|
fucktoyprincess -> RE: A brand of plant? (4/13/2012 1:33:12 PM)
|
I think I understand what you are trying to get at, but I'm not sure that I entirely agree.
I could only identify half of the leaves. But here is the thing.
Do you have to be able to identify every tree on a hike in the Sierra-Nevada in order to say you are in the moment and enjoying nature?
Do you have to be able to identify every constellation in the sky in the Northern Hemisphere in the early spring in order to enjoy star-gazing?
Do you have to understand the science around meteorology and the atmosphere to enjoy a beautiful sunset?
Do you have to be able to identify every fish you see to enjoy snorkeling in the Caribbean?
To me, nature has an inherent beauty and wonder to it that can certainly be enhanced by understanding more about nature and science, but one cannot claim that nature only appeals to those who have "decoded" nature.
I take issue with the claim that simply because most of us of a certain age can identify most of the logos means that brands are more important to us than nature. I recognize the McDonald's logo, but I don't eat there. I recognize the Facebook logo, but I'm not on that social network. And to me Nike will always be the Greek goddess of victory. But I star gaze, I hike, I camp, I snorkel, I garden, etc. The value to me of nature is not measured by how much about nature I can either identify or explain. For me, it is a more spiritual interaction. And I interact with nature much more than I do with any of the products that the logos on the left represent. Yes, I won't likely win any survivalist awards for my understanding of nature, but that doesn't mean that nature is not important to me and my life. [sm=2cents.gif]
|
|
|
|
