Reviews for The love of nature and the end of the world

The average rating for The love of nature and the end of the world based on 2 reviews is 3.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2015-04-01 00:00:00 William Hubbard This book is a GUT (Grand Unifying Theory.) The author, Ms Nicholsen has a PhD. in Literature and Philosophy and is a practicing psychotherapist and psychoanalyst, all which serve to inform her argument; but may leave some readers questioning her approach - it is unusual; but I think very well done. Her language is precise, her words defined well within the piece so as you know what she's talking about. Metaphors are kept to a minimum. Such as: "The experience of beauty epitomizes the intimacy of reciprocal perception." (p. 95) And earlier: "Tangling at the roots of being entangles us with the objects of our vision in the evolution that is reciprocal shaping." (p. 84) Earlier still: "If we reflect on how much learning goes on within the relationship between mother and baby, it should not be so surprising that the love of nature means learning from nature. The kind of interweaving participatory reciprocal perception we have been talking about is a dense learning environment." (p.82) Are you getting the picture? More: "… evolution is best understood as coevolution'the way co-existing, engaged beings shape each other in an unfolding and unpredictable process." (p.77) Seeing it now? "Painting … is really a matter of reciprocity between one's whole being and the world outside." (p. 66) And finally, before I discuss her argument: "think of reciprocity as mutual recognition and influence that involve not only individual separateness but also a relating based on an embodiment in which psyche and senses, internal and external worlds, are engaged." (p. 63) That is beauty in writing and thinking. Briefly her argument is: We humans are creatures of the natural world, born to a mother who is our first "enclosed environment." Our world then expands, as we grow, to include the family, then the home (structure), then the outside / nature, meaning the wind and sun, trees, hills, grass, dirt, rocks, rivers, etc. … and then expands to the community, the state, the world. Disrupt this process and we become disengaged, split off, and reject the connectiveness of all things - which causes us great psychic harm. We seek relief. And we find it - in apathy, cynicism, technology (screens); in narcissism; in groups and affiliations with institutions and cults; with food, illness, drugs, addictions and attachments and identities that are unnatural and have led to the catastrophic place/world we now find ourselves in. (Note that Nicholsen wrote this book just prior to 9/11, before the Bush wars', Syria, Yemen, ISIS, Katrina, the BP oil spill, Sandy, the Cali drought, the murder/suicide of Germanwings flight 9525, and so on.) Her position is: "… our profound attachments'to people, places, and the natural world'entangle us with all that surrounds us (the environment")." (p. 163) Furthermore, that we have poisoned it - thus poisoning ourselves. (My words.) She can be dire: "In such a society, the cultural space itself might be usurped by the 'dreams of others,' shaped by the violence of trauma and deprived of its true function. I believe this is in fact to a large extent our situation." (p.121) I believe she's right. She goes on: " it may be our dreads and our deathfulness rather than our love making [mother & child bonding] that escalate and reverberate as the natural world we destroy reflects back to us our loss of self." (p. 123) … "betrayed is ultimately our trust in goodness, or the capacity of goodness to withstand evil (child sexual abuse, war, murder, the Holocaust, 'nuclearism') the strength of life as such." (p. 132) What we do is, what the main problem is, she asserts: "'dealing with the underlying emotional tensions in human relationships." (p. 164) Or, 'why can't we just all get along?' And because of our fractured and split psychological selves, we project all our rage outward - to our children, spouses, families, as well as our competitors, the 'other,' and enemies. My question is: Can we be both competitive and comparative, and harmonious and cooperative? Nicholsen seems to think it's possible. She proposes a remedy. This is where the author and I part ways. I think she falls victim to her own enclosed space - the psychotherapeutic space. Sure, it would be great if all people were of the type that are willing participants in the psychoanalytic process (= above average intelligence and open-minded, open to reflection and scrutiny, and willing to engage in fearless communication) - but they're not. People are different, very much so, and for good reason. (Very broadly speaking, as in species survival.) She proposes that we (all) find a safe reflective place and think deeply about solutions and publish them so that others can see, read, and reflect upon our ideas - add to them - and together we might find a way out of this mess other than mass destruction. But first, she says, we must grieve and mourn for the loss of the world as we know it - the "Petroleum Era" (p. 180) she calls it. Good luck with that, sister. There are just too many deniers, people entrenched in, and with, power, who are not going to admit their complicity and guilt. That's not going to happen. Nicholsen rightly says: "What we have done is horrible. We have committed acts of murder and violence almost without end, and we will need to go through a massive process of mourning." (p.181) We (those in power) don't do guilt and accept responsibility. We like things the way they are. Nicholsen misunderstands that. She believes all people are like her (a very common miss-judgment.) Again, people are different. She actually anticipates Facebook with her remedy; but then, she's not on Facebook, or Twitter, or anywhere except her office - the therapy room. And but so she wrote this book, this marvelous book - that almost no one reads. Spring 2015

Review # 2 was written on 2018-04-05 00:00:00 Richard Rosen Too Freudian