WRITING NATURE: 
DISCOURSES OF ECOLOGY

Thoreau says in his Journals:

"I think that the most important requisite in describing an animal, is to be sure to give its character and spirit, for in that you have, without error, the sum and effect of all its parts, known and unknown.  You must tell what it is to man....  What is most interesting in a dog, for example, in his attachment to his master, his intelligence, courage, and the like, and not his anatomical structure or even many habits which affect us less."

What do you think about this statement, especially as regards Eckstein's "Two Lives" and perhaps John James Audubon's "White-headed Eagle" and Pandeya's fact sheet "Rough-legged Hawk"?
 

Chloe:  Hello
Zoe:  The way to reach the widest audience is probably to describe animals in terms of nature.  Isn't it denying some essential aspect of the animal, though, to reduce it to only its relationship to man?  Are those species with which man is familiar the only ones that are worth describing?
Chloe:  I think that Thoreau has a point, not so much because what we see of animals is reality, but because ALL we can see of the world is its relation to us.
Milo:  What is interesting to people is other people.
Chloe:  How can we describe in terms of nature when we do not know those terms?
Zoe:  So animals are never interesting?
Milo:  There are, but only in how they affect humans.
KITTY:  I think in order for us to understand something it has to be in our terms.
Chloe:  Animals are ALWAYS interesting, but only insofar as they relate to us, because we can't PERCEIVE anything else.
Zoe:  Sorry, I meant in terms of humans up there.
KITTY:  I think it works the same for other animals too.  Animals look at other animals in terms of their use to them.
Zoe:  We can perceive the way animals interact with other animals, like Thoreau did with the ants....
Chloe:  We can try, but we always phrase the interactions in human terms.
Zoe:  Obviously, he extrapolated on that and made it relevent to humans.  That's unaviodable.
ll:  We simply fail to relate to things which we do not understand or care about.
Zoe:  Does that mean we shouldn't try?
Zoe:  And do we not care about them because we don't know about them?
ll:  Are we wrong to judge animals according to our terms?
Milo:  Maybe just a little self centered.
ll:  We don't care about what we don't understand
Chloe:  Thoreau did not extrapolate anything, because Thoreau is not an ant.  I am not saying that humans cannot understand animals or appreciate animals.  I am only saying that understanding and appreciation will always be from a human viewpoint.
KITTY:  We should definitely try to relate to the world around us, and since the vast majority of it isn't human, it seems inevitable that we would try to understand animals in nature.
Chloe:  Yes, we try, but only in human terms.
ll:  So are ants understanding and appreciation only from the viewpoint of an ant?
Chloe:  Yes.
Milo:  But how do we know, isn't that a human view again?
KITTY:  How could we understand something in anything other than "human terms"? I don't understand...
ll:  We are only able to see things in human terms because we can only KNOW what we have ourselves experienced
Zoe:  That's not my point.  I'm not saying its wrong, more that it seems pretty narrow to say that the only thing worth describing about a dog is his relationship to man.  Cleearly, a dog does other things, and some of those things are relevent to humans.  Yes, that is assigning human values r human terms to aninmal activity.  I think we all agree that we can't have anything but a human viewpoint.
Zoe:  We are all human.
Chloe:  We can assume with a bit of confidence that ants perceive the world from their own viewpoint.  :)
KITTY:  Ants are so great!
ll:  I wish I was an ant
Zoe:  And so numerous.
ll:  Do they even realize that we exist?
Chloe:  All right.  What is WORTH describing about a dog?  EVERYTHING, from every viewpoint.  BUT WE ONLY HAVE ONE VIEWPOINT AS HUMANS.  So to try to express others is only a delusion of grandeua
Chloe:  grandeur, even
Milo:  I think Thoreau was going beyond saying that we interpret things from a human view.  He was saying that the only thing worth saying about doogs was their relationship to us, not even their bone structure is worth mentioning because it doesn't affect humans.
Chloe:  Do ants realize that ants exist?  Existence is human metaphysics
ll:  This is a VERY self centered view
Zoe:  I'm not saying that we need to try to discuss things from a viewpoint other than human!  I know, it's impossible.  But I think that there are things about a dog that could be interesting to humans even though they don't directly involve the dog-human interaction.
Chloe:  No, he didn't say bone structure isn't important, he said that psychological qualities are MORE important than physical ones.
Zoe:  More interesting, not more important.
Milo:  But only in there relaation to man.
KITTY:  Even if we only have one human viewpoint, there is so much difference is those viewpoints (ie Thoreau vs. Oates) that you're dealing with two distinct viewpoints.
Chloe:  I think we are defining the dog-human interaction differently.  I am saying that we cannot PERCEIVE dogs in any other way than the way in which our lives cross that of dogs.  That is my definition of interaction.
ll:  I care more about how a dog behaves in relation to me than about his bone structure.  This is because I am human.
Chloe:  True, Kitty, but we are discussing humans vs. animals here, not animals vs. animals.
Zoe:  I am referring to interactin- running with the dog, playing with the dog, as opposed to observing- watching the dog hunt or sleep or whatever.
ll:  We can only percieve what we experience and we only experience dogs through our interaction with them
Milo:  or our observations of them
Chloe:  Ah, well that is where we are getting stuck.  There are parts of a dog's life that humans will NEVER observe.  To me, this is the only thing outside our interaction with dogs.  And if we never observe those things, we cannot think about them and shouldn't try
ll:  Chloe, humans are animals!
Chloe:  Yes, but we are only one kind of animal, and although there are perceptions common to all animals, we are discussing those perceptions which are not
KITTY:  I think we're all pretty much saying the same thing. We kind of have to accept that we are not able to tap into that other unknown part of an animal's life that we never see.
Chloe:  LOL  I love how people are able to argue when they agree because of their different perspectives.  :D
Zoe:  Okay, that's a valid point.  But are any of us presuming to imagine those parts of a dog's life which we have never seen?  Thoreau said that the most interesting part of a dog is its interaction with its master, and I am arguing that the way he humts or playes with other doge can be equally interesting if we apply those observations in human terms.
Zoe:  wow, i really can't type.  sorry
ll:  But it is not as fun for the humans
Chloe:  Thoreau gave interaction with the master as an example, but also the dogs intelligence and courage, which are dog things.  I don't think Thoreau is being that limited.
Zoe:  fair enough.
KITTY:  OK, I understand what you're saying. I'm thinking a whole other aspect could be what goes on inside a dog's head.
Chloe:  Nice chatting with you guys