food in their mouth, and pushes it down it's throat whole. Yum yum! Frogs also have interesting ways to drink and breathe. Not only do they breathe through their lungs, but they also use their skin to breathe, and take in the oxygen from the water that they are in. In fact, if a frog doesn't or is unable to keep himself wet enough, he can actually suffocate! The water they absorb through their skin is also the way that they drink, as they do not drink through their mouths like we do. From all this reading, I realized even more just how cool frogs are. I'm planning on getting a little more high maintanence one this summer as a pet, but I'm not going to go so far as getting one that will only eat live crickets. I can probably deal with one that eats frozen bloodworms, but that's my limit!
Megan Nisbet: Natural Setting #2
Last Friday my boyfriend and I went to the beach for the first time this year. We didn't go to swim, but went just to enjoy the sand, sun, and water on our feet. It was one of the prettiest days God has given us this Spring, and we had a wonderful time splashing in the shallow water and taking pictures. We haven't been to Buckroe Beach in a while--it's been since before they put up the rocks--so we spent a lot of time exploring them, and seeing if we could find any wildlife in the cracks. Unfortunately the only things we found were shells, and no fish or crabs like we had hoped. One of the prettiest things I noticed about the beach was the way the water rippled the sand, especially closer to the rocks. I took a few pictures of this because I thought it was so pretty. We also enjoyed watching a flock of very small birds fly around in the wind. They were really small, and it was hard for them to fight the wind, so we had a good time watching them and laughing at their attempts to fly against it. They were also fun to watch when they were on land. When the waves were receding, they would walk about the sand where the water had just been, looking for what we assumed was food, but as soon as the waves started coming back and got near them, they would run away on their little stick legs very quickly. However, as soon as the waves were receding, they were at it again. This went on for about 5 or 6 times of running back and forth, until they saw their flock flying away. We couldn't have asked for a better experience at the beach--now we can't wait for the water to get warmer so we can go swimming and try not to experience the jellies!
D. Ryan Foster , Nautral value of life
4/30/08 In response to Unsettling of America
"To look at a farm in full health gives the same complex pleasure as looking at a fully healthy person or animal. It will give the same impression of abounding life."
I like the idea the life itself can be a source of pleasure. Life not only in the sense that you have a life and are happy to be living it, but life in that one can appreciate the sheer existence of life or health in another living body. Much of the issue with modern times in Berry's words seems to come from a separation of mind from body and land. He cries against the loss of valuing the physical in exchange for the intellectual. It seems the major problem lies in a lack of real ties to the physical world, "a unity of body and soil". This unity I think is necessary to understand the simple pleasure drawn from life. And the idea that it is pleasing to experience life can help define why we view certain places as sacred. It is also interesting that he mentions the farm, a human creation from natural setting to describe this pleasure and his examples are in the health of both person and animal. This simile could easily transfer to the overwhelming experience of living creatures available in a wilderness but he opts to not separate the human from this world as those he argues against, but instead ties us closer with his examples. This speaks to how a person could find sanctity in a farm with its abundant life and rich soil as long as it is "healthy" and that connection with the life there is available. This respect for life can also explain our value of deserts and permafrosted tundras. While we cherish that which sustains life we are awestruck by landscapes that can extinguish it almost completely. In respect to deserts and other barren areas it would be curious to wonder if the beauty we find is the amazement in the lack of life or in the cheers given out for the little bit of life that can sustain itself in such harsh environments. That may lie in the individual but anyone who has "enough acquaintance with land and people to have some sense of" how things should be will find the beauty in either scenario (Berry 181).
"To look at a farm in full health gives the same complex pleasure as looking at a fully healthy person or animal. It will give the same impression of abounding life."
I like the idea the life itself can be a source of pleasure. Life not only in the sense that you have a life and are happy to be living it, but life in that one can appreciate the sheer existence of life or health in another living body. Much of the issue with modern times in Berry's words seems to come from a separation of mind from body and land. He cries against the loss of valuing the physical in exchange for the intellectual. It seems the major problem lies in a lack of real ties to the physical world, "a unity of body and soil". This unity I think is necessary to understand the simple pleasure drawn from life. And the idea that it is pleasing to experience life can help define why we view certain places as sacred. It is also interesting that he mentions the farm, a human creation from natural setting to describe this pleasure and his examples are in the health of both person and animal. This simile could easily transfer to the overwhelming experience of living creatures available in a wilderness but he opts to not separate the human from this world as those he argues against, but instead ties us closer with his examples. This speaks to how a person could find sanctity in a farm with its abundant life and rich soil as long as it is "healthy" and that connection with the life there is available. This respect for life can also explain our value of deserts and permafrosted tundras. While we cherish that which sustains life we are awestruck by landscapes that can extinguish it almost completely. In respect to deserts and other barren areas it would be curious to wonder if the beauty we find is the amazement in the lack of life or in the cheers given out for the little bit of life that can sustain itself in such harsh environments. That may lie in the individual but anyone who has "enough acquaintance with land and people to have some sense of" how things should be will find the beauty in either scenario (Berry 181).
Ashleigh Kennedy--Journal from Berry #2
“While we live our bodies are moving particles of the earth, joined inextricably both to the soil and to the bodies of other living creatures. It is hardly surprising, then, that there should be some profound resemblances between our treatment of our bodies and our treatment of the earth.”
While reading Berry’s “The Unsettling of America,” I came across this interesting point in chapter seven. He explains that we, as humans, no matter how urban are lifestyle live off of agriculture, farming, and the land—we even return to it in the end. Therefore, we should have a high level of respect for the earth just as we would our own bodies. Yet, as ideal as that would be, it doesn’t necessarily turn out that way. Many people in the world do not respect the land just as they don’t respect there own bodies. There are many actions occurring everyday of the year that are depleting and hurting the earth—cutting down forests, polluting the water, and hunting animals for purposes other than food. However, it actually isn’t very surprising that this happens when you also look at how humans treat themselves and each other. Unhealthy personal lifestyles and those who constantly hurt and bring others down isn’t a very unlikely situation today. So, when Berry states that we should treat the earth as we would our bodies, just exactly how accurate and appropriate is that request?
While reading Berry’s “The Unsettling of America,” I came across this interesting point in chapter seven. He explains that we, as humans, no matter how urban are lifestyle live off of agriculture, farming, and the land—we even return to it in the end. Therefore, we should have a high level of respect for the earth just as we would our own bodies. Yet, as ideal as that would be, it doesn’t necessarily turn out that way. Many people in the world do not respect the land just as they don’t respect there own bodies. There are many actions occurring everyday of the year that are depleting and hurting the earth—cutting down forests, polluting the water, and hunting animals for purposes other than food. However, it actually isn’t very surprising that this happens when you also look at how humans treat themselves and each other. Unhealthy personal lifestyles and those who constantly hurt and bring others down isn’t a very unlikely situation today. So, when Berry states that we should treat the earth as we would our bodies, just exactly how accurate and appropriate is that request?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Brien Carr - Cycle of Nature - Gary Snyder
Snyder mentioned the thought of a place being "forever eventually" wild. In this he did not mean that a city is considered wild by his definitions of his work, but, he was referring to a cycle of nature that allows a place that may initially be wild to be used, ignored, and then nature has the ability to reestablish itself at this site. On a less serious note, this reminds me of images and thoughts from the movie the Lion King. Which I suppose that, in all seriousness, is what this statement is referencing. A place that we as humans can inhabit will at some point loose all of its structure and begin to blend back into the wild, regardless of the human footprint left on that site. Stonehenge would be a good example of what was once a place of civilization that now only has a small glimpse of the human life that once inhabited that area. Grasses and vegitation have overgrown the area and now the public has even stepped in and restricted access to this area as a means of preservation. But can we really go as far as to asume that one day New York city will erode into a pile of metal and concrete dust and Central Park will grow out of its concrete flower box and overtake the city? Only time will tell.
Brien Carr - Defining Nature - Gary Snyder
Snyder's wrestling with the definition of nature was actually very interesting to me and was also very influential in the process of writing my paper. Snyder points to the roots of the word nature and the different connotations that it may be used as in different understandings. I grew up in Gloucester, Va, a rural area that, at that time, had very little suburban construction and housing developmental areas. Each school that I attended had its own rendition of a nature trail for people to experience nature in an educational setting. In the 5th grade, my class took a over-night field trip to Prince William county to study wildlife. The property I lived on was about 2 acres of private forest that had been undisturbed some parts since the civil war trail on the back of the property had been used by Confederate soldiers. I grew up on nature. It was a drug. I experienced it as what I could do, touch, see, smell, taste. I learned about survial and natural respect from the boy's organization I was apart of. Looking back to this time, I can see that I believed certain things about nature, but did not understand what they meant. I believed that nature was more than the physical things I could experience. It also had a spiritual quality that embraced. On top of that I could see the imaginative qualities that it evoked in myself. Snyder touches on these themes when he speaks about the idea that ALL things are natural, because they exist in the natural world.
Brien Carr - Up or Down Creek? - Annie Dillard
In the third section of "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek" Dillard speaks about watching the creek from the banks and refers to herself as a "creek watcher." She talks about how one is prone to look downstream and see the path that the water flows and examine that which seems to be the new and the upcoming. Then she poses a slightly different thought. If you turn around and look at the water as it comes, maybe that is the "new." "The future is a spirit... heading my way," states Dillard. This idea is very intriguing to me. If one alters his perspective and looks the other direction, everything changes. Simply as an observer, or a "creek watcher," it is easy to examine where the creek is going, because this fact never changes. However, it is more difficult and interesting to instead think of where the creek is coming from. The path as it comes downstream is much more difficult to define as there are many obstacles that are now noticed. As an analogy for life, if one would pay more attention to where their life comes from and what has affected it in its journey downstream, it may be easier to understand where it is headed.
At the same time, wouldn't it be more invigorating to jump in the creek and be swept away, rather than just observing it from the shore? Although this may seem more exciting, it also sound foolish and inprudent. One should master the art of "creek watching" before attempting to master the art of creek exploration, because life, like a creek, is very unpredictable and may turn into rough waters very quickly.
At the same time, wouldn't it be more invigorating to jump in the creek and be swept away, rather than just observing it from the shore? Although this may seem more exciting, it also sound foolish and inprudent. One should master the art of "creek watching" before attempting to master the art of creek exploration, because life, like a creek, is very unpredictable and may turn into rough waters very quickly.
Brien Carr - WIthout Nature - "The Writing Life"
In Annie Dillard's chapter "The Writing Life" I was facinated by her approach of utter seclusion for her selected place for writing. It seems to me that in order to write about nature well, one would have to be in and amoungst it to experience the ganduer of it. Dillard claims that for her best writing ability she prefers a room that is completely isolated from everything else, with no view, and no distraction. This is to give her a clear mind that can be able to expand and open her imagination to illustrate whatever she wishes. This is not only confusing, but it makes me consider the intent to be unauthentic. The idea of writing about nature would be more authentic, in my opinion, if someone can record what they see and observe after many encounters in the same situation. If a scientist took a three day cruise to Alaska, I would not not feel qualified to write about it when I finally arrived home to my study.
At the same time, Dillard does specialize in writing about nature. Her techniques seem to work. Dillard claims to use the dark, solitude as a place where her memories and imagination can come together. Now that I consider it, her approach is not so different from the trancendentalist approach Thoreau might have taken while he was in the city. Nature can possibly transcend the bounds of the physical when there is a metaphysical factor such as memory present.
At the same time, Dillard does specialize in writing about nature. Her techniques seem to work. Dillard claims to use the dark, solitude as a place where her memories and imagination can come together. Now that I consider it, her approach is not so different from the trancendentalist approach Thoreau might have taken while he was in the city. Nature can possibly transcend the bounds of the physical when there is a metaphysical factor such as memory present.
Brien Carr - Berry's Nature Poetry
I am having considerable trouble understand the label that Berry discusses called "nature poetry." Even he himself states that the term "is a clumsy term." At first thought, the idea of "nature poetry" seems to be a cop out on seperating poetry into an unecessary category. History suggest that people began to express their profound thoughts on nature and the origins of creation in literature and artistic mediums since the beginning of time. Even, as we have discussed before, the recording of the images on the caves in neolithic times is an expression of thoughts of the human existance.
Focusing poetry into the category "nature poetry" causes one to assume that all other poetry is a seperate entity from it. The understanding that I can embrace closet to this definition is that poetry is an artistic expression of thoughts and ideas that evolve with maturity and exploration. In order to look at nature poetry more clearly, I suppose the thought of nature, untouched and unexplored is more focused on in the comtemporary form of this thought. My understanding of nature is that everything is natural. Everything physical has in some way come from the Earth, therefore it is natural. This might be why it is difficult for me to seperate what others may consider nature. The only other alternative I can think of is what is derived from the metaphysical realms. But, from this, my personal believe is that because God creates, he is true nature, therefore nature comes from God. This is why I believe that all poetry is essentially natural.
Focusing poetry into the category "nature poetry" causes one to assume that all other poetry is a seperate entity from it. The understanding that I can embrace closet to this definition is that poetry is an artistic expression of thoughts and ideas that evolve with maturity and exploration. In order to look at nature poetry more clearly, I suppose the thought of nature, untouched and unexplored is more focused on in the comtemporary form of this thought. My understanding of nature is that everything is natural. Everything physical has in some way come from the Earth, therefore it is natural. This might be why it is difficult for me to seperate what others may consider nature. The only other alternative I can think of is what is derived from the metaphysical realms. But, from this, my personal believe is that because God creates, he is true nature, therefore nature comes from God. This is why I believe that all poetry is essentially natural.
Brien Carr - Think a little more... please
While reading Wendell Berry's work "A Continuous Harmony" I considered Berry's more passive approach to the idea of bringing about Environmental awareness. As I had commented before, from Berry's reaction in "The Unsettling of American," his tone seemed to be very condesending about his high and self-righteous approach to the subject. His remarks actually changed my opinion about the topic, from a, to each his own approach to a more responsible belief.
Berry points to the environmental movements that have taken place so far in our society as resembling the political fad movements of peace, and civil rights. For the envrionmental movement to evolve down this path would be dangerous. He also points to the social attitudes of the people that act as one of the largest reasons for little attention paid to the issue. I can understand his viewpoint about the greed and exploitation of the Earth by humankind much clearer with his more diplimatic approach to the issue. Berry points out that those that have led the charges in the realms of civil rights or peace have always blamed others for the results that they disagree with. However, I can clearly see that in respect to the environmental movement there is no on in particular to blame for the situation that has evolved over time. We must all take some of the blame as we have all shared a role in creating the society into the being that it is today.
Berry points to the environmental movements that have taken place so far in our society as resembling the political fad movements of peace, and civil rights. For the envrionmental movement to evolve down this path would be dangerous. He also points to the social attitudes of the people that act as one of the largest reasons for little attention paid to the issue. I can understand his viewpoint about the greed and exploitation of the Earth by humankind much clearer with his more diplimatic approach to the issue. Berry points out that those that have led the charges in the realms of civil rights or peace have always blamed others for the results that they disagree with. However, I can clearly see that in respect to the environmental movement there is no on in particular to blame for the situation that has evolved over time. We must all take some of the blame as we have all shared a role in creating the society into the being that it is today.
Ashleigh Kennedy--Journal from Berry
"A sacred place is not chosen, it chooses."
When reading Wendell Berry’s, “The Unsettling of America,” the very first paragraph of the entire book immediately grabbed my attention. He states, “One of the peculiarities of the white race’s presence in America is how little intention has been applied to it. As a people, wherever we have been, we have never really intended to be.” He continues to explain how this continent was found by an Italian explorer looking for India. Furthermore the earliest explorers were searching for gold, luckily found some in Mexico and explored further on in what is now America. The continent that was once “accidentally” found is now one of the most successful countries today. This called my attention to Lane’s first axiom of a sacred place. “A sacred place is not chosen, it chooses.” While in Mississippi he searched for an axis mundi throughout many slopes, and it wasn’t until he reached a clearing in the woods to rest that he unexpectedly found what he was searching for. Whether it is the finding of what is now America, or Lane finding an uplifting experience in Mississippi, is it amazing what you can stumble across in the world when you’re not looking for it.
When reading Wendell Berry’s, “The Unsettling of America,” the very first paragraph of the entire book immediately grabbed my attention. He states, “One of the peculiarities of the white race’s presence in America is how little intention has been applied to it. As a people, wherever we have been, we have never really intended to be.” He continues to explain how this continent was found by an Italian explorer looking for India. Furthermore the earliest explorers were searching for gold, luckily found some in Mexico and explored further on in what is now America. The continent that was once “accidentally” found is now one of the most successful countries today. This called my attention to Lane’s first axiom of a sacred place. “A sacred place is not chosen, it chooses.” While in Mississippi he searched for an axis mundi throughout many slopes, and it wasn’t until he reached a clearing in the woods to rest that he unexpectedly found what he was searching for. Whether it is the finding of what is now America, or Lane finding an uplifting experience in Mississippi, is it amazing what you can stumble across in the world when you’re not looking for it.
Megan Nisbet: Natural Setting #1
When the bad storm came through yesterday, I, along with all of the other people in VA, got to experience nature at it's most fierce. Though I don't live in any of the areas where the tornados touched down, I still experienced the effects of the bad storm. The thunder shook my house, and made me jump more than once while I was attempting to concentrate on my homework. I love thunderstorms, especially bad ones, so I eventually gave up the attempt at my homework for a little while, and decided to watch the storm from my front door. Though this isn't the best idea, especially when there is a tornado watch, I opened my door, and began to watch the fierce storm through my screen door. I saw that I wasn't the only crazy and curious person--all of my neighbors around me also had their doors open, and many of them were staring out from behind their screen doors as well. The rain was coming down hard--really hard--and the wind was blowing very fast. There was a threat of hail, and it scared me to think what would happen to the car I just bought a month ago if hail started coming, or if a tornado touched down here. I then realized I was being selfish, and the pictures behind me on the TV proved this. Because of an act of nature, many people (they estimated 125 the last time I heard) are without homes and cars, and thousands are without power. Though I love storms, and especially love looking at videos and pictures of tornados, the reality of the danger of these storms hit me when the three tornados touched down so close to my own home. Seeing pictures on TV from places far away in Kansas or Oklahoma don't have the same effect as looking at picture of cars piled on top of each other, and houses demolished, in a town so close to my own. I truly realized that no matter how beautiful tornados and thunderstorms may seem, they are in fact very dangerous, and can cost people their lives, homes, and livlihood. I just hope all of the families affected will be able to recover quickly and get their lives back in order after this dangerous act of nature.
Brien Carr - Our bodies in Respect to the Earth
While reading "The Unsettling of America," I encountered Berry's discussion about the relationship between the human body and the Earth. Berry discussed the idea of its place in the world that humanity has observed and questioned since the origin of their creation. He also posed the question asking about the relation between the preservation of our bodies and the preservation of the earth. Such ideas connect well with the myself. My personal reglious beliefs are strongly rooted in the concept of preservation of life and the protection of such principles. I am also of the belief that our bodies are the only vehicles we have in this life, and we must protect them as if they are such. Life is short and and its purpose is difficult for many to understand. Berry asks, "What value and respect do we give our bodies?" Until we learn to respect our bodies, how could we learn to respect anything else in our lives. This vessel we reside in in the closest and most noticed resemblance of God's creation we have in our lives.
Berry's thoughts also drifted to the concept of human significance in the wide scope of creation. He mentions the drawings of neolithic cavemen and even in their underdeveloped levels of self-concsiousness they were able to identify the fact that they were a small part of a very, extravagant world. This philsophical concept is one that I often find myself considering. For as much as the human race has accomplished in this small glimpse of our existance, how much more will we accomplish in the future, or within the next 10, 15 years even. Our lives do seem significant in the evolution of nature, yet, the question remains if our lives are overall positive or negative as a whole in relation to the Earth.
Berry's thoughts also drifted to the concept of human significance in the wide scope of creation. He mentions the drawings of neolithic cavemen and even in their underdeveloped levels of self-concsiousness they were able to identify the fact that they were a small part of a very, extravagant world. This philsophical concept is one that I often find myself considering. For as much as the human race has accomplished in this small glimpse of our existance, how much more will we accomplish in the future, or within the next 10, 15 years even. Our lives do seem significant in the evolution of nature, yet, the question remains if our lives are overall positive or negative as a whole in relation to the Earth.
Ashleigh Kennedy--outside reading #3
Making Nature Sacred--by John Gatta
Post-Darwinian Visions of Divine Creation
After 1855, the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species was introduced and had a varied impact on American sensibilities. It did not immediately destroy either the religious faith or the nature Romanticism cherished by large numbers of Americans (Gatta, 143). In fact, for some time people thought that it was possible to incorporate Darwinism into preexisting concepts of natural history, natural theology, and providential design. Along with this view many others thought differently. The Harvard botanist Asa Gray, for example, became an outspoken defender of Darwin’s transmutation hypothesis after having scorned Robert Chamber’s (writer of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation) explanations of how new species emerged (Gatta, 143). Further more, scientist John Muir agreed with the transmutative premise of evolutionary theory—but maintained a biblically colored holiness that saw God’s presence inscribed “in magnificent capitals” at places like Yosemite. As the denial of God’s real presence in the material world started to decline, Romantic naturalism still survived. Traces of Romantic religion survive, for instance, in Mark Twain’s hauntingly lyrical evocations of the Mississippi River. In the form of paeans to grand, unknowable forces beyond human will, they persist even in spots of narrative exposition scattered throughout the fictions of Theodore Dreiser and Jack London (Gatta, 145). Furthermore, ethnic communities reflected their own versions of naturalism outside Euro-American ethnic traditions. For example, in 1902 Gertrude Bonnin published a personal essay on “Why I Am a Pagan” for the Atlantic. By 1932, curiosity about this ethnically and attractively “strange” spirituality was addressed by the publication of Black Elk Speaks: Being the Life Story of a Holy Man of the Oglala Sioux (Gatta, 146). In this Black Elk, who witnessed the massacre of Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee, expresses his ecological vision of holiness which was influenced by his contact with non-Indian culture.
Post-Darwinian Visions of Divine Creation
After 1855, the publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species was introduced and had a varied impact on American sensibilities. It did not immediately destroy either the religious faith or the nature Romanticism cherished by large numbers of Americans (Gatta, 143). In fact, for some time people thought that it was possible to incorporate Darwinism into preexisting concepts of natural history, natural theology, and providential design. Along with this view many others thought differently. The Harvard botanist Asa Gray, for example, became an outspoken defender of Darwin’s transmutation hypothesis after having scorned Robert Chamber’s (writer of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation) explanations of how new species emerged (Gatta, 143). Further more, scientist John Muir agreed with the transmutative premise of evolutionary theory—but maintained a biblically colored holiness that saw God’s presence inscribed “in magnificent capitals” at places like Yosemite. As the denial of God’s real presence in the material world started to decline, Romantic naturalism still survived. Traces of Romantic religion survive, for instance, in Mark Twain’s hauntingly lyrical evocations of the Mississippi River. In the form of paeans to grand, unknowable forces beyond human will, they persist even in spots of narrative exposition scattered throughout the fictions of Theodore Dreiser and Jack London (Gatta, 145). Furthermore, ethnic communities reflected their own versions of naturalism outside Euro-American ethnic traditions. For example, in 1902 Gertrude Bonnin published a personal essay on “Why I Am a Pagan” for the Atlantic. By 1932, curiosity about this ethnically and attractively “strange” spirituality was addressed by the publication of Black Elk Speaks: Being the Life Story of a Holy Man of the Oglala Sioux (Gatta, 146). In this Black Elk, who witnessed the massacre of Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee, expresses his ecological vision of holiness which was influenced by his contact with non-Indian culture.
Ashleigh Kennedy--Outside reading #2
Paths of Faith- John Hutchison and World Faiths- S.A. Nigosian
Many types of religions across the world focus on nature in their religious experiences. These types of religions have often been accurately characterized as nature-culture religion. It has also been termed cosmic religion (Hutchison, 14). With these religions, the meaning of human life is sought and found in nature and the world. Chinese religion has changed throughout the years, yet it still presents a strong indigenous tradition of naturalism. One particular example of a Chinese religion is Chinese Buddhism. It is one of the major schools of thought along with Taoism and Confucianism. One feature of Chinese Buddhism is its fragmentation into sects. Each group centers in a particular Indian text which it held and taught an essential truth. Three main sects include T’ien t’ai (Heavenly Terrace), Ching-tu (Pure Land) and Ch’an (Meditation). A few of Buddha’s teachings include The Four Noble Truths and Nirvana. The Noble Eightfold Path consists of right knowledge, right intention, right speech, right conduct, right means of livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration (Nigosian, 300). Those who follow the Noble Eightfold Path ultimately break the bonds that tie them to life and to their craving for existence and release from the cycle of rebirth. Only the extinction of tanha can free a person from the cycle of rebirth and from dukkha, or misery. It is the extinction, or “going out,” that is the state of nirvana (Nigosian, 300-301).
Many types of religions across the world focus on nature in their religious experiences. These types of religions have often been accurately characterized as nature-culture religion. It has also been termed cosmic religion (Hutchison, 14). With these religions, the meaning of human life is sought and found in nature and the world. Chinese religion has changed throughout the years, yet it still presents a strong indigenous tradition of naturalism. One particular example of a Chinese religion is Chinese Buddhism. It is one of the major schools of thought along with Taoism and Confucianism. One feature of Chinese Buddhism is its fragmentation into sects. Each group centers in a particular Indian text which it held and taught an essential truth. Three main sects include T’ien t’ai (Heavenly Terrace), Ching-tu (Pure Land) and Ch’an (Meditation). A few of Buddha’s teachings include The Four Noble Truths and Nirvana. The Noble Eightfold Path consists of right knowledge, right intention, right speech, right conduct, right means of livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration (Nigosian, 300). Those who follow the Noble Eightfold Path ultimately break the bonds that tie them to life and to their craving for existence and release from the cycle of rebirth. Only the extinction of tanha can free a person from the cycle of rebirth and from dukkha, or misery. It is the extinction, or “going out,” that is the state of nirvana (Nigosian, 300-301).
Ashleigh Kennedy--outside reading (Landscapes of the Sacred by Lane)
In Lane’s book “Landscapes of the Sacred,” he states that sacred place is a “storied place”; a place that is rich in story. Particular locales come to be recognized as sacred because of the stories that are told about them (Lane, 15). For example, in Wales there is a fifty-eight-letter village commonly referred to as “Llanfair P.G.”. It is filled with stories of saints and beasts that reach back into the collective memory of the people who live there (Lane, 15). Therefore, the best way to introduce the study of sacred place is to share a particular place-tale in which one’s encounter with the holy is inseparably related to the place itself. From such a narrative we can go on to draw certain axioms helpful in the further exploration of religious experience and its relation to place (Lane, 16). Lane describes a personal account resulting in the realization that by giving up looking for some sign of God is when his retreat usually begins.
In class we were supposed to think of some place that we considered “sacred” due to personal experience. I quickly thought of a hunt club back home by the Blackwater River. To many it may seem like an ordinary spot in the middle of nowhere but to me it’s a place that holds many fond memories that I go often go back to. Hot summer nights we would spend many hours by the water, and in the winter bon-fires were quickly sparked up as we celebrated every weekend. It is places like these and the experience shared with my friends that stamp a time in my life and is therefore sacred to me.
In class we were supposed to think of some place that we considered “sacred” due to personal experience. I quickly thought of a hunt club back home by the Blackwater River. To many it may seem like an ordinary spot in the middle of nowhere but to me it’s a place that holds many fond memories that I go often go back to. Hot summer nights we would spend many hours by the water, and in the winter bon-fires were quickly sparked up as we celebrated every weekend. It is places like these and the experience shared with my friends that stamp a time in my life and is therefore sacred to me.
Ashleigh Kennedy--Students Topic Choice #2
Dawkin’s- Why Seek to Know? - A Scientist’s Personal Answer
Religion is something that a person often appreciates and finds comfort in. This is particularly turn in nature for writers such as Thoreau and Emerson. In Dawkin’s article “Why Seek to Know? – A Scientist’s Personal Answer,” he introduces the reader to his appreciation of being alive. This planet is fitted for our life and mode of survival; therefore, we have been able to grow and evolve. It is because our planet is perfect for our needs that we are lucky to be alive. If ever there came a time in which we needed to seek a new planet to habitate, the chances of finding such a gift would be slim to none. One would have to travel millions of years into space journeying an unthinkable amount of miles. Even still there’s no guarantee of finding a paradise. A perfect paradise is exactly what Earth is. These are the exact reasons to study and understand the place in which we reside. We should seek to know this blessing and rejoice the presence we have in it.
Dawkin’s piece gives the reader a clear and valid thesis, and he supports it using many strong observations and claims. He also includes his personal views and situations at the introduction and conclusion. By applying this piece to his life, he strengthens the writing and the points he makes. I agree strongly with Dawkin’s article. Our planet is a wonderful blessing, a paradise that we take for granted. It is our responsibility to open our minds and use our resources to better understand our beautiful planet. Discovering the world and appreciation of being a part of it should become a though in ones mind each time they open their eyes. So much has been granted to us and it is but only our responsibility to know and understand. It almost as though Dawkin’s want us to find a religion in our existence.
Religion is something that a person often appreciates and finds comfort in. This is particularly turn in nature for writers such as Thoreau and Emerson. In Dawkin’s article “Why Seek to Know? – A Scientist’s Personal Answer,” he introduces the reader to his appreciation of being alive. This planet is fitted for our life and mode of survival; therefore, we have been able to grow and evolve. It is because our planet is perfect for our needs that we are lucky to be alive. If ever there came a time in which we needed to seek a new planet to habitate, the chances of finding such a gift would be slim to none. One would have to travel millions of years into space journeying an unthinkable amount of miles. Even still there’s no guarantee of finding a paradise. A perfect paradise is exactly what Earth is. These are the exact reasons to study and understand the place in which we reside. We should seek to know this blessing and rejoice the presence we have in it.
Dawkin’s piece gives the reader a clear and valid thesis, and he supports it using many strong observations and claims. He also includes his personal views and situations at the introduction and conclusion. By applying this piece to his life, he strengthens the writing and the points he makes. I agree strongly with Dawkin’s article. Our planet is a wonderful blessing, a paradise that we take for granted. It is our responsibility to open our minds and use our resources to better understand our beautiful planet. Discovering the world and appreciation of being a part of it should become a though in ones mind each time they open their eyes. So much has been granted to us and it is but only our responsibility to know and understand. It almost as though Dawkin’s want us to find a religion in our existence.
Ashleigh Kennedy--Experience of Natural Setting #2
“…in the wilderness, I find something more dear and connate than in the streets or villages…in the woods we return to reason and faith.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson
Every year my family and I travel to Lexington for the Virginia State 4H Horse and Pony Show Championships. As we steadily drive up highway 81 we pass rolling hills and colorful mountains and landscape—it is absolutely breathtaking. However, right before entering Lexington we drive on Afton Mountain which is accompanied with deep valleys below. I specifically remember one evening driving back from Lexington at sundown we stopped at scenic overlook on Afton. I remember looking down on the valley and everything being so small in viewpoint of the mountain. It was as though the houses and roadways were nothing compared to the grandiose of Afton. It also appeared as though the mountain was watching and protecting the valley from outside dangerous—it was a very powerful experience I’ve ever had with nature. I felt as though I was on top of the world, yet still so incredibly little. Perhaps it is the same feeling one would have standing on the base of the Absaroka Range and gazing up toward the sky. You would feel small and powerless, and at the same time feel a sense of security.
Every year my family and I travel to Lexington for the Virginia State 4H Horse and Pony Show Championships. As we steadily drive up highway 81 we pass rolling hills and colorful mountains and landscape—it is absolutely breathtaking. However, right before entering Lexington we drive on Afton Mountain which is accompanied with deep valleys below. I specifically remember one evening driving back from Lexington at sundown we stopped at scenic overlook on Afton. I remember looking down on the valley and everything being so small in viewpoint of the mountain. It was as though the houses and roadways were nothing compared to the grandiose of Afton. It also appeared as though the mountain was watching and protecting the valley from outside dangerous—it was a very powerful experience I’ve ever had with nature. I felt as though I was on top of the world, yet still so incredibly little. Perhaps it is the same feeling one would have standing on the base of the Absaroka Range and gazing up toward the sky. You would feel small and powerless, and at the same time feel a sense of security.
Ashleigh Kennedy Student's Topic Choice
Sacred Praying Mantises
The praying mantis, or praying mantid, is an insect named for the typical “prayer-like” stance. There are currently 2,000 species of praying mantis worldwide, and have been on the endangered species list since 1976. In New York, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and Pennsylvania it is a felony to kill a praying mantis, and can be punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or up to $1000 fine!! The minimum punishment is a $100 fine and/or 60 days community service. It is unlikely to be sent to jail for killing a praying mantis, unless you are deliberately killing them. Less than 20 people have ever served jail time for killing a praying mantis. So clearly, the praying mantis is a very important and valued insect. A few other facts about the praying mantis is that it is the only insect predator fast enough to catch mosquitoes and flies, and eighty-five percent of the time the mantid captures its prey.
Furthermore, these unique creatures are also sacred to a few different cultures in the world. Mantis comes from an Ancient Greek word for prophet or seer. In France, it is believed that if you are lost the praying mantis points the way home—therefore, the mantis is a guider. In Arab countries, people believe that the mantis always prays facing Mecca, a sacred city of Islam. In Africa, when a praying mantis lands on a person it means good luck. Mantids are also believed to be able to bring the dead back to life. So the next time you see a mantis fold his arms to pray, you can remember how important this insect is to other cultures and perhaps the prayer-like stance is symbolic for these beliefs.
Furthermore, these unique creatures are also sacred to a few different cultures in the world. Mantis comes from an Ancient Greek word for prophet or seer. In France, it is believed that if you are lost the praying mantis points the way home—therefore, the mantis is a guider. In Arab countries, people believe that the mantis always prays facing Mecca, a sacred city of Islam. In Africa, when a praying mantis lands on a person it means good luck. Mantids are also believed to be able to bring the dead back to life. So the next time you see a mantis fold his arms to pray, you can remember how important this insect is to other cultures and perhaps the prayer-like stance is symbolic for these beliefs.
Everybody is an expert at opinion...
While reading the second chapter of The Unsettling of America titled "The Ecological Crisis as a Crisis of Character" I came across the Berry's discussion of the "specialized system." Berry goes provides a basis for the discussion on the idea of conservation, or rather the lack of such an idea in our culture. He highlights that our society is a service oriented regime with little concern for anything other than convience and self interest. The most concise way I can restate his argument is that our lives are full of stuff and not substance. He jumps from a discussion of the lack of environmental concern to a critical view of the everyday lives of individuals and their choices, thoughts, and actions. I'm weary to ask, but regardless, why does it matter? I don't mean that in a environmental sacreligious way. What I am curious about is the purpose of his remarks and to what end? Berry pointed to a specialized society which provides no pride for the products we use, because we did not make them, and no understanding beyond the specialization we hold, because we don't learn anything but what we need. Why is it wrong for one to assume that his role in life is to get a job, get married, role over, and die? Why, if one does not care to buy into scientific opinions about global warming, environmental degredation, or toxins in everything he eats, would he have to stop and think otherwise? In relation to this character flaw that Berry is alluding to in people of our time, I see that his argument is spurrious, because Berry himself seems to be a specialist at something, writing. He may have other qualities, but to blame everyone for not taking up his cause, and assuming they just don't care is insane. Besides, it is also human nature to evolve and adapt. We change as problems arise. We will adapt when the situation gets bad enough. Until then, Berry, remain prophetic, but relax.
Noah Ryan, Ishmael
If there is any book that I would recommend to everyone it would be Ishmael. The ideas in Ishmael, My Ishmael, The Story of B, and Beyond Civilization (as well as The Tender Carnivore and the Sacred Game, many essays on environmental ethic, and the books we read in class) have deeply and profoundly changed the way that I view the world and the place of human beings (and all other beings as well) in it. Unfortunately there are ideas that I only believe intellectually, and I don't know how to understand then on a personal level, to live them. I couldn't get to all of it in an essay (perhaps in a book) but I want write down a couple of things.
The human race evolved in the same manner as all other species. We are have some possibly unique qualities, though many of the ones I've heard turn out to be false or not unique to humans, but in a very real and physical sense we are made of the same things, and we follow the same laws of life that are followed by all other living things. Also, civilization is not the destiny of human kind. Our way of life is one of many ways, and it seems it is a very destructive way, mentally, spiritually, and physically. I don't ever want to "be saved" by any religion, I do not need to be saved. My place is right here, a living being, not in heaven or hell, or removal from the cycle of life, Nirvana.
I no longer believe in progress, and I do not celebrate growth. I ask that we remember that technology is not magic, nor does it provide a meaningful life. It is not evil, nor is it new. It is simply a mode of human interaction, and to depend entirely on it, to act in the very narrow mode of operation for the particular type of technology practiced by our culture, is not the only thing that we can be doing, and it is not worth dieing for. I don't see human nature as particularly aggressive like so many do, but instead as no more aggressive then many mammals would be in a similar situation. Monkeys who's mothers are taken away become antisocial, when overcrowded many beings become less active and mobile. Paul Shepard believes us stunted in social ability. I believe that there may be something to this idea.
I reject the work of almost all of western philosophy. So many people have thought only within the narrow confines of western thought that they know nothing outside of it. They don't see that we are obsessed with the idea of work, that we made a distinction between work and leisure, that we take in and rarely question the things that have been force fed to us since childhood. I'm talking about realizing and describing the very most fundamental assumptions and ways of thinking. I wonder what the great philosophers would say if they realized that the peoples of the world that live in "primitive" cultures are fully mature and capable human beings, not ignorant nor noble, but simply humans living out a different life (in Quinn's term living out a different story) then our own. If they saw the huge breadth and depth of human experience, the vast range of possible minds, the staggering variety in all life. Dillard talks of people who gain sight after a lifetime of blindness, and how they minds work differently then the sighted. They don't assign the moving colors spacial dimensions. A man from the rainforest (crowded and lacking real planes) once thought that the first rhinoceros he saw was a bug because it was so far away. How can one be so arrogant and ignorant as to explain and judge human nature when considering these things? We know nothing of human nature, only the narrowest confines of our experience, and even these we judge only through the limited analytical tools passed to us, with their own limitations and narrow scope. This is one reason that I don't expect humans to ever "understand" the universe in any meaningful way. The idea of having an intelligence doesn't include having one that must be able to understand everything. You must know that communist countries came up with a science that made the world mirror communism. They explained evolution through this, just as we explain evolution through combativeness and competition. We are so narrow in our understanding of our own ideas and their origin that we allow ourselves to take a shallow and limited very of the operation of nature. When these thing are actually studied, it turns out that there is much going on that doesn't fit this view. Life on this earth cooperates, combats, and a great many other things to continue existing. It didn't start and it does not end with us.
Capitalism, materialism and so on are not the cause of the social and environmental problems we (our culture) now faces. These are the effects of much deeper things.
Circular time, mythological minds, animism.
Relation to work, making a living, evolution
I want to talk about things that take time to open up in peoples minds. These things are not even available to discuss with most people, because they do not realize the subjects exist. I've tried to enumerate some ideas here, but this barely even constitutes a beginning.
The human race evolved in the same manner as all other species. We are have some possibly unique qualities, though many of the ones I've heard turn out to be false or not unique to humans, but in a very real and physical sense we are made of the same things, and we follow the same laws of life that are followed by all other living things. Also, civilization is not the destiny of human kind. Our way of life is one of many ways, and it seems it is a very destructive way, mentally, spiritually, and physically. I don't ever want to "be saved" by any religion, I do not need to be saved. My place is right here, a living being, not in heaven or hell, or removal from the cycle of life, Nirvana.
I no longer believe in progress, and I do not celebrate growth. I ask that we remember that technology is not magic, nor does it provide a meaningful life. It is not evil, nor is it new. It is simply a mode of human interaction, and to depend entirely on it, to act in the very narrow mode of operation for the particular type of technology practiced by our culture, is not the only thing that we can be doing, and it is not worth dieing for. I don't see human nature as particularly aggressive like so many do, but instead as no more aggressive then many mammals would be in a similar situation. Monkeys who's mothers are taken away become antisocial, when overcrowded many beings become less active and mobile. Paul Shepard believes us stunted in social ability. I believe that there may be something to this idea.
I reject the work of almost all of western philosophy. So many people have thought only within the narrow confines of western thought that they know nothing outside of it. They don't see that we are obsessed with the idea of work, that we made a distinction between work and leisure, that we take in and rarely question the things that have been force fed to us since childhood. I'm talking about realizing and describing the very most fundamental assumptions and ways of thinking. I wonder what the great philosophers would say if they realized that the peoples of the world that live in "primitive" cultures are fully mature and capable human beings, not ignorant nor noble, but simply humans living out a different life (in Quinn's term living out a different story) then our own. If they saw the huge breadth and depth of human experience, the vast range of possible minds, the staggering variety in all life. Dillard talks of people who gain sight after a lifetime of blindness, and how they minds work differently then the sighted. They don't assign the moving colors spacial dimensions. A man from the rainforest (crowded and lacking real planes) once thought that the first rhinoceros he saw was a bug because it was so far away. How can one be so arrogant and ignorant as to explain and judge human nature when considering these things? We know nothing of human nature, only the narrowest confines of our experience, and even these we judge only through the limited analytical tools passed to us, with their own limitations and narrow scope. This is one reason that I don't expect humans to ever "understand" the universe in any meaningful way. The idea of having an intelligence doesn't include having one that must be able to understand everything. You must know that communist countries came up with a science that made the world mirror communism. They explained evolution through this, just as we explain evolution through combativeness and competition. We are so narrow in our understanding of our own ideas and their origin that we allow ourselves to take a shallow and limited very of the operation of nature. When these thing are actually studied, it turns out that there is much going on that doesn't fit this view. Life on this earth cooperates, combats, and a great many other things to continue existing. It didn't start and it does not end with us.
Capitalism, materialism and so on are not the cause of the social and environmental problems we (our culture) now faces. These are the effects of much deeper things.
Circular time, mythological minds, animism.
Relation to work, making a living, evolution
I want to talk about things that take time to open up in peoples minds. These things are not even available to discuss with most people, because they do not realize the subjects exist. I've tried to enumerate some ideas here, but this barely even constitutes a beginning.
D Charest Annie Dillard
Annie Dillard seems to say that the beginning of a book, no matter how the author may try, ends up being written solely for the author to find his way in writing the book. It will always be thrown out, but it was not completely useless as it gets the author to the "middle" of the book. In a sense it guides the author to the true path the book will take, but must then be taken away once that path is found.
I came across a word in Dillard's text that I had never seen before. The word was epistemological. Dictionary.com states that epistemology is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. This concept is integral to this class in that the things we discuss seem to be doing just that, investigating our limits of knowledge and expanding those limits.
Dillard also seems to imply that in order for a writer to be productive, he must be secluded. She says on page 564 that "appealing workplaces must be avoided" and goes on to say "so imagination can meet memory in the dark." This is very puzzling to me because if it seems that if you are not in an "appealing workplace" that you would be uncomfortable, and I do not see how you could be productive if you are uncomfortable.
I enjoyed when Dillard wrote about splitting wood, and how you don't aim at the wood itself when you chop, you must aim at the chopping block, with the wood being a "transparent means to an end" (p575). Is this a metaphor about writing? Do you aim for the end of a book and the filling pages are the transparent means to an end?
I came across a word in Dillard's text that I had never seen before. The word was epistemological. Dictionary.com states that epistemology is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. This concept is integral to this class in that the things we discuss seem to be doing just that, investigating our limits of knowledge and expanding those limits.
Dillard also seems to imply that in order for a writer to be productive, he must be secluded. She says on page 564 that "appealing workplaces must be avoided" and goes on to say "so imagination can meet memory in the dark." This is very puzzling to me because if it seems that if you are not in an "appealing workplace" that you would be uncomfortable, and I do not see how you could be productive if you are uncomfortable.
I enjoyed when Dillard wrote about splitting wood, and how you don't aim at the wood itself when you chop, you must aim at the chopping block, with the wood being a "transparent means to an end" (p575). Is this a metaphor about writing? Do you aim for the end of a book and the filling pages are the transparent means to an end?
Noah Ryan, A Continuous Harmony
In class we discussed several passages from Wendell Berry's A Continuous Harmony. The passages that is most important to me is on page 3. I do not like the idea that "Earliest Man" saw the world first as object, and then saw something behind it. Rather, human beings developed religion and culture along with hands and eyes. The religious way of looking at the world is a mythology that explains how we got here and what we are. It is the human way of interacting with the world. I'm not going to get into a discussion of science as religion, but science does provide an explanation for us, and one that many believe very profoundly in. I am a firm believer in the physical world, but I'm not convinced that human beings can ever interact with it on any level but on the level of a biological being and specifically a human level. We can only see things of a certain size and in a certain range of light and velocity. Even with methods of extending our senses, we are built to interact and understand through the way we have always interacted and understood, the human way. This means that while serious philosophical discussion has its place, poetic language can be very helpful and meaning full in ways that more formal writing is not. It can discuss important idea and transmit personal, subjective thoughts on a level that is not possible in other mediums. If the way of interacting with the world shapes our thoughts, bodies, and brains than nature poetry has a very powerful place in our perception of the world.
A. Kennedy--Experience of a Natural Setting
Recently I have been reminded of how powerful Mother Nature is and the respect we should have for it. Just yesterday a tornado hit my hometown of Suffolk and completed obliterated parts of the city. Our recently built hospital had sections missing, a shopping complex built three months ago had completely collapsed, and friends that I graduated with had their homes destroyed. It is amazing, yet terrifying, the monstrosities that nature can accommodate to us. Within a couple minutes everything that our city has worked for can disappear. This triggered another memory of a devastating event to my local area in 1999—Hurricane Floyd. Our neighboring county was living underneath the water and my neighbors were in rowboats to go from house to house the following days. Yet, along with catastrophe, nature can bring peace and solace with things such as a cool breeze on a warm summer day or a beautiful rainbow in the sky after a rainy afternoon. Nature has a way of reminding you of its preeminence just when you begin to forget.
D. Ryan Foster- A human nature
4-29-08
I was returning from class earlier this year from the Wingfield building and decided to take the slightly more scenic route involving the small patch of woods on campus between Wingfield and a vast parking lot to enjoy the sound of birds to avoid the large pack of people crammed onto the lawn. There was some kind of concert going and I wasn't in the mood. So I walked through, more aware of my feet crunching on the ground than the distant music and I sat down at the base of one tree and started to chuckle slightly over the serenity offered by this one last bastion of semiforest in the face of tons of brick. I understand that the buildings are necessary for a campus and I would actually be rather displeased if we didn't have them on extremely hot, cold, or wet days. But I was simply enjoying that there was somewhere I could go where if I blurred my eyes a little I'd only get to glimpse what could be a forest around me, at least every so often. Where I grew up, I had nearly 30 acres of woodlands behind my house, woodlands in the sense that the preservationists would want it, pristine, untouched, and extremely difficult to climb through. Even after moving to northern Virginia, my home was on the extreme edge of town and our property bordered a forested area with a small creek. All these things I contemplated and was made sad and nostalgically happy when I remembered they'd paved over that woods behind my house in NoVa and turned it into low rent housing. But as I had this creeping chill I tend to get in peaceful settings when happiness and sadness blend into simply being, the music from the concert whispered its way into my ears. It was the oddest thing that it blended so perfectly with how I was feeling; it didn't matter that I could not hear the words. The soft rhythm and the muffled voice over the microphone filtering through the trees just clicked and I stopped blurring my eyes and saw the forest for what it was, a small bit of trees allowed to stay on a piece of land that can't fit a building. I heard the electronically amplified music as humans and human creation, and at the same time I felt this last bit of nature on campus and God's creation. In that moment where they blended there was this ridiculous moment of happiness that I cannot describe where I understood and was comfortable with the concept of a natural human, and I was no longer sad for the forest lost behind my home, nor was I unwilling to accept this plot as hardly qualifying as forest. I understood that this patch of ground didn't have to fight and have others fight for it, instead it could work with humans to form a human integrated nature. Regardless the serenity and joy I found in this moment overflowed me to the point that I needed to share it with someone I loved and I immediately whipped out my human invented cell phone and used its digital signal to get in touch with those around me. The funny thing is, it no longer bothered me brining the cell out in the trees. I used to keep it away for fear that I might be violating something if not to the trees but to myself, yet now I see this creation of man to be another way to share the beauty in a creation of God.
I was returning from class earlier this year from the Wingfield building and decided to take the slightly more scenic route involving the small patch of woods on campus between Wingfield and a vast parking lot to enjoy the sound of birds to avoid the large pack of people crammed onto the lawn. There was some kind of concert going and I wasn't in the mood. So I walked through, more aware of my feet crunching on the ground than the distant music and I sat down at the base of one tree and started to chuckle slightly over the serenity offered by this one last bastion of semiforest in the face of tons of brick. I understand that the buildings are necessary for a campus and I would actually be rather displeased if we didn't have them on extremely hot, cold, or wet days. But I was simply enjoying that there was somewhere I could go where if I blurred my eyes a little I'd only get to glimpse what could be a forest around me, at least every so often. Where I grew up, I had nearly 30 acres of woodlands behind my house, woodlands in the sense that the preservationists would want it, pristine, untouched, and extremely difficult to climb through. Even after moving to northern Virginia, my home was on the extreme edge of town and our property bordered a forested area with a small creek. All these things I contemplated and was made sad and nostalgically happy when I remembered they'd paved over that woods behind my house in NoVa and turned it into low rent housing. But as I had this creeping chill I tend to get in peaceful settings when happiness and sadness blend into simply being, the music from the concert whispered its way into my ears. It was the oddest thing that it blended so perfectly with how I was feeling; it didn't matter that I could not hear the words. The soft rhythm and the muffled voice over the microphone filtering through the trees just clicked and I stopped blurring my eyes and saw the forest for what it was, a small bit of trees allowed to stay on a piece of land that can't fit a building. I heard the electronically amplified music as humans and human creation, and at the same time I felt this last bit of nature on campus and God's creation. In that moment where they blended there was this ridiculous moment of happiness that I cannot describe where I understood and was comfortable with the concept of a natural human, and I was no longer sad for the forest lost behind my home, nor was I unwilling to accept this plot as hardly qualifying as forest. I understood that this patch of ground didn't have to fight and have others fight for it, instead it could work with humans to form a human integrated nature. Regardless the serenity and joy I found in this moment overflowed me to the point that I needed to share it with someone I loved and I immediately whipped out my human invented cell phone and used its digital signal to get in touch with those around me. The funny thing is, it no longer bothered me brining the cell out in the trees. I used to keep it away for fear that I might be violating something if not to the trees but to myself, yet now I see this creation of man to be another way to share the beauty in a creation of God.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Amanda DeSalme, Berry: the joy of mysteries
from Wendell Berry's A Continuous Harmony:
"If all that a man can understand were all there is, if there were no mystery, then the mind would be trapped, and damned within its limits; one should rejoice in understanding, but rejoice also in failing to understand, for in that failure the mind is set free" (Berry, 30).
In essence, isn't the mystery of what we fail to understand the main component of religion? We may feel some sort of presence, or perhaps we are seeking answers to questions we have about life and turn to religion to try and help us understand. We are constantly searching for the truth, or maybe searching for what is real. Discussions about what is real always discomfort me for some reason. Saying that certain things we feel are not real but delusions of our mind just seem like another person is forcing their scientific reasoning on your personal experience. But no one else can know the exact emotions and feelings that any individual has experienced, so how is it their right to say that it was just a delusion? As Cat was saying in the discussion in class today, it should not matter if it is real to everyone else, because it is real to that one particular person who is experiencing it. Reality is really hard to objectify, because it is such an abstract concept. I enjoy the fact that there is so much mystery in this world. In creation especially, there is quite a mystery. How did we all come to be? What came first, the chicken or the egg? There are so many different beliefs about how the world and its creatures were created, but how can we really be sure? We weren't there. We haven't witnessed it. All we can do is marvel at the wonders of nature and its meticulous cycles and unfathomable tiny details. Many people use God as an answer to this question of how such beauty can be lavished upon the earth. Even this name that is credited with the wonders of creation is mysterious. Is it simply something we made up for comfort? Or is it "real?" Is it just a name placed on this spiritual presence that we feel? "God the creator is the God of mystery, a presence felt but not known" (Berry, 35). There is no way I can ever answer these questions. There is no scientific, objective answer that everyone can accept as a fact. The most I can say is that the creation of this earth was an amazing feat to be accomplished and its beauty, power, and mysteries astound me everyday. I relish the unknown and immerse myself in the beauty of nature and take the advice of Wendell Berry to simply "Be joyful because it is humanly possible" (Berry, 40).
Sunday, April 27, 2008
D. Ryan Foster: Imagination as a form of Measurement
4/27/08-- Inspired by Wendell Berry and class discussion
Wendell Berry was discussing the difficulties involved in the term Nature Poetry and the class was addressing this section at the behest of Dr. Redick. But as we looked into the concept of encountering nature beyond appreciating or experiencing and immersion and the necessity of imagination, many were lost along the way. In hashing out the details the comparison to science and its objectivity arose and the inherent flaws of science as capable of understanding but not capable of being immersed as it is anathema to objectivity. And at the same time immersion in a subject lends to being unable to comprehend as removing oneself from the constant flow of moments is necessary in order to establish reason and order and to consider and make abstract what is real. So a balance is required to be established. However, we have a serious problem in that the human mind does not experience or encounter without definition. Everything gains its label and descriptions as we fight to establish order to a chaotic series of events. Science has it easy as they simply invent the language of math to describe the objective quantities and define boundaries in the medium of measurements where their mathematic language of symbols and numbers convey meanings. But to the subjective and the ultimately real experience we rely on other functions in order to define as without stepping back and becoming objective there is no way of conveying meaning while encountering the moment. We communicate in the language of ideas but the medium for that is not exact and universal as math, a human invention. Those in the moment not observing it must rely on interpreting those ideas and the necessity to that interpretation is the imagination. In a since as a chemist measures concentrations of minerals in molarities we measure the concentrations of traits and ideas in others by what we imagine them to be based on input from variables just as the chemist determines molarity from the volume and the mass of the compound involved. This idea that I imagine you a certain way and that is not you yourself nor is my imagination of myself going to be the same as your imagination of me and as such it requires continuous input to update our imaginations of each other and interpretation of the world about us. This measurement system that equates to liters and inches is appropriate in its inconsistency and requirement of incongruity as it is most useful to those who operate within the ever changing moments of the world and can be adjusted on the fly so as not demanding the removal of oneself from that streaming flow.
While I don't particularly want to harp upon or hearken back to my former entries about the idea of a pilgrim for the sake of being a pilgrim, but the idea of expanding thought not through measurement of science but through imagination appeals to the pilgrim in that he functions in incongruous space and knowledge and it is only appropriate that he use such a morphic and subjective measurement while in that travel space and outside the flow of moving time.
Wendell Berry was discussing the difficulties involved in the term Nature Poetry and the class was addressing this section at the behest of Dr. Redick. But as we looked into the concept of encountering nature beyond appreciating or experiencing and immersion and the necessity of imagination, many were lost along the way. In hashing out the details the comparison to science and its objectivity arose and the inherent flaws of science as capable of understanding but not capable of being immersed as it is anathema to objectivity. And at the same time immersion in a subject lends to being unable to comprehend as removing oneself from the constant flow of moments is necessary in order to establish reason and order and to consider and make abstract what is real. So a balance is required to be established. However, we have a serious problem in that the human mind does not experience or encounter without definition. Everything gains its label and descriptions as we fight to establish order to a chaotic series of events. Science has it easy as they simply invent the language of math to describe the objective quantities and define boundaries in the medium of measurements where their mathematic language of symbols and numbers convey meanings. But to the subjective and the ultimately real experience we rely on other functions in order to define as without stepping back and becoming objective there is no way of conveying meaning while encountering the moment. We communicate in the language of ideas but the medium for that is not exact and universal as math, a human invention. Those in the moment not observing it must rely on interpreting those ideas and the necessity to that interpretation is the imagination. In a since as a chemist measures concentrations of minerals in molarities we measure the concentrations of traits and ideas in others by what we imagine them to be based on input from variables just as the chemist determines molarity from the volume and the mass of the compound involved. This idea that I imagine you a certain way and that is not you yourself nor is my imagination of myself going to be the same as your imagination of me and as such it requires continuous input to update our imaginations of each other and interpretation of the world about us. This measurement system that equates to liters and inches is appropriate in its inconsistency and requirement of incongruity as it is most useful to those who operate within the ever changing moments of the world and can be adjusted on the fly so as not demanding the removal of oneself from that streaming flow.
While I don't particularly want to harp upon or hearken back to my former entries about the idea of a pilgrim for the sake of being a pilgrim, but the idea of expanding thought not through measurement of science but through imagination appeals to the pilgrim in that he functions in incongruous space and knowledge and it is only appropriate that he use such a morphic and subjective measurement while in that travel space and outside the flow of moving time.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Catherine Greenfied-- Unbridled: Lessons from Nature.
I haven't had a lot of time this semester to do anything but work. I am taking a lot of classes... maybe too many classes. I keep heaping things on myself to do, and I never feel like I do any of them particularly well, because I have to spread my attention out every which way. I want to be out in the world, but I am not. It hurts me to not be out in the world. It makes me hurt inside.
I was walking back from a class one day this semester. I don't remember which one it was, and I suppose that's irrelevant information anyway... all I know is that, instead of noticing the weather and the birds and the leaves and the flowers and the little things crawling in the mulch as I usually do, I was feeling wave upon wave of pure, unbridled anger. I was probably just frustrated or disappointed, and that emotion had changed into anger as some form of mental or emotional defense mechanism, but, yet again and as usual, I digress.
I took my anger out on something pure and defenseless, and I still haven't gotten over it, completely. I saw something that looked happy and content and beautiful, and in my rage, railed at it.
I will confess. Here goes:
I kicked a pine cone.
"Well, that was anticlimactic," said the reader disdainfully, and went on to the next blog, looking for something of substance. Stay, reader! Allow me to explain! Or don't; your disinterest is no skin off of my back.
The pine cone was kicked, I say, by the rubber-clad sole of a person whose inner turmoil had caused her blind strife. I would have NEVER given myself over to something so distructive otherwise! Okay, that isn't true... if I had been in my room, maybe I would have thrown something there, too. Something mooshy, who would forgive me by way of my hugs and tears. The things in my room see me every day-- they know my disposition.
But this pine cone, poor, defenseless thing... it had fallen from its tree (or had been chucked from the back of a landscape van, or what have you), and was sitting, nice and fat and spiky, on the sidewalk. It was minding its own business. It was warming in the sun. It had no interest in my or my affairs. It looked to perfect, so peaceful, and I was infuriated by it.
So I kicked it.
As soon as my angry shoe struck the frozen fountain of wood, I felt a pang of regret. What had I done? How could I have let my anger hurt something else? I would NEVER have done something like that to a person! I would never have ripped up a flower in anger, nor crunched a beetle, nor thrown a rock at a pretty glass window! How could I have been so cruel!? I chased it into the road, elicting a shout from the occupant of a (slow moving, it wouldn't have hit me) car. I cradled it in my hands-- it pricked me! It hurt, and I bled a little. But I wouldn't let it go. I held it to me, ignoring the stickiness that coated my hands. I ignored the little pricks that cut my fingers. I took it to me to my next class, and the next, lementing over the broken spines, the dented rump.
What right? What awful right? None! I had seen how happy it was, and in my fury, in my jealousy, I sought to hurt something that was completely and utterly defenseless. I had rarely felt so poisoned by cruelty, by my own cruelty.
Dear reader, you say, "It has no beating heart! It has no blood, no veins! It has no nerves, no brain... it wasn't even rooted in the ground, if that's what you're so worried about! You didn't hurt it! What are you blabbering about?"
But how can you say so? Are YOU a pine cone? Are YOU an "inanimate, feelingless object"? How can YOU tell me, then, if it doesn't think and feel? Do you put so much faith in our human sciences and faceless FACTS to preach nervous systems and brains and bread and butter to ME? What right, I say, have YOU?
I took it home with me. I put it on my shelf, next to my friends The Stick and The Brown Pod of Oval Seeds. I had made friends with them before, but on different terms. It seemed happy there, next to my book of Goblins and my pile of laundry quarters. I packed it up in a box two days ago, and brought it home, buffered for the rollicking trip by a folded up dress shirt. I like it. It is my new friend. I do not mind it when it pricks me, because I have pricked it. We get along. We understand each other.
You may find me crazy now, reader. I understand, and I don't mind. I have known worse feelings than the rejection of a skeptic. Better to be a skeptic and be THINKING than a brainless idiot who follows sheep and doesn't think at all. I prefer to be rejected by a thinker than a sheep... although sheep can be nice. They wear nice wool coats.
My parting question to you, friend, before you take the path away from this raving, cone-befriending lunatic, is this: Does it MATTER whether or not the pine cone could feel me? It taught me a valuable lesson about treating all things with kindness, and bridling your own anger, about not taking it out on others. It checked my passion.
Have you ever kicked a stone in blind fury? Maybe you actually DO know what I mean. Think on it, reader. It's something to think about, at the very least. And thinking... that's good.
Catherine Greenfield-- Nature, by Definition...
Be forewarned: the following string of seemingly mindless verbosity doesn't actually go anywhere in particular. It meanders. If you don't like to walk wiggly mental pathways, than this post is not for you.I was reading the first page of A Continuous Harmony by Wendell Berry; this isn't a post about anything from the book, though... it's about a definition I was questioning, and took upon myself to follow up.
Dictionary.com gives a number of definitions for the word "Nature." Here are two:
1.the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
8.the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character: human nature.
With these two definitions in mind, I would like to assert that references to things "natural" have been warped by society as of late. Is it stands, "natural" has come to mean "organic," at least in supermarkets and shoe stores (you can even buy organic dresses... who comes up with this stuff?). The most commonly accepted definition of Organic is as follows:
11.pertaining to, involving, or grown with fertilizers or pesticides of animal or vegetable origin, as distinguished from manufactured chemicals: organic farming; organic fruits.
This definition applies to the first definition of Nature. But what of the second? What of the QUALITIES of the thing? By deeming Nature as being something organic, we are objectifiying it. There is a HUGE difference, if I may be so crass as to say so, between wiping your ass with "organic" toilet paper and wiping your ass with a leaf in the woods. Nature, by nature (if I may be so bold as to pun), is all about the fittest surviving. Evolution (God based or what have you) weeds out all things-- this is obvious. If you're dumb enough to wipe yourself off with poison ivy, than hopefully you'll learn from it. If you don't, than Nature won't miss you when you're kicked out of the gene pool. It'll make good use of your spare parts, though-- nature can be thrifty like that.
Now, in this class, we have been attempting to talk about Nature as a SUBJECT-- this was a point made in a recent lecture. As such, we have talked of Nature as if it can think and feel, as if it has a consciousness (which I, personally, do not doubt). But the way we have discussed Nature's ability to speak with us OBJECTIFIES it, in my opinion. Looking at a tree and seeing signs that it survived a fire is NOT, in my opinion, treespeak. That would be like looking at a man with one leg and a purple heart pinned to his chest, and saying that he TOLD you, with his own mouth, about his injury. No he didn't. You were just being observant. You'll know if someone wiped his ass with the wrong leaf by his walk. However, although you may be able to epethise (Which, for your sake, I hope isn't the case), you won't actually know how he FEELS until he tells you. But I can bet you can guess what he'll say...
We have neglected, I feel, to discuss the nature of Nature. The hows and whatfors of the thing are all well and good, and I appreciate them intellectually. But getting to the absolute roots, feeling and becoming a part of these things that we discuss with scholarly reverence... that, I feel, has been missed. I'm not complaining, really; after all, it would be hard, if not impossible, to teach a class about something as personal and, to some people, as difficult as communing with nature on a soul-to-soul level. I appreciate the intellectual side of things, too.
But I feel that it is not just as a class, but as a generation, as... as a species. We have objectified the Earth beyond all possible recognition. People think that by wearing hemp and buying organic vegetables, they're doing something about it. And some of them are! Some people really do see the world for what it is, and talk WITH the world, not AT the world or ABOUT the world. But others will... they'll think about doing things, and they'll do them, and they'll think, "I am saving the Earth." But what are they doing? They're saving a big mass of rock hurtling through space, because they happen to live on it, and it's not nice to live on a garbage heap. They're not thinking, "I am strangling my mother. I should release my grip and let her breathe. And then I should listen to her for a while, and learn from her gentle rhythms how to better myself, and the world around me. I should learn how to keep her happy, and myself happy, so I can talk to her when her mouth isn't full of non-biodegradable products."
Some would say, "There isn't a difference-- at least they are TRYING." And I agree; as long as people are trying to do good, than it's okay. Than all will be well. But I guess my question on the matter is this: Is there a difference? Is it enough to just want to clean up the Earth because it's messy and we don't like messy? Is it enough to want to fix IT as opposed to want to heal a FRIEND? What, then, is the difference between someone who rolls in the grass and takes long hikes to he or she can be a part of something that hasn't yet been devoured by humankind, and someone who changes her baby's non-biodegradable diaper by way of efficient light bulbs? At least they are TRYING. Is that enough?
Rambleramblerambleverbosepostramble...
Something else for me to think on for a while, I guess.
P.S.
I thought I would add that all of the photographs I have posted on my blogs are photographs I took on campus last spring... try to guess where they are; I'll bet you have seen these things before!
Catherine Greenfield-- A Different Kind of Tree-- In relation to A Continuous Harmony
"Walking among all these flowers, I cannot see enough. One is aware of the abundance of lovely things-forms, scents, colors-lavished on the earth beyond any human capacity to perceive or number or imitate." p.46, A Continuous Harmony.
There is a bush on campus that is absolutely dripping with bright, delicious flowers right now. The bees bumble about, completely at a loss as to which downy petal to court first. It doesn't seem like it could hold a single flower more-- it's as if it is so excited, so absolutely delighted with the world and itself that it can do nothing more to express it than push petal after petal out through it's woody skin.
I wish I could express myself like that.
I can't see enough of how beautiful it all is, either. I wish I had more eyes to see it, more fingers to touch it, more toes to wriggle in it, more mouths to breathe it, more noses to smell it, more tongues to sing the praises of this beautiful, beautiful earth! The sky is so blue, the blackness of the tree bark against it as stark as true love, and I want to burst out of my skin and be a part of all of it. I want to love it with my entire self, open up my chest and pull it all inside of me, open up the bedecked bushes and wrap myself in them until I have sprouted branches, budded with leaves, pushed petals through my lips and eyes and fingers, and bloomed with it all as literally and figuratively as that bush on campus. Why can't I?
That's one reason why I am a music major-- the closes thing I can think of to sprouting branches and rooting my feet in the soil, drinking in the soul of the place, is learning how to take it through my body and release it through my human mouth. I want to be able to express how beautiful everything is, because God didn't give me petals or leaves or branches. He did not give me patience with a brush or a steady hand with pastels. He didn't give me fluidity of movement or dancing limbs. He gave me a voice, though. And he gave me willpower, and love, and eyes that can see the painting and dancing and explosions of glory around me. I will make songleaves and songflowers. My voice will be the brush, the fountain pen, the light and delicate feet. The world is my medium. I do not have roots. I do not have branches. But somehow, someway, someday... I will be the bush.
I love everything.
Catherine Greenfield-- Let the Circle Be Unbroken...
I was reading one of Amanda DeSalme's posts, and started thinking about the sacred life exchange. Are we, speaking of current American society as a whole and removing outliers from the picture, really a part of the great circle? We put our dead in coffins and crypts; we burn their flesh and place their ashes in urns. They never go back to the earth. Most people do not participate in a sacred life exchange when we eat, because they never give back-- when they die, they want their bodies to be placed in certain places, in certain ways. I read once that, in Japan, some grave sites have been relocated to the roofs of buildings that were erected in that space. The dead are cremated and put in those sky-scraping graveyards. According to the article I read, the Japanese culture views the tradition of placing bodies in caskets and burying them disgusting, because they see the decaying
flesh as disgusting. It is better, to them, to cremate the body, because then it will not have to go through the humiliating process of decaying.
Does that make sense? What is so bad about the decaying process? All things decay... or, maybe they don't if we don't let them. If the wood siding on your house starts to mold (which, seeing as how it's wood and outside, would make sense), you power-wash it. Strip it of that new cling-on life form. If you get mildew in your caulking, you get some sort of powerful, acidic cleaner to strip the life right out of it... and the first layer of skin from your hands, while it's at it. Termites, those little speed-decayers, who grind the wood up nice and small so the earth can have bite-sized pieces to munch into soil, are exterminated by the boatload. Leave us be, we scream with our Clorox and our Comit, leave us be, we don't want to be a part of this!
But how much of a choice do we have? We are made to decay. Our cheeks hollow as the firm skin loosens, round and supple arms bag and wrinkle at the elbow; bones grow brittle and lose their ability to hold our forms upright; fingernails won't grow with strength anymore; hair slows its growth as well, becoming dryer, colourless, less of a hassle for the earthworms and trundling beetles. We are supposed to be returned to the earth, like everything else. And so we inject ourselves with our man-made, indestructible plastics. Women pad the insides of their useless, flopping breasts with more man-made material-- THAT won't fail her, the way nature has failed her quest for immortal beauty. A plastic Aphrodite. A Steroid-pumped Apollo. Both in their white Styrofoam crowns survey what they have made, survey their battlements and moats against the inevitable, and see that it is good. But it is not good.
Ha. A funny thought just came into my head.
What will happen when, thousands of years from now, man has died out, to be replaced with a similarly inquisitive race of beings who, during their archaeological digs, find something strange beneath the silt and sands-- breasted bones! Skulls with plastic cheeks and lips! It's like something off of a bad 80's half-shirt, minus the BBQs and the cut-off jeans...
There's something very backwards about our determination to not fit in with the rest of the world, right down to our refusal to decompose. I am going to think about this some more...
Abigail Thomas, 4/23 lecture
04/23’s lecture was confusing and I felt that I didn’t get closure. Ideas and statements were made without practical examples or applications. The area I found most confusing was that the language of science is math and numbers but I don’t think math is the language of science. I also don’t think ‘objective’ is subjective enough when describing science and its process, methods or purpose. The only thing I could imagine was computers as being objective.
When I think of the language of science I think of science journals. Journals are studies, they’ll refer to what’s been studied what they’re studying and what could be studied. It’s like building blocks: the study is the material block and the references to what was and what could be studied are the adhesions and connectors to the pattern or journeys of the studies.
The math part is important but it makes up only one section (one objective section) as the ‘results’ section. The ‘results’ section is where the numbers (and graphs) are kept and the rest is discussing results: ‘discussion’ and ‘conclusion’ and before the results section there’s ‘abstract,’ ‘introduction,’ and ‘methods and materials.’
When I think of the language of science I think of science journals. Journals are studies, they’ll refer to what’s been studied what they’re studying and what could be studied. It’s like building blocks: the study is the material block and the references to what was and what could be studied are the adhesions and connectors to the pattern or journeys of the studies.
The math part is important but it makes up only one section (one objective section) as the ‘results’ section. The ‘results’ section is where the numbers (and graphs) are kept and the rest is discussing results: ‘discussion’ and ‘conclusion’ and before the results section there’s ‘abstract,’ ‘introduction,’ and ‘methods and materials.’
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
