Jim, I think thou dost protest too much, or at least overanalyze.
Your response was much like my departed Aunty's, who felt it was a
cutesy kind of slogan.
If a mountain thinks like a human (which is all we can do), then it
would prefer integrity to steady erosion, no? My point is that by picturing
the integrity of a mountain, and what kind of change threatens its
ecosystems, we can take positive steps to prevent its commercialization and
denuding of trees, for example.
I don't think the metaphor stands up to the deconstructive critique
you offer, but then it really doesn't have to. It's best function is to help
humans realize that we need those mountains to do their own work, not as ski
slopes, resorts, or tree farms.
-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: Jim Tantillo[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 1:45 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: thinking like a mountain . . . not.
>
> Ok, I'll argue the opposite, at the risk of getting under Chris Perley's
> skin. :-) I don't think the phrase "thinking like a mountain" is all
> that helpful, on several different levels.
>
> a) Granted that Leopold likely intended it in a purely figurative or
> metaphorical sense, the fact remains that the phrase lends itself to being
> used and abused in a reified sort of way. What does "thinking like a
> mountain" really mean, if one is bound and determined to think literally
> like a mountain? Mountains don't think. The idea of thinking like a
> mountain is susceptible to all the philosophical problems that are raised
> by humans trying to make inferences about the subjective experience of
> animals. Previously on the list we've discussed Thomas Nagel's paper
> "What is it like to be a bat?" We can only imagine what it is like for US
> to be like bats--i.e. us in humanoid form but with the addition of webbed
> arms and so forth. If I imagine myself to be a mountain, why would I not
> assume that mountains prefer steady and speedy erosion, say, in preference
> to an endless and monotonous existence as an unchanging mountain?? (This
> has some connection, btw, to Bernard Williams's well known essay, "The
> Makropolous case:reflections on the tedium of immortality.") By
> extension, we could very well imagine a mountain being thrilled by the
> sheer novelty of being strip mined and reclaimed--a "new look" comparable
> to a trip to the beauty parlor--as opposed to spending eternity in the
> same boring mountainesque aspect the mountain has always known (and
> perhaps hated). Perhaps mountains like being "useful" . . . .
>
> b) The more serious point is that humans can only think like humans
> thinking like mountains. Why the mental gymnastic, then? Why not stick
> with thinking like humans prudently thinking as humans? Tony's point that
> "The essential point of how a mountain 'thinks' (a metaphor, of course) is
> that it happens over geological time, not human time" is well taken, but
> so what? One of the insights to come out of the future generations
> literature is that it is exceedingly difficult to accord *distant*
> generations a whole lot of moral status at the expense of generations that
> are closer to us temporally. Over geological time, can we really predict
> what mountains or humans are going to want?
>
> c) I agree that the figurative or metaphorical value of the expression is
> that it encourages us to take the long view with regard to environmental
> issues. But then why wouldn't we simply accept the human or
> anthropocentric aesthetic value of our current *preference* for mountains
> and work from there in order to preserve mountains for the future? Much
> like we have a preservation ethic for art, sculpture, architecture, etc.
> I don't need to "think like a Ming vase" in order to think it important to
> preserve such things. Even if I personally don't value Ming vases for
> myself and think they're ugly to boot.
>
> d) Perley says "the challenge in Think Like a Mountain is to challenge
> your perspective and to look for all the linkages rather than just those
> that are in front of your nose." That's all fine and good, but don't we
> already have our hands full as humans trying to challenge our own narrow
> perspectives by incorporating the values and beliefs of other humans? Why
> add more to the plate in the way of speculative mountain beliefs, or ocean
> beliefs, or soft fluffy cloud beliefs? (I am being partly if not wholly
> facetious here, but I think we do have our hands full trying to relate to
> each other as humans without the addition of trying to relate to each
> other as geological landscape forms.)
>
> well, allright. there's the curmudgeon's view on thinking like a
> mountain. If I were a mountain, I'd be a mole hill. so there. <grin>
>
> Jim T.
>
|
