Fields Recordings From The Sea

close
more_vert
TomBo T
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! ;)

T TomBo
TomBo Apr 21, 2004 01:48:09
Replying to TomBo

This thread has made me look at the monuments in a slightly different light, but it hasn't fundamentally altered what I think. The stones and mounds being the result of settling, rather than agriculture, as AQ suggests, actually strengthens Mr. Cope's argument. Settling is crucial to the development of cities, perhaps more so than agriculture? It is certainly a concept that defines what a city is more accurately than that of agriculture. Cities, of course, being the defining characteristic of "civilization"...

T TomBo
TomBo Apr 21, 2004 01:51:02
Replying to TomBo

"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."

She finds the lack of trees disturbing because she knows the menace to our safety that the deforestation of the Earth is causing. Just like you'd find the presence of trees threatening because of a perception of personal danger. Our "success" in controlling our environment is an illusion, and we will soon learn that we are not nature's master.

N nigelswift
nigelswift Apr 21, 2004 07:30:24
Replying to TomBo

"Would you agree that there's a difference between the consciousness of humans and that of animals?"
Wow, don't hold back on the big questions, will you?

I'm not as sure about that as the tone of your question seems to assume. The thing is, if you're as sure about the omnipotence of evolution as a Christian is about the omnipotence of God then you see confirmation of it everywhere. So I can very clearly see us as more than the animals but not as different from them. Not as having acquired a quality that is totally new and different. Only the inanimate and the dead can undergo change so radical that their nature is utterly lost and they become something else…

"Full fathom five thy father lies,
Of his bones are corals made;
Nothing of him doth remain
But hath suffered a sea-change
Into something rich and strange."

But for we poor saps who live and breathe, we're prisoners of our ancestors, pinned to the tree of life and connected to every part of it. Much of our freedom of thought, indeed much of our thought, much of our notion of self, is illusory. We think and feel as we must through our natures, And we owe our natures to no-one but our ancestors, and they to theirs. We still carry our pre-human heritage around with us in our heads, surely? People who's embryos have gills shouldn't claim to be anything special, as I said at the vicarage tea party…

N nigelswift
nigelswift Apr 21, 2004 08:05:06
Replying to TomBo

""Surely you'd agree that animals have a "oneness" with nature that humans have lost?"

That concept seems to bounce round discussions of pre-monumental history all the time, not the bit about animals but the concept that we've lost something, lost our way, had a biblical fall, made a huge Copeic mistake.

Well I agree absolutely that crowding and concrete breed psychoses, and gardening is good for you, and modern life can be bad for us as it can engender unhealthy attitudes and we're not well equipped for it. And I agree that a simple rural life is probably what we're naturally designed for and the best thing for us.

But I get puzzled about the "oneness with nature" mullarkey. What evidence can there be that there was once such an attitude?
Civil-isation might have had bad side effects but that's not a reason to postulate a fall from a state of grace, unless there's evidence. Is Mr Cope under the influence of Christianity?