Good reference from John F. to the "fierce green fire dying in her eyes."
This was a moment of epiphany for Leopold, as he relates in later essays,
and is discussed in some detail by Flader in her critical reviews of his
work. (See River of the Mother of God).
The moment was after shooting a she-wolf amid a pack of juveniles, from some
distance; Leopold goes down and checks on his kill to find the wolf near
death, but not quite dead: this fierce greenness was still evident in the
wolf's eyes and went slowly out, fading and losing its color. He was so
affected by the experience that he immediately questioned the program of
wolf extermination and shortly became an advocate of "balance," which as we
have already discussed, has been supplanted by a notion of dynamism in
natural processes.
-Tc
Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77002-0001
713.221.8520 / 713.868.3979
"Question Reality"
> ----------
> From: John Foster[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 11:33 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Ethical implications of environmental change - why the
> Manichaen thesis?
>
> Bissell:
> > I do not think, as I've seen in some publications, that Leopold was
> speaking
> > in any sort of metaphysical sense.
>
> There is a section where he writes about the stare of the wolf, something
> about the fierce green fire in the wolves eyes. (the image is about the
> activity of his ecological conscience, the witness). This was after he
> assisted in the extermination of wolves from New Mexico. What Leopold is
> saying is that regardless of the best intentions that he had as a game
> manager, Nature is the Ultimate Fact (eg Lewis in Miracles), and as such
> Nature makes the ultimate decision itself. The problem with the
> extermination of wolves, wrote Leopold, was the reduction of deer browse
> species on the mountain after deer populations soared to something like
> 40,000 in the absence of wolves and Grizzly bears.
>
> That nature is the ultimate reference....
>
> The result of the short- term, linear thinking model of scientific
> predator
> control was soon obvious to Leopold, the soil on the mountain started to
> erode at a very high rate. The deer population began to starve and become
> sick...because of overbrowsing.
>
> >I think by this time in his life Leopold
> > had little or no ideas about pantheism or mystical things at work. He
> was
> > through and through an evolutionary ecologist and wanted to convey the
> > messages of ecology and evolution to the public in such a way as to show
> > that they could have ethical importance.
>
> He experienced a professional career crises when he was 38 years old. His
> early writings and thinking resembled "Mein Kampf" in style and purpose in
> terms of extermination a species or two....I think he also experienced a
> profound change in character which could only be explained by some
> 'apophantic' experience with the numinous (cf. Otto, the Idea of the Holy,
> etc.)
>
> Bissell:
> >Nor do I think that Leopold meant
> > that one had to go to the mountains to absorb some sort of existential
> > experience in order to appreciate nature.
>
> In Leopold's writings are many allusions to what philosophers (eg Bradley)
> term 'secondary illusions'; these are feelings which can only be expressed
> through poetic, mythopoetic metaphors. Much of what really motivates
> readers
> of Leopold, especially his "Land Ethic" writings is mystical (a form of
> intuition) and existential (being precedes essence)...but it is not a
> 'learned' form of mystical or existential writing, but has some
> similarities
> to 'informed' writing of this sort (eg. Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker
> Creek).
>
>
> Bissell:
> >While Leopold deplored the
> > destruction of 'wild' areas, as evidence by the first essay in this
> section
> > (On Top), I think that the overall point was not a sentimental one, but
> a
> > pragmatic one.
>
> His writings are popular in part because they are 'inspirational' and
> convey
> and arouse deep feelings for the beauty of nature, wild things, and
> harmony
> in nature....the ethic is sentimental in the Romantic sense of conveying a
> sublimity (the deep green fire in the wolve's eyes), and even the phrase
> "Thinking Like a Mountain" has the familar Toaist sense which conveys
> ultiamate and primal intuition of the total inseperability of all
> existence.
> What is false and wrong is to see the world of nature as a detached,
> separate, and disconnected entity, therefore the plea to "Think Like a
> Mountain" is to also feel for all, as in the statement by Plato in the
> Timaeus...."who will feel for them all". Who is the witness to the
> existential good in all?
>
> If you think about it, why would anyone have any emotion of joy or sorrow
> if
> there was no truth to the Toaist belief, and Bhuddist belief, that all was
> One fundamental reality? If sentient, rational beings (a miracle), can
> feel,
> then it must be because they have to feel in order to live and desire to
> live. Feelings therefore are undifferentiated thoughts about the external
> world, not as a field for scientific method alone, but as part of myself
> and
> others. Hence the hol(y) ...is in essence a feeling, not a perception of
> the
> five senses, or the ratio of the five senses or a product of the rational
> imagination....
>
> nothing less
>
> john
>
>
>
>
>
> > Anyway, my view on the quote, thanks for asking.
> >
> > Steven
> >
> > "Our human ecology is that of a rare species of mammal in a social,
> > omnivorous niche. Our demography is one of a slow-breeding, large,
> > intelligent primate. To shatter our population structure, to become
> abundant
> > in the way of rodents, not only destroys our ecological relations with
> the
> > rest of nature, it sets the stage for our mass insanity."
> > Paul Shepard
>
|