Ishmael - The End

Final post about Ishmael folks! It is a bittersweet ending for me. On the one hand, I'm sad to be ending this book that we've spent so long on. On the other hand, I'm glad to be moving onto new material. I honestly don't think that I could get through this class if then entire semester was spent on Ishmael.

Anyways, this book begins its ending chapters by interrupting its normal pace of Ishmael talking at the narrator to bring us some plot. Ishmael has vanished and the narrator spends the better part of a chapter hunting him down, finally finding him at a circus. And then, strangely enough, the pair just continue their lessons as usual. Personally, I feel that, as we reach the end of this book, a change is pace was bound to happen. I think it was Quinn's way of making sure we were still paying attention.

Don't be this guy.

Ishmael continues with his lesson, further emphasizing the differences between the Leavers and the Takers.  Quinn writes that "the Takers accumulate knowledge about what works well for things. The Leavers accumulate knowledge about what work well for people." Regarding this, Leavers, Ishmael argues, value the past and evolve from it, figuring out what works well for their people, taking into account where they live and their outlook on the world. Takers, on the other hand, arbitrarily decide what works well for them without a basis in the past, and think this applies to how everyone ought to live. There is no right way to live, as Quinn very clearly illustrates. But, he also argues that living as we do now, putting ourselves above the laws of nature, treating other animals as if they're below us for simply not being human, destroying the Earth through our behaviors and doing little to nothing to fix it is not the right way to go about things. (Side note, if you're interested in the ways we treat animals, check out the documentary Earthlings. It's a bit graphic at times, but I think really worth the watch. Watch the whole thing on YouTube here.)

So, what do we take away from the journey of mind and spirit? Ultimately, I believe we are left with the same fate of the narrator. We have been tasked to teach others what we have learned, just as the narrator has been. And, by time of Ishmael's death, I think the narrator is almost forced to continue teaching, as it is what Ishmael would have wanted. Perhaps this is a bit too optimistic for the overall tone of this book, but I'd like to think that, in the world of this novel, the narrator continues Ishmael's legacy and tells his story.

That's all for now.

Danielle K.

Ishmael - Chapter 9

This is a chapter that revolves heavily around mythology. Ishmael begins the chapter by creating a timeline for the Leavers and then modifying it to fit the Takers. He explains that the agricultural revolution, while it does have a clear beginning, doesn't have an ending point. In fact, it's still going. It's now called the second green revolution. Read more about how that and rice production in Asia here.

The Fall of Man depicted by Jan Brueghel the Elder and
Peter Paul Rubens

Anyways, Ishmael begins to connect the biblical ideas of the origin of man with our mythological ideas. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Ishmael argues, was forbidden from Adam because they feared he would consume the world thinking it was in his rights to do so. Herein lies one of the major problems in our culture. We assume what we're doing is the right things to do. We are deluded, and we think that agriculture and what's come of it is the only correct way to do things, and that this is the only way anyone should do things. With the Takers, there is no preference on how to live; there is one way and that is our way.

Following the Fall of Man, Ishmael states that those who were people representing Abel (the Semites) saw the people representing Cain taking over the land. This became the story of brother killing brother, told now by Takers to Takers, while it was originally told by Leavers for Leavers. We even take dominion over stories, that's how egocentric the Taker culture is. (Side note, I find it really interesting the Quinn chose Ishmael to be the name of his teacher, considering Ishmael was Abraham's first son in the bible who was banished along with his mother. Makes you think about the connections there. Ishmael is still part of Taker culture, he was raised by them, but he is inherently apart from that culture, understanding more of the Leavers.)

Write to you soon.

Danielle K. 

Ishmael - Chapters 5 - 8

Shakespeare is especially fond of fatal flaws. Next time you enjoy
a Shakespearean tragedy, try playing this game of bingo.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming with Ishmael. These few chapters expand on the mythology of "how things came to be this way". Ishmael speaks to the narrator about the idea that humans are fundamentally flawed and therefore incapable of living in harmony with the world. This idea is all over the place, fatal flaws are a key point in most tragedies of antiquity, as well as a lot of modern media. Oedipus is too headstrong and doesn't know when to stop, Macbeth is blinded by his lust for power, Anakin Skywalker is too arrogant an unable to let go of things he cares about, Voldemort is too prideful, incapable of love, and terrified of death, even Elsa from Frozen is frightened of her own powers and therefore herself.

But, as Ishmael argues, there is, in fact, nothing inherently wrong with people. The problem lies in the story we've chosen to enact. It's put us in conflict with the world, made the world our enemy, and now we're heralding victory over the enemy while the world dies in front of us. Speaking of enemies, this is a very human way of looking at things. We are not at war with the planet, we are not embroiled in a feud with the planet, there are no Montagues and Capulets in this story. 

Come on folks, take responsibility.

We live on this planet, just like everything else here. We don't exist above other species, nor do other species exist above one another. For some reason we project the human characteristics of violence onto other animals, calling the owl and the snake enemies when they're just living as they're meant to. For humans, anything that isn't useful to us is completely useless. If we can't eat it, or if it doesn't feed what we eat, we get rid of it. How can we be so presumptuous to define what things on Earth matter and which don't? How completely awful of us. We've made this mess, we need to fix it.

On the bright side, Ishmael is pointing to some solutions. Limiting population growth by evenly distributing resources for example. We produce way more food than we need, but people still go hungry. Read more about that here. 

That's all for now.

Write to you soon.

Danielle K. 

Walden - Part Two

Back again with Thoreau's Walden.

Here's me (in the middle) under a waterfall in
the Ein Gedi Oasis in Israel.

With this bit of Walden, I have to be honest and say that The Pond in Winter was a bit of a boring affair. Most of it is just Thoreau speaking about measuring the pond and the qualities of ice, which I personally do not find very engaging. However, I think one of my favorite things about this group of readings has to be that they all revolve around water. I, for one, really love water. I've always been a water person. When I was a kid I'd stay in the pool until my lips turned blue. When it rains I still splash in puddles. Rivers and lakes fascinate me. On every trip I've ever been on, there's a picture of me in water.

I think this is why I enjoyed The Ponds. Thoreau goes on for a bit about the color of the water in Walden Pond; it's blue, it's green, black, yellow, "as colorless as an equal quantity of air". I really love how in depth he gets with his description here. I mean, how often in your life do you stop and think about the color of the water? It's fantastic, isn't it?

Anyway, moving onto Spring. I find this section overall to be just wonderful, not only in the diction and description, but also in the ultimate message I think Thoreau's trying to send. He takes great pains in using analogies to describe the coming of Spring, saying that it is "like the creation of Cosmos out of Chaos and the realization of the Golden Age." Thoreau here is alluding to the ancient Greek idea that the gods created order from chaos, much like the creation of Paradise during biblical times, or the Golden Age. He implies, by later quoting Ovid's Metamorphoses, that each person, during their stay in Paradise (the season of Spring) has in them the potential to start anew, to be reborn free of sin. Spring to Thoreau is more than a change in weather, it is a change in life, a renewal.

Also look at this scenery from Metamorphoses. So pretty.

(Sidebar, I am a huge Roman mythology buff. If you haven't read Ovid's Metamorphoses, I'd say you should read it, but really don't. It's actually quite a long read, and a bit dry if I'm honest. Instead, read Mary Zimmerman's play adaptation of the same name. Quite a lot shorter and way more enjoyable in my opinion. Okay, back to Walden.)

It is interesting to note that Thoreau, perhaps counterintuitively, ends his account of Walden in Spring, he doesn't start it there. The rebirth he is describing, instead of pointing to new life, points to a changed one. He brings us, as readers, with him on his journey and then heralds us towards the future of our own lives, and the potential we have to live not only closer to nature, but closer to ourselves.

As Thoreau himself writes, "we can never have enough nature." And I have to say, I agree wholeheartedly.

Write to you soon.

Danielle K.

Walden - Part One

We've already briefly touched on Thoreau earlier this year, but he's always a welcome visitor in my neck of the woods.

It's everyone's favorite
weird-facial-hair-having
philosopher!

We begin our journey to Walden with Where I Lived and What I Lived For, most of which tackles the very mundane matter of Thoreau's attempt to buy a farm or plot of land to live on during his Walden project. Once he does so, he begins to wax philosophical (as is like Thoreau) and he writes perhaps one of my favorite lines in all of Walden.

"I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."

Here Thoreau answers the "what I lived for" section of the piece. We already know where he lives, this is a very simply and concrete thing; "I live outside of town," or "I live very far from a post office," or "I live near a pond." Answering "what I lived for" comes down to the dissection of this text. 

Thoreau mentions "living deliberately", which can be taken a few ways. First, Thoreau wishes to live independently, away from the prying eyes of society and according to his own decisions. Now, this is not to say that he acts as a misanthrope in his adventures. As we see in The Village, Thoreau often makes trips to the nearby town of Concord and socializes with the townsfolk. In fact, he leaves his possessions unlocked and welcomes all sorts of visitors, only having a volume of Homer stolen from him. He says that theft only exists where "some have got more than is sufficient while others have not enough." I mean, this guy gets arrested for not paying taxes and doesn't seem all that upset about it. So clearly Thoreau doesn't harbor a huge amount of ill will towards his fellow man and is not "living deliberately" in an attempt to slight society as a whole. 

Now we need to look deeper into "living deliberately." Because do any of us really do that? Do any of us chose to be brought to life? Do we seek to be brought into existence before we exist? Is that even possible? In that case, why do people say they wish they'd never been born? In Sounds, Thoreau interprets the hooting of an owl as "Oh-o-o-o that I never had been bor-r-r-r-n," and remarks that the owl is vocalizing what humans chose not to. Interesting debate there. (For a more humorous outlook on this question, see this tweet.) It's amazing to me that Thoreau can conjure these existential questions just by recounting his time in the woods. Really makes you wonder about the power of nature, doesn't it?

He does this again with the phrase "the essential facts of life." This could be referencing essential things like eating, which he speaks about in The Bean-Field, but it could also be talking about the purpose of human existence, about the core of the human soul. 

I definitely didn't mean to write about this one sentence for so long, but I just love it so much! 

Write to you soon.

Danielle K. 

Ishmael - Chapter 3 and 4

I've read more of Daniel Quinn's Ishmael this evening and have stumbled onto some very interesting things regarding linguistics I'd like to write about.

How linguists break down our speech

If you don't already know, I'm extremely interested in linguistics and
how they shape the way we think and how they affect our lives. For example, as an English speaker, I physically reference past events and future event differently than a Hebrew speaker, like my aunt who lives in Israel. English is written right to left, creating an association with English speakers to time. Time progresses left to right for an English speakers, left is past and right is present. Look an at English speaker next time you're having a conversation about the past and the future. Notice how they will almost always use their left hand, or gesture to their left to signal past tense and their right hand for future events. A Hebrew speakers does the exact opposite, as Hebrew is written right to left. If my aunt talks about what she had for dinner last night, she'll use her right hand to imply the past. Cool, isn't it? Read more about how linguistics effect how we perceive the world here.

Moving onto Ishmael. In these chapters, Ishmael continues his teachings of our society's creation myth to our narrator. He explains that our creation myth, at this moment in the novel, goes something like this; the world was made for man, and man was made to conquer and rule it. The narrator makes two large epiphanies during this process, both of which involve linguistics. 

He first is taught about how it is part of our creation myth to accept that the world was made for man. He points out that, linguistically, this is ingrained into how we speak. We talk about "our" Earth, "our" environment, "our" forests. Who says it's ours? Don't other animals live there too? Who are we to take it from them? Indeed, who are we to take it from them when most of us don't even live anywhere near a forest?

The second realization comes after Ishmael teaches that man was made to conquer the Earth. The narrator at first don't want to accept this, but then sees that this, too, is integrated into our language. We "conquer" space, we "conquer" the oceans. As if these places need conquering, as if it's our divine right to be in these spaces and to take them over.

Who says any of this is for us?

That's all I've got to say for now.

Write to you soon.

Danielle K.

Eaarth - Lightly, Carefully, Gracefully

McKibben closes out his book Eaarth focusing on three major areas; agriculture, fossil fuels, and the internet.

In this post, I'd like to do a close reading of a paragraph regarding the agriculture side of things. With all the reliance we have on industrialized agriculture, it's no wonder we have a problem (read more about that and monoculture in farming here). This specific paragraph concerns the mentalities associated with large scale agriculture. It reads:

"It's hard not to think we all made a mistake. Because yields were rising, we never took seriously all the warnings. In much the same way that rising house prices lured people into ever deeper debt, the Green Revolution lured us into a kind of ecological debt we're only starting to comprehend."

This image is super cheesy, but I kind of love it.

Something I really enjoyed about this book was McKibben's reliance on the word "we" and "us". Throughout Eaarth, he constantly is addressing the audience collectively. He's creating that very sense of community and connectedness that he speaks about towards the end of this chapter by just choosing to use the word "we". Not "I", not "you", "we". As in together. As in all of us, every single one of us. Because the issues addressed here do effect everyone on the planet. We all live here. 

And not only is he addressing everyone, but he includes himself with the word "we". He's not precluding himself as an all-knowing environmentalist, incapable of harming the Earth. McKibben, by purposely involving himself in this narrative, takes partial responsibility for this new Eaarth. As all of us should. We all live in a society that is dependent on an unsustainable system, and in some way, we all contribute to it. Even if you are an environmental scholar who lives in Vermont. 

Moving onto the rest of this excerpt. McKibben here makes a comparison between monetary debt in association with the housing market and ecological debt in association with global climate change. By making this connection, he offers us a very concrete insight into a sometimes abstract idea. Climate change and the issues associated with it seem invisible until you start to put the pieces together. Likewise, the housing crisis seemed impossible until it happened. McKibben makes it incredibly easy to understand the situation we've gotten ourselves into by using a similar situation for reference.

Finally, the last words of this excerpt "... we're only starting to comprehend." The word choice of comprehend here not only directly imply understanding, but the word comprehend had a hand in the word comprehensive, meaning all encompassing. Not only do the implications of our "ecological debt" exist on a difficult to understand plane, they also exist on a large and literally worldwide plane. They exist for everyone everywhere.

Overally, I really enjoyed this book. I think McKibben does an excellent job laying out the facts in a way that is not overly intellectual, but still gets the severity of the problem across. I like the humor he incorporates throughout, as well as the personal anecdotes, which I think only improve on a really excellent author's voice. I will absolutely recommend this book to everyone I know, because I think everyone should read about extremely important issue. 

Write to you soon.

Danielle K.