"At the very end of his book Mann confronts the clash between environmentalists and developers, a theme that has lurked in the background of much of his text. He sees this endless controversy as a clash between two conflicting philosophical principles: nomos (rationality, artifice) and physis (irrationality, nature). He comes down tentatively and without much conviction somewhere in the middle. We have to accept the need to bring order to nature, but at the same time we must respect the rights and historical accomplishments of native peoples, who were anything but the ignorant savages we heard about in school. Our learned tour guide seems unwilling to choose sides."

-Robert Finn, reviewing 1491 by Charles C. Mann
http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/140004006X.asp

why why why why is nature so often portrayed as Other, and particularly as irrational? nature is the definition of rational, despite its inability to organize itself into an mf grid.

this is the designer in me who learned the golden rectangle before learning point, line and shape as well as the girl who learned permaculture in the jungle. nature knows what it's doing, we need to learn to trust it and quit trying to live with our feet floating above the ground. but it gets at christy's question, too, about the re-imaging of dirt away from 'abject' to 'romantic' and appealing to wealthy/white folks being attracted to a photo of, say, a white hand with dirt under the fingernails holding up a dirty bunch of carrots. there was a time when this wouldn't have been acceptable, and now its premium. how'd that happen? what are the implications? is it culturally biased/culturally exclusive/a move in the right direction facilitated by cultural luxury but relevant universally? i don't know.

ok more reading, seriously.