Nature, Charlie, and I
*Note: I wore an Aiwa stereo radio cassette player with a headphone attachment throughout my walk so as to make my eyes and brain more honing by eliminating the complex sounds in Nature which require interpretation and thus precious brain time.*
Charlie and I just arrived at the west-end entrance to the Plantations. And it is necessary to make some things clear before I begin to describe our conversation concerning "Nature" and its forever unresolvable aspects. Well, Charlie is the student at Mason University, which is where his father teaches History of Science courses to many each fall: both men's surname is Reynolds. I, the author of this piece, am Charlie's recalcitrant side; I see the valid antithesis of everything Charlie believes to be true. Charlie is not the only human alive with me in them; he merely has a more difficult time quelling me: insanity: than most others.
So, the assignment today is how we (Charlie and I) define "Nature." Charlie mentioned in a class discussion that true Nature is only that which is 'seemingly untouched by calloused human hands.' I think Charlie is full of hubris; Humans are a component in Nature. There are and always will be forces zillions of times more potent than the petty humans. Whatever humans do to this planet called earth is completely cleansed with the cyclic onslaught of unconscious continental glaciers every 10,000 years or so. Therefore, I do not understand all this huff and buff about preserving Nature. Nature is intangible: Charlie's infantile perception of Nature is merely aesthetic. This fact does not mean what Charlie termed Nature is not enjoyable or fun or unworthy of safeguard for those who enjoy it. However, the inclusion of 'the right thing to do' with the "preservation of Nature" is ridiculous. Nature does not give one hoot about what happens to the landscape: its all eradicated on an annual basis without any consideration for anything. Nature should not even have human characteristics depict it, at least, none other than the sound and meaning portrayed when a person flips their lower lip with their index finger as to say I DON'T CARE!
Charlie remarked throughout our enjoyable waltz around the Plantations that Slim Jim's Woods and everything else were landscaped; the trees were forced; the trails are distracting; and the concrete fixtures are bothersome. Blah, Blah, Blah is my response. Just listen to this guy carry on about the ugliness of landscaping: would he really like to live in a place completely overgrown with vegetation and always worrying about its further encroachment upon his feeble, homemade living quarters? I think not. Landscaping makes something beautiful out of something lesser (raw). Admittedly there are natural formations like the Grand Canyon and Cayuga Lake that can never be equalled by human hands. Regardless, these extreme cases do not necessarily imply the impossibility of beautifying something that was previously wrought with too many chaotic details.
It's time to move along now to the most gorgeous pond that Charlie describes as natural as steel. On the way, that fool Charlie tried to climb the great Oak tree at the eastern end of Slim Jim Woods. He jammed a finger and cut another. . . now my notes will be messy with an uncoordinated hand and smeared with the dark, rich substance that is only slightly thicker than water without the platelets to clog its uninterrupted flow: blood. To prove a point, after Charlie's failure to mount a tree, I climbed the second tallest sculpture, which is a great perch (" itself the result of a fine arts class project on steroids") to check out the Japanese-style landscape.
Charlie refers to the pond as a natural lowland swamp flooded by money-grubbing entrepreneurs working for Mason and whose only ideal is to sucker more people to its institution so as to maintain their meaningless, bureaucratic jobs. Charlie lacks realism; good thing that I'm here to help him from completely engrossing himself with a one-dimensional strategy like those preached to him in so many of his classes. People think I'm nuts sitting up here on this sculpture in Charlie's body, but this piece of cement is as much of a perch as any tree could ever hope to be!
Charlie can not get over the amount of money spent to develop an already beautiful place and thus destroy its intrinsic beauty. Whatever! Charlie is so, so selfish, because he is opting to destroy an environment frequented by many thousands each year: all of whom experience something divine from being alive in a gorgeous setting costing many millions to construct. Fortunately, these people's visions are not so clouded as to deny the Mason Plantations adequate respect for its uniqueness; for the Plantations are considered unequalled by many--especially when they compare it to the gaiety found bush-whacking a trail through a "virgin" forest: like the forest was not raped by the last ice age! Sometimes I feel Charlie is the insane one here!
Our walk is now over. Charlie had only a few nice things to say about the wooded area between the suspension bridge and the top of the hill, which is where (according to Charlie) humanity's encroachment on Nature returned. Charlie and I will never agree, or rather he will never be convinced of what I know to be the truth of the matter. My truism follows that what Charlie termed Nature is merely aesthetic, and aestheticism varies from person to person and from group to group. Groups of persons parading against the "unnatural" will always exist, but I believe that this is good. I hope that Charlie never actually grasps the full insanity of everything (me), because then his life will become pointless.
Charlie maintains Nature is an atmosphere for him and others alike to escape, which seems healthy enough. I mentioned my true nature earlier, which is I see every side of every issue. However, there is one issue that is not mercurial, which is happiness. I can not fathom that a person, however much they are ruled by my lunacy, will ever choose sorrow over happiness. I may make people unhappy as to how I conceive next to everything as paradoxical and without any clear answers; but nevertheless, I admit happiness is the one non-paradox. Happiness is absolute, since one can not derive happiness from sorrow nor vice versa. Thus, there is a one-dimensional nature to happiness and sorrow. If Charlie wants to fight for his interpretation and preservation of an aesthetic Nature, then more power to him and those alike. It would be very sad to see Charlie and his fellow partisans lose something so precious to them, which is land 'seemingly untouched by calloused human hands,' yet he should not claim a more sincere moral position; it is just a matter of aesthetics.
​
Oh, by the way, in case you forgot, I'm insane!!!!!