Showing posts with label Transcendentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Transcendentalism. Show all posts

Saturday, April 14, 2012

"Full of many things except boundaries": Aloneness, Transcendentalism, and PrairyErth

Room for the Sky, taken somewhere in Chase County, Kansas, by Dave Leiker. Click on image to enlarge. Image found here.

As mentioned in my most recent post, I've begun reading William Least-Heat Moon's PrairyErth. What follows is a particularly compelling snippet of writing from it. It'd be quite easy to create post after post consisting of such snippets--Least-Heat Moon has this way of turning on a stylistic dime from literally and figuratively pedestrian writing (he's a strong advocate, as you'll see in a bit, for spending as much time on foot in the Flint Hills as possible) to turning the landscape he sees into a metaphysical vastness that, if not the equal of Emerson, certainly is a worthy participant in the Transcendentalist tradition.

Still, PrairyErth's version of Transcendentalism has an edge to it that Emerson's doesn't. In Chapter I of Emerson's essay "Nature," Emerson describes landscapes as "charming" (in a book in which the author quotes a 19th-century pioneer woman as saying that the word "prairie" is too pretty a word to describe the Flint Hills, I'm willing to bet that "charming" will not put in an appearance in PrairyErth as part of a description of landscape) and says things like "The greatest delight which the fields and woods minister, is the suggestion of an occult relationship between man and the vegetable. I am not alone and unacknowledged. They nod to me and I to them." (Cue "Zippity Doo Da.")

I find myself wondering how Emerson's "Nature" might have looked if its author had lived in the prairie.

But that same first chapter of "Nature" also finds Emerson saying, "But if a man would be alone, let him look at the stars." Emerson here means "alone" in the sense of one's being at a remove from people and people's ideas ("a man needs to retire as much from his chamber as from society") in order to begin to perceive one's essential bond with Nature. There's plenty of aloneness in PrairyErth, too, but whatever Emersonian sensibilities Least-Heat Moon's aloneness might have are tempered by Naturalism's understanding of Nature as, at best, indifferent to human beings (Stephen Crane's "A Man Said to the Universe" is all you need to read about that). So, we end up, in the end, with a passage like this, in which Least-Heat Moon delivers a quiet but firm response to Emerson's famous "transparent eye-ball" moment in a clearing in the woods:

Hiking in the woods allows a traveler to imagine comforting enclosures, one leading to the next, and the walker can possess those little encompassed spaces, but the prairies and plains permit no such possession. Whatever else prairie is--grass, sky, wind--it is most of all a paradigm of infinity, a clearing full of many things except boundaries, and its power comes from its apparent limitlessness; there is no such thing as a small prairie and more than there is a little ocean, and the consequences of both is this challenge: try to take yourself seriously out here, you bipedal plodder, you complacent cartoon. (82)

Read More...

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

A stretch of river LIII: Frost on the grass, stars in the sky

Thoreau's cabin at Walden Pond.

[I]f a man would be alone, let him look at the stars. The rays that come from those heavenly worlds, will separate between him and what he touches. One might think the atmosphere was made transparent with this design, to give man, in the heavenly bodies, the perpetual presence of the sublime. Seen in the streets of the cities, how great they are! If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore; and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God which had been shown! But every night come out these envoys of beauty, and light the universe with their admonishing smile.--Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Nature"
I confess to being a bad Transcendentalist this morning as Scruffy and I walked through the park. For a little while, at least.

Yesterday was chilly, yes, but this morning . . . where had our pleasantly-cool fall mornings gone? Just before sunrise is the coldest part of the morning, as most people know; and this morning--well below freezing, a heavy frost on the ground and vapor rising off the river--found me underdressed and that dawning awareness coming upon me slowly and, when it did arrive, found me on the other side of the river--pointless by that time to return for something heavier. So, yeah: Thoreau in Walden one day disparages the rain that causes him to postpone his fishing trip but later thinks that the rain, being good for the grass, was also good for him; I'm afraid I was not nearly so gracious regarding the frost on the grass's possibly being good for my rapidly-numbing fingers. Add to this Scruffy's--as it seemed to me--deliberately seeking out and smelling Every. Little. Odoriferous. Spot. no matter how far off our route it might lay, and . . . sorry, Henry and Ralph. I just wanted to get home and get warm.

At one point, though, as I cursed my luck this morning for having far-too-casually decided four years ago that owning a dog would be okay and not taking into account that he'd require walking at least twice a day no matter the weather, not to mention our own obligations of whatever sort--thus feeling I was now laboring under a mistake (thanks, Henry)--I happened to glance up at the sky and see the constellation Orion. One blessing of living in Wichita is that, even in the middle of the city, light-pollution is not so bad and the air is clear enough that many stars are not only easily visible, there have been times in the past when they twinkle so brilliantly that they seem almost audible. This morning was not quite one of those mornings; but, despite my standing under a lamppost at this moment, Orion was easily visible. Just for a moment, I stopped cursing my luck; my mind flashed back to our guide to Teotihuacan two weeks ago telling us that the relative placement of its two main pyramids may have served as a gigantic solar calendar.

I'm no fool: it's safe to assume that the vast, vast majority of the laborers who built Teotihuacan had, shall we say, little choice in the matter. At one level, it's easy to agree with Thoreau when he says in Walden, "As for the Pyramids, there is nothing to wonder at in them so much as the fact that so many men could be found degraded enough to spend their lives constructing a tomb for some ambitious booby, whom it would have been wiser and manlier to have drowned in the Nile, and then given his body to the dogs. I might possibly invent some excuse for them and him, but I have no time for it." But at another level--that of the societal--the mapping of a city (a human-created environment, after all) in accordance with a map of the cosmos rather than one reflecting some strange confluence of local topography and the whims of succeeding generations of residents--a denial of the contingent in favor of the Always There: there's an undeniable grandeur and vision to that that I think Thoreau might also agree with:
Men esteem truth remote, in the outskirts of the system, behind the farthest star, before Adam and after the last man. In eternity there is indeed something true and sublime. But all these times and places and occasions are now and here. God himself culminates in the present moment, and will never be more divine in the lapse of all the ages. And we are enabled to apprehend at all what is sublime and noble only by the perpetual instilling and drenching of the reality that surrounds us. The universe constantly and obediently answers to our conceptions; whether we travel fast or slow, the track is laid for us. Let us spend our lives in conceiving then.
A marvelous word, conceiving, in this context, both its meanings of "understanding" and "to cause to begin life" working equally well here.

Scruffy's always needing walking--not a heck of a lot of transcendence in that. Not this particular morning, at least. But the stars are always there, the sky spinning about but always returning to the same place eventually: that is their wonder. One can not only map a city according to that, one can take that idea and begin to map a life, or re-chart one already mapped.

Read More...

Saturday, May 26, 2007

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

Why, thank you, Mr. Emerson, for providing me with a handy excuse for not acknowledging your birthday yesterday. How, well, conformist to recognize a person's birthday on that day. "Whoso among you would be a man must be a non-conformist," I hear you say, and I say Aye. Here, I say in my manliest fashion, is my virtual tribute to you.

Of course, this same man also famously said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know." Well. I am sorry to report that there are times, as I think back on many things that I have come to believe are true, when it really does seem to me that "what I know" is Emerson--or maybe, better put, Emerson in tension with the ideas of his student and gentle gadfly, Thoreau. And Thoreau is, to my mind, not fully knowable without some knowledge of Emerson. Good old Blog Meridian is filled with quotes from, allusions to, and unconscious restatings of these men's words, ideas and attitudes about the world; remove all that, and it would become effectively disoriented. It would lose what might in fact be its prime meridian (or maybe its equator--but you get the idea: some big, important, navigation-type thingy).

So: I'm just going to shut up and let the opening paragraphs of Emerson's 1836 essay "Nature" speak for a bit (my source for the text is this site, which has all the Emerson texts most people will ever need):

Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship.

Undoubtedly we have no questions to ask which are unanswerable. We must trust the perfection of the creation so far, as to believe that whatever curiosity the order of things has awakened in our minds, the order of things can satisfy. Every man's condition is a solution in hieroglyphic to those inquiries he would put. He acts it as life, before he apprehends it as truth. In like manner, nature is already, in its forms and tendencies, describing its own design. Let us interrogate the great apparition, that shines so peacefully around us. Let us inquire, to what end is nature?

Some brief--I promise--yammering below the fold.

When I've taught Emerson in the past, I tell my students that this essay's opening paragraph, coming as it does 60 years after our nation's declaration of political independence, is our declaration of philosophical independence ("Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe?"). That second paragraph, meanwhile, could not be a better argument in favor of the compatibility of science and religion (some neo-medievalists among us, you know, would argue otherwise) and in so doing, I just noticed this morning, all but states out loud Derrida's famous phrase "always already"in the antepenultimate sentence of this excerpt--except, instead of "philosophy," Emerson says, we'll find Nature: the source of philosophy.

There is nothing outside the (Emersonian) text. No wonder I keep returning to him: there's no escaping him.

Happy birthday, sir.

UPDATE (May 27): Belatedly (as is usual with me), it was after reading Aunty's comment that it occurred to me that some of you might prefer to read your Emerson in paper form. Though this doesn't have the essay I quoted from above, it does have all the essays of the First and Second Series (including important essays such as "Self-Reliance" and "Experience"), along with a brief but very helpful introduction.

Read More...