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!
1 comment:
D. Ryan Foster, natural definitions
4/27/08
I thought about this for a long time and while you are much more adept at the nonintellectual than I, I will attempt to add my two-cents from the point of a history major, at least as far as the definition of nature goes. It is frustrating to me to notice this subtle shift in the modern definition of nature as well and it originates in schools of thought. When a 5th century Greek spoke the Greek word for nature or natural it held a completely different than we use today. To the Aristotle, nature is the intended path of growth that something might follow. It may be the nature of a tree to go tall or strong but it again may be the nature of another tree but it is not natural to become a spear haft, not because it isn't base or organic but because that isn't the purpose of a tree, it is man's purpose for a tree. For example, the nature of a man is to grow strong in wisdom, body, and moral. I say man because the nature of a woman to a Greek would have been a much different thing. Not every person or object can be natural either. An uneducated thief is still a man but may never become a natural man and for that matter the spear haft is not natural wood as natural wood would be in the tallest and strongest of the trees, rooted in the earth. This concept of nature as perfection, the natural acorn is a tree, the natural river meanders to the sea in strong currents, is no longer the definition of nature.
The new definition of nature has grown (couldn't resist my own pun) from the vaunted Enlightenment. Many of the arrogances and issues you have with modern culture rise from these Enlightenment idealists whose ideals are anything but to people who do not proscribe to their philosophy. But that is when nature became the base state. A natural tree no longer was the tallest and sturdiest, but was now the one least touched by humans, this separation of man from nature. A natural government wasn't the fairest and perfect, but was rather the one that arises without interference. A natural man was no longer the wisest, fittest, and most moral, but is now however savage or immersed in wilderness. I reject this definition of nature and embrace rather the Greek definition. I refuse to believe that that hemp bracelet or that organic tomato is natural, but rather the fullest and sweetest tomato or the strongest and highest tensile hemp that the wilds or man working with the wilds might produce is instead more natural. I challenge that the best tasting fruit made from engineered labs may be in effect more natural than the one that was grown in organic dung and labeled with an all natural sign at your local grocery. I want to thank you for posting this entry, challenging the definition of nature and pointing at the separation of humans and nature and developing us more and more as non-natural beings and the worship of nature adds to that distinction as we distance ourselves and give permission to our own hands to define what is and is not natural.
Post a Comment