sce english thesis
TRANSCRIPT
Nature’s Hand in the Identification and Transformation of The Self
Clair Belleveau
Dr. James Allen Hall
April 10, 2015
I pledge my word of honor that I have abided by the Washington College Honor Code while completing this assignment.
“ Let us inquire, to what end is nature? ” Ralph Waldo Emerson rhetorically
probes in this question from his essay on “Nature” (36). One often wonders about the
complex interworkings and mystifying processes that we know to be our natural world.
Emerson’s “Nature” exemplifies an idea that nature comprises an intense human
connection to the corporeal world. It is clear from his question that as humans, we strive
to make sense of the existence on our natural domain in terms of its prominence in our
lives as our planet’s most advanced beings.
Emerson writes, “Nature satisfies by its loveliness and without any mixture of
corporeal benefit” (47). He investigates this desire we have to be a part of nature yet
personally feels that it is an internal connection we crave to feel a part of it’s mystique. It
is clear as humans we don’t necessarily need to physically involve ourselves with the
environment but open ourselves up to its’ possibilities and overall mystical aura. Our
species requires and necessitates a communal connection with others. Whether this means
creating a bond with other humans or subsequent species, our existence is defined by the
power of our emotional connections. This concept of nature being inherently traced with
emotive characteristics or loveliness relates to Annie Dillard’s experiential frame of
mind, especially as explored in her compilation of essays, Pilgrim At Tinker Creek.
Dillard examines and investigates nature as an avenue of divine wholeness successively
by her examination of an area in Virginia known as Tinker Creek. Here is where she
reflects upon her own findings by her home for a collective year. In this journey through
the flora and fauna, this specified space allows Dillard to use her explorations to write an
environmental bible of sorts. She wonders about all parts of nature as an emotive network
and coexistence through all its intriguing differences. She defines nature vividly in
2
proclaiming that its body is, “…the mystery of the continuous creation and all that
providence implies: the uncertainty of vision, the horror of the fixed, the dissolution of
the present, the intricacy of beauty, the pressure of fecundity, the elusiveness of the free,
and the flawed nature of perfection” (Dillard, 5). To Dillard, nature is a collection of
diverse intricacies coinciding in one space. It is nearly impossible to survive or remain
content by living idly or without having purpose and mutual understanding of other
creatures from the natural. Emerson conglomerates similar ideas and channels them by
utilizing his own emotional motivations as a course of transcendence for humans to grow
and have clarity in life. Trying to encapsulate the natural is close to an impossible feat
due to its constant evolution, eminent presence and merely unattainable beauty but these
two writers try to define Nature in order to expound upon what it means to be human.
Unlike Emerson, Dillard draws out nature for all its properties whether ugly or
appealing even beyond what humans view as aesthetically pleasing. In terms of its
presence though, Emerson hones in on concepts by centralizing the idea that emotions are
organic as well as the properties that exist in nature. Emerson verbalizes, “For, although
the works of nature are innumerable and all different, the result or the expression of them
all is similar and single. Nature is a sea of forms radically alike and even unique” (39).
For Emerson, these romanticisms are made real when they coincide with nature to
embody the whole meaning or human’s instilled desires for emotional facilitation. He
finds that nature is a vessel for one’s internal relation being revealed through its various
mysticisms and symbols other than solely what it’s physical aspects can reveal to further
label what our emotions mean to us. The essences, stimuli, and natural manifestations
that unfold in nature are what both Emerson and Dillard explore in order to allow our
3
elaborate humanistic thought processes to become emblemized by what nature stands for
psychologically, emotionally or even spiritually. Zeroing in on the minutest occurrences
such as the procreation of a singular species to expand outward expressing the grandeur
of our universe gives the reader a sense of how everything is linked in some way. We are
all coexisting parts of this world that make it mysterious and complex due to the fact that
each living creature differs yet we all subsist on this one planet. To Dillard, embracing
theses aspects such as the beautifully grotesque or peculiarly mystical highlights the
metaphoric qualities that also Emerson finds vital to peer through the intricately woven
natural structure that we as humans can utilize to make sense of our planet and our total
self. The physically available aspects of nature are an additive to Emerson in that the
overreaching features nature gives off are a power of grandeur we are not able to absorb
just physically but abstractly. Unlike Dillard, she finds to understand nature, one needs to
make yourself a part of it tangibly by walking into it, through it and inside it to make a
full recognition of it’s persistent presence.
Both writers see nature in an anthropomorphic way by having it as a constant
canvas for expression. It’s an outlet to anchor our sole meaning and purpose to others by
finding a mutual likeness whether as a reoccurring symbol in the environment or
absorbing a feeling exuded from natural happenings. Although the natural magnetism of
the human connection is both complex and monumental for overall mortal meaning, the
measures of identity and instinctual relationship humans have with nature are not only
part of our physical aesthetic. It is an innate bond with which creatures gain a sense of
true intimacy through its mystical symbolism. It is incredible to ponder the fact that
nature is what created every single living creature and mapped us to one orb known as
4
our earth. Dillard questions this expansive truth in saying, “What do we think of the
created universe, spanning an unthinkable void with an unthinkable profusion of forms?”
(9). This inquiry solidifies that humans often scrutinize the believability of our world
retaining all these varieties of breathing parts that take on different walks of life but
described through our means of language and oral communication, it all can make sense.
Dillard raises this question to reiterate the reality that our natural world accomplishes and
maintains such a multitude of processes to uphold the delicately intricate and coarsely
twisted structure in which we reside. Nature’s illuminating properties aid in the soul’s
growth as well as delivering a metaphor for humans to further understand the crevices of
our internal compass. In terms of human’s complete natural immersion, both Emerson
and Dillard argue that nature’s effect on us is not always something that exists in the
tangible or that we can see through physical sight. Through a metaphorical
representation, Emerson depicts, “Nature always wears colors of the spirit” which
indicates that the supremacy of the human emotion is a complex yet essential element in
nature; it is present in order to rein in the overwhelming ability that nature has to
capsulize our whole sense of consciousness (39). This consciousness is exemplified
through the physical world but it is having the ability to see beyond the material and
allowing nature to become a part of how we operate. It becomes this unspoken
association with deep internal understanding. Nature is a transposition of natural
sensation that all organisms endure as a part of our world that we feel will last forever
and beyond our existence with great command. It is true that Emerson finds no human
can fully explain the confines and ascendants of emotion without nature as an avenue to
peel back such a multilayered network as the human emotion. He states, “We mean the
5
integrity of impression made by manifold natural objects” (32). Nature is a manifestation
of our emotional compass translated into the physical world. Therefore, Emerson reflects
upon us as being “impressionable” by nature even without out consent. It truly does
affect our truest being with ease.
Dillard and Emerson’s aim is to influence our world through means of descriptive
language and examination of nature as a coexistent influx in our lives. They reveal in
prose how we can choose to find ourselves and reveal the true meaning of what it is to be
human. Their writings give us the opportunity to transpose the self into something greater
than our mortality such as the inscrutable factors of the natural. Nature is indeed utilized
by humans as a metaphorical series of images and plugs for the soul to emblemize its
beauty as an instrumental, internal transcendence. Nature is indeed constantly surprising
us unless we take the time to immerse and expand our ideologies of what it explains for
each individual based on the intimate occurrences we see for ourselves. This part of our
natural realm becomes a sifting process with which we strain out the right ways we can
articulate, internalize and emote such aspects. Humans are like the paintbrushes with
which we can dip ourselves into the many colors and shades nature offers us to paint the
picture that we can show to our world. The consistent reflections on the human spirit and
presence of the soul demonstrates how nature makes our world relatable due to its
ethereal spirit. It is as if it is a spirituality reverberating heartbeat, keeping a network such
as our environment and it’s species consistently transforming. Our existence would be
even more complex to understand than it already is presently without nature’s visual and
various transcending elements to give us belonging and knowing. It is what causes all
earthly beings to have a realization that their core is a reverberation to other living beings
6
as if sending messages in a metaphysical way. The environmental realm is our guide, our
map to trace what it means to be alive. Dillard anthropomorphizes nature as a muse of her
expression about how all forms of life are living as a single force with the same pulse but
each possessing different purposes for this world. As said in the journal,
“Anthropocentric Nature Lover: Annie Dillard and the Transcendalist” by Fredrik
Brogger, the spiritual orientation of a writer becomes a linguistic thread to make nature a
symbol of divinity to create a belief that higher beings are within and surround us on
earth. As Brogger states about Dillard’s cohesion of writing topics and style, “ Due to its
essentialist and religious orientation, it is also a literary mode that tends to make
extensive use of anthropomorphic language, which is it say imagery that endows nature
with explicitly human characteristics “ (Brogger, 30). Brogger touches upon is how the
feature of spirituality is a humanistic feeling as he calls it “anthropomorphic” since we
constantly are trying to personify the natural to make it a part of human’s existence and
communication. Reaching beyond ourselves as Dillard explores ties to Emerson’s
excavation of the intimate human condition. The thick layers in the emotional concourse
are explored by Emerson as a way to see ourselves clearer. He orates, “In the tranquil
landscape, and especially in the distant line of the horizon, man beholds somewhat as
beautiful as his own nature” (40). Nature allows our own inner landscape to become a
part of the universal, environmental landscape in a total harmony as a single particle of
this life we live. All species are defined by their ability to express. We as humans try to
live, lead and thrive on our innermost perceptions by hoping that being our individual
selves doesn’t make us a foreign part of the world but with language we become an
7
extension to further explain how truly magnificent life is by embracing the world we are
given.
Our capacity for intimacy with nature gives us a sense of structure and a place to
center something as abstract and organic as emotion. Our world is imperfect, rough and
beautiful. It truly depends on how one wishes to internalize its actuality. As Dillard
writes, “It’s all a matter of keeping my eyes open,” which verbalizes that nature is about
keenly noticing, observing and optically dissecting our judgments by transforming them
into deep understanding (Dillard, 19). By keeping the “eyes open” and always aware,
Dillard metaphorically displays that the internal spirit paired with physical sight are both
necessary to allow oneself to fully engage with nature as an experience rather than a
small happenstance. This is somewhat different to Emerson’s process in that he feels
truly becoming in tune with one’s wholes existence with nature is holding onto it as part
of oneself by allowing everything to be absorb emotionally before thinking about its
purpose. He states in “Nature”, “Love is as much its demand as perception” (Emerson,
79). This statement explains how emotion and connection to something is as important
and commanding of a process as perception or conceptualizations made from the mind.
To become truly rooted in nature, it seems that both writers feel that thinking about what
occurs around them is only part of the relationship one can create or have with the natural
realm. What is essential to each of these writer’s craft and explorative avenues, is by
choosing to rely on raw, unconditional connectivity with nature so that both remain
intimate with it. Emerson doesn’t find getting his hands dirty with the peculiarities in
nature is his process to find out what it means to him or humanity on a deeper level. He
finds, “Nature, in its ministry to man, is not only the material, but is also the process and
8
the result” meaning it is about experiencing the natural on the physical plane but
conceptually watching it as a highly involved spectator and keen observer (48).
Conversely, Dillard goes through the natural world plucking, dissecting and observing
through her own gritty examinations to enhance her sense of intimacy in nature’s reality.
She states, “That it’s rough out there and chancy is no surprise” (9). Dillard unveils the
universal meanings and bond with nature by using physical discovery and letting chance
takes its course. Dillard finds explaining the abstractness of human’s anthropomorphic
emotions through the environment is the only logical way to make sense of something
beyond ourselves. Humans create and fall into “chancy” experiences much like ones that
nature can create in a precarious way as well.
As stated before, Dillard feels having your “eyes open” is more about capturing
what you see and translating it for your mind or soul to digest so that nature becomes a
personal experience of splendor, not just a outlay and existing expanse of various
creatures and vegetation. In the article, “The Dialectic Vision of Annie Dillard’s Pilgrim
At Tinker Creek” written by Margeret Loewen Reimer, she defines the way Dillard views
the natural world in her writing as a “dialectic vision” which is uses logic as a pathway to
bridge opposing ideas in nature in order to find real truths and reveal fallacies others have
created. Reimer finds that, “The first level of that dialectic is the tension between the
material and the spiritual, the natural and the transcendent, but another dialectic is at
work within this framework: the prevailing contradiction between the beauty and the
horror with the natural world” (Reimer, 182). Reimer thinks that the main anchor to
Dillard’s concepts of natural intimacy in Pilgrim At Tinker Creek is she invites aspects of
nature that aren’t necessarily directly appealing or apparent based on the human aesthetic
9
or that can cause many humans to fear a true immersion within nature beyond what we
already deem quantifiable. For Dillard, embracing aspects of nature that are against the
norm create a kind of intimacy that is untouchable. By making the effort to understand
something foreign to oneself, she creates the truest form of closeness a human can
encounter because it is honest and pure. This impulse embraces differences between
species beyond their evolutionary properties. Emerson describes this mutual
understanding in a way that is similar to what Reimer describes in Dillard’s overall
outlook as “American transcendence” (Reimer, 183). This all encompassing idea of
nature transcending the tangible world delves into the idea of our natural sphere fostering
a greatness that pushes all creatures to see beyond themselves. Dillard’s way to
“transcend” the actual aids readers to understand what Emerson fervently discusses as our
ties to the spiritual or metaphysical as it is the incorporation of the total embodiment of
external to internal sight. To make a delineation of his meditations of the soul, in a
conjectural way, Emerson keenly states, “Philosophically considered, the universe is
composed of Nature and the Soul” (Emerson, 36). This declarative statement expresses
the reason why nature is so imperative to our existence in that it is married to the
illumination in the chambers of our soul. The idea Emerson puts forth about our universe
being encapsulated as the total embodiment of nature and soul shows how it is instilled in
all living begins that nature is the sanctuary in which we can reside. Nature is the
physical link we have to explore our need for intimacy with the earth and our domain to
expand our true purpose.
This idea of transcendent and intimate vision in Dillard’s writing is akin to
Emerson’s way of utilizing vision as a means of insight rather than just the use of
10
physical sight. The imaginative yet informative digestions that Dillard renders differ from
Emerson. He embodies somewhat of an existential point of view, portraying the idea that
nature elevates our conceptions of intimacy in terms of relation to our entire world to
make further sense of the self. Sherman Paul writes in his, “The Angle of Vision”, that
Emerson’s particular way of witnessing nature is by dissecting the variants, in how he
manipulates and uses sight as not only vision but as a “total sensual response” to nature
(Paul, 159). This intimacy through sight makes one’s ties to nature deep and undeniably
powerful. The idea that Paul highlights is how sight is Emerson’s basis for inward
perception to where the relationship between these two makes one’s natural experiences
the most purely individual. This level of intimacy is clandestine within the fringe of
nature because it is about peering into only emotion not even discussing logic or
reasoning, much like Dillard’s scientific explorations. Relating to earthly matters, our
overall existence can be cleansed and have a sense of belonging when one makes the
effort to understand the way our relationship with self builds in the natural world.
Throughout Emerson’s Nature, he describes this preliminary saunter of life with
nature as not even a physical act but as “affections of the mind” (Emerson, 80). This
phrase elucidates how Emerson believes that the way humans have to translate nature is
by the sentiments that are then sifted through visionary thought and abstraction that Paul
labels as “organic intimacy” (Paul, 160). The environmental world is as organic as the
nature of human emotional capacity. Emerson’s relation to nature as a building block to a
visually fantastical and emotional bond to the self, is much like Dillard’s commitment to
nature in a way that Reimer describes as Dillard’s, “…goal [being] expressed as the
11
desire to “lose herself” in her contemplation of the world, to empty herself in order to
experience the present and regain her innocence” (Reimer, 186).
This raw desire for deep intimacy without predeterminations is much like the
unwavering love and view of a child. Dillard would agree with this assertion when she
states, “When we lose our innocence- when we start feeling the weight of the atmosphere
and learn that there’s death in the pot-we take leave of our sense” (Dillard, 91). This
sense is that the self, the “total sensual response” as Emerson quantifies it would fall
apart. Innocence for these writers is the clearest form of vision, where the lens is purified
by the organic beauties that nature provides as an outlet for soul expansion. In lieu of the
purity in innocence through vision, Emerson declares that only “…few adult persons can
see nature…The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and heart
of the child.” (Emerson, 38). Such important innocence could be otherwise described as
an untainted viewpoint and relates to Paul’s expressions that Emerson uses all the
abilities of the eye in it’s physical actuality by peering into the whole idea of nature with
full detail in the purest form.
Seeing nature for what it is and understanding its expression to our innermost
psyche, both Emerson and Dillard’s ways of discovery is how humans can dig into the
natural not only through their instinct of searching with external sight but allowing what
we see become a part of us. It is creating a method to experience some of the most pure
aspects of our daunting world. With the sentiments of a child, the world is a lot less
closed up and seems much more willing to embrace such an intimate connection when we
remain free of the confines we can create in our mind. Clearly, nature is exemplified as a
way to travel in our world by way of prospect in order to obtain real vision of what
12
surrounds us as well as start to relate to it as an internal force beyond our tangible cavity.
Charles Feidelson, Jr.’s article, “Toward Melville: Some Versions of Emerson” agrees in
that Emerson identifies, “…a symbolic relationship between nature and mind,” is the
symbolic relationship that translates nature’s capacity into a whole cognitive process of
emotional perception and scientific reasoning. This explains why nature operates at the
pace it does amongst anything artificial in our world (137). For one’s bond with nature to
be accepted there has to be equilibrium between our openness for fervent attachment and
identification to this sect of our world. Emerson confirms, “…all natural objects make a
kindred impression, when the mind is open to their influence”. Here he connects nature to
a mental and emotional stimulation, a mutual correspondence of existence is established
(Emerson, 36). Looking at other interactions beyond our own creates that intimacy, the
desire to approach, appreciate and empathize with various earthly intricacies. The way
one chooses to look at the earth is by seeing objectively, spanning from horridly bizarre
to delicate and pristine.
This traces back to Pilgrim At Tinker Creek with an instance where Dillard
witnesses two prang mantissas mating right before her eyes. She retells in detail of how
aggressive and gruesome their mating process is: “He mounts her…But the wretch has no
head; he has no neck; he has hardly a body. The other, with her muzzle turned over her
shoulder continues very placidly to gnaw what remains of the gentle swain” (Dillard, 59).
This particular display is seen in broad daylight for the entire world to see. Dillard
happens to witness nature in its most wild, perverse and yet extravagant form while
watching these two insects mate. The male is being chewed on by his larger female mate
and still proceeds to partake in the mating ritual. Nature pushes on, it never cedes its
13
constant flow. Dillard depicts the reality that nature isn’t a perfectly drawn out blueprint,
as it may seem at a passing glance. As she states, “No form is too gruesome, no behavior
too grotesque,” conveying that nature surpasses the aesthetic we as humans have placed
on our world because it is an ever ending cycle of unwavering splendor we can’t even
fathom to recreate due to its surplus of eccentric conducts (66). For the purest
understanding of something is trying to accept, not even necessarily understand, every
aspect to the best of one’s ability. As Reimer states about Dillard’s scholarly structure
“Her experiences lead her to see both the unity and the diversity, the order and the chaos,
the uplifting and the destructive” (Reimer, 184). In this unification of the continuum in
nature, it is a concentrated pulse or network of the highs and lows that take part in any
creatures path of existence from the environmental to even supernatural means.
The completion of the spirit, as Emerson and Dillard try to convey to their
readers, allows for total freedoms of the mind, cracking open the possibilities of nature
and translating them in order to be registered. By keeping one’s mind open to all the
possibilities that could occur in nature, one is then inherently intimate with the natural.
Being free of preconceived judgments helps ones exploration with the spiritual
connectivity that exists in the natural which Dillard and Emerson both recognize.
Looking at how Dillard and Emerson personally relate to nature helps one to understand
how they come to these universal realizations about how humans absorb the natural by
making it a part of their life as a spiritual expression beyond what we see as religiosity.
The idea of spirituality is translated into symbols of mental notions, connecting again to
sight in all its forms and physical parts of nature that speak to our spirits.
14
In terms of spirituality coinciding with an all encompassing vision of the world,
Dillard claims that “…vision is a pure sensation unencumbered by meaning…” which
relates back to the idea of vision being the way one has to absorb nature by perception,
observation and foresight (Dillard, 28). This idea of “unencumbered,” meaning connotes
the imaginative, what we see within our mind’s eye as opposed to just the tactically
observed. Dillard uses vision as the way for spirituality to become a mode of seeing
nature as more than our surrounding environment but part of it becoming an actual
sanctuary to explore the spiritual senses. By describing vision as “unencumbered”,
Dillard creates this force field around nature where the one property that keeps it rooted
is its exudation of imaginative auras. The meaning that is then placed upon those
sensations are beyond our basic comprehension. They are a part of the transcendence to
send to our imaginations to cherished and divine prospects. Imagination can stem from
creative perceptions in nature or having a spiritual atmosphere placed in the natural that
we feel is based on inward sensations performed we outwardly. In "The Waters of
Separation": Myth and Ritual in Annie Dillard's "Pilgrim At Tinker Creek" written by
Jim Cheney, he explores Dillard’s “weaving of the world” by seeing her explorations of
Tinker Creek as, “a sacredness in nature” or “truth as a true symbol” seen by engraining
oneself in the environment, one serves as heightened forms for holistic learning (42-48).
Cheney understands Dillard’s approach to nature in that it is being able to be prepared for
whatever nature is here to teach us using her confines of a “...measure of naturalism and
contextualism” (Cheney, 48). It seems conducive for to humans to make nature
tantamount to other aspects we allow into our existence since “…nature is a very now-
you-see-it, now-you-don’t affair” as Dillard puts it, we have to choose to put our faith in
15
something like nature where we don’t always see all its facets much like religion (18). It
is still making that choice to have an intimate belief or breach of understanding in what it
stands for. This is a way nature and religion seem to go in tandem in that they both
concretely try to portray ways for humanity to make self proclamations of expression and
bonds with the world that have more meaning. Much of our world uses spirituality or
religion as opposing forces against each other for dominance due to culture differences.
But, nature is what can reattach humanity to spiritualty in that it not only gives us the
same feeling of sanctuary as religion but that it is used for means of coexistence not
superiority. Emotions placed on a physical and natural part of our world that we don’t
have any control over is a true human characteristic. We familiarize ourselves with the
sensations we feel are exuded from nature but we are the only species that can translate
such sentiments and label it with spirituality or intimacy. As Cheney also tries to further
identify Dillard’s sacred process he finds her main tactic through the spiritual is, “Ritual,
as a way of establishing relationships to nature…at its best a movement back toward a
more caring response to the world, an attempt to acknowledge the presence of a world for
which it is possible, and good, to care” (Cheney, 57). What Cheney seems to identify
within Dillard’s discoveries is she goes to same spots at Tinker Creek or discusses the
same topic throughout her novel to show transformation through the area itself yet the
importance of this exercise is to be there when things alter. She explains, “The answer
must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense
them. The least we can do is try to be there” (10). The elements that are powerful are
ones we see as grand in our perspective and the whole idea of naturalism is being a part
of that changing power. In Dillard’s personal articulations, she really illuminates the true
16
difference between remaining impartial and willing to understand nature’s spirit rather
than allowing oneself to be become stagnant in its existence. As it becomes spiritually
explorative and emotionally lifting to care about what exists, it is a practice of reaching
beyond oneself and to explain what nature is doing within the shadows and the mystery
of the spiritual connection. With our perceived otherworldly auras, spiritual connection
brings light to showcase its evident and inescapable meaning to our species.
In the investigations within Emerson’s poetic construct, the way he describes his
personal connection to nature is, “This sympathy with matter, in a sense opening up the
circulations of being, was the ground of the moment of ecstasy” (Emerson, 164). This
transcendence or “opening up the circulations of being” that Emerson describes is like
letting the flow of nature coincide with the currents that run through us on a metaphysical
plane. It’s a cleansing of energies crossing and lapping over each other to become one
cohesive unit. Circulation is the flow throughout our whole system, connecting our
breathing all the way to our heart, the complete connection from the temporal to the
emotional. Physical and abstract all coexisting in our being, like nature is how Feidelson
labels Emerson’s type of transcendence, comparatively to Dillard’s “American
transcendence” through nature as “American symbolist movement” (Feidelson, 136).
Feidelson sees Emerson’s writing as not only delving into language laden with
symbolism but through this paradigm he defines nature as being based on emotional
perception through nature’s physical representation and through language giving nature
its voice of humanity. One critic discusses Emerson’s highly spiritual vernacular and
personal statements as, “…self-recognition in the face of nature [that unlocks] the
underlying secret of the world’s order” which is from John Michael Corrigan’s “The
17
Journal of the History of Ideas" (Corrigan, 444). What Corrgian touches upon is when
Emerson discusses nature it is as if he is finding himself through discovering new parts of
nature in tandem. This gives Emerson “world’s order” as Corrigan defines it, in that
nature is the self-reflective mirror that shows there is an aspect on our planet we all relate
to just through different strains. The intimate point that strikes Emerson is the totality of
the soul’s recognition and how it is truly seen through the natural. As he writes, “That
which intellectually considered we call Reason, considered in relation to nature, we call
Spirit. Spirit is the Creator. Spirit hath life in itself “ (Emerson, 49). The idea of being
spiritual clearly doesn’t necessarily mean religious in Emerson’s terms, although his
undertones do reflect that of the basic derivation of religion. Nature itself is the physical
embodiment of our spirits being translated outward, which is spiritual in itself without the
structure of religion. How we as a species feel tied to otherworldly essences is translated
through the language we orate in religious conducts or modes of logic and emotion.
When we combine the power of Reason and Spirit, Emerson intimates we create a deeper
intellectual understanding with our sense of self and the gift of life in that our Reason in
life is our Spirit. What it means to be spiritual through nature is to feel that there is almost
a vibration being sent throughout our world that we can choose to hear its echo. Emerson
views, “To the body and mind which have been cramped by noxious work or company,
nature is medicinal and restores their tone” which reiterates how it’s a feeling, this pulse
that every living creature can foster its resonance within relinquishing that sense of
holiness in terms of the most pure and healing sentiment of feeling internally complete
(46). For Emerson, the human spirit needs the branches and ability to hatch in nature so
that it can find the equilibrium it needs to understand the self.
18
Although Dillard explores the grandiose and scenic properties of nature, Pilgrim
at Tinker Creek has been read as more of a detailed scripture for scientific exposition to
explore the symbolism within nature as our conceptual playground. Melded with
situational emotionality and a sense of oneness through experimentation, the key to her
observation is to uncover the symbols that give us a concrete yet supernatural relation to
nature as opposed to only relying on imaginative thoughts alone. What seems
representative for all living creatures is Dillard’s juxtaposition of light and darkness as a
way to define a sense of being throughout her work. Dillard probes, “The shadow’s the
thing…Muslims, whose religion bans representational art as idolatrous, don’t observe the
rule strictly; but they do forbid sculpture, because it casts a shadow. So shadows define
the real. If I no longer see shadows as “dark marks” as do the newly sighted, then I see
them as making some sort of sense of the light” (63). The battle between darkness as a
form of tainting or concealing ourselves bleeds into certain spiritual or structural frames
of mind. As Dillard points out, the Muslims find darkness or shadow in three-
dimensional art forms as “idolatrous” or drawing unwarranted worship to them because
they reveal shadows or “dark marks” which are seen as impure. Something that can
depict a range of feelings, ideas or purposes holds great power to be contained like a
shadow can do in living forms. David L. Lavery’s article, “Noticer: The Visionary Art of
Dillard” explores Dillard’s refined eye for the natural honing in one of her consistent
fasciation with the theme of light and illumination as he expresses in relation to Dillard’s
thoughts that, “The light is in us” (269). The discussion of light is encapsulating that the
inner essence of being exudes in an individual way and through certain ways of
expression by means of allowing one’s light to be seen by the world. In terms of
19
imagination, ones soul can be seen as “the light” where such beautiful aspects can range
from an aesthetic to most organic images that are presented outwardly or the shadows
need to be seen to understand the total reality of a being. The curious idea about Dillard’s
contrasting view of Muslim anti-criticism is, humans are not only three-dimensional
forms but we cast shadows in many positions and situations where they give us elemental
depth as organic symbols of art. In pointing out this spiritual reference, Dillard gives
cultural fact to how shadows can be seen as only the darkness but her desire is to embrace
how shadows allow us to see definition when peering into the dark. Lavery highlights in
Dillard’s contemplations is essential to remember to look at nature or into the self is with
an open, imaginative eye. Dillard resurfaces light again as a means to uncover the
blemishes or irregularities that cause creatures to seem divergent in the pace of the
natural world. Dillard states, “Here was a new light on the intricate texture of things in
the world, the actual plot of the present moment in time after the fall: the way we the
living are nibbled and nibbling- not held aloft on a cloud in the air but bumbling pitted
and scarred and broken through a frayed and beautiful land” (230). Here, Dillard displays
her cravings for the divergent and expansive varieties that the natural delivers because no
one specie or creature is completely identical. Nature is to observe its abnormalities.
Dillard embraces the fact that all living creatures are burdened in being “nibbled” or
“scarred” from such “nibbling” in life’s possible harshness. Yet, even with these
imperfections or glitches in the living process, every being still trudges on to hold the
same steady stride as a part of the imperfect perfection that comprises our world.
It is clear that the art form for Dillard is to see each being for everything that
makes it obviously beautiful but also what the shadows or “nibbled” spaces do to its
20
existence to make something a wonderfully divergent section of our world. Lavery
imagines Dillard’s process of scavenging through nature as preservation or salvaging of
art as it is expressed in nature’s consistent contrast of the apparent and not apparent. He
transcribes, “As a woman writer, Dillard likewise senses that her art must be in keeping
with natural process and earthly rhythms” (256). Although it is clearly in the title of his
work, Lavery describes Dillard’s writing as “art” which differs from the other journals
that are written about her because many focus on her acute attention to the scientific lens
and make deep philosophical statements about what she observes. The formation of art is
a process just as much as nature takes it’s own process as the avenue for all living
creatures to exist. When Lavery describes “rhythm” this connotes a pace and certain
cadence that nature exists within like art does in how it expresses itself and utilizes the
power of perception to be digested by the viewer. How one chooses to take in nature is
subjective and interpretive as Lavery notes is the way Dillard senses nature in such a way
that she uses nature constantly to learn, absorb and record elements like an ever-evolving
canvas. What makes nature an art form is by the creation of life. It is the process of a
craft in both dexterity and greatness to have an end product that remains beautiful since
something that is alive exists to stand the test of time with limitless potential. Light is an
essence and therefore can never be physically captured but can always be expressed as
Dillard and Lavery finds as it remains in all types of beings and actualities on this earth.
Much like Dillard, Emerson seems to find deep symbolism and art within nature.
He feels there are specific images that resonate in their splendor as if they are a true
representation of life itself. He states, “The world is emblematic. Parts of speech are
metaphors, because the whole of nature is a metaphor of the human mind” (Emerson, 53).
21
There is an undeniable power and consistent anchorage in nature due to it revealing itself
to the human mind as a series of symbols that we express through our means of verbal
language and imagery. This notion that nature is a supreme representation in both the
actual and nonphysical allows humanity to solidify its position as a conglomerate of
individual meanings. Emerson feels one particular symbol stands out is the presence of
trees. He finds, “In the woods, we turn to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can
befall me in life” (Emerson, 39). Emerson musically captures the feeling that not only
your physical cavity feels protected when surrounded by trees but one can feel how the
inner spirit is shielded in how trees give us a place to feel both accompanied when with
them and almost respected in fellow existence. Trees as well as other influences in nature
help humanity to maintain a sense of unity in an environment where nature allows a
connection that surpasses the ephemeral and also touches the core of our spirits without
even having to give it something in return. It is a truly faithful relationship in the deepest
sense. Emerson has this desire for nature to be our way to make preserve our existence
mentally and within our souls to give us clarity and overall internal significance. Norman
Foerster’s article, “Emerson on the Organic Principle in Art”, he agrees that Emerson,
“…must relate the two worlds, connect as though with an appropriate symbol or mass of
symbols. If he dwells at the heart of reality, indeed, he finds all symbols expressive of all
meanings” (109). The impact of our existence is by what we see, witness, and formulate
from those experiences as Foerster says in combining the two worlds, the metaphorical
and the actual. We tie ourselves to symbols for an internal comfort so the tangible and
intangibles bond we create gives significance to the physical realm we are tied to in our
world. Emerson stated, “Thought is supreme, and nature is its vehicle” which defines
22
how powerful the human mind is for actualizing ourselves in our life (108-9). With our
thoughts linked to nature, it gives us a picture of how to externalize our thought process
and overall connection to the outside world because of its’ organic operation or as
Emerson labels it a “vehicle”. Nature is our means of transportation to understand our
value as existing parts of this planet’s cohesion. Nature gives symbolic value to the
natural to increase our ability to appreciate it’s assistance. Seeing a tree as more than a
root system that provides nutrients for the environment is understanding its’ existential
grandeur as an authentic aspect in nature is more extravagant than us to where it needs
symbolic value. If we make sense of them, as well as other parts of nature, we will feel
more akin to this world and less of a complicated and complete other entity that exists
just to conjure what our world means to us. Foerster finds Emerson, “the great poet [who]
shows the equivalence of symbolical value; he can reveal spiritual meaning, or beauty, in
all of nature” (109). Emerson strikes at the heart of nature just like it strikes at his with
immense force.
To Emerson, as Foerster notices, everything has symbolism that delves into a
subject having an organic representation to express the abstract in revealing its true
sensibility. This doesn’t mean sensibility in nature as in the environment or ecosystem’s
functionality, but “nature” or natural feeling of meaning in the system we feel makes us
content in our being or our norms with which we choose to confide in comfortably for
live. The illustrative properties in nature are what bond these ideals to the human mind to
feel nature’s euphoric abilities as the highest standard for the purest beauty. It is the only
aspect that creates a total sense of happiness that is untouchable to other avenues of
contentedness. Emerson finds nature to be an outlet for only those wanting to hold a tie to
23
nature to push us beyond our cavities and overly concrete perceptions of our world. Due
to how nature’s operation is as complex as the human sensibility, he writes, “There is still
another aspect under which the beauty of the world may be viewed, namely, as it
becomes an object of intellect” (Emerson, 46). We are able to personify and transform
nature for our minds to process its enormity and to make the world become an aural
experience paired with mental-oral expression. Emerson employs several symbols such
as the stars, the heavens, and even global society to further create his argument, as nature
is a conglomeration of more than its one environmental force. It is clear that Emerson
feels nature is our world’s biggest layer of symbols to depict meaning for our emotions
but through mental means of expression. It moves from the tangible to the abstract so we
can articulate our expressions without falling into an existential void of bewilderment.
Nature influences how we wish to emblemize our lifestyles as incorporating our whole
being and not leaving any part of our spirit untouched by its reach.
The influence of nature is exemplified through the sophisticated structure of the
written word because it is how humans express its enormity beyond somatic meaning. As
Emerson sees nature as an art form, it seems he discusses it in such a grand way because
it is the only art form that can depict many appearances, stages and gradients with ever-
changing waves. He states, “Nature, in the common sense, refers to essences unchanged
by man; space, the air, the river, the leaf. Art is applied to mixture of his will with the
same things, as in a house, a canal, a statue, a picture” (Emerson, 36). This statement
connects to the creation of nature by its own hand as it has aided in the creation of man.
Both being different living forms that require implementation and transformation on our
planet. This then leads to a different thread Emerson employs where he relates nature and
24
man both having the power to create art but the forms are different in terms of organic
versus manmade. What connects them is the aesthetic Emerson seems to discuss a fair
amount through his essay Nature since he is so keenly focused on how physically lovely
nature is and that is what makes it artistically sound. This admiration Emerson has for
nature’s beauty surfaces in the essay written by Joel Porte entitled "Nature as Symbol:
Emerson's Noble Doubt”, he examines Emerson’s emotional connection to the natural
aesthetic by saying, “…he was also a man unequivocally in love with the beautiful and
the good” (Porte, 461). Such a statement is clearly true in that Emerson rarely if not at all
discusses the possibility for the strange, unappealing or adverse happenstances that can
and do occur in nature. He captures its beauty but fails to want to recognize its potential it
to express aspects that can be repulsive as well. Here in lies why some viewers beauty
can be variant. Beauty itself is symbolic because it depends on who is looking at what is
deemed beautiful and pairs with human perception. Porte calls Emerson’s outlook on
nature as “philosophical idealism” where Emerson can sacredly and movingly discuss
nature through the metaphysical and emotive proprieties it upholds in its obvious
exquisiteness but in only with adherently positive and beauteous language (Porte, 453).
His ideal thought process shows readers how truly untapped nature is when it is not
extensively explored for it ranges from gritty to picturesque. This concept of idealism
causes a break in total natural perception explored in Lawrence Buell’s journal,
“Emersonian Poetics” by saying, “…define the perception of “unity” in “beauty” “ which
could argue that beauty is the harmonizing adhesive keeping all adverse parts of nature
together” (Buell, 111). Yet, the unification in the symbolic perception of beauty is based
on melding two diverse parts, the grotesque and the beautiful, coming together to bond as
25
one unit. The voice of Emerson delves into the meaning of nature to human’s through one
aspect such as its lovely face but the idealistic part of him seems to cloud the reality that
nature isn’t always what we see without a microscope. We need to delve deeper into its
layers and symbols to allow us to experience its entirety.
Whether it is symbolically rendering the expanse of the environment as the area
we live or quantifying what it stands for within each creature’s faction of personal
sensibility, nature becomes a way to see ourselves through a lens that connects us to our
purpose in life in the most pure way by rooting us in the corporeal yet driving us to reach
for the transcendental. In Dillard and Emerson’s works, they portray a view of nature
through remaining structurally and intuitively open. They see nature as a means of
concrete and abstract expression always observing to understand the different
frameworks. By using concepts that are often used to enhance art forms and transform
nature through the written word, each of them arrive at similar concepts to describe
nature as they see it but that nature is subject in any one person’s view. Dillard derives
meaning from metaphysical logic and true personal scientific exploration whereas
Emerson uses rhetorical structure from the metaphysical, emblematic and visual to define
nature as the truest form of art in representational beauty and cohesion for the human
mind. Since Dillard preferred living in her experiences of nature each day at Tinker
Creek, she used her observations as her vehicle for philosophical understanding to how
nature flowed in her and then explained its function to us to make connection through her
opinions. She teaches others to see higher and meaningful comparisons to other aspects in
our world to show her readers that nature is meant to be seen first hand rather to merely
relate to its untouchable ability in order to illuminate our innermost senses. This contrasts
26
with Emerson where he uses the metaphoric and purely visual euphoria of nature to plug
his emotionality into an understanding of nature that isn’t achieved by getting one’s
hands dirty. He understands without physical exploration nature is meant to connect
without getting into its grittiness but by willingly watch it unfold before us as a map of
symbols to see nature our connection for spiritual meaning and corporeal delight all at
once.
Each writer portrays nature as the world’s most relished and revered existence due
to the several ways it exudes itself both aesthetically and evocatively with its ability to be
universal by harmonizing all the different occurrences and species that exist. This
process of constitutionalizing and then re-constitutionalizing nature through language is a
way that humans can see something so mysteriously powerful and awe-inspiring captured
through written word to make sense of our unpredictable world. We as humans desire to
breakdown nature into metaphors and symbols in order to find connections within to
explain the abstract traces that reside within its structure. To explain the extremes in
either the living or dying is to embrace the revolving cycle of life as it is always evolving.
Dillard states, “Every live thing is a survivor on a kind of extended emergency bivouac.
But at the same time we are also created” (9). Dillard explains our inherent finiteness as
creatures of this world yet we are generated for existence too. One’s existence is
choosing to enhance life with utmost concern by connecting to our world so that our deep
and compound emotional compasses don’t seem outlandish when we are represented as
individuals. This melds similarly to Emerson’s ideology in that he believes nature is
absolute as it bears great immensity in terms of our sense of self. He proclaims, “Nature
is made to conspire with spirit to emancipate us” (82). In using a term as strong as
27
“emancipate” shows how nature is a way for the human self to feel unbound to the
confines we either place on ourselves or are socially pushed on our sensibilities. The
spirit is who we are as individuals and being able to make the choice of letting nature in.
It is allowing the colors we possess to reveal themselves and not be afraid to embrace that
liberty. With these realizations, both Dillard and Emerson’s personal involvement with
nature is clearly through zealous attentiveness and detailed knowing of what they feel.
Although Dillard concerns herself with the crevices of nature as a way to call recognition
to the greater world, Emerson uses larger symbols or declarations about nature itself as
evidence to how all beings need and desire such a deep connection. No matter the
obscurity and abnormalities that exist, the language that is transposed onto paper helps a
reader understand that nature is like our eternal child’s playground to keep us alive
beyond just the length of time we exist on earth.
The inherent mastery in transposing the organic and pure aesthetic of the natural
face seen through explorative literature is how Emerson and Dillard both recognize its
symbolism and immensely evangelical reactions that should be celebrated in order to
unite all the world’s aspects through nature. The common ground of writing makes nature
is more accessible to contemplate its divinity and intellectual stimulation. Using literary
devices such as metaphors and symbols to emblemize nature’s meaning relies on its
apparent need for individuals or writers such as Emerson and Dillard to embrace ideas
such as spirituality and intimacy through the natural that surrounds us. Their literary
mode for expression is through the power of language and although they differ in
emotional viewpoints due to their diverse linguistic deliveries and ideologies, they both
arrive at the conclusion that nature is absolute among any other existence in our world.
28
By desiring its embrace and choosing to remain vulnerable to its healing and
transformative powers, Emerson and Dillard understand the way to experience life is
permitting nature to enter an individual. To allow their truest self emerge as completely
actualized, revitalized and translucent human being carrying out their most optimum form
of existence.
29