wildhood welcome

Share what you have gathered wildly.

CHCB 467
Missoula, MT 59802

Wildhood is kinship of the wild in all people, places, and things.

Workshop

Welcome the wild.

I've Gone Rummy

Mark Douglas

I’ve been working through the second lecture from "Basic Principles of Thinking" and I want to lay out a few things I just gathered from it. First, Heidegger says something he’s been saying for a while about the logos. (At least he was talking about it some in the introductions to Being and Time.) What he said this time brings in the notion of dialectic or διαλέγεσθαι or dialegesthai. This is dialoguing in the sense of “talking things through”

(I’m going off of this book in Google books FFR, http://books.google.com/books?id=NdS03O0YD2IC&lpg=PA34&ots=UMi_elXC2M&dq=dialegesthai&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q=dialegesthai&f=false).

Heidegger says that dialegesthai “means to go through something in laying it together” (Heidegger, 2012, p. 99). All this is a set up for talking about public involvement.

There’s a problem with public involvement when agencies (NPS, USFS, BLM, USFWS, Army Corps of Engineers) have to engage in dialogue with the public through public involvement. What happens is instead of a dialogue, the agencies gather a catalog. The comments are commented upon, but mostly they are catalogued. Why is this?

It’s now my claim that their are ways to map the assumptions onto the fourfold. This is where I go “Rummy” as in Rumsfield’s comments about unknown knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns, and known knowns. I map these to earth and sky; divinities and mortals.

Earth is the realm of unknown knowns. In Dreyfus and Kelly speak (using Charles Taylor, I believe) this is the realm of whooshing up or physis. In Harman speak this is the real object, or the spade. This is concealed; something at all. This is unknown, knowns. In Integral Ecology speak this is the realm of experience. The unknown known can be considered from the perspective of the spade sighting us or from catching sight of the spade. An example of an unknown known would be a wilderness manager who has an intuitive sense of when an alpine road will be open but cannot precisely calculate that date given the seasonality of weather patterns.

Sky is the realm of known unkowns. In Dreyfus and Kelly speak this is meta-poiesis. In Harman speak this the sensual qualities or the diamond. This is revealed; specific something. This is known unknowns. In Integral Ecology speak this is the realm of pattern. An example of a known unknown would be a wilderness manager who outright acknowledges that the flow rate of visitors on a trail is beyond her current comprehension.

Gods are the realm of unknown unknowns. So to take a stab at Dreyfus and Kelly speak, this is the realm of the meta-physis (without any ontotheology). I’m more certain that this is the realm of the sacred. In Harman speak, these are the real qualities or the heart. This is concealed; specific something. These are the interstitial modalities of meaning. In Integral Ecology speak this is the realm of resonance. An example of an unknown unknown for a wilderness manager would be her oblivion to the cultural attunement between unknown bands of primordial peoples that roamed the pleistocene landscape of the wilderness area she stewards.

Mortals are the realm of known knowns. In Dreyfus and Kelly speak this is the realm of poiesis. In Harman speak, these are sensual objects, the club. These are revealed, something at all. In integral ecology speak, this is the domain of observation. An example of a known known for a wilderness manager would be the number of official campgrounds in a wilderness area.

What I mean by all this is that what I'm most interested in are the unknown unknowns of constituencies. What are the self occluded assumptions a constituent is making about their understanding of a wild place. That is, what are the instances or moments whereby a constituent does not know about her own assumptions. What are the instances of blind spots she herself is blind to?

It now wonders me if this is what I'm after, or if rather I'm more after the unknown knowns, or the experiential. I suppose I want to look at each constituencies unknown knowns to then come up with unknown unknowns that I pull together. Arrgh. Well I like what I have here.