Wright....

While reading Wright, I thought to myself -Nature is, after all, her own best spokeswoman. It's creative verbal thinking, her writing allows for the seeing & feeling she names. An image, vision of a pattern, intuition, lead to a seed of thought.

Jefferies' writing felt contradictory to me. Amidst all natural phenomena -all plants & animals adapt to their environment creatively- precisely because the grass of the golden meadow is part of the divine, there is a design, an inherent purpose, even if man/woman can't see/know it. After squinting real hard to read this, I feel it's a prime example of how there are guiding stories that form the frame of reference for a people and how they understand themselves. These stories inform us, people then normalize & internalize what has been learned, and then we take apart and restructure interpretation. I assume he reached his own newer level of understanding. I hope he was able to perceive that the human being is not separate from the rest of nature.

Jefferies response

I like when people acknowledge what is human made and what is nature. Jefferies does just that at the end of 298, he comments that economy, thrift, wealth are inventions. I agree and it is important for people to see nature as a separate being from human civilization. When learning about the environment is it important to see a tree for its part in the ecosystem, for the things it does, not just seeing what the wood is used for and how we use it. That said we have also depended on nature for our world, therefore it is important to know how the environment fits in with the economy, wealth, land management.

I love winter, for many reasons but one of the reasons is to go skating on the river in Winnipeg. Every winter it is amazing for me to see the banks of the river from the view point of the river. In spring we sit on the banks and watch the ice melt and float down the river and in summer we walk along the banks to get to friends houses, or to collect clay. We see the plants and trees close up, but in winter we get to look up at where the plants and green trees are and remember the time when it was green. I liked reading Jefferies winter remembering because the seasons are amazing especially when you remember a particular spot. Remembering where plants sprung up is also a great way to deal with cabin fever.

Jeffereis and Wright

Alright so after reading Muir last week I guess I was expecting the same kind of writing this week and I was wrong. I was not that intrigued when I read Jefferies, Out of Doors in February. I kept getting off track and go back to re-read. However, I did enjoy reading Absence of Design in Nature because it was interesting to read what Jefferies was feeling during his time. It was really interesting to see how he analyzed "nature's forces." For example, when Jefferies said, "From childhood we build up ourselves an encyclopaedia of the world, answering all questions: we turn to Day, and the reply is Light; to Night, and the reply is Darkness. It is difficult to burst through these fetters and to get beyond Day and Night: but, in truth, there is no Day and Night; the sun always shines." It would have been interesting to be there with Jefferies when he figured out that the sun is always shinning even when we can't see it because it's night. I take for granted the knowledge of knowing what day and night is, but in Jefferies time (1848-1887) people are just starting to go through the steps to figuring out that knowledge. I enjoy reading these readings from this book because they help me see a new perspective on how things were or are thought.

The Story of a Garden was also a good read. I liked how Wright was able to go through a story about how a garden changes and evolves with the growing boy. This reading helped me appreciate all the surrounding aspects a garden holds. Like the music of the birds, the plants, the smells, etc.

Jefferies/Wright

"Out of Doors In February" made me think this heat had disappeared, but then I stepped outside. It's a hot one for sure. At first I thought Jefferies was similar to Leopold, but after reading "Absence of Design in Nature" I felt otherwise. Leopold was born the year after Jefferies died. Jefferies ideas could not be more different than Leopold's. I believe Jefferies "Absence" reflected some of the general scientific thought of the time. It's almost comical to think about form without function. Whenever I read a piece like this I often wonder what people in the future will say about our current line of thinking. I can here them now? Will they have a similar "inevitable conclusion that there is no object, no end, no design, and no plan; no anything that is." It could be argued that Jefferies was referring to a Divine plan, but I think he means otherwise. It's as if he sees nature as nature. A random occurrence of interactions. Suprisingly, this was possible written near Darwin's 1859 Origin of the Species. Could this be a response to Darwin's great work, or was it written before? We know that Darwin wasn't widely accepted at first. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the exact publication date of "Absence."

I've always loved the name Mabel. It was Hannah's grandmother's name, and will be the name of our first child if it's a girl, and if we ever have children. Mabel has a gift of describing the things we see, but do not see on a daily basis. She reminds us that a garden isn't just a garden. There is a microcosm of life in those beds. Mabel encourages us to sit outside and see. I now understand why the editors associate her with Michael Pollen. He too has the gift of writing about something familiar in a new way.

High on Nature...

I am sitting on the front porch of the house and dark clouds, winds and rain are coming out of no where. I am a scardy cat and go inside to finish reading. Muir on the other hand goes outside because e figures he is just as safe outside as inside. Wow. Now he goes and climbs a tree to experience the storm from above.
I really enjoyed reading Muir because he spoke about nature as a being or spirit. It wasn't all that scientific and it was clear that he had a relationship with nature. There seemed to be give and take from both Muir and nature. In some ways I am jealous that his comfort with nature is so extreme but in other ways I think that not everyone can, nor wants too.

I think that Muir has a wonderful way of thinking and experiencing nature and I know that I will never climb a tree in a storm or canoe in Alaska I think that reading him makes me understand others a little better, see the beauty that someone else sees.

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.

Muir

John Muir is crazy, but in a good way. Several years ago I discovered he lived in Indianapolis, IN. Since I’m from Indiana, I was instantly interested. Before he became the Muir we all know and love, he worked at a factory in Indianapolis. He was injured at the factory and lost his eyesight. After the accident he was confined to a dark room for six weeks, and he wondered if he would every regain his ability to see. When he did regain his eyesight everything changed. He packed his bags and left for Florida. I’ve also read that he was a minimalist. On his thousand-mile walk to the gulf he took the following: “a comb, a brush, a towel, a bar of soap, a change of underclothing, a copy of Burn’s poems, Milton’s Paradise Lost, Wood’s Botany, a small New Testament, his journal, a map, and a plant press.” Incredible. I think we’ve all had these “lightbulb moments.” Something happens and suddenly our eyes are opened to a world we’ve never seen. Muir does a great job of describing the excitement that comes with these awakens. He’s always full of life. Unlike Thoreau, he never seems to lose his enthusiasm. I want to encorporate this kind of thinking in my own life. It also doesn’t hurt that he’s a birder. His description of the American Dipper, a.k.a the Water Ouzel, or the Water Thrush was amazingly poetic. It’s as if he knows the Ouzel. Some would say this is anthropomorphism. I say otherwise. Muir’s passion for nature exceeds his desire to formalize his experiences.