The Giving Tree

Has anyone read The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein? I used to teach a theatre class for 4 and 5 year olds, and I used to read this book with them and have them act it out every semester. (So cute!) Anyway, for those of you who aren't familiar with it, here's a little summary: a little boy plays outside by this big apple tree, swings from its branches and climbs all day long, and both the tree and the boy are happy. As the boy grows up, however, he wants to make some money, so the tree offers him its apples to sell. When the boy gets old and sad he wants to get away, so the tree offers him its branches to make a boat, and he sails away for a long time. At the very end of the story, the boy is now an old man, and he is so tired and old that he comes back to the tree, now a stump, to sit down and rest. And both of them are happy again.

This story reminds me of what we are talking about in class, with nature having a goal. But this story offers a twist; the goal of the tree is to please the boy. The tree is happiest when the boy is close by. Can this happen? Can it be nature's goal to be utilized by humans? Not every acorn grows into an oak tree... but even the ones that do don't end up the same. Some are made into tree houses, and some hang tire swings. I don't think this is a bad thing; because in the end all of those result in people spending more time in nature and the outdoors anyway.

Humans=Nature

I have always thought that "organisms"(mainly humans and animals) had the ability to plan out or state a goal.  But now in Aristotle's terms "nature" has goals.  In my mind it seems as if Aristotle was painting nature in a way that was almost humanly, having wants, goals, and desires.  Now since I associate goals with thinking beings I differentiate human goals from that our nature.  However, we base many of our actions around things that we have found in nature.   Nature has always had a legs up on the human competition because of how perfectly crafted her ideas were.  The thing that gives nature the leg up is her ability to change so flawless when adverse circumstances are directed towards her.  

Being that nature is always changing and evolving I am wondering whether we took or copied the behavior that she demonstrated in the earlier times of our existence.  If that is true about how we used what nature had perfected in order to make the improvements that we have made then I would have to undoubtedly say that nature was on of the creators of humans and therefore humans would be apart of nature.

What do you think?  Did we copy what nature was doing in our early stages of evolution or can we stay that this ability to have goals was one of innate functions that we were ultimately born with?  Or, can the words human and nature be interchangeable for one another?  

Materialism and Inter-being

Today in class we brought up the issue of materialism vs. idealism. Is everything matter? Or is matter a product of a higher mind? It seems to be an almost chicken-and-egg scenario from a human-centered point of view. This problem persists until science and philosophy enter the picture because we're naturally inclined to think that only a mind could create all this.

Unfortunately, we’ve been educated to think about scientific facts and theories as value-less and cold observations about our external environment. When many of us look at the anatomy of the human brain and the body on a diagram they seem like detached facts about ourselves just like the rest of the world. Materialism seems strange and counter-intuitive. How can such wonderful things like love and virtue come about through the interplay of biology and chemistry? Materialism comes off to some as a shallow and disheartening philosophy that doesn’t explain our experiences well enough. Maybe it isn’t the truth about material reality that is superficial but rather our own depth of understanding and experiencing energy/matter. After all, there’s an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that the world in which we live exists as a result of complicated physical processes. Without spending excessive time on detailed scientific terminology, we can illustrate a basic picture of the universe within us according to scientific facts and philosophic theory.

Simple atoms were formed through the interactions between sub-atomic particles within the cosmic energy environment. Atomic interaction with cosmic energy led to the initial expansion of our universe. Innumerable molecules were formed through the interactions between atoms within the space/time environment. Molecular interaction with the universe eventually led to the formation of hundreds of billions of galaxies. Chemicals formed through the interactions between molecular compounds within galactic environments. Chemical interaction with galaxies led to the formation of billions and billions of different stars. Heavier elements were formed through the interactions between chemicals within high-mass star environments. Some of the complex chemical compounds needed for biology were also formed in other stars. We are made of star dust. Astro-chemical interaction with stars led to the formation of solar systems and planets.

Our particular planet, Earth, interacted with the Sol system to form its structure and atmosphere. It underwent a long and eventful evolution until the environment became hospitable for the formation of life. Simple cellular organisms formed through the interactions between complex chemical processes within the earth environment. Cellular interaction with the earth formed more complicated biological organisms. Biological evolution produced a myriad of life forms over billions of years. Over 90% of all life forms ever to exist on earth have already come and gone so I could go on forever about the variety of life.

Eventually, the modern human came into being. So how did we make the jump from atomic, chemical, and biological evolutionary processes to “human being”? After all, we have all these interesting trademarks of our species: culture, religion, art, agriculture, science, civilization, and many other things. I would propose that we evolved these capacities because we are social animals. We have evolved in a social environment.

We have survived and prospered through cooperation with one another. Coupled with our intelligence, we’ve created entire cultures and civilizations based on our social and natural evolution. Love and virtue, and all other emotions and concepts, were formed through the interactions between human beings within the natural environment. I would go so far as to say that our original conception of ‘spirit’ formed through our interaction with the earth and the universe. This would explain why ‘spirit’ and ‘love’ are often so closely associated. In my mind, they are as real as anything else. Culture and society are intrinsically connected with what it means to be a human being. Individual human beings cannot exist outside of their social/cultural and natural environments. Everything is interconnected and codependent on everything else. I call it inter-being.

So does anyone else agree with philosophical materialism and my own particular take on it? Can it be expanded to account for all our conceptual and emotional structures? Anyone have an alternate explanation they would like to share? I would appreciate any comment regardless of content. Thanks.

Form and Function or Form vs. Function?

It is an old adage that form follows function. In class when finishing up discussing Aristotle’s Book 1 and starting on Book 2 we came across the principle ideas of form, function, material and shape. For the purpose of form as we are using in class I believe we settled on the idea that form and shape were not equals. In fact, in the hupokeimenon of material, shape and form can be understood as opposite sides of the triangle. With that said what relationships can be seen between form and function? Are they the same in this case? According to Aristotle, form (morphe or eidos) is the being-at-work. “It is often said that Aristotle imports the form/material distinction from the realm of art and imposes it upon nature. Yet material (hule) “is that which underlies the form of any particular thing. Unlike what we mean by “matter,” material has no properties of its own, but is only a potency straining toward some form.” These definitions seem hard to follow because they reuse and repeat the same terms. However, it is clear that there is a relationship between form and material and can often be seen in the realm of art.

Back to my original idea, do form and function have a relationship? If talking about art I would say ‘yes’ because form does in fact follow function (can be seen in architecture, sculpture, etc.) How about in nature? How about in the philosophy of nature and creation?

(The idea of hupokeimenon as I understand it is something that is being scrutinized in terms of degree of intensity, opposites, composition, or as we explain it in class, the “underlying thing.” The example used in class pretty often has been that of human beings being the hupokeimenon and educated and non-educated being opposed and therefore being on opposite sides of the triangle.)

*Definitions of form and material were taken from the readings of Book 2 chapters 1-3 and glossary (pages 248 and 249) of Aristotle’s Physics.

Word Associations

I wanted to address something we talked about last week. We were talking about how when a child is born and begins speaking, it refers to every male as father and every female as mother (found on page 33). And only later, as they grow do children distinguish between them. I feel that this idea is totally wrong. Children tend to bond to their parents even before they know the words mother and father. Once they learn this is Mom and this is Dad it tends to stay that way. I have never once experienced a kid address another person other than his or her parents as mother or father. This brings me to my next point found on page 35 at the very bottom. It talks about the association of words and their meanings. Without mentioning all the examples from the text, I feel it says that we associate words with things (or actions) and it stays that way. The book mentions that cloak and robe are the same as being-good and being-bad are the same. I have to disagree with this as well. I don’t feel that one word means the same for any two people. We all have our own experiences and that shapes what words mean to us. Thus it is impossible to ever have two words mean the same thing to more than one person. I just feel that this idea is totally wrong. I provide the example of ‘a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.” This is true, however it would cease to be a rose. So, if all of a sudden we chose to call roses daffodils, there would no longer be roses and thus daffodils would smell like daffodils. The point I’m trying to get at is that our word associations will stay the consistent. Mother will be who we call mom (the person we associate with mom not all females), Father will be our father (the person we associate with dad but not all males), and a rose will be a rose and a daffodil will be and smell like a daffodil. We learn these associations when we are young and it is difficult to change them. Just like an adult will associate memories with objects. If what I said makes any sense at all.

Ripe

I should have posted this awhile ago when were were discussing Pollan in class but recently my grandfather, who follows our class blog, pointed out some very interesting ideas to me on biological pesticides that I don't think were brought up in class. One idea he had was on the ripening of fruit and what it means to both the humans and animals consuming the fruit and to the plant producing the fruit. We all know that fruits(and vegetables) don't taste good when they are not ripe. When an apple is still green it will give us a stomach ache if we eat it. But as soon as the apple is red we know it is good to eat. Ripe, to the plant, means that the seeds inside are ready to be dispersed. The plant produces poisons that cause us not to eat the fruit before it wants to be eaten. This creates a natural balance between us and the plant. Industrial pesticides disrupt this balance. This balance goes against the plants natural defenses that are harmless to both sides, as long as we go along with what the plant is doing for us. Plants and animals coevolve. The industrial pesticides we introduce to the plants have caused extreme harm, even though it is unintended by the humans who put it there in the first place. By not disrupting this balance we allow the natural defenses from both the plants and animals to stay neutral. In my grandfather's words " I've characterized plants as having "wants" and "strategies," but that is only a metaphor. Nature has no intent, no forethought, no planned direction. It is just that what works is preserved. What is natural is not by nature good or bad, beneficial, or malicious. Nature is neutral. Nature is amoral."

The Sex Analogy and Nature's Control

Today the example of human sexual reproduction was brought up in class. It was said that the action of having sex causes the creation of a child, but it is really nature that “creates” the child, because we as humans do not directly and consciously control the biological processes involved in the creation of an embryo. While this does have much merit, I believe an argument can be made. Is it not our genes and chemistry that causes us to have sex in the first place. Is it not the pheromones emitted from the body and subconsciously detected by the opposite gender (usually) that cause us to want to have sex in the first place? Everyone of our actions are controlled by some chemical reaction that takes place in the brain, and these chemical reactions, including our genes, are what Aristotle uses to classify objects in the world as nature. If they have an internal motion that causes an object to evolve, then it is nature. Well if chemical reactions are internal motion that cause objects to alter their form or actions, then are not chemical reactions nature? If chemical reactions are nature, then nature controls the actions that humans use to create a child, and thus nature causes the creation of the additional human beings. Thus are we not entirely just pawns in the game nature is playing?

Internal Motion as a Classification for Nature: Atomic Structure

Aristotle argues that anything that has internal motion is nature. This can be interpreted as evolving due to internal reactions, and most people classified all biological organisms into this category. To this I posed the question in class: if by definition anything that is evolving due to internal processes is nature, then would not certain metals, which are not biological organisms, be nature due to their radioactive qualities?
Another way to interpret this definition is focusing in on the term “internal motion.” Everything in the material world has an atomic structure, and at the atomic level every object is in motion all the time. It’s just that the movement is not visible to our eyes. So then by that logic, could one not use this to argue once again, that everything in the material world is in fact nature?
Using this idea, the only thing I think that could not be classified into nature that are still physical are things such as fire and wind. These things are not entirely elemental in the sense that they are themselves are caused by the elements of the periodic table. Also intangible things such as love, fear, knowledge, and courage are not by this definition nature, because they do not, themselves contain internal motion, and yet they evolve over time. At the same time, I recognize that one could argue against this saying that emotion, concepts, and ideas are nature because they are created by the chemicals in our brains.
What do you think?

Forest vs. Trees

Aristotle’s ideas and theories can be (and have been) interpreted in various ways. To help myself make sense of all his abstract dialect, I try to see nature as both one and many, finite and infinite. It is possible to view nature as a whole, as a grand clarification of life, and the social, political and economic relationships of life. In opposition, nature can be broken down into species, organisms, molecules, atoms and subatomic particles. I think it is far too simply to say nature is “one,” and way too difficult to try to understand nature as “all.” When we say ‘all is one’ we are deeming the distinctions and variability of our world irrelevant or obsolete. When we conclude that nature is ‘all’ we disregard any element known to us that is not considered a natural thing (a building, for ex). While reading an e-reserve article for my sociology class, I found that Dr. Allan G. Johnson, an educator, sociologist, and author of "The Forest, the Trees and the One Thing," explains my point through metaphor in a more clear way,

In one sense, a forest is simply a collection of individual trees; but it’s more than that. It’s also a collection of trees that exist in a particular relation to one another, and you can’t tell what that relation is just by looking at each individual tree. Take a thousand trees and scatter them across the Great Plains of North America, and all you have are a thousand trees. But take those same trees and bring them close together and you have a forest. Same individual trees, but in one case a forest and in another case just a lot of trees.

Johnson, Allan G. The Forest, the Trees and the One Thing. In the forest and the trees: sociology as life, practice and promise. Philadelphia. Temple University Press. 1997 pp. 7-35. Prepared 7/21/2004, accessed 2/24/2009.

I believe the point Johnson is trying to facilitate is that looking at individuals, or ‘ones’ does not give a clear description of the whole (nature). In the same sense, looking at ‘all’ (the forest) does not tell us specifically about the individuals. It is the combination of the two, and the relationships between them, that give us a total perspective.

You, me, and earthworms?

You, me, and earthworms?
I absolutely believe that Darwin had the "Golden Rule"of Reciprocity on his mind when he expanded his interest in the earthworm. After reading Pollan's article on "Homes and Gardens: Inner Space"in the Guardian, I compare the two as both being humans of compassion. Pollen spoke of a line of Fir trees on the back of his property that he considered to be "quite impressive"to behold, however, he couldn't help but think of these trees as lumber. At the same time, he was feeling ashamed that he had been part of the destruction of trees, of which he built his very own family home (cabin) with. I think that these men both viewed "everything" as being "reciprocal". The earthworm, for instance, at first seemed almost obviously a pest. Darwin's fascination with the earthworm's purpose was, indeed, extreme, however, worthy. After 20 years he got his proof that the earthworm is a functional and contributing member of Nature. There is now a market for earthworms for compost, fishing, even PETS!...If you "google" earthworms there are all kinds! They are advantageous to soil, fish bite for them, scientists study them... all things make sense. So is the earthworm a "hupokeimenon" for the soil? or the fish that swallow it? Or for the kindergarten child who studies it's behavior in a tank? Since air is the "hupokeimenon" of Earth and Water...Is the Earthworm a "hupoeimenon" all of it's own that supplies all these, although slow in progress, things? Aristotle opposed Rene Descartes "Dualism"(relationship between mind and matter.) During the 1700's, folks like Voltaire challenged Descartes with a new theory on human nature called "Deism"(Let it go...Don't intervene with the affairs of humans...just use reason and observation. I mean, seriously, that's ALL we can do. I, personally , am not a fan of Aristotle, but he doesn't have any spirituality and I think he is arrogant.......and..he keeps changing his mind! .."All is One""..whoops.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that all through history, we have taken advantage of the known resources, and the unknown resources as well. We are so quick to judge something (or some being) as useless, when in fact, everything (breathing or not) is a significant part of YOU. We absolutely cannot survive without something else to tie us to.
Posted by paula at 5:15 PM

Philosophy of The Matrix

The other day in class, the matrix was mentioned and I started to think about the movie, and I was reminded of an interesting thing that the antagonist Agent Smith says.

“I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure. “

Following this train of thought, one is reminded of one of the first questions we tried to answer in class; are humans a part of nature? Though Smith’s rationale is based in a science fiction film, there is some truth behind it. All animals on this planet have shown the ability to adapt and evolve in reaction to their surroundings, yet human beings have avoided this by making the environment adapt to them. We use air conditioning and heating to create ideal environments. If we consider environmental adaptation as criteria for being a mammal, then we would not fall into that category and would undoubtedly fall into the virus category, as Smith says. There is much evidence in the world to support this claim as well. Soil depletion and deforestation are among the best examples which show us how we have used the environment as opposed to working with it or adapting to it, yet this is just the tip of the iceberg. We have done innumerable things to the environment which have had no positive effect on it. Though there has been much activity recently to avoid such behavior, it is still one of our natural instincts to use nature in that way. Considering the virus perspective, we fit the profile. And if this is part of our instincts, does that make us not a part of a nature? If not then what is our role in?

Is “To be” the perfect verb for nature?

At the end of class on Tuesday, the phrase “all is one” was compared to the English literature rule of E-Prime. I am not an English major, so I did a little research on the term E-Prime to better understand its role in our language. I found out a few things that struck me as most interesting and related to our class discussions. Avoiding “to be” is intended to clarify meaning, stimulate intellectual thinking, and enhance critical thinking. The passive form is an incorrect way of writing and you are considered a better writer and more intelligent if you can write and speak without using the “to be” verb. “To be” also has many, many forms.

In class, we noted that “is” in the phrase “all is one” is a “to be” verb. Is this a bad thing because it is implying all is a being and everything is changing? And if everything is one, then how can we categorize anything into natural or unnatural?

While researching E-Prime, I found out that the term is compared to the Greek sea god, Proteus. Proteus constantly changing forms, a lion, wild boar, snake, tree, running stream, this is similar to the many forms of “to be.” Therefore, I would have to assume that “all is one” is a pretty accurate statement because nature is always in motion and changing. Is Aristotle saying that everything is apart or connected to nature? How would you clarify this analogy? I definitely hope in class we can come to a conclusion because I find this concept interesting and complicated.

Change and Aristotle

During class on Tuesday, we discussed Aristotle’s views on nature and the “all is one” principle. Aristotle points out that this principle seems fundamentally problematic because the verb, to be, implies change. Change would not be possible since whatever we would be considering (the one) can only change into the one since everything is just one thing. By doing this, he explains the importance of needing to distinguish between things in existence and sets up his frameworks for analyzing nature. Later on, he talks about change and how change is an important aspect that can help us understand nature. I think he begins to expand these ideas in the later chapters of Book 1 when he considers his three elements of nature, although I only really understood it when he describes “shape” (see pages 41-42). I hope that Thursday’s class will clear up my confusion on the rest of his ideas.

Ultimately, what struck me was this idea of change. I don’t remember us ever considering change as a part of nature when we discussed what nature is during the first couple classes. I think that Aristotle’s idea is a good point to insert into the ongoing discussion. In particular, he says that humans and plants are natural because they change into what they are from their “seeds” (41-42). Furthermore, Aristotle talks about how materials could change into a statue or a house. Does this mean that he thinks that these objects and what they change from are also part of nature? How does this mindset factor into your own personal ideas concerning nature? Also, if I am making any huge errors in my interpretation of Aristotle, please point them out!

Aristotles Definition of the Natural and Unnatural

If I interpreted it correctly, and accurately paid attention in class today, I think what Aristotle was saying about nature today was the interpretation of what is Natural and what is unnatural or other than natural. I interpreted as that Aristotle believes that everything natural is down to the elements. That plants and animals or humans are natural and the parts of each of these are natural down to the elements but that the unnatural are those items made through a craft, such as a bed. Though a bed is made from natural products, it is made through a skill or technique into something else so it becomes unnatural. He comes to this conclusion because the things that are considered natural are those things which have it within themselves a standard of motion or immovability; to alter or change, to grow or die. Therefore, if we assume Aristotle’s belief in book one, chapter one to be true, could we not go back to the first discussion of class in which we addressed what constitute something natural and unnatural? It might clarify our argument a bit as to what object are considered Natural and which are not. By Aristotle’s argument, a TV would still be part of nature, yet it would be unnatural because it no longer has the ability inside itself to change and that everything in a TV was once natural, yet through humans, we altered all of its basic parts, making the whole TV unnatural. So my question is, what about genetically modified plants? They are still a plant and they still have the principle or altering or changing, and can grow or decay yet, humans have altered them. Humans have taken their basic elements and changed them, so wouldn’t GMOs be considered unnatural? I may be wrong in my assumptions of what Aristotle believes, but if we assumed the principles above to be true, then how would we categorize GMOs or are there any other objects in our current world that blur the line between Aristotle’s definition or the natural and unnatural?

Darwin's Earthworms

The story of Darwin's earthworm studies is a great example of what Pollan means by "reciprocity." But is this mutual interaction of nature and culture also an illustration of the hypothesis that "all is one"? This cycle of exchange between farmer and earth could describe the dynamic unity that Aristotle considers in Bk.1 Ch.2 of the Physics, but does this way of speaking place too many conceptual demands to be practical? On the other hand, would changing our speaking habits in the manner suggested by E-Prime be comparable to the sorts of adjustments we would have to make in order to develop the kind of practical control that would make reciprocity possible?

Levels of the Conscious

Before we move on from the book The Botany of Desire, I would like to make a comment on the way Pollan views the conscious part of the mind in the chapter on marijuana. It seems that Pollens point of view in this chapter is that there are only two forms of the ones conscious, which is the conscious (ie during the day while one is awake) and the unconscious (while one is sleeping). It is his belief that the use of intoxication drugs, such as marijuana, which leads to altering our conscious. I have to agree with Pollen that drugs will alter your conscious, but I disagree with the fact that there is only one level of conscious which drug can only alter.
As far as the conscious is concerned there are a multitude of different levels. The levels depend on two things, a person’s awareness of the physical world and the person’s awareness of his mind. To reach the highest of these levels, one would have to be under periods of excessive adrenaline. While in this state, one is fully aware of only the physical world around oneself and what one would take into account very fine details in your surroundings. An example of this is car accident we were discussing in class. The next level down would be you average conscious level, in which one is at throughout most of the day. At this level one is well aware of one self’s physical environment and partially of what is going on in one self’s mind. A step further down and one would find one self slowly shutting of the physical world and turning inward, in the world of one selfs’ mind. An example of this would be if one were daydreaming while in philosophy class (which I know you weren’t because of the great discussions). Eventually one would progress down into the state of unconscious, when one is asleep.
With these different levels of the conscious, one must ask himself, do drugs only alter one sense of the conscious, or does it take one to different levels of our conscious? Could this explain for the various accounts of seeing things that are not there or visions from God? I think so, but do you?

Mmm, food.

Thursday’s class, in discussing organic vs. nonorganic foods; the use of pesticides vs. natural techniques, raised a lot of questions left unanswered. Are we more in control of the products we eat when we choose organic, or less? Is anyone actually going to consider the chemicals put into industrial-grown foods at the grocery store? I don’t think I know one person (including myself) who does. Hilary (Hillary?) brought up a good point by saying that we have less control over the food’s actions throughout the organic growing process, but much more control over what we ingest chemically. I completely agree with this, but there are also consequences such as defective crops and irregular products that come with the organic process of farming.

I guess the question you have to ask while choosing between the two food types is: what is my opportunity cost (the value I hold to the option I didn’t choose) compared to the profit of what I did choose? One must weigh out the benefits and detriments of organic (no pesticides, but more costly) and industrial (insecticides used, but cheaper) growing techniques. On one hand it seems like society prefers the quick, cheap way of consuming food while at the same time disregarding the health risks of that food (McDonald’s, for ex). On the other, there seems to be a uniform perspective of Americans that we as a whole need to A) get healthier, and B) “become environmentally conscious.” These two opposing notions are, I believe, the reason for the division among the people who buy organic foods and those who don’t. Will there ever be a medium?

In class today I used the parenting metaphor as it applies to the industrial/biotech and organic methods of farming to illustrate that having absolute control of something can often lead to an absolute rejection of that control, while 'guiding' something loosely can produce cooperation and a better overall result. To expand a little on my thinking, I feel that absolute control tends to backfire alot because it is, by nature, inflexible. The use of the strict regimines of pesticides or a specific gene that infuses a specific pesticide into a plant may work for the time being, but does not account for the infinate numbers of factors that are liable to change. The model that the industrial food industry uses indicates that it, like a majority of us, tends to view nature as a sort of mathmatical model, that nature follows some kind of formula, and to get the desired outputs, all you need to do is put certain imputs in. This results in the kind of linear model that we discussed in class. This model, however, does not account for the fact that nature is constantly evolving and changing, and so is bound to fail. As a political science major, I find the disconnect between our political and natural philosphy and our conceptions of control fascinating. The major reason that our American government has endured for more than 200 years is its flexibility. Democracy is a better form of government than autocracy because it lets the people have some control over their government. Simillarly I think that organic farming is a better method because it lets nature have some control over the process, and is therefore flexible. We refer to the constitution as a 'living' document because of its ability to change and have championed its values all around the world. Yet sometimes it seems that we hardly even view nature as a 'living' thing. Why is it that our views on politics reflect a need for limited goverment control, but our views on nature reflect a need for absolute control?

Short-sightedness

I don't know how philosophical my point will become, but I wanted to bring up a discussion about biological pollution. Why can't humans learn patience from years and years of past experience/mistakes? It seems to me that the New Leaf Potato, with Bt toxin inherent in ever part of its body, is just as dangerous as DDT has proven to be over the past 50 years. Although Monsanto shrugs off possible problems by calling this a "Biological Revolution", it is clear that some environmental damage is apt to occur; no one ever promised complete harmlessness, especially from a registered pesticide. I understand that less work makes the power of control a more fulfilling concept, but are we willing to sacrifice our health and those of our children and animals to a creations such as the New Leaf Potato that may only be helpful for the next 30 years? Silent Spring was once touted as an amazing breakthrough in public knowledge of scientific agendas, and yet we still see effects from continued pesticide usage of the exact chemicals Rachel Carson studied.
DDT was not only used as an agricultural pesticide but also as an aerial spray to kill mosquitoes for malaria eradication. It was later found to be stored in the adrenals, testes, thyroid, liver, or kidneys, and caused health problems by disintegrating liver cells and inhibiting cardiac muscle enzymes, causing breakdown and necrosis. Pollan also mentions organophosphates in this chapter. These were originally used as nerve gases in war, and can cause irreversible damage to the nervous system, leading to seizures, comas, and even death from prolonged exposure. Long-term consequences of these pesticides are still being discovered today. Chemical residues can stay dormant in the human body for years, building up in mammary glands, and then be released to our infant children through milk. I don't understand how information such as this doesn't somehow keep us from continuing to create destructive, potentially harmful insecticides that we really no NOTHING about.
I suppose I may be lumped in with others who distrust technology, but I agree with the saying "you are what you eat". To me, cultivating and consuming a plant that is perfectly designed to destroy other life, is an atrocious step in the wrong direction for science, technology, philosophy, everything.

Dominance Over Nature, A Symbol of Power

Louis XIV was a powerful political leader in France who’s hunger for power and control shaped the way we understand the meaning of a manicured landscape. His creation of the Gardens of Versailles illustrates Pollan’s concepts of beauty and control of nature. Louis XIV desired to demonstrate his power as a leader by creating a vast landscape using classical French style garden design. Louis discovered landscape architect Andre Le Notre, the designer of another French chateau, Vaux-le-Vicomte.

The gardens of Versailles demonstrate control through design. Le Notre uses symmetry, highly manicured elements, monumental scale, and axes to infinity. Through these elements the king shows his power and wealth. Is this beautiful? Louis definitely believed it was. Louis was nicknamed the “sun king” and therefore iconic solar elements are incorporated into the garden. Apollo, the god of sun and light is also seen throughout the design. I guess Louis believed he was equal with Apollo.

Here is a plan view of the gardens.

Today, Versailles is one of the most frequently visited sites in France and is on the UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Its importance stems from its impact on the history of design. I have visited the chateau during my semester abroad and the vastness and control of the garden is actually quite beautiful and stunning. It is hard to believe that humans created such a unique and intricate piece of art.

Some of the class may be thinking that this highly manicured, vast garden is not beautiful and the natural landscape is more pleasing. However, many landscape architects are so talented that their “control” over the landscape creates a view that appears untouched by man. The work of A. E. Bye (PSU alum) is a great example. If you claim that a man-made landscape is not beautiful, is this beautiful even though it only appears natural?

Here are example of A. E. Bye's landscapes. Would you be able to tell it was man-made?

Next Generation of Pesticides

The goals of many older pesticides were to work against the processes of nature in order to help the plants grow the best.  While producing the 'perfect' produce/vegetable they have inadvertently rearranged the order of nature on the most basic levels.  Now in modern agriculture in farming processes and consumerism has shifted toward the notion of "organic farming" and foods.  I understand why there has been such a shift in pest maintenance.   In other areas of agriculture such as cattle production there version of 'pesticides' have withdrawal dates such that the residue from the medicine can have time to leave there systems, so why would there be any difference in regards to plants and pesticides.  In class we brief talked about how the potatoes were listed as a pesticide but there are more that are similar situations as the potato.  Some of the other produce that is affected by this same situation are: strawberries, peppers, spinach, cherries (US), peaches, green beans, and winter squash. 

In order to stop the present of residue in our produce many pesticide companies have re-evaluated their current method of pesticide production.  Advances are being made agriculture in the direction of biopesticides which are derived from plants, microbes, or other natural materials and are proven to be safer for humans and the environment. With the new modern methods of pest control more and more people are moving towards the biopesticides which has active compounds that alert plant defenses to combat a range of diseases, including powdery mildew, gray mold and bacterial blight that affect fruits, vegetables and ornamentals. Currently we are transitioning from the synthesized chemical pesticides to the natural biopesticides, and in about ten years experts hope that we will all be using the biopesticides.  With the introduction of this new pest control method we are seeing a public that is more aware of what the chemical pesticides have done and now the American consumer in more aware and informed.

I just have one question, is the move towards biopesticides similar in respect to that of the Bt that the potatoes are regulating in the New Leafs or is the biopesticides completely different because they are working with nature without being shot into the plants genes.

 

Here is a link to an article on Biopesticides:  http://www.farmanddairy.com/news/new-biopesticide-for-organic-food-boom/10076.html

Too Much Control?

This specific chapter (desire: control; plant: potato) seemed to incorporate much of the material covered previously both in Pollan’s work and our class’ discussions. Control is the product of our primitive human desire to always want more- to never fully be satisfied, even after continuous revision in an attempt for perfection. For example, the apple has been genetically engineered countless times in order to perfect the sensation of sweetness, but there is as much variability among human tastes and desires as there is among the natural world.

Pollan also appears to be facilitating the argument that (involving the French gardens of Versailles) there is a certain undeniable beauty that results from incorporating the human ability to control nature with nature’s ominous ability to control us. This equilibrium, or rather paradox, seems to be beautiful due to the fact that we (humans) rely on cooperation and deliverance of something (plants) that demands the same of us. The beautiful aspect of this (for example, with perfect rows of blooming corn stalks) lies in the codependency we have with nature and the mutual “understanding” that is present.

The desire for control is also incorporated with chapter three: intoxication. One who uses artificial (or even natural) products to alter or manipulate his/her state of mind is controlling that action for personal benefit. The root cause of the decision to intoxicate one’s self may even stem from the lack of control that person is experiencing in his/her life. The question that I would like answered (if anyone wants to offer their opinion) is this: are sweetness, beauty and intoxication things that necessarily should be controlled? Or are we better off letting nature (both plants and ourselves) coexist without one controlling the other at all?

Philosophy of Money as it Plays into Nature

Philosophy of Money

How does money and potentially greed influence nature, beauty, sweetness, intoxication, etc.?

We are told when we are young children that money makes the world go around. Our society has fully and whole-heartedly accepted this notion and to the dismay of some, it is true. But does it have to be? When discussing issues of nature in terms of sweetness and beauty, does money influence what grows and prospers in the ground? Would plants be able to grow and flourish if human manipulation was not present? These are all examples of the sway of currency.

I see how societies and cultures rely on money to survive. I also see how a vast majority of things people have are not necessities. Theoretically our species could exist without money and we could still experience nature in the forms of beauty, sweetness and intoxication among others. Apples grew before humans learned how to graft. They may not have been as sweet or tasty as they are today, but they were still present. That sweetness is something that is often looked over due to the abilities we have in science and technology to create sweeter and better products. Same goes for beauty in nature. An argument can be made that everything is beautiful because beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. To some grass, moss, fungi could be beautiful where as others see more beauty in the tulip or rose. Money and human innovation has had an influence on beauty. We can now make things “more beautiful” and “less ugly” by imposing what we can on nature. This does not stop at just what grows in the ground, however. People make themselves more beautiful via surgery, etc. We are a materialistic culture so cars, clothes and gadgets are seen as sexy, beautiful and appealing.

Along with money naturally comes greed. We see that we can improve objects, societies, people, etc. and never appear to be satisfied. It seems as though there is always something more that can be done. Where does money play into the human relationship with nature and philosophy?

Are Genetically Modified Plants Apollonian or Dionysian?

I have just finished reading the potato chapter and am wondering about what you guys might have gotten out of it. I think that Pollan’s idea is that monoculture represents Apollo and that farms that plant more than one variety of potato (like the organic farmer, Incan farms in the Andes, etc.) represent Dionysius (pp. 225-238 summarize this nicely). When I was reading, I began to try to apply this framework to the genetically modified potato that is the main character of the chapter. I tried to figure out if the modified potato is Apollonian or Dionysian. I really don’t know if this is allowed since this might be an incorrect usage of the dichotomy, but I figured that I would go with it and see if anyone had anything to say about it.

The basic premise of the chapter is that Pollan says that the potato is a symbol of the human desire for control. As he continues through the chapter, he introduces the topic of genetically modified plants and suggests that the biotechnologists helping create these new breeds are using their power to lessen the “wildness of these plants” (pp. 197). In this way, it seems like Pollan is saying that the greater amount of control that we obtain by modifying these plants makes the plants more Apollonian in nature. However, later on he emphasizes how little control over the modified plants we actually have and this seems to support a Dionysian stance. The procedures used to modify the plants are extremely haphazard; luck is a necessity when producing these new plants. Additionally, the genes that the scientists are splicing into the plants are often expressed in different ways, suggesting that the modification can make plants that can look and grow completely different from each other, even if they are still in the same species. This suggests, at least to me, a sense of wildness. These latter facts seem to show Dionysian features in the new genetically modified plants.

Additionally, the impact that the genetically modified plants have on the environment may also be seen as Apollonian or Dionysian. Initially, the modified plants have an advantage in the wild; they can grow without interference from pests. In this way the plants confer more order and control in nature to us humans and the plants are Apollonian. Interestingly, through cross breeding, weeds and other organisms can eventually adapt to the herbicides and pesticides produced by the plants and, in turn, regain the advantage. As a result, other organisms begin to have control over the modified plants which, in turn, return to the wild; this is characteristic of Dionysian ideas.

What do you guys think? Are genetically modified potatoes symbolic of the Apollonian ideal or the Dionysian ideal? Or are they in between (I don’t know if there is a middle ground in this schema, but I think I should include the option anyway)?

Meditation is to Marijuana?

When I was reading the text, I too thought about what was brought up in class. Pollan is saying meditation and prayer can essentially be put on the same scale. So whenever you pray or meditate or go into a hypnotic state, your really getting a high. Hmmm, last time I prayed or did yoga I wasn't flying high in the psychedelic sky. I thought this was one far stretch Pollan made. OK, If you would bring up middle-eastern people that are the suicide bombers, maybe I can give some credit but not anywhere near what Pollan is trying to get me to believe. In that situation, there is more than just praying and getting this idea to kill yourself to kill others and make a point. There is a lot of teaching and that whole nature vs. nurture thing that is very very much involved. More so than just praying. But anyways, I was just wondering what you guys thought about that. We didn't talk too much about it in class and was interested in if you guys shared the same ideas as I did.

Another thing that I thought was interesting was someone mentioned reading a book about how if the black market drug dealing were to be stopped our economy would crash. Logical? I guess in some regards. I can see that in maybe the drug dealers themselves and maybe some others supplying and making whatever tools they need. Yea, they lost their "clients" and now they have no or hardly any income. But the more I think about it I feel that is completely absurd. First of all, if people would stop wasting their money on drugs, we wouldn't have such a problem in this country in the first place. Secondly, if they put their money elsewhere in the market like I don't know, food, then I would say it would help the economy. Third, if the drug dealers and suppliers would get real jobs then again, more help to the economy. My last point I have goes along with a story. So I use to work at Staples near Pittsburgh. One day, we get this package from UPS. No name or address aside from the store address to be delivered. So my manager opens it. There lies all kinds of drugs. All good mix of everything you could think of. So before we even call the police to come get this stuff, a guy walks in and asks for a package. He was pretty rough looking and we were all like its gotta be for him, just has to be. He says his name and we tell him we don't have a package for him (we really didn't!). So he starts flipping out, yells and screams for a while and then the managers makes him leave. Not ten minutes later does this obviously drugged up chick come in and try to get this package. She has obvious track marks all up her arms and it was definitely obvious it was their package. So this was at like 6 pm. We close at 9. From 6 to 9, we have druggie after druggie come in and try to get this package (the police have taken it at this point). After they realized we weren't giving it to them, we noticed them stealing things. For weeks after, we had various things stolen from the store. We later tracked them trying to return to other stores. Now rests my last point, with these kinds of things going on, people will pretty much do anything to get more money for the drugs. Stealing things ruins the economy because its honest people that have to pay for it, and they're already working hard for their money.

Philosophy of the Superbowl

I will never miss a commercial during the Superbowl. I watched intently yesterday, making sure to only leave the room while the actual game was on, careful not to miss a minute of a commercial of the halftime show. But after a few good laughs at the talking horses, a particular commercial gave me mixed feelings.

The Kellog's commercial began with pretty music and green grass growing in the sun. The grass slowly grew up and two blades wrapped together, almost like a grass hug! How lovely. Then to my horror, the long grass turned into a chain-link fence and a big metal fence post, and white paint formed on the shorter grass. A baseball field. All I could think of was this class and how "unnatural" metal and toxic-fumed paint was in the middle of the "natural" world.

Then some kids with baseball gloves run out onto the field yelling and smiling and having fun. The ad promises that Kellog's will help your kids "to play, to grow, to be their very best." I remember how much baseball meant to my older brothers growing up, and what great memories it made for us as a family. Contradicting my initial feelings about the commercial, just because there is a chain-link fence doesn't mean playing the outdoor sport isn't natural. It helps kids who might otherwise be watching TV inside connect with nature without even realizing it. It isn't until a rainy day when they truly miss the outdoors and all that is has to offer.

Even though things like hiking and running seem more "natural" to me than some sports, anything that gets kids and parents (and students) off of the couch and outside playing is a step (pun!) in the right direction.

Here's the commercial if you want to check it out.