Fields Recordings From The Sea

close
more_vert
nigelswift N
nigelswift Apr 21, 2004 00:55:42
Replying to TomBo

"Its hard to deny that today we (as a culture) believe ourselves nature's master."

Probably. But that's not necessarily a change of attitude, merely an observation of our apparent success. Trying to harness nature is a very human ambition, that goes right back. Was there an earlier point where there was an Eden where we didn't need to do that? Not in this latitude I'd have thought. If such a situation existed you'd have to go back a lot further than the coming of agriculture to Europe to find it wouldn't you, and look for a climatic zone of ease.

Assuming there was, then the suggestion that many people seem to imply is that there was a corresponding Eden of the mind, where we were at one with Nature? To test it, all I can do is look at my own psyche, to see if it's there, and I don't see in that form. My sense of harmony on the hills relates to a modified landscape. I think I'd be a lot less neurosis free if it was original dense and forbidding forest. That also must come from somewhere, mustn't it?

N nigelswift
nigelswift Apr 21, 2004 01:29:27
Replying to nigelswift

I think what I'm trying to say is this (though who knows?)...

that Mr Cope implies we made a great mistake when we broke our harmonious link with nature, whereas I wonder if there was ever any such harmony to be lost. Nature is never truly Edenic, always a bit scary and our ideal has always been a situation where we can control it to some degree and this remains in our deepest feelings today.

I can offer zero evidence for this, other than psychological evidence, gathered by self-analysis on Crickley Hill this afternoon!

T TomBo
TomBo Apr 21, 2004 01:41:13
Replying to nigelswift

Interesting that you'd mention Eden, since that's exactly the word that came to my mind at AQ's description of such bountiful conditions. I'm tempted to say that there has never been a perfect world, but perhaps there have been relatively brief and beautiful periods of abundance, in specific locations, that would live up to the name of Eden.

Regarding the Eden of the mind, the state of consciousness you describe as "oneness with nature". Would you agree that there's a difference between the consciousness of humans and that of animals? That's what I'm talking about, whichever terms you prefer to define it with. You're quite right, it wasn't a change of attitude. It was much more than that - the birth of a new kind of consciousness. Overlaid over the old one, obviously, but a new "layer" nevertheless.

"My sense of harmony on the hills relates to a modified landscape. I think I'd be a lot less neurosis free if it was original dense and forbidding forest. That also must come from somewhere, mustn't it?"

Again, by the same token, I know at least one person who hates going up into the hills precisely because of the lack of trees. She far prefers the leafy valleys. The perception of a forest as "dense and forbidding" is at least partly subjective, and not everyone would feel the same way. Although there's nobody whose never felt afraid in the darkness, I sometimes happily spend hours out of doors at night, when some people I know would be too freaked to leave the house!

I think its better to look to the psyche of animals to "test it", not necessarily our own feelings. Surely you'd agree that animals have a "oneness" with nature that humans have lost? I'm not suggesting that this fills their lives with perfection and joy, for nature is red in tooth and claw. But the difference in our respective states of consciousness is surely there.

Just bouncing ideas around, y'know... I reserve, as always, the right to allow my opinions to change and grow! ;)