Our Relationship to Nature: Knowing and Not Feeling — a Sure Path of Loss
(Mike DePung — Post II.101–17)
Most people agree that Nature is important to this world, that concepts like destruction of ecosystems and endangered species and elimination of rainforests and pollution of various sorts — all pose threats to Nature as a whole.
However, I believe the consequences of the destruction of the natural world via humanity’s doings hold little place in everyday consciousness, and that is sad. No, maybe more than sad. That is stupid. And I categorize complacency and apathy about Nature and the environment in that category because our connection with all the things we say we hold dear and desire depends on linking and syncing with the frequencies of Nature — IF we wish to live in Heart-energy. If anyone doesn’t care or purposefully rejects Heart and chooses Ego as their primary operating system, well then Nature, just like everyone and everything else, is only there to meet selfish needs.
For several days now, I have been thinking about my connections with the natural world. When I get exhausted, feel disoriented, seek ideas, or need understanding, I take a walk. Or I go outside with a drink of some sort, listen, feel, smell, stare — just sense — all the expressions of life around me. I’ll get something out of it; the energy is there to be experienced, to run concurrently with Heart, to harmonize with my mind and soul.
Many, though, look on Nature as something nice to deal with if kids need a science project, if there’s nothing to do, if a flash of inspiration overtakes them, or maybe if they want a cheap, simple date that makes them look good. Our consideration of and connections with Nature should be on a daily basis, not recreational or utilitarian whims.
Yes, we know about environmental issues, but that in and of itself doesn’t do much. It’s like I have told students in the past: if you know how to read but choose not to, you’re no better off — maybe worse — than someone who cannot read. The clarion voice of modern environmentalism is the late Rachel Carson, whose book Silent Spring, succinctly, passionately, and professionally laid out the destruction humanity rushes into headlong just for the sake of wealth, convenience, and control and power. Her writing brought about legislation in Congress that persists to this day, much like the Romantics of British literature helped prompt Parliamentary reform to combat the social ills of the day.
Considering the relationship of humanity and Nature, Carson says, “The question is whether any civilization can wage relentless war on life without destroying itself, and without losing the right to be called civilized.” No, no it can’t. And this is the very reason we may not treat Nature as a nice thing to have around and then make decisions to pollute, ravage, rape, and pillage her for the “logical” reasons of most: lower prices, creation of jobs, convenience of living — including aesthetics.
Knowing, feeling, and doing are all necessary, but just knowing does not mean much. Carson also says, “It is not half so important to know as to feel.” If we sympathized with Nature, we would not be so quick to abuse her. And it’s necessary to have feeling, an intrinsic motivation, if we would take action.
The ramifications of not sympathizing with Nature, not feeling her, sensing her, is a sure path to destruction. Carson emphasizes this when she says, “But man is a part of nature, and his war against nature is inevitably a war against himself.” I would like to end this war, at least help to end it.
Tomorrow, some suggestions. Tonight, I’m exhausted.
Blessings, many deep rich blessings!