Revision

Paper #2, BP #1

The connections between mankind and animals formed by each author are inaccurate observations. Although both groups demonstrate surprising similarities and differences, it is unfair to generalize humans into one category. Seibert's generalization of humans as anthropocentric beings in an industrial world limits his argument/ His writing was to persuade the audience to move from selfishness to selflessness. A fellow colleague of Seibert's, psychologist Gay Bradshaw, is the first to propose the "trans-species psyche" or a "commitment to move beyond an anthropocentric frame of reference and, in effect, be elephants" (537 Seibert). Bradshaw suggest getting path anthropocentric and adopting anthropomorphism instead. When Seibert speaks of "commitment", he is implying that this shall be a long term effort. While Bradshaw's proposal seems like an effective solution to the ongoing war between man and nature, the argument is not valid for all audiences. Abram's writing struggles the same way Seibert's writing does. Yet Abram contrasts Seibert's approach through the differences exhibited between the human and non-human worlds. He describes the dissimilarities by saying "we cannot know, with the same familiarity and intimacy, the lived experiences of a grass snake or a snapping turtle; we cannot readily experience the precise sensations of a hummingbird sipping nectar from a flower" (10). The lack of familiarity and intimacy with the non-human world creates a boundary between each realm. However, there exists a mediator. Abram speaks of this mediator as a sorcerer with "the ability to readily slip out of the perceptual boundaries that demarcate his or her particular culture...in order to make contact with, and learn from, the other powers in this land..." (7). Abram concludes that there must be a mediator between each world, rather than directly imposing a solution such as Bradshaw did. Man must understand that one cannot look to solve the conflict by conjoining human and non-human, but instead bridge the gaps to work cooperatively. In essence, the idea of an anthropomorphic solution is actually quite anthropocentric. Believing that man is the only creature capable of offering a solution is narcissistic. Yet the fragile rapport that exists due to shaman, only seems apparent in rural, less technologically developed worlds. The role of mediator would never survive in the "western world". However, through connecting the approaches of each author, it appears they overlap and there is a medium between the two.