This week's reading by Kingsnorth spurred much debate internally. While whisking through his argument, I picked up that many found themselves siding with Kingnorth's assertion that nature is "alive and kicking" and a clear hierarchy of existence does not need to be spread apart by ecological factors. Our blog moved toward the trend of environmental innocence and the concept of equilibrium within the scope of a breathing nature and being able to write about such a topic without floating into the intensely trying diction tied with it.
Much of the posts and comments questioned the idea of inanimate versus the animate. This is, ironically, simply too complex for us to answer. Questions of how and statements of grey bleed thorough the digital spaces of an unrelenting code. I do not believe we can solve the dispute of what is labeled inanimate, such as a stapler, or whether it has lengthened to the still-very-much-alive plants and trees and flowers and mosses and algae and...and...and...We cannot know because we do not yet understand the comprehension to giving a voice to something that (sort of) already does.
Do we feel odd speaking for a friend that is next us? Writing a personal story about a breakup when you know that past partner could read it? Tweeting something potentially offensive about an unnamed family member but the lines are only so thick? They have their voice. We have ours. How can we gain the correct voice, correct tone and diction in the same way they wish to be represented?
"Glorious failures are always more interesting than unambitious successes." -Paul Kingnorth
-PanLibDem
No comments:
Post a Comment