It is simple to ask a person to look upon a landscape, yet, to “see” is an entirely different process. The trained eye observes the clandestine qualities of wilderness in ways dissimilar to the common viewer. In this way, I found it difficult to switch of my biological reasoning: numerous concepts and theories which were pumped into my head since seventh-grade life-science. While observing the areas surrounding the Noland Trail and Lion’s Bridge my focus teeter-tottered between seeking minute detail and experiencing the feeling of the place. I caught myself staring intently at bits of bright-colored moss or may apples spiraling up from the ground like unopened umbrellas. Annie Dillard writes in her essay, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, that she “…just can’t see the artificial obvious that those in the know construct” (18). For me it is the same, as well as the opposite. According to Professor Stewart Edward White, the difference is natural and artificial obviousness. I want to see both sides, but the conscious effort limits that ability.
It is difficult to apply what can easily be said about seeing and recognizing the spirituality of a place; even the woods along the Lion’s Bridge voice lessons for those willing to cast aside self-awareness and connect. Artificial obvious and natural obvious can be balanced, so that neither aspect of seeing or experiencing may be leaned upon to heavily. I prefer to be conscious of both the scientific and spiritual aspects of nature in order to get the most from it, yet keep the experiences separate as to prevent a narrowing of subconscious scope.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment