Nature’s Hand in the Identification and Transformation of The Self

Clair Belleveau

Dr. James Allen Hall

April 10, 2015

I pledge my word of honor that I have abided by the Washington College Honor Code while completing this assignment.

“ Let us inquire, to what end is nature? ” Ralph Waldo Emerson rhetorically

probes in this question from his essay on “Nature” (36). One often wonders about the

complex interworkings and mystifying processes that we know to be our natural world.

Emerson’s “Nature” exemplifies an idea that nature comprises an intense human

connection to the corporeal world. It is clear from his question that as humans, we strive

to make sense of the existence on our natural domain in terms of its prominence in our

lives as our planet’s most advanced beings.

Emerson writes, “Nature satisfies by its loveliness and without any mixture of

corporeal benefit” (47). He investigates this desire we have to be a part of nature yet

personally feels that it is an internal connection we crave to feel a part of it’s mystique. It

is clear as humans we don’t necessarily need to physically involve ourselves with the

environment but open ourselves up to its’ possibilities and overall mystical aura. Our

species requires and necessitates a communal connection with others. Whether this means

creating a bond with other humans or subsequent species, our existence is defined by the

power of our emotional connections. This concept of nature being inherently traced with

emotive characteristics or loveliness relates to Annie Dillard’s experiential frame of

mind, especially as explored in her compilation of essays, Pilgrim At Tinker Creek.

Dillard examines and investigates nature as an avenue of divine wholeness successively

by her examination of an area in Virginia known as Tinker Creek. Here is where she

reflects upon her own findings by her home for a collective year. In this journey through

the flora and fauna, this specified space allows Dillard to use her explorations to write an

environmental bible of sorts. She wonders about all parts of nature as an emotive network

and coexistence through all its intriguing differences. She defines nature vividly in

2

proclaiming that its body is, “…the mystery of the continuous creation and all that

providence implies: the uncertainty of vision, the horror of the fixed, the dissolution of

the present, the intricacy of beauty, the pressure of fecundity, the elusiveness of the free,

and the flawed nature of perfection” (Dillard, 5). To Dillard, nature is a collection of

diverse intricacies coinciding in one space. It is nearly impossible to survive or remain

content by living idly or without having purpose and mutual understanding of other

creatures from the natural. Emerson conglomerates similar ideas and channels them by

utilizing his own emotional motivations as a course of transcendence for humans to grow

and have clarity in life. Trying to encapsulate the natural is close to an impossible feat

due to its constant evolution, eminent presence and merely unattainable beauty but these

two writers try to define Nature in order to expound upon what it means to be human.

Unlike Emerson, Dillard draws out nature for all its properties whether ugly or

appealing even beyond what humans view as aesthetically pleasing. In terms of its

presence though, Emerson hones in on concepts by centralizing the idea that emotions are

organic as well as the properties that exist in nature. Emerson verbalizes, “For, although

the works of nature are innumerable and all different, the result or the expression of them

all is similar and single. Nature is a sea of forms radically alike and even unique” (39).

For Emerson, these romanticisms are made real when they coincide with nature to

embody the whole meaning or human’s instilled desires for emotional facilitation. He

finds that nature is a vessel for one’s internal relation being revealed through its various

mysticisms and symbols other than solely what it’s physical aspects can reveal to further

label what our emotions mean to us. The essences, stimuli, and natural manifestations

that unfold in nature are what both Emerson and Dillard explore in order to allow our

3

elaborate humanistic thought processes to become emblemized by what nature stands for

psychologically, emotionally or even spiritually. Zeroing in on the minutest occurrences

such as the procreation of a singular species to expand outward expressing the grandeur

of our universe gives the reader a sense of how everything is linked in some way. We are

all coexisting parts of this world that make it mysterious and complex due to the fact that

each living creature differs yet we all subsist on this one planet. To Dillard, embracing

theses aspects such as the beautifully grotesque or peculiarly mystical highlights the

metaphoric qualities that also Emerson finds vital to peer through the intricately woven

natural structure that we as humans can utilize to make sense of our planet and our total

self. The physically available aspects of nature are an additive to Emerson in that the

overreaching features nature gives off are a power of grandeur we are not able to absorb

just physically but abstractly. Unlike Dillard, she finds to understand nature, one needs to

make yourself a part of it tangibly by walking into it, through it and inside it to make a

full recognition of it’s persistent presence.

Both writers see nature in an anthropomorphic way by having it as a constant

canvas for expression. It’s an outlet to anchor our sole meaning and purpose to others by

finding a mutual likeness whether as a reoccurring symbol in the environment or

absorbing a feeling exuded from natural happenings. Although the natural magnetism of

the human connection is both complex and monumental for overall mortal meaning, the

measures of identity and instinctual relationship humans have with nature are not only

part of our physical aesthetic. It is an innate bond with which creatures gain a sense of

true intimacy through its mystical symbolism. It is incredible to ponder the fact that

nature is what created every single living creature and mapped us to one orb known as

4

our earth. Dillard questions this expansive truth in saying, “What do we think of the

created universe, spanning an unthinkable void with an unthinkable profusion of forms?”

(9). This inquiry solidifies that humans often scrutinize the believability of our world

retaining all these varieties of breathing parts that take on different walks of life but

described through our means of language and oral communication, it all can make sense.

Dillard raises this question to reiterate the reality that our natural world accomplishes and

maintains such a multitude of processes to uphold the delicately intricate and coarsely

twisted structure in which we reside. Nature’s illuminating properties aid in the soul’s

growth as well as delivering a metaphor for humans to further understand the crevices of

our internal compass. In terms of human’s complete natural immersion, both Emerson

and Dillard argue that nature’s effect on us is not always something that exists in the

tangible or that we can see through physical sight. Through a metaphorical

representation, Emerson depicts, “Nature always wears colors of the spirit” which

indicates that the supremacy of the human emotion is a complex yet essential element in

nature; it is present in order to rein in the overwhelming ability that nature has to

capsulize our whole sense of consciousness (39). This consciousness is exemplified

through the physical world but it is having the ability to see beyond the material and

allowing nature to become a part of how we operate. It becomes this unspoken

association with deep internal understanding. Nature is a transposition of natural

sensation that all organisms endure as a part of our world that we feel will last forever

and beyond our existence with great command. It is true that Emerson finds no human

can fully explain the confines and ascendants of emotion without nature as an avenue to

peel back such a multilayered network as the human emotion. He states, “We mean the

5

integrity of impression made by manifold natural objects” (32). Nature is a manifestation

of our emotional compass translated into the physical world. Therefore, Emerson reflects

upon us as being “impressionable” by nature even without out consent. It truly does

affect our truest being with ease.

Dillard and Emerson’s aim is to influence our world through means of descriptive

language and examination of nature as a coexistent influx in our lives. They reveal in

prose how we can choose to find ourselves and reveal the true meaning of what it is to be

human. Their writings give us the opportunity to transpose the self into something greater

than our mortality such as the inscrutable factors of the natural. Nature is indeed utilized

by humans as a metaphorical series of images and plugs for the soul to emblemize its

beauty as an instrumental, internal transcendence. Nature is indeed constantly surprising

us unless we take the time to immerse and expand our ideologies of what it explains for

each individual based on the intimate occurrences we see for ourselves. This part of our

natural realm becomes a sifting process with which we strain out the right ways we can

articulate, internalize and emote such aspects. Humans are like the paintbrushes with

which we can dip ourselves into the many colors and shades nature offers us to paint the

picture that we can show to our world. The consistent reflections on the human spirit and

presence of the soul demonstrates how nature makes our world relatable due to its

ethereal spirit. It is as if it is a spirituality reverberating heartbeat, keeping a network such

as our environment and it’s species consistently transforming. Our existence would be

even more complex to understand than it already is presently without nature’s visual and

various transcending elements to give us belonging and knowing. It is what causes all

earthly beings to have a realization that their core is a reverberation to other living beings

6

as if sending messages in a metaphysical way. The environmental realm is our guide, our

map to trace what it means to be alive. Dillard anthropomorphizes nature as a muse of her

expression about how all forms of life are living as a single force with the same pulse but

each possessing different purposes for this world. As said in the journal,

“Anthropocentric Nature Lover: Annie Dillard and the Transcendalist” by Fredrik

Brogger, the spiritual orientation of a writer becomes a linguistic thread to make nature a

symbol of divinity to create a belief that higher beings are within and surround us on

earth. As Brogger states about Dillard’s cohesion of writing topics and style, “ Due to its

essentialist and religious orientation, it is also a literary mode that tends to make

extensive use of anthropomorphic language, which is it say imagery that endows nature

with explicitly human characteristics “ (Brogger, 30). Brogger touches upon is how the

feature of spirituality is a humanistic feeling as he calls it “anthropomorphic” since we

constantly are trying to personify the natural to make it a part of human’s existence and

communication. Reaching beyond ourselves as Dillard explores ties to Emerson’s

excavation of the intimate human condition. The thick layers in the emotional concourse

are explored by Emerson as a way to see ourselves clearer. He orates, “In the tranquil

landscape, and especially in the distant line of the horizon, man beholds somewhat as

beautiful as his own nature” (40). Nature allows our own inner landscape to become a

part of the universal, environmental landscape in a total harmony as a single particle of

this life we live. All species are defined by their ability to express. We as humans try to

live, lead and thrive on our innermost perceptions by hoping that being our individual

selves doesn’t make us a foreign part of the world but with language we become an

7

extension to further explain how truly magnificent life is by embracing the world we are

given.

Our capacity for intimacy with nature gives us a sense of structure and a place to

center something as abstract and organic as emotion. Our world is imperfect, rough and

beautiful. It truly depends on how one wishes to internalize its actuality. As Dillard

writes, “It’s all a matter of keeping my eyes open,” which verbalizes that nature is about

keenly noticing, observing and optically dissecting our judgments by transforming them

into deep understanding (Dillard, 19). By keeping the “eyes open” and always aware,

Dillard metaphorically displays that the internal spirit paired with physical sight are both

necessary to allow oneself to fully engage with nature as an experience rather than a

small happenstance. This is somewhat different to Emerson’s process in that he feels

truly becoming in tune with one’s wholes existence with nature is holding onto it as part

of oneself by allowing everything to be absorb emotionally before thinking about its

purpose. He states in “Nature”, “Love is as much its demand as perception” (Emerson,

79). This statement explains how emotion and connection to something is as important

and commanding of a process as perception or conceptualizations made from the mind.

To become truly rooted in nature, it seems that both writers feel that thinking about what

occurs around them is only part of the relationship one can create or have with the natural

realm. What is essential to each of these writer’s craft and explorative avenues, is by

choosing to rely on raw, unconditional connectivity with nature so that both remain

intimate with it. Emerson doesn’t find getting his hands dirty with the peculiarities in

nature is his process to find out what it means to him or humanity on a deeper level. He

finds, “Nature, in its ministry to man, is not only the material, but is also the process and

8

the result” meaning it is about experiencing the natural on the physical plane but

conceptually watching it as a highly involved spectator and keen observer (48).

Conversely, Dillard goes through the natural world plucking, dissecting and observing

through her own gritty examinations to enhance her sense of intimacy in nature’s reality.

She states, “That it’s rough out there and chancy is no surprise” (9). Dillard unveils the

universal meanings and bond with nature by using physical discovery and letting chance

takes its course. Dillard finds explaining the abstractness of human’s anthropomorphic

emotions through the environment is the only logical way to make sense of something

beyond ourselves. Humans create and fall into “chancy” experiences much like ones that

nature can create in a precarious way as well.

As stated before, Dillard feels having your “eyes open” is more about capturing

what you see and translating it for your mind or soul to digest so that nature becomes a

personal experience of splendor, not just a outlay and existing expanse of various

creatures and vegetation. In the article, “The Dialectic Vision of Annie Dillard’s Pilgrim

At Tinker Creek” written by Margeret Loewen Reimer, she defines the way Dillard views

the natural world in her writing as a “dialectic vision” which is uses logic as a pathway to

bridge opposing ideas in nature in order to find real truths and reveal fallacies others have

created. Reimer finds that, “The first level of that dialectic is the tension between the

material and the spiritual, the natural and the transcendent, but another dialectic is at

work within this framework: the prevailing contradiction between the beauty and the

horror with the natural world” (Reimer, 182). Reimer thinks that the main anchor to

Dillard’s concepts of natural intimacy in Pilgrim At Tinker Creek is she invites aspects of

nature that aren’t necessarily directly appealing or apparent based on the human aesthetic

9

or that can cause many humans to fear a true immersion within nature beyond what we

already deem quantifiable. For Dillard, embracing aspects of nature that are against the

norm create a kind of intimacy that is untouchable. By making the effort to understand

something foreign to oneself, she creates the truest form of closeness a human can

encounter because it is honest and pure. This impulse embraces differences between

species beyond their evolutionary properties. Emerson describes this mutual

understanding in a way that is similar to what Reimer describes in Dillard’s overall

outlook as “American transcendence” (Reimer, 183). This all encompassing idea of

nature transcending the tangible world delves into the idea of our natural sphere fostering

a greatness that pushes all creatures to see beyond themselves. Dillard’s way to

“transcend” the actual aids readers to understand what Emerson fervently discusses as our

ties to the spiritual or metaphysical as it is the incorporation of the total embodiment of

external to internal sight. To make a delineation of his meditations of the soul, in a

conjectural way, Emerson keenly states, “Philosophically considered, the universe is

composed of Nature and the Soul” (Emerson, 36). This declarative statement expresses

the reason why nature is so imperative to our existence in that it is married to the

illumination in the chambers of our soul. The idea Emerson puts forth about our universe

being encapsulated as the total embodiment of nature and soul shows how it is instilled in

all living begins that nature is the sanctuary in which we can reside. Nature is the

physical link we have to explore our need for intimacy with the earth and our domain to

expand our true purpose.

This idea of transcendent and intimate vision in Dillard’s writing is akin to

Emerson’s way of utilizing vision as a means of insight rather than just the use of

10

physical sight. The imaginative yet informative digestions that Dillard renders differ from

Emerson. He embodies somewhat of an existential point of view, portraying the idea that

nature elevates our conceptions of intimacy in terms of relation to our entire world to

make further sense of the self. Sherman Paul writes in his, “The Angle of Vision”, that

Emerson’s particular way of witnessing nature is by dissecting the variants, in how he

manipulates and uses sight as not only vision but as a “total sensual response” to nature

(Paul, 159). This intimacy through sight makes one’s ties to nature deep and undeniably

powerful. The idea that Paul highlights is how sight is Emerson’s basis for inward

perception to where the relationship between these two makes one’s natural experiences

the most purely individual. This level of intimacy is clandestine within the fringe of

nature because it is about peering into only emotion not even discussing logic or

reasoning, much like Dillard’s scientific explorations. Relating to earthly matters, our

overall existence can be cleansed and have a sense of belonging when one makes the

effort to understand the way our relationship with self builds in the natural world.

Throughout Emerson’s Nature, he describes this preliminary saunter of life with

nature as not even a physical act but as “affections of the mind” (Emerson, 80). This

phrase elucidates how Emerson believes that the way humans have to translate nature is

by the sentiments that are then sifted through visionary thought and abstraction that Paul

labels as “organic intimacy” (Paul, 160). The environmental world is as organic as the

nature of human emotional capacity. Emerson’s relation to nature as a building block to a

visually fantastical and emotional bond to the self, is much like Dillard’s commitment to

nature in a way that Reimer describes as Dillard’s, “…goal [being] expressed as the

11

desire to “lose herself” in her contemplation of the world, to empty herself in order to

experience the present and regain her innocence” (Reimer, 186).

This raw desire for deep intimacy without predeterminations is much like the

unwavering love and view of a child. Dillard would agree with this assertion when she

states, “When we lose our innocence- when we start feeling the weight of the atmosphere

and learn that there’s death in the pot-we take leave of our sense” (Dillard, 91). This

sense is that the self, the “total sensual response” as Emerson quantifies it would fall

apart. Innocence for these writers is the clearest form of vision, where the lens is purified

by the organic beauties that nature provides as an outlet for soul expansion. In lieu of the

purity in innocence through vision, Emerson declares that only “…few adult persons can

see nature…The sun illuminates only the eye of the man, but shines into the eye and heart

of the child.” (Emerson, 38). Such important innocence could be otherwise described as

an untainted viewpoint and relates to Paul’s expressions that Emerson uses all the

abilities of the eye in it’s physical actuality by peering into the whole idea of nature with

full detail in the purest form.

Seeing nature for what it is and understanding its expression to our innermost

psyche, both Emerson and Dillard’s ways of discovery is how humans can dig into the

natural not only through their instinct of searching with external sight but allowing what

we see become a part of us. It is creating a method to experience some of the most pure

aspects of our daunting world. With the sentiments of a child, the world is a lot less

closed up and seems much more willing to embrace such an intimate connection when we

remain free of the confines we can create in our mind. Clearly, nature is exemplified as a

way to travel in our world by way of prospect in order to obtain real vision of what

12

surrounds us as well as start to relate to it as an internal force beyond our tangible cavity.

Charles Feidelson, Jr.’s article, “Toward Melville: Some Versions of Emerson” agrees in

that Emerson identifies, “…a symbolic relationship between nature and mind,” is the

symbolic relationship that translates nature’s capacity into a whole cognitive process of

emotional perception and scientific reasoning. This explains why nature operates at the

pace it does amongst anything artificial in our world (137). For one’s bond with nature to

be accepted there has to be equilibrium between our openness for fervent attachment and

identification to this sect of our world. Emerson confirms, “…all natural objects make a

kindred impression, when the mind is open to their influence”. Here he connects nature to

a mental and emotional stimulation, a mutual correspondence of existence is established

(Emerson, 36). Looking at other interactions beyond our own creates that intimacy, the

desire to approach, appreciate and empathize with various earthly intricacies. The way

one chooses to look at the earth is by seeing objectively, spanning from horridly bizarre

to delicate and pristine.

This traces back to Pilgrim At Tinker Creek with an instance where Dillard

witnesses two prang mantissas mating right before her eyes. She retells in detail of how

aggressive and gruesome their mating process is: “He mounts her…But the wretch has no

head; he has no neck; he has hardly a body. The other, with her muzzle turned over her

shoulder continues very placidly to gnaw what remains of the gentle swain” (Dillard, 59).

This particular display is seen in broad daylight for the entire world to see. Dillard

happens to witness nature in its most wild, perverse and yet extravagant form while

watching these two insects mate. The male is being chewed on by his larger female mate

and still proceeds to partake in the mating ritual. Nature pushes on, it never cedes its

13

constant flow. Dillard depicts the reality that nature isn’t a perfectly drawn out blueprint,

as it may seem at a passing glance. As she states, “No form is too gruesome, no behavior

too grotesque,” conveying that nature surpasses the aesthetic we as humans have placed

on our world because it is an ever ending cycle of unwavering splendor we can’t even

fathom to recreate due to its surplus of eccentric conducts (66). For the purest

understanding of something is trying to accept, not even necessarily understand, every

aspect to the best of one’s ability. As Reimer states about Dillard’s scholarly structure

“Her experiences lead her to see both the unity and the diversity, the order and the chaos,

the uplifting and the destructive” (Reimer, 184). In this unification of the continuum in

nature, it is a concentrated pulse or network of the highs and lows that take part in any

creatures path of existence from the environmental to even supernatural means.

The completion of the spirit, as Emerson and Dillard try to convey to their

readers, allows for total freedoms of the mind, cracking open the possibilities of nature

and translating them in order to be registered. By keeping one’s mind open to all the

possibilities that could occur in nature, one is then inherently intimate with the natural.

Being free of preconceived judgments helps ones exploration with the spiritual

connectivity that exists in the natural which Dillard and Emerson both recognize.

Looking at how Dillard and Emerson personally relate to nature helps one to understand

how they come to these universal realizations about how humans absorb the natural by

making it a part of their life as a spiritual expression beyond what we see as religiosity.

The idea of spirituality is translated into symbols of mental notions, connecting again to

sight in all its forms and physical parts of nature that speak to our spirits.

14

In terms of spirituality coinciding with an all encompassing vision of the world,

Dillard claims that “…vision is a pure sensation unencumbered by meaning…” which

relates back to the idea of vision being the way one has to absorb nature by perception,

observation and foresight (Dillard, 28). This idea of “unencumbered,” meaning connotes

the imaginative, what we see within our mind’s eye as opposed to just the tactically

observed. Dillard uses vision as the way for spirituality to become a mode of seeing

nature as more than our surrounding environment but part of it becoming an actual

sanctuary to explore the spiritual senses. By describing vision as “unencumbered”,

Dillard creates this force field around nature where the one property that keeps it rooted

is its exudation of imaginative auras. The meaning that is then placed upon those

sensations are beyond our basic comprehension. They are a part of the transcendence to

send to our imaginations to cherished and divine prospects. Imagination can stem from

creative perceptions in nature or having a spiritual atmosphere placed in the natural that

we feel is based on inward sensations performed we outwardly. In "The Waters of

Separation": Myth and Ritual in Annie Dillard's "Pilgrim At Tinker Creek" written by

Jim Cheney, he explores Dillard’s “weaving of the world” by seeing her explorations of

Tinker Creek as, “a sacredness in nature” or “truth as a true symbol” seen by engraining

oneself in the environment, one serves as heightened forms for holistic learning (42-48).

Cheney understands Dillard’s approach to nature in that it is being able to be prepared for

whatever nature is here to teach us using her confines of a “...measure of naturalism and

contextualism” (Cheney, 48). It seems conducive for to humans to make nature

tantamount to other aspects we allow into our existence since “…nature is a very now-

you-see-it, now-you-don’t affair” as Dillard puts it, we have to choose to put our faith in

15

something like nature where we don’t always see all its facets much like religion (18). It

is still making that choice to have an intimate belief or breach of understanding in what it

stands for. This is a way nature and religion seem to go in tandem in that they both

concretely try to portray ways for humanity to make self proclamations of expression and

bonds with the world that have more meaning. Much of our world uses spirituality or

religion as opposing forces against each other for dominance due to culture differences.

But, nature is what can reattach humanity to spiritualty in that it not only gives us the

same feeling of sanctuary as religion but that it is used for means of coexistence not

superiority. Emotions placed on a physical and natural part of our world that we don’t

have any control over is a true human characteristic. We familiarize ourselves with the

sensations we feel are exuded from nature but we are the only species that can translate

such sentiments and label it with spirituality or intimacy. As Cheney also tries to further

identify Dillard’s sacred process he finds her main tactic through the spiritual is, “Ritual,

as a way of establishing relationships to nature…at its best a movement back toward a

more caring response to the world, an attempt to acknowledge the presence of a world for

which it is possible, and good, to care” (Cheney, 57). What Cheney seems to identify

within Dillard’s discoveries is she goes to same spots at Tinker Creek or discusses the

same topic throughout her novel to show transformation through the area itself yet the

importance of this exercise is to be there when things alter. She explains, “The answer

must be, I think, that beauty and grace are performed whether or not we will or sense

them. The least we can do is try to be there” (10). The elements that are powerful are

ones we see as grand in our perspective and the whole idea of naturalism is being a part

of that changing power. In Dillard’s personal articulations, she really illuminates the true

16

difference between remaining impartial and willing to understand nature’s spirit rather

than allowing oneself to be become stagnant in its existence. As it becomes spiritually

explorative and emotionally lifting to care about what exists, it is a practice of reaching

beyond oneself and to explain what nature is doing within the shadows and the mystery

of the spiritual connection. With our perceived otherworldly auras, spiritual connection

brings light to showcase its evident and inescapable meaning to our species.

In the investigations within Emerson’s poetic construct, the way he describes his

personal connection to nature is, “This sympathy with matter, in a sense opening up the

circulations of being, was the ground of the moment of ecstasy” (Emerson, 164). This

transcendence or “opening up the circulations of being” that Emerson describes is like

letting the flow of nature coincide with the currents that run through us on a metaphysical

plane. It’s a cleansing of energies crossing and lapping over each other to become one

cohesive unit. Circulation is the flow throughout our whole system, connecting our

breathing all the way to our heart, the complete connection from the temporal to the

emotional. Physical and abstract all coexisting in our being, like nature is how Feidelson

labels Emerson’s type of transcendence, comparatively to Dillard’s “American

transcendence” through nature as “American symbolist movement” (Feidelson, 136).

Feidelson sees Emerson’s writing as not only delving into language laden with

symbolism but through this paradigm he defines nature as being based on emotional

perception through nature’s physical representation and through language giving nature

its voice of humanity. One critic discusses Emerson’s highly spiritual vernacular and

personal statements as, “…self-recognition in the face of nature [that unlocks] the

underlying secret of the world’s order” which is from John Michael Corrigan’s “The

17

Journal of the History of Ideas" (Corrigan, 444). What Corrgian touches upon is when

Emerson discusses nature it is as if he is finding himself through discovering new parts of

nature in tandem. This gives Emerson “world’s order” as Corrigan defines it, in that

nature is the self-reflective mirror that shows there is an aspect on our planet we all relate

to just through different strains. The intimate point that strikes Emerson is the totality of

the soul’s recognition and how it is truly seen through the natural. As he writes, “That

which intellectually considered we call Reason, considered in relation to nature, we call

Spirit. Spirit is the Creator. Spirit hath life in itself “ (Emerson, 49). The idea of being

spiritual clearly doesn’t necessarily mean religious in Emerson’s terms, although his

undertones do reflect that of the basic derivation of religion. Nature itself is the physical

embodiment of our spirits being translated outward, which is spiritual in itself without the

structure of religion. How we as a species feel tied to otherworldly essences is translated

through the language we orate in religious conducts or modes of logic and emotion.

When we combine the power of Reason and Spirit, Emerson intimates we create a deeper

intellectual understanding with our sense of self and the gift of life in that our Reason in

life is our Spirit. What it means to be spiritual through nature is to feel that there is almost

a vibration being sent throughout our world that we can choose to hear its echo. Emerson

views, “To the body and mind which have been cramped by noxious work or company,

nature is medicinal and restores their tone” which reiterates how it’s a feeling, this pulse

that every living creature can foster its resonance within relinquishing that sense of

holiness in terms of the most pure and healing sentiment of feeling internally complete

(46). For Emerson, the human spirit needs the branches and ability to hatch in nature so

that it can find the equilibrium it needs to understand the self.

18

Although Dillard explores the grandiose and scenic properties of nature, Pilgrim

at Tinker Creek has been read as more of a detailed scripture for scientific exposition to

explore the symbolism within nature as our conceptual playground. Melded with

situational emotionality and a sense of oneness through experimentation, the key to her

observation is to uncover the symbols that give us a concrete yet supernatural relation to

nature as opposed to only relying on imaginative thoughts alone. What seems

representative for all living creatures is Dillard’s juxtaposition of light and darkness as a

way to define a sense of being throughout her work. Dillard probes, “The shadow’s the

thing…Muslims, whose religion bans representational art as idolatrous, don’t observe the

rule strictly; but they do forbid sculpture, because it casts a shadow. So shadows define

the real. If I no longer see shadows as “dark marks” as do the newly sighted, then I see

them as making some sort of sense of the light” (63). The battle between darkness as a

form of tainting or concealing ourselves bleeds into certain spiritual or structural frames

of mind. As Dillard points out, the Muslims find darkness or shadow in three-

dimensional art forms as “idolatrous” or drawing unwarranted worship to them because

they reveal shadows or “dark marks” which are seen as impure. Something that can

depict a range of feelings, ideas or purposes holds great power to be contained like a

shadow can do in living forms. David L. Lavery’s article, “Noticer: The Visionary Art of

Dillard” explores Dillard’s refined eye for the natural honing in one of her consistent

fasciation with the theme of light and illumination as he expresses in relation to Dillard’s

thoughts that, “The light is in us” (269). The discussion of light is encapsulating that the

inner essence of being exudes in an individual way and through certain ways of

expression by means of allowing one’s light to be seen by the world. In terms of

19

imagination, ones soul can be seen as “the light” where such beautiful aspects can range

from an aesthetic to most organic images that are presented outwardly or the shadows

need to be seen to understand the total reality of a being. The curious idea about Dillard’s

contrasting view of Muslim anti-criticism is, humans are not only three-dimensional

forms but we cast shadows in many positions and situations where they give us elemental

depth as organic symbols of art. In pointing out this spiritual reference, Dillard gives

cultural fact to how shadows can be seen as only the darkness but her desire is to embrace

how shadows allow us to see definition when peering into the dark. Lavery highlights in

Dillard’s contemplations is essential to remember to look at nature or into the self is with

an open, imaginative eye. Dillard resurfaces light again as a means to uncover the

blemishes or irregularities that cause creatures to seem divergent in the pace of the

natural world. Dillard states, “Here was a new light on the intricate texture of things in

the world, the actual plot of the present moment in time after the fall: the way we the

living are nibbled and nibbling- not held aloft on a cloud in the air but bumbling pitted

and scarred and broken through a frayed and beautiful land” (230). Here, Dillard displays

her cravings for the divergent and expansive varieties that the natural delivers because no

one specie or creature is completely identical. Nature is to observe its abnormalities.

Dillard embraces the fact that all living creatures are burdened in being “nibbled” or

“scarred” from such “nibbling” in life’s possible harshness. Yet, even with these

imperfections or glitches in the living process, every being still trudges on to hold the

same steady stride as a part of the imperfect perfection that comprises our world.

It is clear that the art form for Dillard is to see each being for everything that

makes it obviously beautiful but also what the shadows or “nibbled” spaces do to its

20

existence to make something a wonderfully divergent section of our world. Lavery

imagines Dillard’s process of scavenging through nature as preservation or salvaging of

art as it is expressed in nature’s consistent contrast of the apparent and not apparent. He

transcribes, “As a woman writer, Dillard likewise senses that her art must be in keeping

with natural process and earthly rhythms” (256). Although it is clearly in the title of his

work, Lavery describes Dillard’s writing as “art” which differs from the other journals

that are written about her because many focus on her acute attention to the scientific lens

and make deep philosophical statements about what she observes. The formation of art is

a process just as much as nature takes it’s own process as the avenue for all living

creatures to exist. When Lavery describes “rhythm” this connotes a pace and certain

cadence that nature exists within like art does in how it expresses itself and utilizes the

power of perception to be digested by the viewer. How one chooses to take in nature is

subjective and interpretive as Lavery notes is the way Dillard senses nature in such a way

that she uses nature constantly to learn, absorb and record elements like an ever-evolving

canvas. What makes nature an art form is by the creation of life. It is the process of a

craft in both dexterity and greatness to have an end product that remains beautiful since

something that is alive exists to stand the test of time with limitless potential. Light is an

essence and therefore can never be physically captured but can always be expressed as

Dillard and Lavery finds as it remains in all types of beings and actualities on this earth.

Much like Dillard, Emerson seems to find deep symbolism and art within nature.

He feels there are specific images that resonate in their splendor as if they are a true

representation of life itself. He states, “The world is emblematic. Parts of speech are

metaphors, because the whole of nature is a metaphor of the human mind” (Emerson, 53).

21

There is an undeniable power and consistent anchorage in nature due to it revealing itself

to the human mind as a series of symbols that we express through our means of verbal

language and imagery. This notion that nature is a supreme representation in both the

actual and nonphysical allows humanity to solidify its position as a conglomerate of

individual meanings. Emerson feels one particular symbol stands out is the presence of

trees. He finds, “In the woods, we turn to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can

befall me in life” (Emerson, 39). Emerson musically captures the feeling that not only

your physical cavity feels protected when surrounded by trees but one can feel how the

inner spirit is shielded in how trees give us a place to feel both accompanied when with

them and almost respected in fellow existence. Trees as well as other influences in nature

help humanity to maintain a sense of unity in an environment where nature allows a

connection that surpasses the ephemeral and also touches the core of our spirits without

even having to give it something in return. It is a truly faithful relationship in the deepest

sense. Emerson has this desire for nature to be our way to make preserve our existence

mentally and within our souls to give us clarity and overall internal significance. Norman

Foerster’s article, “Emerson on the Organic Principle in Art”, he agrees that Emerson,

“…must relate the two worlds, connect as though with an appropriate symbol or mass of

symbols. If he dwells at the heart of reality, indeed, he finds all symbols expressive of all

meanings” (109). The impact of our existence is by what we see, witness, and formulate

from those experiences as Foerster says in combining the two worlds, the metaphorical

and the actual. We tie ourselves to symbols for an internal comfort so the tangible and

intangibles bond we create gives significance to the physical realm we are tied to in our

world. Emerson stated, “Thought is supreme, and nature is its vehicle” which defines

22

how powerful the human mind is for actualizing ourselves in our life (108-9). With our

thoughts linked to nature, it gives us a picture of how to externalize our thought process

and overall connection to the outside world because of its’ organic operation or as

Emerson labels it a “vehicle”. Nature is our means of transportation to understand our

value as existing parts of this planet’s cohesion. Nature gives symbolic value to the

natural to increase our ability to appreciate it’s assistance. Seeing a tree as more than a

root system that provides nutrients for the environment is understanding its’ existential

grandeur as an authentic aspect in nature is more extravagant than us to where it needs

symbolic value. If we make sense of them, as well as other parts of nature, we will feel

more akin to this world and less of a complicated and complete other entity that exists

just to conjure what our world means to us. Foerster finds Emerson, “the great poet [who]

shows the equivalence of symbolical value; he can reveal spiritual meaning, or beauty, in

all of nature” (109). Emerson strikes at the heart of nature just like it strikes at his with

immense force.

To Emerson, as Foerster notices, everything has symbolism that delves into a

subject having an organic representation to express the abstract in revealing its true

sensibility. This doesn’t mean sensibility in nature as in the environment or ecosystem’s

functionality, but “nature” or natural feeling of meaning in the system we feel makes us

content in our being or our norms with which we choose to confide in comfortably for

live. The illustrative properties in nature are what bond these ideals to the human mind to

feel nature’s euphoric abilities as the highest standard for the purest beauty. It is the only

aspect that creates a total sense of happiness that is untouchable to other avenues of

contentedness. Emerson finds nature to be an outlet for only those wanting to hold a tie to

23

nature to push us beyond our cavities and overly concrete perceptions of our world. Due

to how nature’s operation is as complex as the human sensibility, he writes, “There is still

another aspect under which the beauty of the world may be viewed, namely, as it

becomes an object of intellect” (Emerson, 46). We are able to personify and transform

nature for our minds to process its enormity and to make the world become an aural

experience paired with mental-oral expression. Emerson employs several symbols such

as the stars, the heavens, and even global society to further create his argument, as nature

is a conglomeration of more than its one environmental force. It is clear that Emerson

feels nature is our world’s biggest layer of symbols to depict meaning for our emotions

but through mental means of expression. It moves from the tangible to the abstract so we

can articulate our expressions without falling into an existential void of bewilderment.

Nature influences how we wish to emblemize our lifestyles as incorporating our whole

being and not leaving any part of our spirit untouched by its reach.

The influence of nature is exemplified through the sophisticated structure of the

written word because it is how humans express its enormity beyond somatic meaning. As

Emerson sees nature as an art form, it seems he discusses it in such a grand way because

it is the only art form that can depict many appearances, stages and gradients with ever-

changing waves. He states, “Nature, in the common sense, refers to essences unchanged

by man; space, the air, the river, the leaf. Art is applied to mixture of his will with the

same things, as in a house, a canal, a statue, a picture” (Emerson, 36). This statement

connects to the creation of nature by its own hand as it has aided in the creation of man.

Both being different living forms that require implementation and transformation on our

planet. This then leads to a different thread Emerson employs where he relates nature and

24

man both having the power to create art but the forms are different in terms of organic

versus manmade. What connects them is the aesthetic Emerson seems to discuss a fair

amount through his essay Nature since he is so keenly focused on how physically lovely

nature is and that is what makes it artistically sound. This admiration Emerson has for

nature’s beauty surfaces in the essay written by Joel Porte entitled "Nature as Symbol:

Emerson's Noble Doubt”, he examines Emerson’s emotional connection to the natural

aesthetic by saying, “…he was also a man unequivocally in love with the beautiful and

the good” (Porte, 461). Such a statement is clearly true in that Emerson rarely if not at all

discusses the possibility for the strange, unappealing or adverse happenstances that can

and do occur in nature. He captures its beauty but fails to want to recognize its potential it

to express aspects that can be repulsive as well. Here in lies why some viewers beauty

can be variant. Beauty itself is symbolic because it depends on who is looking at what is

deemed beautiful and pairs with human perception. Porte calls Emerson’s outlook on

nature as “philosophical idealism” where Emerson can sacredly and movingly discuss

nature through the metaphysical and emotive proprieties it upholds in its obvious

exquisiteness but in only with adherently positive and beauteous language (Porte, 453).

His ideal thought process shows readers how truly untapped nature is when it is not

extensively explored for it ranges from gritty to picturesque. This concept of idealism

causes a break in total natural perception explored in Lawrence Buell’s journal,

“Emersonian Poetics” by saying, “…define the perception of “unity” in “beauty” “ which

could argue that beauty is the harmonizing adhesive keeping all adverse parts of nature

together” (Buell, 111). Yet, the unification in the symbolic perception of beauty is based

on melding two diverse parts, the grotesque and the beautiful, coming together to bond as

25

one unit. The voice of Emerson delves into the meaning of nature to human’s through one

aspect such as its lovely face but the idealistic part of him seems to cloud the reality that

nature isn’t always what we see without a microscope. We need to delve deeper into its

layers and symbols to allow us to experience its entirety.

Whether it is symbolically rendering the expanse of the environment as the area

we live or quantifying what it stands for within each creature’s faction of personal

sensibility, nature becomes a way to see ourselves through a lens that connects us to our

purpose in life in the most pure way by rooting us in the corporeal yet driving us to reach

for the transcendental. In Dillard and Emerson’s works, they portray a view of nature

through remaining structurally and intuitively open. They see nature as a means of

concrete and abstract expression always observing to understand the different

frameworks. By using concepts that are often used to enhance art forms and transform

nature through the written word, each of them arrive at similar concepts to describe

nature as they see it but that nature is subject in any one person’s view. Dillard derives

meaning from metaphysical logic and true personal scientific exploration whereas

Emerson uses rhetorical structure from the metaphysical, emblematic and visual to define

nature as the truest form of art in representational beauty and cohesion for the human

mind. Since Dillard preferred living in her experiences of nature each day at Tinker

Creek, she used her observations as her vehicle for philosophical understanding to how

nature flowed in her and then explained its function to us to make connection through her

opinions. She teaches others to see higher and meaningful comparisons to other aspects in

our world to show her readers that nature is meant to be seen first hand rather to merely

relate to its untouchable ability in order to illuminate our innermost senses. This contrasts

26

with Emerson where he uses the metaphoric and purely visual euphoria of nature to plug

his emotionality into an understanding of nature that isn’t achieved by getting one’s

hands dirty. He understands without physical exploration nature is meant to connect

without getting into its grittiness but by willingly watch it unfold before us as a map of

symbols to see nature our connection for spiritual meaning and corporeal delight all at

once.

Each writer portrays nature as the world’s most relished and revered existence due

to the several ways it exudes itself both aesthetically and evocatively with its ability to be

universal by harmonizing all the different occurrences and species that exist. This

process of constitutionalizing and then re-constitutionalizing nature through language is a

way that humans can see something so mysteriously powerful and awe-inspiring captured

through written word to make sense of our unpredictable world. We as humans desire to

breakdown nature into metaphors and symbols in order to find connections within to

explain the abstract traces that reside within its structure. To explain the extremes in

either the living or dying is to embrace the revolving cycle of life as it is always evolving.

Dillard states, “Every live thing is a survivor on a kind of extended emergency bivouac.

But at the same time we are also created” (9). Dillard explains our inherent finiteness as

creatures of this world yet we are generated for existence too. One’s existence is

choosing to enhance life with utmost concern by connecting to our world so that our deep

and compound emotional compasses don’t seem outlandish when we are represented as

individuals. This melds similarly to Emerson’s ideology in that he believes nature is

absolute as it bears great immensity in terms of our sense of self. He proclaims, “Nature

is made to conspire with spirit to emancipate us” (82). In using a term as strong as

27

“emancipate” shows how nature is a way for the human self to feel unbound to the

confines we either place on ourselves or are socially pushed on our sensibilities. The

spirit is who we are as individuals and being able to make the choice of letting nature in.

It is allowing the colors we possess to reveal themselves and not be afraid to embrace that

liberty. With these realizations, both Dillard and Emerson’s personal involvement with

nature is clearly through zealous attentiveness and detailed knowing of what they feel.

Although Dillard concerns herself with the crevices of nature as a way to call recognition

to the greater world, Emerson uses larger symbols or declarations about nature itself as

evidence to how all beings need and desire such a deep connection. No matter the

obscurity and abnormalities that exist, the language that is transposed onto paper helps a

reader understand that nature is like our eternal child’s playground to keep us alive

beyond just the length of time we exist on earth.

The inherent mastery in transposing the organic and pure aesthetic of the natural

face seen through explorative literature is how Emerson and Dillard both recognize its

symbolism and immensely evangelical reactions that should be celebrated in order to

unite all the world’s aspects through nature. The common ground of writing makes nature

is more accessible to contemplate its divinity and intellectual stimulation. Using literary

devices such as metaphors and symbols to emblemize nature’s meaning relies on its

apparent need for individuals or writers such as Emerson and Dillard to embrace ideas

such as spirituality and intimacy through the natural that surrounds us. Their literary

mode for expression is through the power of language and although they differ in

emotional viewpoints due to their diverse linguistic deliveries and ideologies, they both

arrive at the conclusion that nature is absolute among any other existence in our world.

28

By desiring its embrace and choosing to remain vulnerable to its healing and

transformative powers, Emerson and Dillard understand the way to experience life is

permitting nature to enter an individual. To allow their truest self emerge as completely

actualized, revitalized and translucent human being carrying out their most optimum form

of existence.

29