Nathan K. Hensley’s talk last week got me thinking about the influence of the past on every aspect of modern life and personality. I was particularly motivated by Hensley’s comment that we, as humans, “are the past” in that our physical bodies and personalities are developed as a response to past events, past people, and past ideas. Our minds and memories are inspired and formed by previously created literary conventions. Our modern moment is inherently motivated and shaped by a moment prior. Everything that we think or say at any moment is participation in this convention that is arguably created for us. We therefore have an undeniable dynamic and material connection to the past. These ideas which Hensley was arguing have put my mind in a questioning state. I am now wondering whether any thought can even truly be organic and original if all thought is adapted and generated as a response to a previously heard or read sentence. Is originality impossible? Hensley noted that all thoughts and ideas are simple reorganized or re-worded thoughts and ideas that have already existed somewhere in the world. Are humans really incapable of waking up one morning and developing an entirely independent and organic idea? I personally find it terrifying that our minds are naturally plastic and adaptable by anything and everything we are exposed to in our culture. How can we expect to experience such radical change as a culture if we are always motivated by our past?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Hensley’s talk also focused on the need for change in the way we as a society imagine being more ecologically friendly. He argued that a group mentality and group-lead movement to changing behavior is truly the only way to make an active change. Relating this back to my thoughts of non-organic thought, I am inspired to think about how all of our thoughts are also therefore influenced by an era of ecocide. Hensley discussed this as “thinking in the shadow of ecocide” and I am curious how our younger generations will be permanently influenced by a nature that is permanently adapted by the daily actions of society. I am also reflecting on Hensley’s discussion of “affirmative sabotage” and how it feels as though even a group effort towards changing our behaviors as a society feels like the impossible. I am curious whether what I and those in my own generation have even participated in this world in an era that was not motivated and shaped by a discussion of global warming and climate change. Hensley commented that the death of nature could arguably have existed before the birth of any current Colby student and the time that we now live in is simply the “after” moment. I was moved by the comments of my classmates who questioned how we, as young people, can even truly make actions towards improving our natural world if nature is already dead. I would like to imagine a world where thoughts can be truly organic and the earth could be “natural” or reborn, but I fear that the arguments against these desires feel too true.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Nathan K. Hensley’s talk last week got me thinking about the influence of the past on every aspect of modern life and personality. I was particularly motivated by Hensley’s comment that we, as humans, “are the past” in that our physical bodies and personalities are developed as a response to past events, past people, and … <\/p>\n