Both pieces resonated that knowingness of belonging to that something greater, how alive the "who" in you becomes in the places we call wild: gazing and being gazed at, listening and being listened to.What I can appreciate about Muir's writing is how it sheds light on what how one conceives Nature as a reflection of an understanding about ourselves.

There is an "asking" quality to his storytelling, probing the bigger question of how does woman/man consciously chose to relate to the natural world? On the other hand, I think that is telling of the clashed worldviews that transpired across the Americas
(as elsewhere in the world) on how peoples perceived natural phenomena in their environment. As evident from his description of "Digger Indians" a.k.a. the Pauite, that he conceived Native peoples as almost not being "capable of" sharing his conception of beauty; later just as Thoreau did as well, after actually having a lived exchange (actually living with Natives in Alaska, I believe) his perception of Natives changed, and I presume contemplated his notions of the savage -civilized matrix.

His reference to the class-based distinction of the business man and miner mirror what is (and will be) indeed the same today & tomorrow about how we are: whether it's the 3-piece suited corporate whatever who takes his "recreational" time in the outdoors or a person self-sustaining from their place on the land to the "other" person, we are another species part of Nature, not separate from, even as our arrested development continues...no matter what the influences upon our lives may be, it is that innate biophilia in us all -humankind-, that connects us all to being a part of this Nature. It is an older story part of our collective human consciousness.