I was out walking in the Oakland Hills this morning, specifically in and around the Chabot Space and Science Center. The actual center was closed, but since it is located in a regional park, there is a lot to do if walking around in the woods is your thing.
And that is the question, isn't it. Does anyone like to walk in the woods? I suppose you could make an argument that certain cultures - Nordic and Amazonian - to name just two off of the top of my head, although certainly not limited to these, for even in Sicily one can drive into the Nebrodi Mountains or in and around the slopes of Mount Etna and be as much in the woods as if you were in the Black Forest or the Chocó Rainforest, or nearly so.
Somehow some cultures have developed a more inclusive relation with the woods than others. This development can include but is different from what I am going to call a meta perspective on plants. For example, if plant neurobiologists such as Stefano Mancuso can say that plants can see, how are human beings to interpret that statement? In what sense does the word 'see' denote the thing that plants do in their engagement with light as well as the thing that humans do in their engagement with light? Plants do not have eyes, so maybe the capacity to produce images is not existent, but they are apparently sensitive to changing conditions, and therefore able to discern light from shadow, and even to tell when someone or something walks by them, momentarily blocking their light. Is this a kind of seeing?
If not, what is it when a I stand out in the sun with my eyes closed? I can sense when a cloud passes over the sun and thereby blocks the light. I sense a cooling on my skin and perhaps a darkening through some kind of residual sight capacity that remains even through my closed eyelids. Focusing on the skin sensation, and omitting the specialized capacity of eyes, especially their capacity to facilitate the production of images, is this what a plant senses when a cloud momentarily blocks the sunlight? In other words, when Aristotle stated that all senses are just variations on touch, is human skin like the membrane of a leaf or stem in the way it engages light? And by focusing on this similarity, can humans gains some sense of how plants are? Does this eyeless engagement with light facilitate the development of a meta perspective on the world, or at least a part of it? And must we not also consider that photosynthesis is a form of engagement with light that is so beyond human experience that we must not be fooled into thinking that the development of a meta perspective is somehow more inclusive of plant ontology than human ontology because plant experience is simpler?
It seems that I need to know more about how a plant experiences photosynthesis, if I can even use the word 'experience' in this way as a function of plants, before I could go further in developing a meta perspective on engagements with light across plant and human ontologies, so as to do a better job of including the ways of means of plant life into the project.
And that is the question, isn't it. Does anyone like to walk in the woods? I suppose you could make an argument that certain cultures - Nordic and Amazonian - to name just two off of the top of my head, although certainly not limited to these, for even in Sicily one can drive into the Nebrodi Mountains or in and around the slopes of Mount Etna and be as much in the woods as if you were in the Black Forest or the Chocó Rainforest, or nearly so.
Somehow some cultures have developed a more inclusive relation with the woods than others. This development can include but is different from what I am going to call a meta perspective on plants. For example, if plant neurobiologists such as Stefano Mancuso can say that plants can see, how are human beings to interpret that statement? In what sense does the word 'see' denote the thing that plants do in their engagement with light as well as the thing that humans do in their engagement with light? Plants do not have eyes, so maybe the capacity to produce images is not existent, but they are apparently sensitive to changing conditions, and therefore able to discern light from shadow, and even to tell when someone or something walks by them, momentarily blocking their light. Is this a kind of seeing?
If not, what is it when a I stand out in the sun with my eyes closed? I can sense when a cloud passes over the sun and thereby blocks the light. I sense a cooling on my skin and perhaps a darkening through some kind of residual sight capacity that remains even through my closed eyelids. Focusing on the skin sensation, and omitting the specialized capacity of eyes, especially their capacity to facilitate the production of images, is this what a plant senses when a cloud momentarily blocks the sunlight? In other words, when Aristotle stated that all senses are just variations on touch, is human skin like the membrane of a leaf or stem in the way it engages light? And by focusing on this similarity, can humans gains some sense of how plants are? Does this eyeless engagement with light facilitate the development of a meta perspective on the world, or at least a part of it? And must we not also consider that photosynthesis is a form of engagement with light that is so beyond human experience that we must not be fooled into thinking that the development of a meta perspective is somehow more inclusive of plant ontology than human ontology because plant experience is simpler?
It seems that I need to know more about how a plant experiences photosynthesis, if I can even use the word 'experience' in this way as a function of plants, before I could go further in developing a meta perspective on engagements with light across plant and human ontologies, so as to do a better job of including the ways of means of plant life into the project.
No comments:
Post a Comment