This whole "Nurture vs. Nature" thing is such a pointless argument. It's just simply the wrong question. See, perhaps one of the most fundamental aspects of being Human--though we've thoroughly forgotten about it--is that we do not exist independent from Nature; we are indeed part of Nature. Therefore, it would stand to reason that whatever nurturing influence we might give to a child, or a pet, or even a plant would itself be a part of Nature.
This does not mean that the experience of nurturing or of being nurtured is false. In fact, it is this experience that in part defines our unique Human Experience. It goes beyond instinct. Not that other species don't experience it on a certain level, but it seems safe to say that the Human Experience of nurturing--of Love--is unequivocally unique.
When I said "Do not mistake Love for the word 'Love,'" what I meant was this: Language serves to put a verbal narrative on immediate experience. It is an attempt to make what is subjective into something objective. There is such a kaleidoscopic range of feelings that we think of when we hear the word "love" that we end up mistaking those subjective feelings and experiences that are really so intangible and indescribable for the generalizing linguistic representation; the word Love.
Language is a powerful invention, a technology even more profound than Atomic Power, its implications being just as dichotomous. Language gives us poetry and song and storytelling, but it also gives us a sense of amnesia, which creates so much confusion, and we end up believing in false dichotomies.
Like Nurture and Nature. They are in fact a unity.
0 comments:
Post a Comment