Skip to content

Dillard: frayed in a fallen world

October 20, 2018

What do you make of Dillard’s interest in parasites and parasitism? How and why do we get this fairly scientific vision of her neighborhood wrapped up with what is clearly a more spiritual vision, marked by the various Biblical references she makes? For example, the very title of chapter 13, The Horns of the Altar, a reference to sacrificial practice of the ancient Hebrews.

Here is some etymology that might lend us a hand at least regarding parasites:

First used in English 1539, the word parasite comes from the Medieval Frenchparasite, from the Latinparasitus, the latinisation of the Greekπαράσιτος (parasitos), “one who eats at the table of another”[3] and that from παρά (para), “beside, by”[4] + σῖτος (sitos), “wheat”.[5] Coined in English in 1611, the word parasitism comes from the Greek παρά (para) + σιτισμός (sitismos) “feeding, fattening”.[6]

A reminder of the role that snakes play in Genesis (to say nothing of apples).

Wikipedia entry on the Ichneumon wasp, a particular focal point for Dillard–and as it happens, an example of parasitism that particularly troubled Darwin:

The grisliness and apparent cruelty (at least, from a human perspective) of Ichneumonidae larval cannibalism troubled philosophers, naturalists, and theologians in the 19th century, who found the practice inconsistent with the notion of a world created by a loving and benevolent God.[9] Charles Darwin found the example of the Ichneumonidae so troubling that it contributed to his increasing doubts about the nature and existence of a Creator. In an 1860 letter to the American naturalist Asa Gray, Darwin wrote:

I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.[10]

In case you are wondering, the wave breast/heave shoulder that Dillard gets to in the last chapter derives from the Hebrew scripture, specifically Leviticus (glossed here).

I am compelled by the line that follows her rather playful (and humorous–now look what you made me do) invocation of religion.

We are people; we are permitted to have dealings with the creator and we must speak up for the creation. God look at what you’ve done to this creature, look at the sorrow, the cruelty, the long damned waste!

Dillard seems to have a different sacrifice in mind–or a different attitude to the sense of sacrifice that she identifies with nature. Different, at least, than the interpretation of the same passage that I found on a religious blog. Where the sacrificial offering reflects man’s dominion. In any case, no hint of the anger at God that Dillard shows.

What do we make of Dillard’s spirituality, her invocation (as here) of specific religious perspectives? Does her spiritualism fit with her naturalism? Are environmental perspectives and religious perspectives compatible?

I might suggest this late line, speak up for the creation, almost as the thesis and argument of the book. Finally, we get it. But it is not the creation, it seems, of any one province: not exclusively the Hebrew Bible’s God, not Christian creationism, not Romanticism’s sublime nature, not science’s perfectly economical machine. It’s the creation of the giant water bug (notice how it comes back, along with the cat) eating the world. It’s Emerson; but the emphasis is not on transcendence (remember his transparent eyeball from 1836 Nature) but the totality of vision. “All of it. All of it intricate, speckled, gnawed, fringed, and free.” We have got to take (eat) it all, for better and for worse. We are chomped by the “toothed conditions of time” and the answer seems to be that we should chomp the world in return.

Questions:If we go back to “Fecundity,” does this vision answer the questions she raises, provide an explanation? Or leave us, in the end, with a picture but not an explanation?

Is Dillard’s vision, her project, then  ecological (wanting to account for evolution)? ethical and moral (wanting to account for a human purpose missing in evolution)? political (speaking up for the creation)? spiritual (speaking up to the creator)? creative (speaking as a creator)? Or all of these? None of these?


Dillard: the rough picture of fecundity

October 17, 2018

Some elements in the textured and very rough picture of fecundity that Dillard draws in chapter 10. As she says, “it’s rough out there”–and remember the lesson from fractal geometry, the texture of nature is rough, not smooth (as in the vision of classical science and Euclidean geometry). So, perhaps we can think of this entire chapter as a fractal image.

OED entry on fecund:

fecund, adj.

Etymology:  < French fecond, < Latin fēcundus fruitful. In the 16th cent. the spelling was refashioned after Latin.(Show Less)

a. Of animals, the earth, etc.: Capable of producing offspring or vegetable growth abundantly; prolific, fertile.In recent use distinguished from fertility n.   (see quot. 1904). Cf. fecundity n.   Otherwise somewhat arch.

c1420   Pallad. on Husb. i. 77   Make a dyche, and yf the moolde abounde And wol not in agayne, it is fecounde.
c1420   Pallad. on Husb. i. 985   That wol make all fecundare On every side.
1537   tr. Latimer’s 2nd Serm. bef. Convocation i. 42   He was so fecund a father, and had gotten so many children.
1676   Philos. Trans. (Royal Soc.) 11 594   Animals fecond enough.
1678   R. Cudworth True Intellect. Syst. Universe i. iv. 489   The most Benign and Fecund Begetter of all things.
1682   N. Grew Anat. Plants i. iv. App. 33   Thorns, from the outer, and less fecund Part.
1721   R. Bradley Philos. Acct. Wks. Nature 30   The Nourishment and Growth of the Embrio Seed after its Germe is made fecund.
Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place
to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out.
Dillard’s “poet” of the “force that through the green fuse drives the flower” :

The force that through the green fuse drives the flower

by Dylan Thomas
The force that through the green fuse drives the flower
Drives my green age; that blasts the roots of trees
Is my destroyer.
And I am dumb to tell the crooked rose
My youth is bent by the same wintry fever.

The force that drives the water through the rocks
Drives my red blood; that dries the mouthing streams
Turns mine to wax.
And I am dumb to mouth unto my veins
How at the mountain spring the same mouth sucks.

The hand that whirls the water in the pool
Stirs the quicksand; that ropes the blowing wind
Hauls my shroud sail.
And I am dumb to tell the hanging man
How of my clay is made the hangman's lime.

The lips of time leech to the fountain head;
Love drips and gathers, but the fallen blood
Shall calm her sores.
And I am dumb to tell a weather's wind
How time has ticked a heaven round the stars.

And I am dumb to tell the lover's tomb
How at my sheet goes the same crooked worm.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics: in short, entropy. In more figurative terms (also evoked by Dillard), the arrow of time moves only in one direction, toward disorder,, loss and death. As Dillard tells us, it’s rough out there.
Environmental Ethics: Anthropocentrism vs Ecocentrism (Biocentrism):

Environmental philosophy

Anthropocentrism has been posited by some environmentalists, in such books as Confessions of an Eco-Warrior by Dave Foreman and Green Rage by Christopher Manes, as the underlying (if unstated) reason why humanity dominates and sees the need to “develop” most of the Earth. Anthropocentrism is believed by some to be the central problematic concept in environmental philosophy, where it is used to draw attention to a systematic bias in traditional Western attitudes to the non-human world.[3]Val Plumwood has argued[4][5] that anthropocentrism plays an analogous role in green theory to androcentrismin feminist theory and ethnocentrism in anti-racist theory. Plumwood calls human-centredness “anthrocentrism” to emphasise this parallel.

One of the first extended philosophical essays addressing environmental ethics, John Passmore‘s Man’s Responsibility for Nature[6] has been criticised by defenders of deep ecology because of its anthropocentrism, often claimed to be constitutive of traditional Western moral thought.[7] Defenders of anthropocentrist views point out that maintenance of a healthy, sustainable environment is necessary for human well-being as opposed for its own sake. The problem with a “shallow” viewpoint is not that it is human-centred but that according to William Grey: “What’s wrong with shallow views is not their concern about the well-being of humans, but that they do not really consider enough in what that well-being consists. According to this view, we need to develop an enriched, fortified anthropocentric notion of human interest to replace the dominant short-term, sectional and self-regarding conception.” [8]

It is important to take note that many devoted environmentalists encompass a somewhat anthropocentric-based philosophical view supporting the fact that they will argue in favor of saving the environment for the sake of human populations. “We should be concerned to promote a rich, diverse, and vibrant biosphere. Human flourishing may certainly be included as a legitimate part of such a flourishing.”[9]Biocentrism has been proposed as an antithesis of anthropocentrism.[10] It has also been proposed as a generalised form of anthropocentrism.[11]

A creationist description (a site called Answers in Genesis) for truths and myths about praying mantises. Which raises the question, since Dillard clearly invokes the discussion of evolution and refers repeatedly to the creator: is this an account of an evolutionist or creationist?

So. What’s the picture that emerges?

Dillard: fractal, like the creek

October 11, 2018

Here is my effort to contribute some further reading and thinking about a scientific idea that I suspect is at work in Dillard’s thinking. Remember, I am no scientist, just exploring this neighborhood.

As  a follow-up to our discussion of Dillard’s style of writing, I would argue that many of the characteristics (and especially the poetic-scientific hybrids we keep observing, perhaps inherited from Thoreau) can be categorized under the heading fractal. This is a mathematical concept that emerges, in fact, within a year or two of Pilgrim (mid-1970s). In fact, the mathematician (Mandelbrot) who coined the term ‘fractal’ recently died–his obit in the NYTimes provides a useful summary of what fractal means–a vision of a world that is not smooth–and intricate in its roughness; the classic examples are two of great interest to Dillard’s vision–a coastline and the shape of a leaf. Dillard’s version of the fractal: the frayed and fringed texture of the world that she focuses on in “Intricacy.”

The creator goes off on one wild, specific tangent after another, or millions simultaneously, with an exuberance that would seem to be unwarranted, and with an abandoned energy sprung from an unfathomable font. What is going on here? The point of the dragonfly’s terrible lip, the giant water bug, birdsong, or the beautiful dazzle and flash of sunlighted minnows, is not that it all fits together like clockwork–for it doesn’t, particuclarly, not even inside the goldfish bowl–but that it all flows so freely wild, like the creek, that it all surges in such a free, fringed tangle.

I see her writing itself as such a “fringed tangle,” replicating a kind of texture that she finds in the movement between her thinking and her observing, like the movement between creek-water and creek-bank. Fractal texture might be a word for this. Below is the definition of fractal from the OED–see if you hear anything of interest. Could we view Dillard’s entire book as a fractal? One of the descriptions I have heard to describe a fractal helps me make sense of Dillard’s writing: the idea is that when you continually magnify an image of a border (coastline, or say the edge of a cloud), each successive larger/closer image will have a pattern something like the first one. So, reiteration without exact repetition; a loop that spirals; intricacy built upon a simplicity that is beautiful and unfathomable. Fractals also provide a picture of shapes and dynamics in nature that are rough and chaotic, not smooth; but the roughness and chaos turns out to have patterns. Check this out, for example: a picture that seems to demonstrate the underlying force that makes: trees, rivers, estuaries, coastlines.

The OED entry for FractalEtymology: < French fractal (B. B. Mandelbrot 1975, in Les Objets Fractals), < Latin fractus , past participle of frangĕre to break

1977   B. B. Mandelbrot Fractals i. 1/2   Many important spatial patterns of Nature are either irregular or fragmented to such an extreme degree that..classical hardly of any help in describing their form… I hope to show that it is possible in many cases to remedy this absence of geometric representation by using a family of shapes I propose to call fractals—or fractal sets.

Other OED explorations of Dillard’s language to consider: fringe ; texture
Here is Mandelbrot himself, describing his “Theory of Roughness.” Notice the earthy character he has in mind, Thoreau’s Antaeus, to re-focus the purity of math and science:
My attitude has been totally different. I always saw a close kinship between the needs of “pure” mathematics and a certain hero of Greek mythology, Antaeus. The son of Earth, he had to touch the ground every so often in order to reestablish contact with his Mother; otherwise his strength waned. To strangle him, Hercules simply held him off the ground. Back to mathematics. Separation from any down-to-earth input could safely be complete for long periods — but not forever. In particular, the mathematical study of Brownian motion deserved a fresh contact with reality.
This site provides further discussion of Fractals, and the ways that many things in nature can be thought of as fractals: trees, the shore of a body of water, such as a river or a creek. A Nova video on Fractals, describing them as “one of nature’s biggest design secrets…The blinders came off and people could see forms that were there but formerly invisible.” We learn that a key to the discovery of the “fractal geometry of nature” (in contrast to traditional geometry) is to see things as rough/textured rather than smooth. Now who does that sound like?
What are Fractals?” [for an image of the fractal as continuous patten and self-similar]

What is a Fractal?

The Border Between Chaos and Order

A fractal is defined by its properties. Two of the most important properties of all fractals are :-

1) self-similarity

2) fractional dimension

Self-similarity means that one part of the fractal is very similar to other parts of the same fractal. This can be seen in most fractal art . . . for example the fractal image above is a spiral made of smaller similar spirals, and each of those smaller spirals is itself made of similar smaller spirals, and so on, ad infinitum.

Start with a straight line . . . that has one dimension. Then make the line increasingly twisted in more and more complex ways . . . if the line was infinitely twisted it could fill an area and would thus be two-dimensional. Because of the principle of self-similarity (infinite complexity), a fractal line is part-way between one and two dimensions, so it is a fractal line that is on the way towards filling a space, because the wiggles on the line themselves have smaller wiggles, and those wiggles in turn have smaller wiggles and so on.

This might seem like mathematical abstraction but it has very practical results. For example, take the coastline of an island . . . look at it from far away and lay a piece of string along the coastline, and you will arrive at a length for that coastline. Then zoom in and you will see that where the coastline appeared to be a simple shape from far away, the line along the coast has a lot more detailed wiggles the closer you get. You could continue this increasing detail down to grains of sand along the coastline, and if you lay the piece of string around all the details, you get a LONGER measurement than you did from the initial far view!

I think of the fractal’s vision of complexity through simplicity and order bordering chaos as something along the curve of Thoreau’s understanding of vision: “two views of the same,” where we can be beside ourselves in a sane sense.
Dillard extends her fractalized vision of the “frayed fringes of shore” (140) to a related scientific concept known as Complexity, the study of highly dynamical systems that emerges in the sciences, including biology and the study of ecosystems, as well as Chaos Theory–think Butterfly Effect.
“Ecological complexity refers to the complex interplay between all living systems and their environment, and emergent properties from such an intricate interplay. The concept of ecological complexity stresses the richness of ecological systems and their capacity for adaptation and self-organization. The complex, nonlinear interactions (behavioral, biological, chemical, ecological, environmental, physical, social, cultural) that affect, sustain, or are influenced by all living systems, including humans. It deals with questions at the interfaces of traditional disciplines and its goal is to enable us to explain and ultimately predict the outcome of such interactions. Ecological complexity can also be thought of as biocomplexity in the environment” (Li, 2004, editorial in Ecological Complexity).

Dillard extends her view of the intricacy/complexity of nature at the creek to that of the larger world when she associates Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle with the stalking of a muskrat: “the physicists are once again mystics” (206). Complexity, the scientists will tell you, has something to do with simplicity.

Animated fractal mountain

Animated fractal mountain (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This dynamic between simplicity and complexity, it would seem, is the mystery that Dillard has in view. As Dillard seems to think, in her whimsical way: you can’t make this stuff up.
Further reading on Fractal Poetry from the poet Alice Fulton.
Should we think of Dillard as a fractal poet in terms of her poetics and style–how she writes, not just what she writes about?