There are a few very interesting observations and conjectures that arose in my mind while going through our readings this week – particularly Leo Marx’s Machine in the Garden and Raymond Williams The Country and the City. The examination and analysis of Pastoralism in America and England (which would have been helpful to read the other way around) brings up several questions. First, while Marx and Williams give insightful observations and claims about how Pastoral literature and depictions have evolved and changed, as well as how it has influenced cultural perceptions, they seem to have left out how societies (in this cased Western) have perceived of their relationship to nature and how different historical events and eras, along with social developments, have infused writings and depictions of nature. For instance, while Williams gives a wide breadth of European Pastoral writings, and alludes to how industrialization and mechanization altered ‘Pastoral’ writing, he fails to mention the underlying perceptions and methods of thinking. I mean principally here the methods of a modernist approach, where ideas and issues are seen deductively, along with an inherent idea that human relationships to nature is one of conflict and hierarchy – i.e. humans are either wrestling with nature to get what they want and need and/or humans are separate and above nature, acting as stewards of nature with a right to its fruits. Certainly Williams and Marx are not trying to compile a comprehensive literary history and theory (as they themselves note) but it seems implicit that methods of thinking, the ways in which human beings perceive their reality and relationships, does play a huge role in what is written and what is perceived as important. Beyond the complicated modes of thinking, I found myself asking – what about history? Again, Williams and Marx cover a great deal and touch on varying aspects of history, but leave out the rise of nation states, the alteration of colonial power and the latter fall of many colonies, and lets not forget wars and revolutions. All of these historical events and trends, along with the ‘two’ industrial revolutions and the often chaotic transitions in economic structures (Feudalism – Mercantilism – Capitalism – and everything in-between) would undoubtedly play a role in not only how pastoral writings are carried out but also the message. Marx and Williams continually hit on how Western Literature has interpreted the dichotomies of complex and chaotic societies and the ideal of simplistic nature, but in many cases miss the underlying message (in my opinion). If we take Hemingway’s final scenes within In Our Time (Big Two-Hearted River), for instance, with the main character ‘getting back to nature,’ it is apparent that Hemingway is making a comment about the dichotomies of the chaotic social complexities and wanting to return to simplistic nature, but on a deeper level Hemingway’s writing speaks of the horrors of war and the physiological torment that the main character is facing – an aspect of pastoral influence exists, but what is more important is the social historical context the stories exists within.
February 5, 2008 John S. Sonin Blog Week 3 Machines in the Garden of Eden
I just can’t help but respond to Leo Marx. I don’t know if he’s trying to explain spiritual principles secularly with all his mumbo-jumbo trying to articulate the appeal of “pastoral design,” but the “contrarianism” (as William Blake called the duality of human desire) of a locomotive dispelling the peace of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s garden-reflections, along with The Great Gatsby’s underworld virtue contradicting his high society urbanity and Huck Finn’s lolling Mississippi drift smashed by a steamship’s monstrous explosion from the fog, are all indications of manmade violence on nature repudiated by man’s impulse toward resplendence. This is what I at first thought ecocriticism was to be about. And it is! I just thought my study of the critiquing would narrow-down to the contradiction we all must choose between, at every choice we make, and pinpoint this kind of perception as the way in which critics were to be assessing literature. It looks as though ecocritics, either don’t recognize this core dichotomy between pretended reality and the natural or “real” reality so as not to be able to articulate it, or they have chosen not to try and discuss it. I know Blake, in one of his verse, stated that anyone who tries to unify these “contraries” (probably the same poem) brings the world down. Whether he meant the “real” civilized world or the real dream world of the individual attempting to articulate this verity, I don’t know. I can tell you this much though, the “dream” world of the individual articulating is likely to already be in a shambles if he chooses to live aware but in denial like Virgil’s Moebus. But if he chooses to live only in the present like Tytrus, he or she can be at peace. I think I remember reading Tytrus had a benefactor, somewhere. The issue that we have to choose from, however, if we boil-the-issue-down to the eternal choice, is survival. Since we can’t any-longer, forage and gather our own sustenance, we must rely on others. Herein lies the issue of organized religion. The organized-following (religion) stems, supposedly, from individual spirituality (which can only be a private affair) and because we need to rely on others for survival, that spirituality must include some derivation of the “Golden Rule” This is all that can be taught about how to live in a civil(?) circumstance. The monsters’ (machines’) in the garden stems from those who have chosen not to live by this Rule and therefore disrupt the peace and tranquility of others—others who have chosen the “Rule.” But this is where spirituality lays. Awareness of the “contrary” reality enables “forgiveness” with the realization we are all doing the best we can to survive contentedly in the duality of relying on each other. Industrialization isn’t the culprit, it’s self-profit maximization. As Frost said, “do we want the world to end in the uncivilized passionate ‘Fire’ of our unconscious desires or in the pretended civilized ‘Ice’(y) indifference of an automaton’s un-spiritedness. We make the choice…but it starts with the morality
I had to clarify some of my "mumbo jumbo" while still living many questions open for discussion.
February 5, 2008 John S. Sonin Blog Week 3 Machines in the Garden of Eden I just can’t help but respond to Leo Marx. I don’t know if he’s trying to explain spiritual principles secularly, with all his mumbo-jumbo trying to articulate the appeal of “pastoral design,” but the “contrarianism” (as William Blake called the duality of human desire) in a locomotive dispelling the peace of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s garden-reflections, along with the great Gatsby’s (forgot the character’s name) virtue to the underworld contradicting his high society urbanity, and/or Huck Finn’s lolling Mississippi drift smashed by a steamship’s monstrous explosion from the fog, are all indications of manmade violence on nature repudiated by man’s impulse toward resplendence and perfect peace. It is this distinction I at first thought ecocriticism of literature was to be about... and it is! I just thought my study of the critiquing-style would narrow-down to the contradiction we all must choose between—at every choice we make—self or others first and pinpoint this clarified kind of perception as the way in which critics were to be assessing literature. It looks as though ecocritics either don’t recognize this core dichotomy between pretended reality and the natural or “real” reality so as not to be able to articulate it, or they have chosen not to try and discuss it because it’s inarticulate. I know Blake, in one of his verse forms, stated that anyone who tries to unify these “contraries” (probably the same poem wherein he noted the dichotomy) will bring the world down. Whether he meant the “real” civilized world or the real “dream” world (it can be said that our perceptions are all our own dream) of the individual attempting to articulate this verity, or all of society (and nature), I don’t know. I can tell you this much though, the “dream” world of the individual articulating the verity is likely to be already in a shambles if he chooses to live aware of hurting others but be in denial, like Virgil’s Moebus knowing or maybe not but still wanting to get to (as I think Nash called it) the “station” expecting something better to be there and ignoring life on our way. But if he chooses to live only in the present like Tytrus, he or she can be at peace. (Although I think I remember reading Tytrus had a benefactor which would allow him sustenance without planning for his survival). The issue that we have to choose from, however, if we boil-the-issue-down to the “eternal choice,” is survival, self-preservation. Since we can’t any-longer, forage and gather our own sustenance and we need cities to advance human awareness, we must rely on others. Herein lies the issue of organized religion. This organized-following , religion, stems from, supposedly, individual “spirituality” (which can only be a private affair) and because we need to rely on others for survival, that spirituality must include some derivation of the “Golden Rule” This is all that can be taught to anyone who hasn’t recognized the duality for himself, about how to live in a civil(?) circumstance. Morality is just another word for civility. The monsters’ (machines’) in the garden stems from those who have chosen not to live by this Rule seeking only “self” first will not only end there reality in a cataclysm, which if this doesn’t impact those who do live by the “Rule” and care for the one who doesn’t, it will, at least, disrupt the peace and tranquility of the Edenic others—others who have chosen the “Rule.” But this is where spirituality lays. Awareness of the “contrary” reality enables “forgiveness” with the realization we are all doing the best we can to survive contentedly in the duality of relying on each other. Industrialization or Urbanization aren’t the culprits, it’s self-profit maximization. As Frost said, “do we want the world to end in the uncivilized passionate ‘Fire’ of our unconscious desires or in the pretended (ego driven fascist un)civilized ‘Ice’(y) indifference of an automaton’s un-spiritedness. We make the choice…but it starts with the morality/civility.
Forest, I have not read With in Our Time, but is it about the human relationship to humans or the environment? I would agree with John in that the system of mechanization or urbanization are not the culprits we are. Call me crazy but what part of pastoralism connects one closer to nature or ecology. I relate this to Leopold where he talked about the disconnect with nature that occurs when mechanization is introduced. One does not get the same experience driving a snowmobile from Montana Creek to Windfall lake as one would have on a pair of cross-country skis. It is important to note however the close connection that people nowadays feel to the environment when they are driving or riding on expensive toys and such. Pastoral relationships to the environment, in my eyes, is the disconnect. Can we really control or "manage" the natural world? Domesticated plants and animals are not really natural are they? Is a horse inside of a coral really a horse at all anymore? No, it is just a mode of transportation with that makes us feel more connected to the earth by proxy.
4 comments:
There are a few very interesting observations and conjectures that arose in my mind while going through our readings this week – particularly Leo Marx’s Machine in the Garden and Raymond Williams The Country and the City. The examination and analysis of Pastoralism in America and England (which would have been helpful to read the other way around) brings up several questions. First, while Marx and Williams give insightful observations and claims about how Pastoral literature and depictions have evolved and changed, as well as how it has influenced cultural perceptions, they seem to have left out how societies (in this cased Western) have perceived of their relationship to nature and how different historical events and eras, along with social developments, have infused writings and depictions of nature. For instance, while Williams gives a wide breadth of European Pastoral writings, and alludes to how industrialization and mechanization altered ‘Pastoral’ writing, he fails to mention the underlying perceptions and methods of thinking. I mean principally here the methods of a modernist approach, where ideas and issues are seen deductively, along with an inherent idea that human relationships to nature is one of conflict and hierarchy – i.e. humans are either wrestling with nature to get what they want and need and/or humans are separate and above nature, acting as stewards of nature with a right to its fruits. Certainly Williams and Marx are not trying to compile a comprehensive literary history and theory (as they themselves note) but it seems implicit that methods of thinking, the ways in which human beings perceive their reality and relationships, does play a huge role in what is written and what is perceived as important. Beyond the complicated modes of thinking, I found myself asking – what about history? Again, Williams and Marx cover a great deal and touch on varying aspects of history, but leave out the rise of nation states, the alteration of colonial power and the latter fall of many colonies, and lets not forget wars and revolutions. All of these historical events and trends, along with the ‘two’ industrial revolutions and the often chaotic transitions in economic structures (Feudalism – Mercantilism – Capitalism – and everything in-between) would undoubtedly play a role in not only how pastoral writings are carried out but also the message. Marx and Williams continually hit on how Western Literature has interpreted the dichotomies of complex and chaotic societies and the ideal of simplistic nature, but in many cases miss the underlying message (in my opinion). If we take Hemingway’s final scenes within In Our Time (Big Two-Hearted River), for instance, with the main character ‘getting back to nature,’ it is apparent that Hemingway is making a comment about the dichotomies of the chaotic social complexities and wanting to return to simplistic nature, but on a deeper level Hemingway’s writing speaks of the horrors of war and the physiological torment that the main character is facing – an aspect of pastoral influence exists, but what is more important is the social historical context the stories exists within.
Alright. I am done rambling.
February 5, 2008
John S. Sonin
Blog Week 3
Machines in the Garden of Eden
I just can’t help but respond to Leo Marx. I don’t know if he’s trying to explain spiritual principles secularly with all his mumbo-jumbo trying to articulate the appeal of “pastoral design,” but the “contrarianism” (as William Blake called the duality of human desire) of a locomotive dispelling the peace of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s garden-reflections, along with The Great Gatsby’s underworld virtue contradicting his high society urbanity and Huck Finn’s lolling Mississippi drift smashed by a steamship’s monstrous explosion from the fog, are all indications of manmade violence on nature repudiated by man’s impulse toward resplendence.
This is what I at first thought ecocriticism was to be about. And it is! I just thought my study of the critiquing would narrow-down to the contradiction we all must choose between, at every choice we make, and pinpoint this kind of perception as the way in which critics were to be assessing literature.
It looks as though ecocritics, either don’t recognize this core dichotomy between pretended reality and the natural or “real” reality so as not to be able to articulate it, or they have chosen not to try and discuss it. I know Blake, in one of his verse, stated that anyone who tries to unify these “contraries” (probably the same poem) brings the world down. Whether he meant the “real” civilized world or the real dream world of the individual attempting to articulate this verity, I don’t know. I can tell you this much though, the “dream” world of the individual articulating is likely to already be in a shambles if he chooses to live aware but in denial like Virgil’s Moebus. But if he chooses to live only in the present like Tytrus, he or she can be at peace.
I think I remember reading Tytrus had a benefactor, somewhere.
The issue that we have to choose from, however, if we boil-the-issue-down to the eternal choice, is survival. Since we can’t any-longer, forage and gather our own sustenance, we must rely on others. Herein lies the issue of organized religion.
The organized-following (religion) stems, supposedly, from individual spirituality (which can only be a private affair) and because we need to rely on others for survival, that spirituality must include some derivation of the “Golden Rule” This is all that can be taught about how to live in a civil(?) circumstance.
The monsters’ (machines’) in the garden stems from those who have chosen not to live by this Rule and therefore disrupt the peace and tranquility of others—others who have chosen the “Rule.” But this is where spirituality lays. Awareness of the “contrary” reality enables “forgiveness” with the realization we are all doing the best we can to survive contentedly in the duality of relying on each other.
Industrialization isn’t the culprit, it’s self-profit maximization. As Frost said, “do we want the world to end in the uncivilized passionate ‘Fire’ of our unconscious desires or in the pretended civilized ‘Ice’(y) indifference of an automaton’s un-spiritedness. We make the choice…but it starts with the morality
I had to clarify some of my "mumbo jumbo" while still living many questions open for discussion.
February 5, 2008
John S. Sonin
Blog Week 3
Machines in the Garden of Eden
I just can’t help but respond to Leo Marx. I don’t know if he’s trying to explain spiritual principles secularly, with all his mumbo-jumbo trying to articulate the appeal of “pastoral design,” but the “contrarianism” (as William Blake called the duality of human desire) in a locomotive dispelling the peace of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s garden-reflections, along with the great Gatsby’s (forgot the character’s name) virtue to the underworld contradicting his high society urbanity, and/or Huck Finn’s lolling Mississippi drift smashed by a steamship’s monstrous explosion from the fog, are all indications of manmade violence on nature repudiated by man’s impulse toward resplendence and perfect peace.
It is this distinction I at first thought ecocriticism of literature was to be about... and it is! I just thought my study of the critiquing-style would narrow-down to the contradiction we all must choose between—at every choice we make—self or others first and pinpoint this clarified kind of perception as the way in which critics were to be assessing literature.
It looks as though ecocritics either don’t recognize this core dichotomy between pretended reality and the natural or “real” reality so as not to be able to articulate it, or they have chosen not to try and discuss it because it’s inarticulate. I know Blake, in one of his verse forms, stated that anyone who tries to unify these “contraries” (probably the same poem wherein he noted the dichotomy) will bring the world down.
Whether he meant the “real” civilized world or the real “dream” world (it can be said that our perceptions are all our own dream) of the individual attempting to articulate this verity, or all of society (and nature), I don’t know. I can tell you this much though, the “dream” world of the individual articulating the verity is likely to be already in a shambles if he chooses to live aware of hurting others but be in denial, like Virgil’s Moebus knowing or maybe not but still wanting to get to (as I think Nash called it) the “station” expecting something better to be there and ignoring life on our way. But if he chooses to live only in the present like Tytrus, he or she can be at peace. (Although I think I remember reading Tytrus had a benefactor which would allow him sustenance without planning for his survival).
The issue that we have to choose from, however, if we boil-the-issue-down to the “eternal choice,” is survival, self-preservation. Since we can’t any-longer, forage and gather our own sustenance and we need cities to advance human awareness, we must rely on others. Herein lies the issue of organized religion.
This organized-following , religion, stems from, supposedly, individual “spirituality” (which can only be a private affair) and because we need to rely on others for survival, that spirituality must include some derivation of the “Golden Rule” This is all that can be taught to anyone who hasn’t recognized the duality for himself, about how to live in a civil(?) circumstance. Morality is just another word for civility.
The monsters’ (machines’) in the garden stems from those who have chosen not to live by this Rule seeking only “self” first will not only end there reality in a cataclysm, which if this doesn’t impact those who do live by the “Rule” and care for the one who doesn’t, it will, at least, disrupt the peace and tranquility of the Edenic others—others who have chosen the “Rule.”
But this is where spirituality lays. Awareness of the “contrary” reality enables “forgiveness” with the realization we are all doing the best we can to survive contentedly in the duality of relying on each other.
Industrialization or Urbanization aren’t the culprits, it’s self-profit maximization. As Frost said, “do we want the world to end in the uncivilized passionate ‘Fire’ of our unconscious desires or in the pretended (ego driven fascist un)civilized ‘Ice’(y) indifference of an automaton’s un-spiritedness. We make the choice…but it starts with the morality/civility.
Forest, I have not read With in Our Time, but is it about the human relationship to humans or the environment? I would agree with John in that the system of mechanization or urbanization are not the culprits we are. Call me crazy but what part of pastoralism connects one closer to nature or ecology. I relate this to Leopold where he talked about the disconnect with nature that occurs when mechanization is introduced. One does not get the same experience driving a snowmobile from Montana Creek to Windfall lake as one would have on a pair of cross-country skis. It is important to note however the close connection that people nowadays feel to the environment when they are driving or riding on expensive toys and such. Pastoral relationships to the environment, in my eyes, is the disconnect. Can we really control or "manage" the natural world? Domesticated plants and animals are not really natural are they? Is a horse inside of a coral really a horse at all anymore? No, it is just a mode of transportation with that makes us feel more connected to the earth by proxy.
Post a Comment