Response 1: What nature is to me and what it is in nature that I want to explore.

On my own, and due to my desire for solitude, I have walked in "nature". I know that the sound of walking through the web of an orb-weaving spider sounds like the peeling of a large chunk of sun-burnt skin. And that is exactly what it feels like after accidentally walking through one. I know that just the act of delicately brushing it away can lead to a sting that develops into a small, painful welt. Although it is truly a pest on the hiking trail, I still cannot help but stop sometimes and look around at these immaculate webs that float like CDs, reflecting the sun, a spiney dot of arachnid right in the middle. 

I like to walk.

But how I would love to saunter. Thoreau begins his essay "Walking" by explaining the difference between walking and sauntering. The etymology alone is fascinating--

"...from idle people who roved about the country, in the Middle Ages, and asked charity, under pretense of going 'a la Sainte Terre,' to the Holy Land, till the children exclaimed, 'There goes a Sainte-Terrer,' a Saunterer, a Holy-Lander."

In my opinion, to desire to be a saunterer is very romantic and dreamy. It is easy to fantasize about. There is a wild freedom there. Some of you may have read the book _Into the Wild_ about Christopher McCandless, an intelligent young man who gave up all his belongings and ties and sauntered westward to Alaska where he ultimately and romantically died. No doubt he was inspired by this specific passage I came across while reading "Walking". 

"...prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms. If you are ready to leave father and mother, and brother and sister, and wife and child and friends, and never see them again,--if you have paid your debts, and made your will, and settled all your affairs, and are a free man, then you are ready for a walk."

That's interesting that Thoreau put "and are a free man" before "then you are ready for a walk." Some people, myself included, would feel that the walk itself is the freedom part. But it seems here that there can be freedom without that walk. And that is absolutely true, isn't it? This leads to my question: Why is it that when people desire to be free and outstanding that they feel that going back to "nature" is the correct answer? Is going back to nature a going-backwardness? Is it about roots? Can going back to nature be done without a huge ego? Can't someone find solace with themselves without going into the wild? Why do we have to be animal to prove ourselves to ourselves? We are animal. Okay, that's not just one question, but a series of questions and actually, I can come up with plenty more. But ultimately, why is "nature" the haven or the answer? People complain about a society that doesn't care about them. What makes people think nature will? 

I just had a beautiful image in my head. I'm sure someone has already painted it, but I'll explain it right here and now. In the background, there is a line of trees or a forest. It's just a mesh of greens and browns. There is a slight appearance of sky above the canopy of trees. It's not very blue, but just a normal white/blue/greyness. Now, in the foreground, there are people walking towards the forest. A bunch of skirts and suits walking towards the green and brown abyss. Cellphones to their ears. Children holding basketballs against their hips, walking towards the forest. A taxi cab in the nearer foreground--the driver, stepping out of the yellow cab, a cigarette hanging on his lips...all of them just walking into those dark woods. Isn't that illusion interesting? When you look into a patch of forest and it looks so dark, but when you finally enter it, there isn't so much darkness.

This image in my head reminds me of that famous painting of the shepherd herding the sheep. His back to us, he holds his long cane and leads the sheep into the forest. So, I establish a connection between my mental image and an actual painting. In the painting, there is indeed a leader--the shepherd. But who is the leader of the people who actually go into the wild? I don't think people do it because of free will. I think that such decisions are difficult and one must actually prepare themselves for such a sojourn...a sojourn that is more difficult than staying and dealing with the day-to-day scenario we are all going through.

The nature writing class I am in right now is not only exposing me to different writers and their ideas, but also to fellow classmates who are from all over and have varying experiences with nature. Like in any class, I like to pay close attention to these people and make connections with what I assume about them and who they really are. I am very excited to learn about everyone and find out about their own intimate relationship with nature and what they believe it to be. I don't know how to define nature, to be honest. I don't like to take a stance on nature and the environment, either. I feel that I don't have a place in such situations. I do not like to commit to a specific ideal or fashion of thought. I simply like to make observations and come up with small conclusions. I do have passion for nature and that passion is through appreciation. But my appreciation doesn't consist of eating organically or expecting everyone to be good to the environment. A lot of that is lifestyle and fad. People congregate and make their gardens or have their elaborate organic meals. I think that true passion can be done alone. If you can't appreciate or do something by yourself without the need of others, then that is a flawed passion. It's not passion at all. I like to think that I have passion for the natural world. Most of my experience with it consists of being alone and choosing by myself to take myself out there and get sliced by the briar and succumb to the gravity on steep hiking hills. And yes, I'll finish my hike and go get an ice cream or go to Starbucks because I belong in that world just as much. That is nature.

I am going to encounter a lot of difficulties in this class, but I like a good challenge. I try not to be biased with my thoughts and concerns. I am going to be confused as to what people believe is nature. But we often forget to ask another important question when we ask what is nature? To ask that question makes us very "other". So, here's a very important question:

Who are we?