Samsin, J.R. (2008). Essence lost in history

"Nature is silent, but clear, and requires simply a reliable reading." Miller quotes this in his article Dimensions of Deformity (Miller 2004). Miller begins this article by giving his readers the historical background on man's perception of frogs; from how the Mesopotamians saw frogs' deformities as an omen to how a modern man sees them as just frogs. Now, what is the significance of this evolution of man's view of nature?

Miller suggests that nature must be seen as somewhat more like us. Like man nature, including frogs, whether deformed or not, share an essence with us. By having a closer and deeper relation between humans and nature, it will become easier to see the world as a whole.

This way of looking at nature, however, has not always been a habit of man.

The ancient Mesopotamians viewed deformed frogs as an omen, a sign they took seriously as a message from the gods. This way of looking at nature exists today in the form of superstition. Later, from the time of Aristotle and the Greeks to the men of science of the Middle Ages, deformities would have been given a natural explanation, but the ethical dimension was not ignored. As Miller says,

"A deformed frog could thus be an indicator of prevailing cosmic dispositions, conditions also linked to the material and spiritual health of humankind." (Miller 2004).

A change in man's perceptions occurred beginning in the 17th century. At this time, a way of thinking was being formulated by Bacon, Galileo, and Descartes. They proposed that what is significant in nature consists, in essence, of merely what is measurable. From this view, man began to see nature as just nature. Nature was something totally different from man. That is, man detached nature's essence from his own. Again,

"It is a method that took pains to separate the material world 'out there' from the human mind 'in here', a perspective that dissolves the solidarity of humanity and nature and stands in such contrast to the ancient and medieval sense that knowledge involves nature re-forming herself in the mind." (Miller 2004)

Man, however, can never be equal to nature. This is because we are far more advanced than all other things in the world. Man is gifted with intellect and will, whereas nature and everything else in it has very limited intellect, if at all. Nonetheless, at least a part of man is in nature; man can only be impoverished if he ignores this fact.

Miller says that "the great virtue of ecological science lies in its efforts to soften the fragmentizing tendencies of modern science and to see the world whole." This is because ecology traditionally takes a systems view rather than a reductionist view of nature. By expanding the systems view into the ethical and aesthetic dimensions of human existence, ecology confronts the question of the equivalence of man's nature with that of his world.

Reference:
Miller, G. 2004. Dimensions of Deformity. In Keeping Things Whole, The Great Books Foundation.

(Jean Rhea S. Samsin is a student of the University of Asia and the Pacific, 14jean85.multiply.com)