Language serves as a means of control, control over human behavior in relation to nature (and in relation to other humans). And as a means of separation. Though this is very limiting, I can understand it, especially when I reconsider man's often ruthless behavior toward nature. And here, it is even a special case because I am talking about nature created and mantained by humans.
Furthermore, language does not only control human's behavior by prohibiting certain actions, it also says what we should/could do: "MEDITATION AREA" and "MEDITATION WALK." I was wondering if we really need these signs and 'hints', if we are not able to figure this out by ourselves.
Furthermore, language does not only control human's behavior by prohibiting certain actions, it also says what we should/could do: "MEDITATION AREA" and "MEDITATION WALK." I was wondering if we really need these signs and 'hints', if we are not able to figure this out by ourselves.
My second perspective, the biological one, focused on the different trees in Audubon Park. I had this idea before I even started the walk because of the list of trees and animals in this park. Reading this list, I realized that I did not have a clue how some of them look like and I had to look them up in a book/the internet. In the park, I collected different leaves and made some sketches this morning (Wednesday was just too cold to sit down for a longer time). Because of the season, a couple of trees are without leaves but I could still find dried ones. This also made me aware of the concurrency of life and decay in nature: one tree is still bare but the grass is already green, clover is everywhere and I even found first daffodils. This is fascinating, and still captivates me, especially as it is still 'real' winter in Germany.
After the walk I tried to identify the leaves but it was not as easy as I thought. There is so much more to observe, the constellation of leaves, the structure of the bark etc. because some leaves really look alive. So my approach to this was a bit naive but it made again clear how complex nature is.
Though I first thought that I cannot combine these two perspectives, I'm now thinking I can; I can do so by opposing them. Language is restrictive (though only in this particular case, I cannot generalize this and do not want to do so. Literature can be breathtaking and gorgeous) whereas nature is limitless. And this makes me think of my/our role on Earth. We are "only" humans, we live for some decades. But Nature is something incomparable, everlasting (if we do not destroy it)...and admirable.
A last thought: I am again and again surprised how different I experience nature/certain spaces when I try to focus on something. Last semester, I did another walking tour, focussing on the Romantic mind - and the experience was totally different from the current walking tour. I saw and considered completely different things. And this shows me that I can see new things/sides/arguments if I am only able to change my perspective, if I do not get stuck in an all too familiar and restricted world of thoughts. I dare to say (but very cautious) that I get a first feeling of what it means to deal with Environmental Studies.
I thought this observation of the restricted use of language was a very good one. Even in a place dedicated to nature, we have still infiltrated with our language. And in order to maintain its natural state, we must restrict our actions, the actions of creatures begotten of nature. Another testament to the growing divide between humans and our roots.
ReplyDelete