Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

[John Kasaian]

I was introduce tonight to the wisdom of Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe who it was suggested, might have been Al Gore's boy for the Supreme Court if Gore had been elected president.

OK I'm stayin' out of politics---my concern doesn't deal with politicians but Lawrence Tribe. Just consider this: Tribe is a very influential individual and could become even more influential.

Here I am in a mid sized western U.S.town in a coffee shop/bookstore in a round table discussion with eight other people, half of whom have doctorates.

I'm about to fall asleep when my rage monkey kicks in. Tribe's agenda:

"...to remove the notion of the Natural..."

Its a big priority for Tribe.

"What?" I ask

"It's progress" I'm told

""Remove the notion of the Natural" from what?" I ask

"Society" Comes the reply "...law, art, education---society"

"Why?" I ask.

"It is repressive...individual autonomy is the single cardinal virtue. The notion of the Natural, that there is a natural order to things prevents people from being fulfilled"

Later that evening I'm sitting here at the 'puter pondering the whole thing. Tribe-ites take this "Remove the notion of the Natural" thing quite seriously. My rage-monkey is indelicately informed that my photographic endeavor to celebrate Nature is passe. Progress demands that the ...notion of the Natural" be removed.

I chug a diet pepsi.

So Tribe, if that is really what He said, has his agenda and his agenda is to "Remove the notion of the Natural" and He's a Harvard big shot, why haven't I heard from him before?

So my first question is Whos here that knows anything about Lawrence Tribe?

I chug a bottle of carbonated lemon water thinking that that was a dumb question---I should have googled the bloke (but I've already gone this far so theres no turning back now) but this also got me thinking of the recent post about cliche and how so many landscapes were considered cliche by so many people, especially Half Dome, Glacier Point and El Capitan in Yosemite. Big pieces of granite (I pop another diet Pepsi) they are certainly icons of the park--internationally recognized icons--and they don't change much except for that slab that took out the ice cream stand at Happy Isles a while back--but are now cliche, at least in photographs.

For whatever reason, Half Dome, Glacier Point and El Cap represent "..the Notion of the Natural" for a lot of people. Certainly they are natural objects and quite likely all those photographs snapped by LF 'togs and digi equipped tourists alike actually promote the notion of the Natural. Maybe they'll hang in galleries or maybe they'll be hung in dilbert cubicles in office buildings somewhere. They might be pinned to brag boards at an REI or get stashed away in a family album---or even made into a refrigerator magnet. Nobody is likely to look at them and say out loud :

"Yuck! A cliche!"

Not likely, though a "...notion of Nature" they'll be forever more be until they're destroyed.

My rage monkey points to book burnings in pre world war 2 Germany and suggests that maybe instead they'll be burning postcards of Half Dome, refrigerator magnets from Crater Lake and snapshots of Old Faithful geyser (and the guy in the black judges robe with torch in hand is Lawrence Tribe.)

The notion of the Natural. Most people I know find fulfillment in Nature. The notion of the Natural is welcome, as welcome as a jar of seashells on the coffee table (cliche)or a sugarpinecone on the mantle(cliche) or daffodills in a garden (cliche.) Or a photo of Half Dome(!) What these people have in common, according to Tribe, would be that they are against progress.

Now the idea of a cliche, if I understand correctly is that it defies progress too. Its the same ol' stuff. Same ol' granite that says the same ol' thing.

What does it say? To me it says "Here I am, the biggest piece of granite you'll see in these parts ---get close up and I'll take your breath away. Come visit me! Be a fool and get too close to the edge and I'll send you down so hard you'll be pulp when you hit the groundfloor." Not original, but it is attention getting. And its a natural reaction I think.

I'm beginning to see that the overshot cliche photographs of nature can fall perfectly into what Tribe calls "...notions of Nature" that must be "removed" as being anti-progressive.

I have nothing against progress. I see it as neutral until a direction for progress is clearly stated and even then it may ultimately be a big mistake. Thalidomide. Eugenetics. Genocide. Lead water pipes. All examples of notions of Progress at one time or another (hindsight being 20/20 and all that.) OTOH to retort that an opponent or dissenter is anti-progressive because he is against progress is IMHO silly if you can't say what you're progressing towards.

Am I paranoid or is it all the Diet Pepsi? Tribe's agenda sounds like it has its roots in Postmodernist thought. Hmmm. I'll put my rage monkey back in his cage now and listen to your thoughts.

How about it?

[Darin Boville]

O.K., I'm heading off to bed...but here goes:

As far as I see it, a better way to get what Tribe (famous dude, by the way, as far as profs go) is getting at is to reverse it and say that what he is trying to do away with is the idea that something is "unnatural." As in, "it is unnatural for men to have sex with men," or "it is unnatural to create a clone of a human."

When you try to nail down whether statements like this are true or not it all sort of gets wishy-washy--vague as Tribe would have it. Nothing firm to base it on.

Maybe more tomorrow...I'm running out of steam!

--Darin

[JW Dewdney]

I smell a misinterpretation maybe... are you sure you're not just grabbing onto a phrase/idea and giving it it's own monologue perhaps...?

[Walter Calahan]

Stop chugging diet pepsi, it's not natural. Frankly, all soft drinks aren't natural.

And what do homosexuals say about natural? A few of my gay friends are wonderful gardeners, and think what their parents did to make them was "yucky".

Or why does nature produce clones of people all the time with twins? I have a dear friend who is a twin, but his borther's personality is totally diiferent. So even in nature there is diversity in cloning. Not a bad thing.

In my humble opinion just viewing architecture is where I find my answer. Modernism with its glass box is against nature, and post-modernism with the rebirth of organic form in buildings is pro nature.

Don't worry what the PhDs and Tribe are talking about. The average Joe shopping at Wal-Mart can care less. They'd rather drive their air conditioned F-150, fire up their $800 stainless steel gas grill, and drink their mass produced beer from an aluminium can. It that's not against nature, I don't know what is.

Now what was the question? Grin.

[Frank Petronio]

The problem is that we give a law professor from Harvard all this exhalted respect and status. We should be rounding these loose lawyers up and shipping them to Lebanon to be UN observers instead of going to listen to them lecture.

(But not Sanders, he is a national treasure)

Seriously, the real issue is that too many smart kids are going to law school for profit rather than creating businesses, technology, and jobs. Or teaching. Or do-gooding.

[j.e.simmons]

Professor Tribe is, indeed, very well known in legal circles. He represented Al Gore before the Supreme Court in the first hearing following the 2000 election. He is loved by, and widely quoted by, liberals - he is hated by, and widely quoted by, conservatives.

I suspect that he was referring to the Natural in the sense of natural law. The concept of natural law is that people have certain rights just because they were born - some consider them God given rights, others simply natural rights. The concept means that these rights are natural - they do not come from government - see John Locke.

For instance, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is frequently considered to give Americans the right to free speech. It acutally, however, says that Congress shall make no law restricting free speech - a recognition that people have the right of free speech as a natural right and that government can't restrict it.

A big government advocate, such as Professor Tribe, opposes the concept of natural rights and natural law. He is of the school that society would be better if rights and restrictions came solely from government. Thus his wont to do away with the Natural.

I hope this makes sense - I haven't had much coffee, or diet Pepsi, yet this morning.
juan

[Scott Knowles]

I'm not familar with this notion, but I think he's talking about "natural", not nature, and in reference to human being and society. It may be that he refering to the notion that many groups use to say something is natural, meaning normal for human behavior and a society, the norm, and inferring anything else is not natural and therefor safe to make illlegal, such as behavior, lifestyles, actions, beliefs, etc. It's not removing nature, but the word natural in reference to societial norms.

It makes sense in a way to ensure the law is broad enough to cover everyone. For example, it's the argument folks make in the defense of marriage between a man and a woman, "it's natural" human situation. Another is obsenity and pornography, "everyone" knows what's normal and acceptable, that is natural human sexual expression and behavoir, so those engaged in either are not natural, and therefore can be outlawed or controlled (but who are all their customers?). And the case has been made for God, meaning it's natural to believe in God, and therefore the exercise of religion is a normal human activity involved in every aspect of society, including government.

I don't see where it impedes the notion of nature and the society's responsibility to nature. That's a given that society has a responsibility to ensure a natural, either as a Park or Wilderness area, and safe, from harzardous conditions and materials, environment for future generations. It's nothing to get angry about, and maybe a worthwhile discussion. It would have been interesting to talk with him some more.

I'll have to look up some of his writings. Thanks.

[darr]

This is the same kind of thought that leads to eminent domain issues.

[Bruce Watson]

Sounds like yet another lawyer who has lost touch with reality. Why do you care what he says?

[John Kasaian]

Sounds like yet another lawyer who has lost touch with reality. Why do you care what he says?

Why do I care? Nature is the main reason for my futzing about the hills with a 'dorff and I can't help taking offense when a bloke who is taken seriously by the ivy league ilk sets as his agenda that it's a ,,,notion must be removed

It is plain silly, but silly laws are passed all the time and silly concepts embraced as being factual if touted by movie actresses, sports figures, politicians, scientists, and teachers.

The Post modern world IMHO is full of faith in the teachings of these new "prophets" which propels society into a desert barren of common sense, and Tribe is punching the tickets on the trolley.

No matter how one stands on the topic of Gay Marriage, to say that male/female attraction is unnatural by asserting that "...the notion of the Natural must be removed" I think is out of touch with Nature and reality. Remove the Natural or deny the Natural---it creates an imaginary rift between humans and nature which has far greater and more futile consequinces than a rift between humans--people have always been argueing and warring and somehow society has managed to survive (art & culture being a vital element in survival---far more of a unifier than a divider IMHO) When we "remove" the Natural we turn our backs to the most natural of conditions. We remain tethered to the irrefutable laws of nature while teaching/legislating/espousing that they don't exist. Thats plain stupid.

Nature=Planet=Critters walking, swimming, flying & slithering, living and dying=beauty=balance. Tribe dosn't appear to grasp man's role in "...the Natural."

Not too bad on one cup of coffee!