An improvement on a paragraph

The wilderness can be easily misunderstood if one does not have the right perception about it. This is evident in Jon Krakauer’s story Into the Wild, the main character Chris McCandless was longing for a sense of adventure so he ventured out into the Alaskan wilderness but “the wilderness surrounding the bus – the patch of overgrown country…scarcely qualifies as wilderness by Alaskan standards” (350). Chris originally thought that he was in the wild but Krakauer’s use of the word “patch” indicates that where Chris was staying was not even wilderness. The place Chris inhabited was only a thirty miles away from Alaska’s George Parks highway. Chris’s lack of experience with the wild has misconstrued his understanding of how vast wilderness can be. David Abram attributes this lack of experience in his essay “The Ecology of Magic”. Abram argues that because humans now live in a world in which “We consciously encounter nonhuman nature only as it has been circumscribed by our civilization and technologies” (21). The word circumscribed means “to restrict within limits” (OED). By restricting humans from perceiving the real nature and the wild first hand, humans have become oblivious to what the real nonhuman world is; they cannot comprehend wilderness or get past the prevailing thought of it being dangerous and to some extent not even survive in it. In essence the human version of nature has been reworded as a place for resources. Charles Siebert claims that this obliviousness humans had on nature is what caused one of nature’s creature, the elephant, to fight back. In his essay “An Elephant Crackup?” Siebert describes how after poaching elephants for their ivory for years, “…the elephant is not going out quietly. It is not leaving without some kind of statement,” (528). The world is not a place where humans are in control and animals have to fight a losing battle. Since humans have treated the wild as if it was a stockpile of resources as a result, wilderness is fighting back. Therefore it is not that wilderness itself is a dangerous place to begin with rather than how human’s looked at nature in the first place. This can be attributed to how humans grew up and as a result they held the preconceived notion of wilderness being an unknown and scary place.

Body Paragraph 1 Revision

One of the main ways in which civilization is subtly oppressing involves its limitations as far as risks go. In civilization, strides in medicine and technology keep people alive much longer than they may even want to be. By contrast, failure in the wilderness can result in death-thereby reconnecting humans to the fundamental human struggle-survival. This gives them the freedom to die, and live. In Jon Krakauer’s “Selections from ‘Into the Wild’”, Krakauer expresses how Chris McCandless was an adventurous boy who sought challenges in which success was not guaranteed. He describes how “the meaning he [McCandless] wrested from existence lay beyond the comfortable path: McCandless distrusted the value of things that came easily. He demanded much of himself- more, in the end, than he could deliver” (363). McCandless ventured into the wilderness for what he perceived as a real challenge. He chose to forgo a “comfortable” lifestyle of civilization simply because he craved the freedom of holding his life and death in his own hands. This reconnection to nature was so important to McCandless that he risked, and eventually lost his life to acquire it. While Krakauer discusses how McCandless needs freedom, Charles Siebert illustrates the harmful consequences of freedom being taken away in “An Elephant Crackup?”. He cites Eve Abe, who compares the plight of elephants to refugees in Uganda. She describes how after having their freedom taken away, the refugees “form these roaming, violent, destructive bands. It’s the same thing that happens with the elephants. Just like the male war orphans, they are wild, completely lost” (534). Both humans and the wild need freedom because without it, they turn to destructive activities. Their lack of freedom causes them to psychologically break down. It is natural for any species to long for freedom. This longing for freedom from society results in people seeking the wilderness for answers, which is expressed in David Abram’s “The Ecology of Magic”. Abram compares less “developed” civilizations to western society through descriptions of the atmospheres of each place. He describes how in the less developed places “the air was a thick and richly textured presence, filled with invisible but nonetheless tactile, olfactory, and audible influences. In the United States, however, the air seemed thin and void of substance or influence” (20). The fact that Abram describes air in such a manner is extremely significant, because air is literally what keeps humans alive. When talking about the United States of America, Abram describes the air being “void”, implying that something nameless is missing. Similar to how McCandless felt his life was incomplete because of his lack of challenge and freedom, Abram’s description of the void air implies that he feels suppressed by the western civilization’s lack of freedom and connectedness with nature. Freedom to connect to nature is really what the wilderness is.

The wild is a place filled with uncertainty and random occurrences and thus making it a very difficult place in which to survive. Even in captivity, the actions taken by animals are unforeseeable. Bradshaw sent Siebert an email about an incident involving an elephant held in captivity named Winkie. When Winkie had first arrived, she would jump upon being touched, however, she “has never lashed out at primary keepers” (540). In this incident, Winkie killed an assistant caretaker, and when the primary caretaker tried to aid the assistant, Winkie critically injured him. Even in the controlled environment of the elephant care institution, this unforeseen event occurred. In the wilds, there are no laws binding down situations and anything can happen at any given moment. One must prepare for everything possible even the unpredictability of nature. However, McCandless was someone who wasn’t prepared for his journey into the wild. He came with “insufficient provisions, and he lacked certain pieces of equipment deemed essential” (360). McCandless’ strong desire to survive the wilderness without assistance from other people could have caused him to be unprepared for this adventure into the wild. His lack of knowledge and understanding, along with his arrogance of surviving alone, lead him to his end. Perhaps what led to McCandless’ demise was because he didn’t know that nature was what Abram described as a “supersensory heaven beyond the natural world” (7). It is possible that the wilderness might be beyond the ordinary understanding of how the world works and it might not be able to be perceived with the senses people possess. The vastness and unpredictability of nature creates an environment with circumstances that constantly changes.

The wilderness is now becoming less and less explored because of those not leaving their homes and being unable to experience it firsthand in order to form their own opinions on what the wilderness is. While Krakauer was on his journey to the bus, they discuss the fact that McCandless decided to go into the wilderness without a map. Krakauer reports that “Andy Horowitz, one of McCandless’s friends on the Woodson high cross-country team, had mused that Chris ‘was born into the wrong century. He was looking for more adventure and freedom then today’s society gives people.’” (356). This quote from Horowitz explains McCandless not using a map for his adventure. McCandless is said to be “born into the wrong century” which is because in our current century people are not like McCandless where they would go out and explore what is unknown to them. In the current century most people are content with staying in their homes, which is the reason why people have trouble forming their own opinions on what the wilderness is. If people in today’s society become more adventurous, then those of the current century can figure out what the wild is in their own mind like McCandless is able to do. Experiencing the wild is something that can only be done the further we are from civilization. People who live in cities have less experience with the wild than those who live further from urban environments, thus those who live further from the city have a better understanding of what the wilderness is. Abram took a trip to Bali in Indonesia and was able to witness firsthand why being away from an urban environment is beneficial. Abram observes “ Over my head the black sky was rippling with stars, densely clustered in some regions, almost blocking out the darkness between them, and more loosely scattered in other areas”(2). When Abram steps outside his hut he takes notice to the massive amounts of stars in the sky. Abram uses the phrase “rippling with stars” because of his unfamiliarity with this type of view. Abram had been in the United States while doing street magic, which means that he isn’t used to this view because of the fact that stars aren’t as readily seen in the night sky around cities and populated areas. Abram has an experience that is only possible by one distancing themselves from their home and urban environment. The wilderness has become less explored because of the lack of adventurism in today’s society and because of the distance that lies between themselves and unfamiliar places which they dare not venture too.

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.

Inner Wild

Through the use of exploration of wilderness, it is realized that there is wilderness inside of each individual that also is in need of exploration. Krakauer affirms this when he says, “an extended stay in the wilderness inevitably directs one’s attention outward as much as inward, and it is impossible to live off the land without developing both a subtle understanding of, and a strong emotional bond with, that land and all it holds” (362). As McCandless ventured alone in the wilderness, there was an affiliation between the natural world and McCandless’s internal world. Inevitably, defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), means cannot be avoided. Emotion, defined in the OED, is a mental feeling which can be thought of as internal within a human body. These two words combined indicate that an important pathway forms, through the help of the understanding of the wild, between the brain/senses and soul. This almost spiritual connection, once found, helps show one his or her place in the world. Once one understands the external wilderness, one may begin to delve into his or her inner wilderness. While Krakauer did research on McCandless, which lead to the idea of a connection between the natural world and the human world, Abram did research on the Asian magicians, which eventually lead him to the same idea of a connection. He discloses “the magician’s intelligence is not encompassed within the society; its place is at the edge of the community, mediating between the human community and the larger community of beings…” (4). The healers of Asia live as a part of society but also within the larger community of nature, where they find the intelligence that allows them to connect to both worlds. Intelligence in itself is knowledge. By the magicians having intelligence, they do not see the natural world as an immense unknown wilderness but as a piece of the puzzle in their lives. This intelligence is found through the combination of both wilderness and society. The key to this intelligence is being able to break down the wilderness into ideas that allow for them to be connected to the knowledge that is within human culture. By doing so, one may find how they fit into the complexities of the world. This act is the key to the solution for internal wilderness.

A Loss of Control

Human beings have done their best to control the wilderness, but have not been successful. Humans dominate civilization, but they have not been able to dominate the entire world. Humans have control of the cities and towns, but anything not under their control is the wilderness. Humans have done their best to control the “wild” by creating gardens, but this is not truly the wilderness. Krakauer quoted Thoreau’s “The Stampede Trail” best with, “this was that Earth of which we have heard, made out of Chaos and Old Night. Here was no man’s garden, but the unhandselled globe (354)”. A garden is composed of nature, almost exactly like a forest, but there is one difference between the two; man is in control of the garden. A garden is nature, which has its boundaries set by man. Man is in control of all the aspects of gardens, such as how large it is and what grows within it. The wilderness cannot be controlled or changed by man. As a result, gardens are not considered wilderness. This inability to change or control nature is why elephants cannot not be rehabilitated as fully as one may think. After rehabilitation, elephants were considered completely ready for society, but Siebert heard otherwise about some elephants. He quoted Buckley, an elephant sanctuary worker, when he stated Winkie “has never lashed out at primary keepers, my last note on Winkie reads, but has at secondary ones” (540). Even though these creatures have gone through an intense amount of training to become more docile they still have traits, which display their “uncivilized” nature. Elephants are aspects of nature so they too display a need to be unchanged by the hands of man. Elephants have no restraints on what they could do, but that is what human beings are trying to do by putting them through rehabilitation. Attacking people was the only way these creatures could have resisted the change so that they could stay the way they were, but why do humans feel the need to change everything.

Deep into the Wilderness

Humans need to learn about the unknown first. They need to learn before they experience it and prepare. Hands-on experience is crucial, but they will not make the most out this experience if they do not prepare for it first. McCandless is the perfect example:he is not prepared and does not have any experience of living in the wilderness. Krakeur illustrates that, "McCandless, on the other hand, went too far in the opposite direction. he tried to live entirely off the country-and he tried to do it without bothering to master beforehand the full repertoire of crucial skills,"(Krakeur 361). In response to Siebert's essay, McCandless is inexperienced because he has minimal education about surviving in the wilderness. He misses the education component that Siebert discovered a key to create harmony with nature. In Siebert's essay, Bradshaw explains that humans need to have education to know nature. He implies that, "We need to educate people how to live with animals like humans used to do and to create conditions whereby people can live on their land and live with elephants without it being this life-and-death situation,"(Siebert 537). In the past, humans lived alongside wild animals. Humans need to reform this kind of relationship in the present. Moreover, if they are educated about the importance of nonhuman creatures, then they will be able to cross the connecation with nature. They need to shift their perception how they view animals and non human creatures. Unless they change their mindset and their view completely, they are not able to fully understand and restore damage they have caused. So, they need to start thinking differently about these nonliving creatures. They need to be more considerate of species other than their own.

Revision Paragraph-Boundaries

There is a boundary between humans and animals that can either result in growth or disaster. The human and animal species are connected because both are dependent upon each other for survival. On a trip to Bali, Abram was a witness to the way Balians interacted with insects in their homes. They offer food to insects to prevent invasion and disruption. Abrams stated that “the offerings seemed to establish certain boundaries between the humans and ant communities (10).” By offering food to the community, the Balians protected their boundaries. Doing so allows both species to live in harmony. Contrary to Abram’s view on boundaries, Siebert discussed a more a forceful attitude. On a trip to Kyambura, Siebert saw a “long orange gash in the earth between the planted fields and the forest: a 15 foot deep, 25-foot-wide trench that had been dug by the wildlife authority around the perimeter of Kyambura in the attempt to keep the elephants at bay (529).” His view of the situation was aggressive and hostile like. According to OED, a gash is defined as “a cut, slash or wound, relatively long and deep; a cleft in any object.” This gash is a representation of the relationship between humans and animals. As humans continue to ignore the cries of the elephants, they continue to display more violent behavior, thus deepening the gash. Abram and Siebert demonstrate that there are two boundaries between humans and animals, one of mutualism and one of exclusion. By bridging the gap between the human and animal species, a clearer boundary can be established. Humans and animals can then prevent disaster

An In-Depth Look at Wilderness

Humans retreat into the wilderness because they do not feel like they belong in the civilized world. Chris McCandless retreated to Alaska because he was sickened by human society, including his dad who had “been a bigamist at one time and that kind of went across [his] grain” (Krakauer 346). Stuckey’s use of the word grain is symbolic because cutting wood across the grain is very difficult and often leaves rough edges. By leaving society McCandless is attempting to start anew and let nature cut him going with the grain to reshape him into a new man. The Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda uses a similar tactic when they recruited boys by “killing the parents of young males before their eyes…before pressing them into service as child soldiers” (Siebert 533). Both McCandless and the young males are being shaped, but while McCandless is being shaped to rid himself of the wilderness of society, the young males are being shaped into a form of wilderness. Therefore, wilderness is not a location; instead it is a mindset in which the wilder and untamed side of a person’s personality is put into practice. The self-centered behavior described by Siebert is also apparent in Abram’s essay when he illustrates how the “expressive and sentient landscape slowly faded behind [his] more exclusively human concerns” (19). In this case the wilderness is not being expressed as a carnal and savage behavior, but more of aloofness to everything and everyone else in society. From Abram’s perspective the emphasis is not on the living and breathing outside, but instead on the emphasis of individual needs. Through his continued exposure to a self-centered society Abram loses his wonder of nature. It is this mindset that alienates idealists from human society because they cannot find a place for themselves in an uncaring society.

the danger of the wildernes

The wilderness is a very dangerous place for any creature to live in, however all these creatures understand the true meaning of life and appreciate it so much more than humans do. Based on Abrams travels he is able to realize that humans can appreciate life like the other creatures of the world, but they must first understands that “Magic, then in its perhaps most primordial sense, is the experience of existing in a world made up of multiple intelligences, the intuition that every form one perceives” (7). This is telling us that magic, in its simplest form, is living with other creatures and how we perceive them. It is the simple life that leads humans to true happiness and the true meaning of life. When humans start to stray from the simple life, the wilderness starts to fight back because it needs to protect itself in order to survive. Siebert understands that the wilderness is starting to battle the humans in order for the world and all of its inhabitants survive. Siebert explains that the wilderness is fighting back through the elephants, “What we are seeing today is extraordinary. Where for centuries humans and elephants lived in relative peaceful coexistence, there is now hostility and violence. Now, I use the term ‘violence’ because of the intentionality associated with it, both in the aggression of humans and, at times, the recently observed behavior of elephants”(527). This shows that when the humans lived a simple life there was peace between the humans and the wilderness, but now there is hostility between us and the elephants. The elephant, an intelligent creature, understands how valuable life is and it realizes that the humans destroying their chances of survival. They are fighting back against the evils of the human species. Kraukauer believes that the human races should fight against the evil in our soul in order to achieve the simple life. Kraukauer notes, “’The west is the best,’ and now aster two rambling years comes the final and greatest adventure the climactic battle to kill the false being within and victoriously conclude the spiritual pilgrimage”(349). Kraukauer believes that western style philosophies that we must defeat the false being within ourselves. This “false being” is simple our evil deeds or our tarnished soul, and by going out into the wilderness we will be able to cleanse it. Humans are suppose to be apart of the wild to fully appreciate life.

Revision

One of the common misconceptions we have about the wild is our conviction of its mundane property. Our minds immediately resort to the stereotypes we have developed over the years concerning the lifestyle in the countryside. We presume living in the wild would be similarly monotonous and, ironically, lifeless. Instead, Abram proves through his experience in the wild how it was completely engaging, especially to his sense. He admits, “I began to see and to hear in a manner I never had before…I became a student of subtle differences” (15). By experiencing the wilderness first hand, Abram became more aware of his surroundings. He uses the words “subtle differences” to show how his deep connection with nature allowed him to fully experience the different aspects of the wilderness. Abram eliminates the possibility that there is something to yawn about in the wilderness as he finds himself intrigued by details he himself may have once expected to be inconsequential. Krakauer reinforces Abram’s notion that the wilderness is far from monotonous through Muir’s elaborate description of the Sierra gale. Muir indicates how “never before did [he] enjoy so noble an exhilaration of motion. The Slender tops fairly flapped and swished in the passionate torrent, bending and swirling backward and forward, round and round” (363). In his observation, Muir uses vivid adjectives to describe the movement of the water. His usage of words suggests that the wilderness in fact influenced the way he perceives nature and its complex characteristics. The splashing of the water is a seemingly minor detail that Muir has found himself captivated by. Thus Muir has become “a student of subtle differences” in the same way Abram did. Krakauer’s selection of words to describe the object of Muir’s intrigue gives a concrete image to the abstract idea Abram expresses. They are in harmony in how they find joy in details that our ordinary untouched eyes would not find the same sentiment in. Hence, Abram’s distinct feel for natural beauty, which is similarly demonstrated in Krakauer reference of Muir’s detailed observation, prove how the wilderness is in fact more fascinating than our contemporary societies and, ultimately, defies our initial supposition.

Revision

Respect serves to build connections which link the opposing sides of a crisis. Abram’s essay, shows how building respect aids in solving problems. While in Nepal, Abram was puzzled by an offering that was being made to a household spirit which turned out to be a colony of ants. Using logic, he soon found that the offering of rice was to prevent an overwhelming invasion of the ants into the buildings on the island. Abram believes that “the offerings seemed to establish certain boundaries between the human and ant communities…the humans apparently hoped to persuade the insects to respect the boundary and not enter the buildings”(10). Although there is a boundary set between these two species, the rice offering allowed them to co-exist rather than becoming a problem. To gain respect from the ants, the Balinese first gave the same respect and acknowledgment to the ants. The respect is generated from the desire to set this boundary or difference between the species. While the Balinese introduce a boundary, Siebert introduces connections to remove the barrier of difference between human and animal. In Siebert’s essay, obvious and subtle traces of the connections made between elephants and humans can be found throughout his piece. He methodically reveals aspects of the “fabric of elephant society” which explains how elephants are “profoundly social creatures” that have family structures and even “engage in intense mourning and burial rituals” (529 – 530). These features of the elephant way of life can, in affect, be considered synonymous with that of humans. By shedding light upon the connections found in behavior research about elephants and knowledge about trauma from human neuroscience, Siebert further strengthens this shared bond of human and elephant. It is not until these connections are made that researchers begin to develop ways to restore the elephant society and heal them. This shows how elephants become worthy of extensive research once humans are able to bridge the gap with understanding of this animal. In this manner, Siebert’s respect for elephants is through similarities. Siebert asserts that the solution relies on mankind’s willingness to accept our similarities with elephants rather than only seeing the differences. Although this may be true, what of other entities in this world that humans may not fully understand or can explain? Finding similarities in them would be impossible, yet do they still deserve the same level of respect?