I loved the book, "Into the Wild." And, while I had a few issues with the way it was edited, the recently-released movie version was a great flick. True to the book, it captured Alex Supertramp's infectious zeal for life and his contagious enthusiasm to live "authentically."
To oversimplify, this kid took Thoreau seriously when the sage from Walden Pond wrote, "I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived."
I've made solo jaunts into wilderness (though nothing like camping on my own in the backcountry for weeks, much less months). And I've done it long enough to recognize there truly is something essential within us that seems to become visible only when alone and/or in nature. Despite what the fundies wish were true, I am fairly certain the planet is more than 3,000 years old...and that we humans are glorified monkeys. As such, my theory is that there is a kind of artificiality to modernity that obfiscates elemental truths about ourselves. There is something in nature that allows us to get in touch with a lost (buried?) part of our being.
Don't get me wrong: This thing that Edward Abbey called "syphilization" is great - I am glad to not be foraging daily (like the monkey I am) for food. Add I'm awfully grateful I'm not having to fight off (or run from) animals with better fighting abilities (like house cats, for example). As for sleeping in a good bed with (relatively) clean sheets - well, yeah - I like that, too. But I do think getting to (or remembering) the essence of who and what we are is more likely to occur (is easier to access?) in "the wild."
I felt the call to abandon syphilization more than once. (And I still do from time to time.) But what this kid did was off-the-grid abandonment of mainstream society: what the hippies called dropping out. I never quite pulled that trigger, although I seriously contemplated it at several points in my life.
Chris McCandless did it.
The reason, though, that his story is so richly compelling is because of the moral complexities it raises. The kid felt an insatiable urge to do an American version of the walkabout. After graduating from college (the perfect time to do such a thing) he just took off.
I am not about to give anything away that you don't discover at the beginning of the book, so I do not feel the need to provide a spoiler alert here: the tragedy of his story is that he seemed to learn something esssential about himself just before he died. Namely, that he was not a loner hermit-type. He needed other people to share his experiences with...the authenticity he found - and the enlightenment he probably only discovered because he was alone - wasn't complete without companionship.Almost without exception, the negative book AND movie reviews (and they were in the minority) mentioned that the kid was a self-absorbed, immature asshole. The "negative" camp seemed unable to separate their personal feelings about his decisions from the literature/art about Chris and his adventure.
Was it bunge-hole selfish of him to not contact his family for two years - leaving them worried as rats in a snake hole? Sure it was, especially given that he didn't appear to be the victim of sexual/physical or serious emotional abuse. But to merely label him as either a self-absorbed prick or a hero to be admired (as so many did) is too simplistic.
We get one crack at this thing. And it's an awfully short crack as far as I'm concerned. Our most important obligation in life is to be true to ourselves...whatever that means to you. I think it's equally important, though, that we learn how to love. That we continually strive to get better at practicing that love, by being kind to other creatures (including, but not limited to, fellow humans).
McCandless found out the latter after pursuing the former. Hence the tragedy. But then, there seem to be people who never discover the importance of learning to love. Or, they just can't figure out how to practice it. That is the mark of a truly wasted and tragic life.
It is when those two guiding principles (being true to Self and loving others) seem to be in conflict that the figurative bear scat really hits the wind turbine.
So far, at least for me (I think) I've been able to maneuver the narrow path laid down by those two parameters - with a LOT of help and guidance and patience from other people. Not to claim that I've never gone out of bounds, mind you...I've just been fortunate to have found my way back - unlike Alex Supertramp.
That's why I think I've gone more "into the mild" than "into the wild."
6 comments:
You got it. To be true to ourselves and to learn how to love. That about covers it, Mudge, my man.
So, Doc: you read the book? See the movie?
This is going to make you squirm, CM, but I think the getting back to nature thing (both literally and figuratively) helps explain why people do things like, you know, have little earthlings. When you allow yourself that innate connection to nature, and by extension, human nature, there are inexplicable desires that can't be rationalized. While I believe there are so many aspects of our culture that are, indeed, culture-centric (rather than being true to nature), the desire to be loved, have love, make love, etc. seem inherent to people.
I think what Chris McCandless did was brave--to go in search of authenticity. His path worked for him (mostly). I do think it helps to have nature as a backdrop for one's quest, but I also think we can look inwardly and find nature. (Although, to be sure, one's inward nature isn't always so pretty. But hey, nature ain't no Disney movie, right?)
I know this will continue to make you squirm CM, but I think JG has some good insights. My experience tells me that the paths along the lines of being true to yourself and loving others are very rarely in conflict and they are also the much wider path. I often hear people speak of how these paths are narrow and think mainly that is due to their inexperience with following this type of direction.
The truth I have found is that I have many more choices to make that are neither good nor bad in either direction. Even the choices I thought were bad lead to much better outcomes than I would have imagined.
When I was younger and more self-centered all my choices were about how they would ultimately effect me. This is an extremely narrow path, even though at the time I began to change it seemed the opposite was true.
Oops, I almost forgot about the cringe part. I am constantly amazed ,almost daily, at the things I learn watching my 3 year old interact with the world around him. Parenthood gives you a new perspective. Now there is someone in my life who has to come first. His needs supercede my wants or needs. OK that enough parenthood stuff, I could go on for days and the non-parents would be bored to death.
That is my two cents.
Tator: Thanks for visting and for leaving a comment. Not sure what either of you meant about the squirm factor, though.
Since - for good or bad, and for whatever reason - I tend to question (nearly) every commonly-held supposition about what my society says is "ethical" or assumes is a "self-evident" truth, maybe that is why I continually find conflicts between being true to self and loving others. I'm NOT saying this makes me better or smarter or any of that crap...it's just my nature - and some others have that, too, and some don't. No biggie.
But since I operate that way - I think I run into those tensions fairly often. Take something as simple as monogomy: I don't think it's necessarily selfish to question the merits and faults of that way of life. After a LOT of teeth-gnashing - and after meeting the right woman - I've decided it's a way of life I'd like to live.
Another one is where I choose to call home - yet another is where I shop and to what entities I give my money. Who I spend time with. All these situations have been examined and in each case, there was (is) some degre of conflict between being "loving" and being "true to self."
I think in one way (horizontally?), the Path narrows as we try to live a life of self-actualization and greater awareness, but it also gets bigger in another way (vertically?).
As for the parenting gig: thanks for dropping that. At least for now, my blog is unlikely to have much in the way to offer on that topic. There are PLENTY of child/parent-centric blogs out there for that stuff!
CM
The "artificiality to modernity that obfiscates elemental truths about ourselves"
hmmm... I have a lot to think about regarding this post CM, darling. I am wondering myself lately, how singular our paths our. I think, for would-be and actual mothers, this question occurs no matters what, because there is no way to separate a child from a mother (when we are speaking of the usual way). But I find it odd, then, to speak about this issue to "parents" ... why? Because "parenting" is an "artificiality to modernity that obfiscates elemental truths about ourselves" ... isn't it?
I used to be terrified that the idea that my path would overlap so totally with someone else's... hence my wild ways. Now I am not sure how to manage the path with my hubby, should I be unable to be the creator a little earthling... Our paths crossed, in part, (on a very essential, Darwinian level) to move this world forward.
Meanwhile, I myself am finding my own, personal path-- the alone space-- to be very disinteresting now. Perhaps my desire to have a child has suddenly created an inevitable destination, one to which I cannot my way clear through to.
I might have responded differently, had JG not brought this up, but probably not. Life is where we are: I mean that, really. If you wonder where the world is, look in the mirror or look inside yourself... that's where.
As for me, I guess I am still deciding or waiting or praying or something. But here I am, alone on a path I should be walking with a little someone. Odd indeed.
Post a Comment