Long ago, we traded trees for tools, trying to bend the world to our will. We have risen to our feet, blocking under the weight of the opposing personality that has grown an opposing thumb that calls itself thinking and is made of many tools that we have seen, organizing principles from what we have seen points to everything.
Of all our thinking technologies, none were more useful, more dangerous, more compelling than this category – a living fossil of our basket days, an analysis that is literally forced to separate and contain.
The price we have paid for our ability to understand what we understand is the intellectual faith in the analytical mind as the most effective tool for applying the real problem. This desire for order amidst the chaos of the universe, with something to add to the basic fundamentals of life, may be what makes us human; It may also be the root of our separation from nature, because it is inherently destructive: A century after separating the body from the mind, separating the mental categories, separating the mental categories, separating the dependencies that make this rocky planet a living world. More and more we find that the strongest creatures in nature cross the boundaries between kingdoms and blur the boundary between them, just as lovers confuse labels, but still we continue to live under the spell of Linnaeus. But as my astrophysicist friend Natalie Batalha sees to her amazing surprise Where will we meet? We prayed, “we humans like to put things in pots, we like to separate things, but what we have learned is that nature goes on – you can't put things well in pots.”
English installer John Fowles . A tree (public library). You write:
I am a heretic about Linnaeus, and find nothing more extraordinary, or more religiously promising, than that he should have gone mad at the end of his life. I do not dispute the value of the tool he gave to natural science – which was not in itself a brilliant addition to the Aristotelian system and whether someone else would have clarified it, if he had made it full of someone else; But I doubt the lasting change it has made in the general consciousness of man.
Evolution has turned man into a very divisive creature, seeing the world not only onthrococentantly but singly, showing how we like to think in our private ways. Almost all of our art before the stress – or st john the Baptist, William Turner – cried our love for well-defined boundaries, a distinct identity, of each individual removed from the confusion behind. This power to block the object around the environment and make us focus on it is a method of measurement that is visible in all our judgments on the visible side of the visual art; and it is very similar, if not the same, to what we need optical instruments such as microscopes and telescopes – which is magnification, sharp focus, better separation, to better distinguish, to not charge ruck. Great Science is dedicated to this same limitation: To provide certain labels, to describe certain methods and edlo, in short to organize and include what is visible in a quantity that is not visible to another. Even the simplest knowledge of the names and habits of flowers or trees initiates this process of division or division, and takes us a step away from absolute originality towards anthropocentrism; that is, it works psychologically as the equivalent of camera detection. It is already destroying or throwing away certain opportunities to see, touch and see. And that is the bitter fruit on the tree of Uppsalan knowledge.
A century after the German marine biologist Ernst Haeckel coined the term the environment And ten years before collecting Candian Forester Suzanne of the Trailblazes Suzanne began her isotope research on the rhizomatic communication of trees, Fowles added:
There are also very important questions regarding the reality of the limits we impose on what we see. In wood, the real “border” of the view of any one tree is often impossible to distinguish, at least in summer. We see, or think that we feel we feel “closer” to the disease '(or that of its types) when the chances of stopping like us, in the division; But evolution did not intend for trees to grow carefully. Much more of a social creature, and no more natural as a species than man is as the boundless sailor or the hermit. Their community creates opportunities or supports other communities of plants, insects, birds, mammals, small creatures; Everything that we can choose to classify and class is closed, but what remains under the right business, or the whole experience, is wood – and indeed it is still very visible in primitive humanity.
Scientists restrict the term sybiotic to those relationships between species that bring some tangible benefit; But the true wood, the true place of any kind, is the sum of all its substance. They all have a certain idea in common, being together in the world. It is because such a large number of interactions and combinations of time and space are beyond scientific calculation (a scientist can say, whether it is the flight of a bird and a certain leaf, such as its events, such as its events, or riddles – which bird, which birds. Which branch? Which leaf? Which shadow? These boundaries – where do I put that?) They are ours, not literally. We are led by them, we are bound by them not only culturally and mentally, but physically, by the insecurity of our eyes and their limited field and acuity of vision and acuity of vision. Long before the glass lens and the movie camera were invented, they were present in our eyes and in our conditions of vision and in our short mode of analysis and short analysis and a visual, endless wash of editing and this raw visual.
The Original Wing “as a pseudo-scientist, who manages a kind of cognitive puzzle, or a game, where you can remember the machines and the exact rewards,” and it's like:
Some costs of understanding the way of nature, to find so successfully and the pigeon – thank you well, lie most of them in a person's normal perception of it, in his ability to live with it, and not to see it as a challenge, contempt, enemy. A choice of absolute reality is no more necessary in science than in art; But without those domains (in this final test of selection is the use, or withdrawal, of our species) it is very distorting and limiting any proper relationship.
We know this, not in the mind but in our path – our experience is the richest, the most important, the most dynamic that is accessible, because it is the integration of dense forces, because it is the only part that we want. Analyzing such experiences should not guide them deeply but to grow in them and in the part of us that made that sound, which is the creative part. Fowles writes:
Common experience, from second to second, is actually made (in the sense of integration or constructive), past times and places, private and public history … [of] Unphilosophical, irrational, uncontrollable, incomparable. In fact it is very similar – despite our endless efforts to 'garden,' to build and punish social and social systems – with wild nature. Almost all the personal wealth that exists comes from what has been done and what exists “from the inner and outer reality, not least because we know that it is beyond analysis.
