# Northern Arizona University/Environmental Ethics/Journals/Cynthia P's Journal

08/31/09 #1
A call for a land ethic by Aldo Leopold is difficult to envision as a pragmatic solution to conserving the land. This value based argument rests on the notion that there can be group consensus of fair and proper treatment of the biotic community. The land defines itself in different ways for different species. The “biotic pyramid model” represents this dynamically evolving system of nature. So the complexity of natural processes and the innumerous biotic communities limits our ability to say what is the right way and the wrong way of impact.
In order for us to co-operate with earth for the sake of the biota we may have to yield our rights in the justice court of biota community. This means we humans may not have license to dictate what is good and right for the existence of non-human nature. As evident by our conservation mistakes, we implement solutions and then resolutions and still find that there can be no absolute way. To determine some kind of decent land use would mean to say that we can be decent and self-less in our decisions for the well-being of another thing. I believe that we can act in this fashion with an unconscious motivation for the preservation of our own integrity.
We have come to the understanding that our existence and survival is very much linked to the integrity of life in all places of the earth. Much is yet to be understood about this relationship considering how destructive we can be. In contrast to survival, we must understand how much death plays a role in the balance of the environment. Not to say that human destructive actions are acceptable and free to kill without regard. Since our history is tainted with our guilty behavior of death and destruction wherever we lay our hand, we nobly opt for the opposite. Is it possible for us, even with noble, intelligent, and patient endeavor to achieve a harmonious relationship with non-human nature? There seems to be so much drive for us to compete against other species in the community. There also is a constant drive in our everyday lives to compete against each other. Is this behavior beneficial or destructive to the survival of the human species? Understanding this war of class and status struggle within our species and within others may help us to find instruction toward a common way of biota justice.
09/14/09 #2
Leopold speaks about prudence in the June section. He says that he waited “for prudence sake” and then describes how “no prudent man is a fisherman”. In his description of how man really is, he tells us that humans are like fish. We are “ready, nay eager, to seize upon whatever new thing some wind of circumstance shakes down upon the river of time! (Leopold, 1966).”
I question whether this explanation of our impulsive and eager behavior is to blame for our destructive nature. As Leopold says, do we “rue our haste” because of a motivation that, like other animals, we cannot truly explain, or wish to explain. The virtue for prudence may be in our best interest if we had the sense to be prudent. May we wish to act prudently, but are unable to because of some innate drive to act upon impulse? These impulses are driven by biological forces it would seem. These forces may drive us beyond what we reason and will, yet they persist through us. The will to act prudently does exists for us as it may for the fish. We may continue to act hastily but we learn. It may take us a couple of times before we get it right but this is in the process of learning. Through irrational behavior evolves rational behavior. This is not always true. This depends on how one defines prudence I suppose. Webster’s defines prudence as: “capable of exercising sound judgment in practical matters, esp. as concerns one’s own interest” (Agnes, 2002). If it was true that someone could be prudent by this definition, then it depends on the concept of “sound judgment”. By this definition of prudence we assume that a qualitative subject like judgment is attainable to anyone acting in the sake of prudence. Such an absolute statement is what makes Leopold recant his first statement of acting for prudence sake.
Another perspective on prudence is written about by Emerson. He says that, “a true prudence or law of shows recognizes the co-presence of other laws…Prudence is false when detached. It is legitimate when it is the natural history of the soul incarnate, when it unfolds the beauty of laws within the narrow scope of the senses” (Richardson, 1990).
So acting prudently cannot exist without the acknowledgment that the laws of nature influence the motivation to be concerned with sound judgment. Prudence “moves matter after the laws of matter” (Richardson, 1990).
Works Cited
Agnes, M. (2002). Webster’s new world college dictionary. Cleveland: Wiley Publishing.
Leopold, A. (1966). A Sand County almanac with essays on conservation from Round River. Toronto: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Richardson, R.D Jr. (1990). Ralph Waldo Emerson: selected essays, lectures, and poems. New York: Bantum Books.
09/12/09 #3
Leopold's diagnosis describes humans' disconnect with nature as a path to destruction. The steps that humans have taken to advance civilization have actually been steps in the wrong direction. In history, our U.S. history in particularly, is drenched in socio-cultural and governmental mishaps in the pursuit of economic security, amassing power over natural resources for energy needs, and extensive pollution of the land. Yet the history books and common perception do not always reflect this history. It would seem that this may be caused by who was doing the history telling and what their perspective was.
The problem in this could be considered an issue of the elite class defining the issues that make it to the history writing table. I recall hearing something about this under the theory called critical constructivism. By my understandings of this theory asserts that we may learn things through censored or limited forms of learning that have been set by the elite and ruling class. The information that we accept as truth is often biased, slanted, or skewed to favor the thoughts of this leading group, which often make up a minority with a heavy ruling hand. An example of this could certainly be evident in the governance by the Catholic Diocese in many places and times throughout history, or just the overarching nation-like entity that is the Catholic Church.
Similar to this critical constructivism is the theory of phenomenology. These theories all seem to question the development of knowledge in their social context. Early phenomenologist like Husserl, may have seen how the need for a more rigorous application of deduction is essential to receiving knowledge. Were this applied more to the formulation of ideas, may help us realize how history and knowledge often is not created with a scientific scrutiny. I would like to understand Husserl’s notions of how phenomena occur with conscious intention.
How do some people get away with being bullies? Is it the acceptance in society that some people are more powerful than others and have the right to express it? Power is pushed around constantly in our society to prove that someone is stronger, bigger, or better to satisfy some developmental need. I think we need bullies and figures of false authority to vindicate the underdog uprising mentality. We all seem to love a good underdog comes out a hero story. It seems like a source of pride in our culture that we accept certain bully-characters in order teach ourselves the lessons of life. Are we condoning this behavior or do we just recognize that it is always going to be present in some form or another.
It is natural for there to be a hierarchical structure in most animate organizations, but there is not always the bully. Consider ants or bees, minus there aggressive tendencies toward other animals, as an example of how power structures work themselves out in a seemingly balanced system of power. Sure there are lower level worker ants and queen bees but the acceptance leans the position of status and not the power in the status. Without truly understanding the social or biological structure of these highly socialized insects, I think I would be near correct in saying that the intent of these animals is not to push around their rank in status to overcome or inferiorate a kin. This comparison to people is far from ascertainable without knowing the thoughts of an animal, but it is important in realizing that humans behave so very inappropriately to succeed. Human success is often measured by how much money or power you have in comparison to those around you. This mentality of being bigger and better than your neighbor has proliferated through time into a recipe for failure. It seems that we can now see how the harmful effects of stepping on others to get to the top, are the steps that one takes to be viewed as indecent and of shallow character. When we see the monster behind the fame or the greed behind the throne we tend to cast that person away. Even though we secretly wish that we had their money, their power, their looks, or their popularity, we also despise it.
With history as our example for what happens when you get too powerful or allow the power to get the better of you, more people see the opposite side of the gold coin. So people who become wealthy give their money to charity and form non-profit organizations. Philanthropy becomes the flip side of power. But what if this coin is a trick coin really? There is no good side of it. It is really just an illusion of good. All that charity and time spent not idolatrizing the potential of your power is meaningless when the entire system is corrupt. You good actions are overshadowed by the ugly truth that the world is on a treadmill of power production and consumption. We consume ourselves and all that lie around us by participating in systems of capitalism, market economies, and political elitism. There is no good action. Perhaps there never was. We are all just trying to survive and that means realizing that there is no so thing as altruism just survivalism.
09/23/09 # 5
Reality is subjective. We can assume that reality is the same for everyone everywhere if we believe that reality is all that we believe to exist in the universe. Something that exists is then real and realness is generally understood as true. Yet there is not just singularity or one way of being true. Reality can be different from varying perspectives. Your truth may not be my truth. Truth is found in many different ways and is not solely the product of experience or inference.
Where does truth lie; in the eyes or in the heart or beyond us?Reality does not just exist in science as many, like myself, believe understanding comes from. Observation, inquiry, questioning, and testing, are methods of finding falsehoods that tell us the reality about something. Scientific reasoning and logic can lead to the truth but certainly cannot tell us everything. From a cultural anthropological perspective, truth can take the shape and form of absolute truth to one group of people to something that is absolutely false to another group of people. Culture certainly has a way of instilling the presumptions of real and unreal as well as right and wrong.
Overall there appears to be innate similarities such as ability to form language and common sense between groups of people, or races, if we use the term generally. When I say common sense I am referring to a common sense behavior such as a sense of mortality, love, and other abstract concepts that exist among most peoples of the world. Although they exist there are differences in their meaning and moral relativity. Truth expressed through moral relativism seem to be built on social contracts, thus may contain culturally instituted norms of right and wrong. These truths can differ slightly or greatly from the instinctual feelings that guide our behavior. However these feelings tend to succumb to the incoming observed teachings of reality. We are victim to it and we are power over it. It would seem that it is to our benefit and to our demise that we are predisposed to accept reality rather than create it for ourselves. Is this the fault of society that allows for group think and normative assumptions to become laws? Are we victims of our society that can never know truth?
I went to the Grand Canyon this weekend with my mom, my uncle and his wife. I had not seen my uncle Tony in ten years. My uncle and his wife had never been there before and were excited to see one of the Seven Wonders of the World. They admitted that they were not big outdoorsy type and expressed no interest in hiking in and definitely no camping. I expected this, based on their demeanor, which I would generalize (with some stereotype) as being superficial; they would rather be shopping at the mall than purposefully hike in the heat outdoors. Being my family I give them exception and my love despite our big differences. My mom, who was the first to take me to Grand Canyon, is certainly more like me, which is where I think I got many of my values.
So to help them better experience the Grand Canyon I told them all that I knew, which turned into me talking about human’s negative impact to the canyon. Even with all the negative talk I wanted to paint for them a picture of something so great that it’s worth preserving. This trip would mean more than just seeing a famous place. I told them about the changes to the water flow from damming and how the United States has not met their end of the bargain in water agreements with Mexico. I described the destruction that we were causing to other places like the canyon. The more I talked the more I realized how much I cared about the canyon and all the people that live off of it. I also felt that I had to give them as many sides of the story as I could. I started talking about energy, industry, agriculture, and drinking water contrasted with human needs and wants. I became confused in my inner anger and the reality of what the Colorado River has brought us. My uncle, who was military, seemed to understand.
I was really hoping that the visit to the Canyon would inspire them or move them. I was waiting to see something in their eyes that showed me there was something rekindled in them, something that came alive when they saw the majesty of what nature created. I did not see it in my uncle’s face. I did not see it in his wife’s face; in fact she spent half the time smoking near the parking lot. And to my surprise my mom was on the phone the entire time trying to coordinate a work thing. I would not see their eyes light up from seeing and feeling true beauty. I remembered back to the first time I saw the canyon. I was just a kid. I thought it was boring and identical from every angle. But I grew to love it over time. From learning about it and seeing it in a different light I found it more attractive. I wonder if this is why they didn’t see it the same. I know it doesn’t work the same for everyone. Some people have an innate sense for natural beauty and are struck by it immediately, while others learn to love nature. How can I expect for them to have this feeling if that was not how it came about for me? I looked at the canyon and knew that there was so much more that could not be realized by standing at those look-out points. The wonder of the canyon and how my family could come to love it could not happen the way I wanted it to happen. I could never see from their point of view and I could not force mine on them. I was hard pressed to grasp this, but I did just in time, to be able to look into the canyon and appreciate what it meant to me. I last hope was that they left with a good impression of the Grand Canyon, regardless of the hundreds of tourists crowding out the place.
Weightless Virtue Like a pebble I tumble down the side of the mesa Rushed into the flows and falls of the river I am alone in my journey And among many traveling the virtuous depths Of a canyon filled with danger and delight Carved by nature’s perception Infinite wonder to guide my way I am pushed and shoved, shaped and loved The water renders me weightless Molecules of my soul are ripped and rebound For a while I am you and we swim together Now a grain of sand that will rest on your beach A part of your soil forever and never
Is beauty real? This question is not about the aesthetics only. If we consider the term beauty as simply related to a physical quality that is either pleasing or it is not, then we unjustly define the word beauty. The word beauty has meaning beyond our contemporary notions of the word. The evolution of this word as a frame by which society considers things and objects have a quite a history. In this history we learn that the commonly used phrase and concept “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is true and untrue at the same time. This claim that beauty is subjective assumes that individuals have eyes of their own to determine independently if something is beautiful or ugly.
I believe that our perception of aesthetics is limited by our cultural and social constructs that we learn through a variety of mediums. If this is true then it may not even be possible to make a clear distinction between what is real beauty by nature and what is constructed beauty in our minds. Real beauty by nature may be indeterminable since there is not really a set measure of this, just like moral codes are made up by us, so is the definition of beauty. How can we argue that something is beautiful? This can be said for more than just the concept of beauty. We could realize that all of what we hold to be beautiful can never be based our own pure and unfiltered sense of what it is to be beautiful.
We are highly impressionable creatures that take in what we see, hear, taste, smell, touch, and sense from the minute we are able to use these senses. Cognition and behavior depends greatly on what we observe and interpret the actions to mean. “Monkey see, monkey do,” another commonly used expression seems to be very representative of how we humans, whose genetic makeup is very similar to monkeys, learn. Not to discredit our genetic hand-me-downs by which we also receive many of our predispositions. This argument is continuously debated, since we do not yet know whether it is nature or nurture that makes us who we are. Considering this, it cannot be known if we know what is beautiful and to what degree the thing qualifies as beautiful. Thoreau writes on page 7 of Walden; or Life in the Woods, “To know that we know what we know, and that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge.” So maybe it is fair to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder or that beauty can never be beheld, and that is okay, because we can still try to know it.
Muir’s crocodile is beautiful. He describes the uniqueness of this aquatic reptilian giant of the swamps with compassion for its existence. I am reminded of the fear and wonder I felt when I first saw my first croc. I was certain that creature was a monster that God forgot about when he cast the dinosaurs from the earth. At age 9, it seemed impossible for such a hideous and dangerous animal to live with us humans. The prehistoric looking alligators of Alligator Alley are like living fossils of the Triassic. That is scary! It is scary and amazing to think about the fact that they truly have not evolved much from the ancestors, so I recall learning. The ugliness of the crocodile evokes disgust and fear by many I presume. We have heard horror stories of human attacks and have seen their power in drowning their prey. Is it the danger that they pose to us or the physical aesthetics that we fear? Probably both, but we do not fear koalas as much, despite their very aggressive potential. Perhaps it is because they represent the past, a past that we investigate so much. Imagining what life would be like during the time of the dinosaurs is certainly cause for fear. Lucky for us we do not have to fear crocodiles everywhere.
Unfortunately we have even less to fear since we have destroyed much of their habitat and cutoff the natural flow of the rivers with our development. And we hunt them so that we can prance around with their hide on our boots. They are good enough as shoe apparel but not to live amongst us. Do we hate them so we skin them or do we like them so we skin them? Either way our relationship with them seems to be based on what they can do for us.
Although many of us believe that they have value unto themselves, we as a species tend to dislike what we do not know. This fear of the unknown can be an adaptive trait that has kept us alive. Kill it or domesticate it if it poses a threat. If it serves us let us make the whole world ours until we are on top. This kind of thinking cannot last forever. We are smart enough to recognize that how we treat the earth is maladaptive yet it strains us to change. We need to be mandated by laws before we change on our own. It would seem that we are not adapting properly to our self-produced changes upon the natural world. It may not seem like a tremendous blow to life if we kill off the crocodile but for every action there is a reaction. We may not see it today or tomorrow or even know it when it happens but we may be setting ourselves up for the same fate as the dinosaurs. Except that we will be the ones to cause our own death if we do not evolve.
The hunter stage of development, as Thoreau, puts it is essential for all men to pass through. To be made into a hunter is a part of experiencing the natural and wilder side of ourselves that are suppressed by social constructs of civilized behavior. To be a hunter, is to be educated in the pursuit of humanity as well as the game. The lessons learned through hunting and fishing are seeds of growth that supplies a person knowledge of the land and how it can produce the necessities of life.
By seeking out a food source that runs, flies, or swims, away from you, one gains the thrill of the hunt. A thrill of the hunt, that holds a lesson about pursuit of an objective, such as game, is elusive and requires patience, practice, and a spirit of adventure. From this lesson the hunter learns that our relationship to our prey is in order with the higher laws of nature. It is not above us to hunt for our food so long as there is recognition given to this order of life. The higher laws of nature are what allow us to connect to our own humanity through the relationship with nature.
Hunting is more than just a need to stimulate our senses. Hunting, like gardening, is a way of sowing your survival. Essentially all that we do is a form of survival. Survival is key to our humanity, yet hunting a deer is preposterous to many people. For many it feels unnatural and an act of cruelty to murder a living being. This can be seen as romanticism or a form of keeping humanity alive in a different way. From the non-hunter or vegetarian, hunting for our food is no longer necessary when we can farm our food and receive the proper nutrition without threatening the survival of another species. For others, hunting for your own food is a natural way of providing your own sustenance. To the hunter, survival is not left up to the hands of the grocer. To them, hunting is more natural to them. Especially to the ones that believe that humans help keep many animal populations in balance by keeping their populations in proportion with each other. Both arguments seem right if they are not taken to the extreme or asserted without regard for the environmental feedback loops that can cause problems for whole biotic system.
Love is all there is. Love conquers all. All you need is love. All these expressions and many more not mentioned for the sake of space, tell us that love is a very powerful thing. Something so abstract can seem like the only real thing. Most of the time, I do not believe it exist. We say it because we don’t know another way of expressing it when we feel it. It’s a feeling, an emotion, a sense that there is a deep purpose to our relationships. It is funny to think that we allow ourselves to be led by a thing that we cannot logically explain. That is the type of species we are. We have faith, spirituality, and beliefs that we cannot substantiate with hard evidence. Love, like many of human beliefs, varies across groups of people around the world. We have different ways of expressing it and defining it. Commonality amongst everyone is that there are different forms of love. Love of things are different that love of people. Love for people ranges as well. We love our parents differently than we love our spouse. Yet we use the same word. What is it about love that drives us to seek it out though?
Love is more than a feeling some say. It is an ethic or virtue that everyone is capable of and everyone needs. Love is by all definitions “good.” Even if love is an ethic I do not think that the ethical foundation of the word is why we desire it. Most of us want love, to be loved, to feel loved, to love, to have love. We find security in the acknowledgment that someone else’s love will mean we are good and worthy. Often we feel that we must earn love. Interestingly we have the capability of loving and ending our love for someone. It can come over us so quickly and leave us so quickly. We consider this like a function of love, like something that love does to us. We try to explain it as a chemical mechanism or force that we are subject to, powerless to.
Maybe we are powerless to the almighty love. If we move out of the romantic realm of love and loveliness we might consider that love is just a chemical reaction that keeps us healthy. Laughing seems to do this for us by stimulating our endorphins and adrenalin which studies have shown to be quite beneficial. Suppose that we actually do need love to live, be healthy and even productive members of society. From the obvious evolutionary perspective this need for love helps advance our species, through partnering of individuals that feel “love” for each to make “love” and “love” the little “love child” so that it grows up to continue this pattern. Love prevails! Yet this is not how it always happens. Thanks a lot fairy tales, but truthfully speaking there are some serious disorders with the way that we express love and repel it even. But it feels so right, so good, and so meaningful. How do we explain for narcissism or erotomania, if that even exists? Does love exist in some fundamental bio-physiological makeup that compels us to “love” love or do we just lust for love because we love to feel important?
Lorenzo was sort of rescued from my mother’s friend who didn’t pay him enough attention. No one knows how old he is, but we guess he is an adult. He came to us with a limited vocabulary of just Spanish cuss words and few tunes that he can now whistle completely, on a good day. I did not know if I would be any better for him than his former owner, Lorena (notice the similarity in names), but I was willing to try since he kind of landed on my doorstep one day. My mother was known for bringing home strays and helpless creatures for us to look after. I wasn’t expecting such a loud little guy to live with me, but it has turned out to be quite different than any other pet because Lorenzo has become my little companion.
So I am talking about my parrot if you have not already figured it out. Not just any parrot though, a Lilac-Crowned Amazon parrot, Amazona finschi. He is quite the nuisance! More importantly, to my knowledge he was not bought at a pet store. He, like many other “illegals” in the United States, was captured in Mexico and brought over the Mexican-United States border. His napping, like many other parrots, was committed for the purpose that they are valued, at a high price, for their speech mimicking ability and beauty. Amazons do not compare linguistically to other parrots, like the Grey parrot, but they are very charming and playful as well. Lorenzo’s species is decreasing rapidly as illegal bird trading has continued despite CITES international prohibition. This and habitat loss from human expansion has caused this beautiful bird to be placed on Vulnerable status by Birdlife International. Now this endemic bird is found in pet stores and sold as companion pets to many of us “wealthy” Americans. Good news, maybe, is that there is a feral population of these and other parrots in certain areas in California.
So I “own” myself a beautiful, threatened species individual that will never know what it is like to see the world that he was taken from. I say this because it would probably be more detrimental to his health and survival if I send him back from where he came from. That would not only be heartbreaking for me but for him as well I believe. A special bond has been formed between Lorenzo and I. For people that have never owned a parrot, this may seem silly to say, but true for anyone who knows this feeling. Parrots can become severely depressed if separated from their loved ones and pluck out all their chest feathers and even starve themselves to death. My Lorenzo seems to have had a rough upbringing I presume because he starts squawking as soon as I leave the room and will hardly eat when I am not around. He has separation anxiety I suppose. I accept his moodiness as we all battle this from time to time and he spends a lot of time in his cage while I am at school or work. I don’t clip his wings since I feel it is cruel to cage a bird any more than he already is. I would like to get him a mate to accompany him, but I worry that he is a bit territorial and grouchy for that. And I do not believe that I should or have the right to breed this species in captivity. Although little baby Lorenzos would be the most adorable thing, I wish at times that I did not have him because it feels wrong. Owning anything living that has to live by your rules, locked in a cage, and domesticated for your amusement feels unethical and morally impermissible. That’s not the best argument for the protection of wild species, knowing that we will probably never change our desire to tame nature. Unfortunately we are guilty of this and justify it every day.
I gave food away to some people that came knocking at the door. They were four guys that asked if we had any non-perishable food to donate to Saint Mary’s Food Bank. They were a fraternity from NAU going door-to-door getting donations for their food drive. I did not think twice about their request. I said “Definitely” and went to my cupboard (actually my boyfriend’s pantry). I gathered up a bag full of food items that had been sitting up there forever. Some of them had a past due expiration date that, I was not sure would be accepted but better than throwing them in the trash. I handed over the bag to the grateful frat guys who seemed surprised that had obliged. They thanked me and I thanked them. I felt good that I was able to help them, as I thought about the people that would benefit from it.
When I told my boyfriend I had given some food away he was not pleased. He was not mad but disagreed with the action because he said we do not have the food to give away. I knew that he and I are not in the position to be charitable when we really do not have much to give but I have always been generous despite this. I argued that there are people in worse condition and said that we have to put ourselves in their shoes. He said that the donation won’t really solve the problem of hunger, rather help facilitate the problem of poverty and bad food distribution, especially as a food drive conducted by a fraternity that is probably only collecting food to stay competitive as a student organization for high grade point average, privileged, elite boys only members. I agree to some extent because I understand that food banks are not solutions to ending hunger or poverty, but serve as handouts to alleviate their symptoms.
I also recognize that homeless and hungry eat better over the holidays than they do all year round. Food drives increase over the holidays, and it is the time to give. This kind of prescribed charity does not look bad from the giver’s hand, but what about from the receiver’s hand? Something is better than nothing I suppose. Yet it does not change the situation, just fills the belly for a little while. The giver, who generally, feels obligated to give, feels rewarded from having gifted and deeds themselves a good person who is helping others in need. The harm is in the help if the gift dissolves away in the givers hand before it reaches the receiver’s hand. By this I mean that, it is not all bad to give to charity if it is followed up by a true commitment to make that gift meaningful. It should be meaningful to the giver so that the gift does not become another corporate type donation that serves as just a tax ride-off, which furthers the exploitation of the poor and hungry and continues the cycle of bad food production and distribution. So many of our so called good actions become meaningless when we perpetuate a “full-belly politics” by stuffing our faces and our shopping bags, just to purge our guilt by vomiting out charity for the poor. We are all guilty, but like my mom used to say, “We must stop pretending we are eating chocolate pudding when we are really eating shit.” A raw expression, but I think it relays the overall theme of how we “sugar coat” our actions to make us feel noble and good. (Sorry for all the clichés.)
Thinking Like a Mountain is a famous essay written by Aldo Leopold that asks us to consider the point of view of the mountain. How this is done is certainly easier said than done. If I were a mountain what would I think? I could think of all of my qualities that make up my hills, slopes, peaks, and every living inhabitant that drinks from my waterfalls and eats from my earth. Each and every part of me is critical to my survival like an organ in the human body. Although I need all of my parts, I can spare to let a few of them go, like a liver if you should need it more than me. It will hurt me, but it will help you somehow. I cannot argue with you humans though. So I hope that you will leave me with my other vital organs. I guess that’s not that easy for you to decide, what is important to me and what is more important for you. Especially difficult is for you to tell where I start and where I begin. I suppose I begin and end with each living and non-living thing that is a part of me. From a bigger picture this means that I am everything and everywhere. From a smaller picture I am made up of the smallest particle that makes up everything else. So I am part of you and you are part of me, and we are part of everything. This is starting to sound like a riddle, and
Can mountains think? If the mountain is like a living organism made up different cells, then the each cell has a purpose and a function. The actions carried out by these cells and organelles have a goal and a sort of destiny to fulfill in their lifespan. These actions are motivated by some chemical and physical process that normally follows a sort of rule. It is this rule that is a curious thing. These rules govern the natural way of everything in an orderly and disorderly fashion. Are these rules the only things that govern, or are other things involved? Maybe there is a God-like force or natural spirit that also invokes will upon the thing. Maybe there is something that we have never considered.
Thoughts and ideas seem to give us the rules to act upon. The thought of mountains thinking seems absurd by definition that thoughts take form with cognitive processes in the brain. Mountains can think if we redefine the idea of thought. Animals surely think and we can study the neural transmissions of many species to understand that there are degrees of cognition. To say that a mountain can think, if taken literally, is something cannot be fully measured quantitatively. If we measure it qualitatively as well, by thinking in broader, more abstract terms we have to take into account every part of the mountain as a component of the whole thinking brain. Thought in this mountain mind must be a great thinker if we consider that each component of this brain is also a smaller mind itself. To think like a mountain could be like thinking like a God. Nature’s thoughts are then unfathomable. But we are part of it as well. Thinking about nature thinking is unthinkable? Okay, this riddle is very hard to think about.