nature – Houghton STAR

I grew up in trees. I loved to climb to the highest branches during a storm to be part of their dance with the wind, or to wrap my legs around the lowest branch and swing down to see the world from a new perspective. My love for trees was so faithful that the day the Old Maple in my yard was cut down, I did not talk to my parents for the rest of the day. But, I also grew up pulling the legs off of spiders with my older siblings and making a pile of their bodies. These juxtaposing images of my childhood pastimes illustrate the conflict between my appreciation and relationship with the earth, and a learned posture of entitlement over the created world.

My posture of entitlement assumed a hierarchy of value: myself and all of humanity at the top, and Nature at the bottom. I only knew, despite my life-long love for trees, nature’s purpose to be a resource for human use and exploitation. I did not know the intrinsic value of the earth.

Nature is not part of a hierarchy with humanity, it is meant to be in relationship with us — a relationship we have the responsibility to reconcile. Dorothy Sayers, a nineteenth century Oxford intellect and writer, postulates, in her book ‘The Mind of the Maker’, that we are made in the image of God, Imago Dei, and God is the Creator of all, so we therefore are “mini-creators”. Sayers goes further to state that we, as “mini-creators”, have the ability to create “good” and “evil”, and the responsibility to create “good”. We can find clear examples of this truth all around us: in our relationships, our school work, our treatment of our bodies, etc. But more evasive are the examples of “creating” that do not appear directly linked to the relational or physical formation of “making” something. For example, when we buy a product we do not think of it as creating, but the action of purchasing a product helps create a demand for that product. Whether extrinsically or intrinsically, we are always creating.

If we believe we create with every thought, word, and action, what then should our relationship be toward the created world around us? Traditionally, our posture toward the earth in the Western hemisphere has been one of ownership and dominance. We have interacted with nature on the prideful basis of control over its resources and have exploited them according to our “needs”. Instead of varying crops or resting fields to replenish the soil, we plant acres upon acres of corn, ignoring the depletion of nutrients, to feed the demand for cheap, conservable goods. We have damaged our relationship with the earth, as Hopkins illustrates in his poem ‘God’s Grandeur’: “Generations have trod, have trod have trod;/And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;/And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil/Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.” We have put on our shoes and deceived ourselves into believing that what we create (demand, waste, carbon dioxide, etc.) has no lasting degenerative impact.

Where does that leave us? Beyond holding the ideal to create “good”, what are we to do? What we do will look different according to each person, community, environment, etc. Instead, we should ask: how can we be in a reconciled relationship with Nature? Just as we hold the responsibility to be in right relationship with each other and live in community together, so we hold the responsibility to be in a reconciled relationship, and live in community, with the earth. If we know how to be in right relationship, then our actions will, albeit imperfectly, reflect Whose image we are made in. To learn how to do that, well, I recommend listening to the geese: “….the wild geese, high in the clean blue air,/are heading home again./Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,/the world offers itself to your imagination,/calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting/over and over announcing your place/in the family of things.” (Mary Oliver, ‘Wild Geese’)

“Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” – Henry David Thoreau

Nature speaks to us and we constantly feel a transcendent urge to experience its sublime beauty. Our youth culture today often resonates strongly with this call of the wild. However, romantic yearning should not be flippantly sought after as a scapegoat by which humanity may bypass troubles in daily life. Too often people want to experience nature without further thought regarding the emotions they may become filled with.

After the above sentiments you may feel as if I starkly hope classical rationality may defeat this artistic and creative Romantic ideal. Let me quickly dismiss that thought: I do not condone a conquest; I propose a balance.

As Robert M. Pirsig states in his book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, “To reject the part of the Buddha that attends to the analysis of motorcycles is to miss the Buddha entirely.” This philosophical novel both explores the twisting back roads of America, as well as surveys the many roads of reason within the mind. “Motorcycle riding is romantic and the motorcycle maintenance is purely classical.” Both are necessary parts that must exist in dichotomy with one another. This first-person narrative nonfiction chronicles a 17-day motorcycle trip, that the author and his son take from Minnesota to California. The main highlights during this trip are the various philosophical discussions that Pirsig refers to as “Chautauquas”. The author wants to, “Pursue further now that same ghost that Phaedrus pursued- rationality itself, that dull, complex, classical ghost for underlying form.” The name Phaedrus here serves as a third person outlook on the author, while also a reference to Plato’s dialogue. Pirsig conveys how rationality is indeed often, “dull and complex,” but nevertheless important for humanity to expound upon. Throughout the author’s pilgrimage of sorts he realizes that, “the classic reality is primarily theoretic, but has its own esthetics too. The romantic reality is primarily esthetic, but has its theory too.” Pirsig finds that both Eastern aesthetic emphasis and Western rationality are valuable philosophical understandings that will aid us in attaining individual spirituality.

This new epiphany of Pirsig’s does not set his mind at ease, but instead leads him to yet another question- the question of Quality. He wants to understand how someone or something attains Quality, and soon his obsession over Quality begins to drive him to insanity. After a difficult time, his metaphysics of Quality cause him to conclude that, “The Quality which creates the world emerges as a relationship between man and his experience. He (humanity) is a participant in the creation of all things.” Therefore, Pirsig finds a viable means to link both Romantic idealism and Classical reasoning together in a fluid thought process, which compounds his own feelings towards the ideal of Quality.

Pirsig ultimately reminds us that if we want the “truth” that Thoreau and others speak of we cannot just go out into the world. To seek comfort in Nature is fine, though we must remember that we, as cognitive beings, must also realize our capacity for understanding beneath the surface qualities initially experienced.

Now, friends I urge you to begin your own Chautauqua. Curl up with a good book (e.g. this one) and a hot cup of coffee for the afternoon. Then go out into the crisp November air and experience Nature for all that it may offer to you. And as Pirsig states, “Remember that it’s peace of mind you’re after and not just a fixed machine.” Eastern romantic appreciation and Western classical understanding are both necessary. Learn from both. Balance both. Embrace both.