Message no

Message no. 61
Posted by Dr. Suellyn Winkle on Monday, January 27, 2003 2:48pm
Subject Wk 3 Questions

Annie Dillard, “Sight into Insight” (1140)

1.     How would you describe the persona, the speaker, in

Dillard’s essay?  Use specific examples from the text to

support your idea.

2.     According to Dillard, what is the relationship of

meaning to vision? Give an example.

3.     What happens the night she stays “too late” at the

creek?  Write a paragraph in which you argue your

thesis.

Message no. 62[Branch from no. 61]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:12am
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

1.     Curiosity is one of the persona’s characteristics.

The speaker is eager to examine in detail, everything

that surrounds her: she is keen to see a muskrat in the

Tinker Creek, the “castellated cities hung up-side-down

over the desert sand,” “the green light” in a sunset,

and the “streaks of clearness floating across the air in

[the] dark shreds” of a fog; she even squints at the

wind and tries to sense the speed of “836 miles per hour

round the earth’s axis.”

        She is bright and she seems to have abundant

knowledge in different arias of science because of her

love to inspect nature in details. I would say the

speaker could be a truer student of Aristotle who claims

that one can only learn through his senses. According to

Aristotle, the empirical method including seeing,

hearing, tasting and feeling is in the base of learning.

2.     As indicated by Dillard, vision is imperative for

meaning. The title directly states the conversion of

“sight into insight”; only by observing she can have

various insights. Without vision we are “fearful aliens

in an enemy camp.”

        There is also an opposite correlation between

these two: meaning can influence sight. For example,

after she has hard time to see a bullfrog that is

supposed to be “green” but in fact it has the “color of

wet hickory bark,” she comes with an insight: “I see

what I expect.” Thus, our understandings and

anticipations can sometimes prevent us from seeing

properly. As a result Dillard strives for “unedited”

seeing: she want to see the two-dimensional picture of

“color patches” and “dark” spots like the newly sighted.

She emphasizes on experiential and practical minutiae,

rather than what a mind guesses the things should be.

3.     Although “we must turn away from it [the light from

our local star] by universal decree,’ we do need this

light to explore the environment and to see the

surroundings. In this late evening the speaker observes

“the stains of lilac on the water,” a hissing “turtle,”

and “the last of the swallows.” Yet her vision is

partially impaired because she uses the meager light

“reflected from a hidden sky lighted in turn of sun

halfway to China”: she cannot explore the bottom of the

creek, she cannot find a muskrat or a carp, and she can

get caught in one of “the bridge’s spider web made

invisible by the gathering dark.” For this reason,

“after a thousands of years we are still strangers to

darkness,” and we will always be. We are "aliens" to the

dark because we are curious: we “analyze and pry” and we

need light to examine our world.

Message no. 85[Branch from no. 62]
Posted by SHERRY M ISLER on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:29pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

   I agree to the recognition of Dillard's curiosity as

one of her persona characteristics, but must add also

her excentric and quirky attention to the small details

that captivate and stimulate her thoughts and writings.

Dillard's curiosity seems to be fueled by an intense

devotion to see the little things rather than overlook

them as she suggests everyone else so frequently does.

   Dillard's recognition of her own shortcoming, "I see

what I expect" caught my attention as well.  She is very

focused on trying to bring attention to the importance

and value of the smaller things, yet at the same time

she recognizes the downfall of human nature and what

we're conditioned to expect.  It is as though she is

trying to emphasize the importance and awareness of

looking a bit deeper but at the same time recognizes

that we're not going to be able to see everything,

simply because we're not trained to look for the

unexpected.  Rather, we're trained to notice the obvious

and overlook the smaller details.

   I really liked Daniel's entire insight about her

experience the night Dillard stayed late at the creek.

Even Dillard who looks for the smallest details is

crippled by the darkness.  Dillard's observations are

done in light, in what she can visually see; yet there

is so much more to be observed by our other senses.  But

like, "I see what I expect" we expect to see things in

order to observe and don't usually elect to try to

observe without the 'expected' crutch of light to

illuminate the observation.

Message no. 91[Branch from no. 85]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 3:17pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

In response to...your response(hehe I feel like Austin

Powers), her night at the creek, she is taken out of her

comfort zone of light, where she can see all of her

small wonders. The darkness puts her in an uncomfortable

position of having to use her other just as important

senses, like you pointed out, Sherry. Her mind was

opened to another way to perceive. Good point!

Message no. 64[Branch from no. 61]
Posted by KELLY ANNE PURCELL on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 4:44pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

1)  The author, Annie Dillard, is the persona in “Sight

into Insight.”  She is excitable, inquisitive,

energetic, astonishingly fascinated by the minutiae, and

an abstract, non-linear thinker.  She loves nature, and

because of this and her ability to pay special

attention, many ‘extraordinary’ things in nature appear

to her.  She seems somewhat like a child, raised with no

knowledge of things bad and therefore no fear, who has

been unleashed in a paradise of a whole new world.  She

sees things in nature that people wouldn’t see on a

normal basis because she has opened her eyes to seeing

them.  She knows that she has to open her mind and

senses in order to catch the little things that may have

been otherwise overlooked.  This allows her to create an

abstract reality, an artificial obvious, which in turn

lends her the sight into insight.

2)  I believe that Dillard literally finds the

relationship of meaning to vision as “What you see is

what you get.” (Dillard, page 1140)  She says that

verbalization comes from seeing, and unless she pays

attention to what is passing her by it would go

unnoticed.  I really liked the quote, “If I thought he

could teach me to find it and keep it forever I would

stagger barefoot across a hundreds desserts after any

lunatic at all.” (Dillard, page 1149)  She believes

there are different ways in seeing both what it is you

are looking for and for what appears.  Constructing an

artificial obvious allows her to defocus her eyes, her

mind metaphorically speaking, and see things not

naturally obvious.  Another quote I relate to this

question is, “All that you touch and all that you see is

all your life will ever be.”  (Pink Floyd, Dark Side of

the Moon)

3)  I believe that Dillard had an epiphany about how

infinite the universe really is.  She related everything

and made it universal in saying how things are aliens in

their own darkness.  She watched the cloud move up the

stream and saw the relationship of light, movement,

space, and infinity.  I am fascinated by gravity, on

Earth’s level of course, and the rotation of, possibly,

the entire universe.  I have lain on the ground, staring

up to the sky and been amazed at the thoughts of the

planet spinning about and asked myself, “What if I just

flung off the surface?”  I wonder if the universe is

really infinite and where space and time come from.  I

believe Dillard shares a few of these profound

questions.

Message no. 84[Branch from no. 64]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:26pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

Many scholars tried to answer these fundamental

questions but there are just unproven theories about

what is the origin of the universe, space and time and

what was before this origin. I don't think that Dillard

can answer them or can come up with another hypotheses

giving the fact that she relies so much on her senses.

Message no. 66[Branch from no. 61]
Posted by JAMES ANDREW FOGLE on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 6:47pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

In message 61 on Monday, January 27, 2003 2:48pm, Dr.

Suellyn Winkle writes:

>Annie Dillard, “Sight into Insight” (1140)

>1.    How would you describe the persona, the speaker, in

>Dillard’s essay?  Use specific examples from the text to

>support your idea.

>I would describe the speaker in Dillard's essay as a naturalist.  He is always in awe over many different aspects of nature.  He questions the solar system, and looks at the bull frog as a wet hickory bark instead of a green color.  He appreciates nature with an artistic eye, istead of looking at everything concretly.

>2.    According to Dillard, what is the relationship of

>meaning to vision? Give an example.

>The meaning of vision, according to Dillard, is to see different things in life with an artistic eye, instead of seeing eyerthing as one solid color or image.  Like Van Gogh, "a great deal of light falls on everything," (para 15, line 1), so Dillard is agreeing with Van Gogh saying that there is more color than just a simple green.

>3.    What happens the night she stays “too late” at the

>creek?  Write a paragraph in which you argue your

>thesis.

>The night when she stayed too late at the creek, was when she started to question what planet Halley's Comet comes from and how the fog was just streaks in the sky.  I wouldn't argue with her thesis, since i am also artistic, and i look at nature and objects the same way that she does.  I don't just look at a painting and tell myself that it looks good, rather i look at how they got certain colors, and how they used different techniques to create a certain image.

Message no. 68[Branch from no. 61]
Posted by SELENA EDWARDS RIESS on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 8:48pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

1)  The persona of the speaker in Dillard’s essay,

“Sight Into Insight”, is similar to that of a baby

learning new things.  The speaker essentially possesses

that same eager inquisitiveness about all that she

encounters with nature.  She is always searching for the

unseen, for simply, as the speaker puts it, “it’s all a

matter of keeping my eyes open” (1141).  She wants to

experience nature “like one of those line drawings that

are puzzles…” (1141) by asking and searching for the

miracle instead of the obvious. Hoping to see “the green

ray…” (1142) in each day’s sunset and banging on “hollow

trees near water…” (1141) hoping to see a flying

squirrel all contribute to the speaker’s enthusiasm in

looking for what nature has to offer other than the

obvious.

2)  The relationship of meaning to vision to Dillard is

not only the optical, what we view from our eyes, but

merely an extension of the mind, brain, and eyes seeing

an object, like amoebae, that goes beyond the obvious.

It’s a “matter of verbalization” (1148) as Dillard puts

it.  If she truly wants to see something, she will

“maintain…a running description” (1148) to stay focused

or she “will never know what’s happening” (1148).  From

Dillard’s perspective, it’s not a case of having to be

observant in order to enjoy nature’s offerings, but how

one focuses and interprets what one sees because the

best things in nature are not always there at that

moment, place, and time.

3)  Dillard experienced a moment of uneasiness over her

surroundings the night she stayed too late at the creek.

 The night that came in covered up all that Dillard

could see, throwing her into a blanket of darkness.  Now

the sights and sounds “gave great suggestion of lurking

things” (1143).  It could almost be said that Dillard

was thrust into blindness as “night was knitting an

eyeless mask” (1143) over her face.  The things she had

seen so clearly now were unknown in the darkness, yet

the darkness cast “untamed, dreaming lights…over the

sky” (1143-44).  The sky opened up and the stars gave

way to the “deepest stars at the crown of an infinite

cone” (1144) for Dillard.  Even though a fish took “a

headlong dive to darkness” (1144), an immediate and

split second vision, Dillard, later on, closed her eyes

to enjoy the infinity and beauty of the stars without

having to wait for that special moment to appear.

Message no. 80[Branch from no. 68]
Posted by SUMMER A SMITH on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:21pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

You know, I had the hardest time concocting an answer to

Dr. Winkle's second question. I searched and searched

the text for some bold faced, unquestionable answer, and

finally realized that I would have to make some sweeping

inference of my own about her question and the text. You

did a fine job; I wish I had thought to play in the

verbalized thought theory into my answer. It's

interesting to think about thought in terms of some

internal voice inside your mind. Which came first - the

language or the thought?

Message no. 88[Branch from no. 68]
Posted by ANGELA-ROSE MANESS on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:31pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

Selena,    Wow.  I thought that your responses were

really good not only because it seems like you put a lot

of time thinking about the questions but because I like

your usage of words.  I like how you described the

persona as "a baby learning new things" and possessing

"eager inquisitiveness."  And I liked the way you

described the Dillard's view on the relationship between

vision and meaning.  I enjoyed reading your third

paragraph on the speaker's insight.  I like it when you

said that "It could almost be said that Dillard was

thrust into blindness."  This was a good description of

the momentary vision that she had that night.  Also, I

think that you used excellent and relevant quotes to

back up your answers.  For example, when you are talking

about the speaker's vision in paragraph three, you

stated, "untamed, dreaming lights...over the sky."  This

is a very good quote that gives the reader some insight

into the speaker's experience and perception of the

world after her moment of grace.  Overall, you did an

excellent job of describing what you were trying to say

and used just the right amount of quotes from the story

to make your responses valid and clear.  Good Job!!!

Message no. 69[Branch from no. 61]
Posted by SUMMER A SMITH on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 9:47pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

1.) The persona in Dillard's essay ultimately seems

unhappy, or maybe confused by, her sensory abilities -

or her brain's interpretation of empirical data. In her

essay, she seems to be made jealous when she makes

reference to Donald E. Carr's point that only one-celled

animals receive sense impressions not edited by the

brain. She re-establishes her jealousy by citing cases

from Von Senden's book in which cataract surgery

patients are given the ability to see for the first time

- they too seem to explain only what is there, oddly -

something different than what the persona, and others

without cataract surgery see. The persona seems

interested in sight, but not the sight that you and I

are familiar with - something more metaphysical than

that. She wants to see what's really there, not what

we're fooled into thinking is there.

2.) In some parts of the essay, it seems that Dillard

has trouble linking vision and meaning. This idea is

best illustrated when the persona recalls her experience

with the bullfrog - the part when Dillard mentions that

the "artificial obvious is hard to see." The persona

seems baffled that by meaning, frogs are green, but by

vision - the bullfrog in front of her was the color of

wet hickory bark.

Then again, in other parts of the essay, it seems that

quite the contrary is true; that meaning and vision are

in direct correlation. It's true that throughout most of

the essay she continuously reiterates that vision,

insight, perception are all tricky abilities, but she

does say quite plainly, "What you see is what you get,"

and, "Now you see it, now you do."

Without deconstructing the piece entirely, rather,

analyzing the piece as a whole - after reading the essay

I think an accurate, but simple inference would be that

the two are not equivocal.

3.) The night the persona stayed "too" late at the

creek, she saw things that seem incredibly difficult to

believe. In the paragraph preceding her description of

that night she states that the night she stayed too late

was in August, later she makes brief mention of "the

great meteor shower of August." I assume that by

mentioning the month twice, she in fact means the same

month, the same year. While this explains the

extraordinary "untamed, dreaming lights (that) flickered

over the sky," (a meteor shower!) I find no explanation

for the black finned, flapping gilled, flattened eyed

creature/MONSTER that caused such static on such a

seemingly peaceful evening. What kind of

fish/reptile/mammal has a large black fin that swims in

a fresh-water creek?

My first thought... involved some sort of

hallucinogen(Ha!). No, that's too easy. Quite seriously

though, my only explanation is that when the persona

says "too late," she must mean that it's only safe for

her to stay at the creek for a limited amount of time.

Something MUST happen, if she were to exceed that length

of time - otherwise, she wouldn't have said "too late,"

she would have said, "I went to the creek." I think that

as it grew dark, things began to come alive - and it

simply was too (there's that word again) much. She went

there looking for a muskrat, and what she got were

turtles and an incredible meteor shower, she couldn't

decide which of the things she saw deserved her

attention - she was overwhelmed. My guess is that all

those things pushed her into a state of pseudo euphoria;

she began to hallucinate. Thus, you have your black

finned, flapping gilled, flattened eyed beast.

Message no. 79[Branch from no. 69]
Posted by MARK DEVALIANT on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:17pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

I particularly like the way you have highlighted that

the processes and experiences of Dillard were not easy.

They were in fact fraught with hardship, discomfort and

at times emotional peril. I don't think this aspect can

be underestimated. It is easy to emphasize the marvels

she witnesses but I think her point is the things she is

missing rather than the things she is seeing. When, as

at Tinker Creek, she saw things that she was perhaps not

meant to, she felt "alien" and out of place.

Message no. 81[Branch from no. 69]
Posted by ANNE C BAATSTAD on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:22pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

Hi Summer,

I hope that you feel better soon. :-)  I really liked

what you wrote, especially in response to question 3. I

am a very literal person, but it seems like while I was

trying to describe what it might be that Dillard saw

(physically), everyone else was describing an inner

experience and what she "saw" (as in realizing). You on

the other hand, you thought she might have seen an

indescribable monster, or at least she thought she had.

That or she was on drugs, haha, which is what I'm

wondering myself. She was recuperating in the woods for

8 months from pnuemonia... who knows what kind of

anitbiotics those doctors may have given her! I'm just

kidding, I don't want to get in trouble so let's get

back to the text. "The persona seems interested in

sight, but not the sight that you and I are familiar

with - something more metaphysical than that. She wants

to see what's really there, not what we're fooled into

thinking is there." -  This is a quote of yours

pertaining to question 1. Other than being eloquently

written, I just really like how you don't linger on a

thought too long (I do!), you make your point and state

it clearly, and then you're outta there! Good job!

~Anne

Message no. 86[Branch from no. 69]
Posted by NATALIE A PETERS on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:30pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

Well don't I feel stupid... No just kidding really. I am

realizing more and more that I haven't taken the time to

really look into the readings, that I am taking them at

face value and running with it. This isn't my style of

writing; it's always been hard for me to write about

what someone else wrote. (Obviously not for you, as I

was dumbfounded by your work)

I thought your realizations about Dillard's confusion

between her sensory abilities and her brain's

interpretations were extremely intuitive. I look back

now and realize that was one of the biggest underlying

themes of Dillard's essay. Throughout her life she is

trapped between a rock and a hard place, deciding

between the illusion of what she is told to see, and

what her brain wants her to see. I think most people

ponder their ways through life relying solely on their

eyes, without thinking, is this what I'm really seeing?

Or is it an illusion?

Also, Dillard's jealousy of the cataract surgery

patients was something else I missed. She wants the

ability to start over, rid herself of her false

premunitions about what she sees and re-learn in a

different way of seeing. I think Dillard would then rely

only on her brain's interpretations and forget about the

optical illusion of sight.

Message no. 71[Branch from no. 61]
Posted by SHERRY M ISLER on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:26pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

1)  The persona in Dillard's essay, "Sight Into Insight"

is of someone who is very spirtual and pays a great deal

of attention to detail and deeper meaning.  Dillard is

almost obsessed with her intensity of focus into seeing

what everyone seems to overlook or is otherwise unable

to see. For example, "The green ray is a seldom-seen

streak of light that rises from the sun like a spurting

fountain at the moment of sunset; it throbs into the sky

for two seconds and disappears."  Noticing the little

things is that are commonly overlooked is great, but

being so meticulously intent on seeing something such as

the green steak which occurs for two seconds can cause

you to miss the big picture--the entire sunset.  Taking

time to notice the wildlife and beauty of natures gifts

is important, but at what point do you say you're

digging too deep and you're missing the beauty in its

entirety while you were so focused on trying to see one

small detail?

2)  Dillard says she squints at the wind since she read

Stewart Edward White's writing, "I have always

maintained that if you looked closely enough you could

see the wind--the dim, hardly-made-out, fine debris

fleeing high in the air."  Dillard greatly emphasizes

the relationship of meaning to vision; that meaning

being that "I see what I expect."  Dillard's entire

point of her essay is to provide "Sight Into Insight"

constantly giving example after example and experience

after experience, all which give perspective into

looking at things differently--into deeper depths.

3)  "Night was knitting an eyeless mask over my face,

and I still sat transfixed." Dillard writes about the

night she stayed "too late" at the creek.  As the

darkness began to surround her she scanned everything,

"I didn't know whether to trace the progress of one

turtle I was sure of, risking sticking my face..., or

take a chance on seeing the carp..., or follow the last

of the swallows who caught my heart and trailed it after

them like steamers..."  This night that she stays late

in the creek she discovers "After thousands of years

we're still strangers to darkness, fearful aliens in an

enemy camp with our arms crossed over our chests."

Dillard's point being that when we can't see things the

way we're used to, we're forced to see them in a

different way.

Message no. 87[Branch from no. 71]
Posted by JOSHUA DANIEL COWAN on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:30pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions- Sherry Isler

Sherry brought up a good point in that at what point do

you say enough is enough?  When do you stop prying into

the details of the universe and actually look where you

are going?  Plato tells a tale of the philosopher Thales

that at one time he was "strolling along while gazing

into the sky and making certain astronomical

observations-and fell into a well."  Sometimes we can

get so wrapped up in seeing the "minutiae" of the

universe, we miss the well we're falling into.

Message no. 92[Branch from no. 87]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Thursday, January 30, 2003 10:23pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions- Sherry Isler

Ooooh! I really liked that! Great point and great

allusion to Plato!!  ~Melissa~

Message no. 72[Branch from no. 61]
Posted by MARK DEVALIANT on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:37pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

1. The author, Dillard, seems to me to be a seeker and

an idealist. Forever in search of the true, pure,

unadulterated vision. Everything she sees is thought

about, questioned and then accepted as the reality she

is expected to see. "But I couldn't sustain the illusion

of flatness. I've been around for too long. Form is

condemned to an eternal danse macabre with meaning." A

meaning attached not by her but by someone else. "I had

been my whole life a bell, and never knew it until at

that moment I was lifted and struck. I have only very

rarely seen the tree with lights in it. The vision comes

and goes, mostly goes, but I live for it, for the moment

when the mountains open and a new light roars in spate

though the crack, and the mountains slam."

2. I think by relating vision to meaning, Dillard is

undersoring the limitations of the Mark I Eyeball. What

we see is not what we see but what we envision. When

gifted with sight the example girl from Senden, 'A

little girl visits a garden. "She is greatly astonished,

and can scarcely be persuaded to answer,stands

speechless in front of the tree which she only names on

taking hold of it, and then as 'the tree with the lights

in it.'"' There is more to seeing that the light that

passes to the back of our eyes. Just as in Plato's,

"Allegory of the cave", one can be made to see by

entering the light, or one can be kept in perpetual

darkness.

3. I think by staying too late at the creek, the author

has stepped into another world. A world where people

aren't normally. "after thousands of years we're still

strangers to darkness, fearful aliens in an enemy camp

with our arms crossed over our chests." Our arms crossed

as if to deny the existence of this world that might

actually occur with our knowledge, without our consent.

Things happen in this world and they cause a good deal

of discomfort to the author, a feeling of being

watched,"...great suggestion of lurking beings." When

these creatures make themselves seen in this world, it

is only then that the author begins to perceive the

bigger picture. Fleeting glimpses that hint of greater

things that lead one in thought to greater things still;

the Earth, the Solar System, the Galaxy.....and how

small our part in them it is to play.

Message no. 73[Branch from no. 61]
Posted by JOSHUA DANIEL COWAN on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:17am
Subject Minutiae en mass

1. I would describe the persona of the of the speaker in

the Dillard essay by likening it to an abnormally

intelligent child, or an adult who has been permited to

travel back in time and inhabit their own childish body.

    The language and syntax is far beyond the

comprehension of most children, yet the observations and

simple pleasures are of one who has not yet been jaded

by the passage of time and the constant demands of the

grown-up world.  The shades and colors of the birds in

the trees, the simple joy of providing a treasure hunt

to the masses, the blurry shimmer of light as it

reflects off a fish; the writer is seeing these as a

child would- acutely with detail and just seeing for the

simple fact of seeing.  However, with words like

"minutiae" popping up in every other sentence, one sees

that the persona is more a trained adult who understands

and values what the child cannot, yet is still able to

see what the child sees every once in a while.

 2. Meaning makes vision comprehensible, according to

Dillard.  It gives us an understanding of what we see

and eventually creates a pattern in which we begin to

see the same things in the same way, day after day.

Like the mother of the newly-sighted girl in Dillard's

essay, we see the shadows in the paintings and photos

and project depth into them, because that is how we have

been trained.  Her daughter knew nothing of this

meaning, and so observed by pure sensation, stating that

"Everything looks flat with dark patches."

 3. On the night Dillard stays "too late" at the creek,

her other senses(including her imagination) seem to take

over with her loss of vision, and yet one could argue

that she saw more while actually seeing less.  She hears

a distant rustle- is it a rattlesnake or just a sparrow

kicking up debris?  In her mind, she sees both.  She

sees "hints of hulking underwater shadows", and "round

ripples rolling close together from a blackened center."

 Her mind is full of visions even as her vision is

filling with an ever deepening darkness.  Even as

Dillard lay in her bed after she went home, the impact

of the moment still has her seeing more.  "I open my

eyes and I see dark, muscled forms curl out of

water,...I close my eyes and I see stars, deep stars

giving way to deeper stars, deeper stars bowing to

deepest stars at ther crown of an infinite cone."  While

physically Dillard saw very little, the darkness forced

her to see without being able to give meaning to what

she saw.  It pushed her into a world where only the

senses matter, and so caused her to see more than just

what is normally percieved.

Message no. 75[Branch from no. 61]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:54am
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

Oh my god!!! This is really horrible!! I had these great

answers to the questions and my connection was lost

right when I was posting the reply. I am sooo frustrated

right now. I spent a lot of time and had really good

answers and now I have to do it all again!! :(

Annie Dillard, “Sight into Insight” (1140)

1.     How would you describe the persona, the speaker, in

Dillard’s essay?  Use specific examples from the text to

support your idea.

The speaker is based on, if not definitely is, Annie

Dillard. Annie Dillard is a person on a different level

than most other people. She has a passion for seeing the

world around her everything that she can. She tells us

"I'm always on the lookout for ant lion traps in sandy

soil, monarch pupae near milkweed, skipper larvae in

locust leaves. These things are utterly common, and I've

not seen one"(1141). She pauses and notices things that

most people do not. She tries to take in her

surroundings, all of them, the beautiful, small and

seemingly insignificant details of the world. She is

much like a child, as other people have said. She has

such curiousity and passion for learning that we all

have as children. She desires to see like that, in such

an innocent way. Children see things differently; they

have not been told what things are and how they should

see them(or they have had very little of this,

especially compared to their elders). She quotes Donald

E. Carr: "Only the simplest animals perceive the

universe as it is"(1142). She truly desires to see this

way.

2.     According to Dillard, what is the relationship of

meaning to vision? Give an example.

The relationship of meaning to vision...well, according

to Dillard, vision gives meaning to things. More

specifically, a person will see things that she loves or

is passionate about while another person sees something

else because they are passionate about other things.

Dillard relates the example of the herpetologist: "The

herpetologist asks the native 'Are there snakes in that

ravine?' 'Nosir.' And the herpetologist comes home with,

yessir, three bags full"(1142).  Passions give different

ways to see things which in turn lead to different

meanings. Dillard's passions are nature and sight,

seeing everything. Her passions lead her to wondering

and questioning what she sees. When she sees the

reflection of the cloud in the water that does not

appear in the sky, she "looked from cloud to no-cloud in

bewilderment"(1144). She seeks out an explanation later

to explain the phenomenon she witnessed. Dillard says

that people see what they want to, and what they don't

see, goes unnoticed, almost as if it didn't exist. That

is a scary thought. If we cannot see other forms of life

in the universe, does that mean they don't exist? Not to

us. Not right now anyways. People's perceptions are set,

but things can open them. Dillard continues to try to

open hers. Many questions can arrive, many wonderings.

More sight, more learning, more questions. A circle...

3.     What happens the night she stays “too late” at the

creek?  Write a paragraph in which you argue your

thesis.

When Dillard stays "too late" at the creek, she has been

thrust out of the world of sight and into the world of

darkness. She is disoriented. She tries to see what she

could see before. During this, she says "I couldn't see

whether that rustle I heard was a distant rattlesnake,

slit-eyed, or a nearby sparrow kicking in the dry flood

debris slung at the foot of a willow"(1143). Dillard

cannot see what is happening, cannot explain what is

happening around her. I had a similar experience a few

weekends ago. Some friends and I drove to Payne's

Prairie at nighttime. I had never been there before; I

was looking out into darkness and had no idea what I was

seeing. I stll have not seen Payne's Prairie in the

daylight, so I have this obsecure image of the place.

Anyways, back to Dillard...

This part in the essay reminds me a lot of Plato's

"Allegory of the Cave", more specifically the person who

escapes into the light and returns. He has seen the

world, he has been enlightened. He returns and is

plunged in darkness and cannot see his new world any

longer, much like how Dillard was plunged into darkness

during her observation of Tinker Creek. She was confused

and didn't know what was going on, in a sense blind to

her former world in the light. Both essays essentially

are relating a message that those who are enligthened

meet with struggle from the unenlightened world(the

prisoners trapped in the world of shadows, the people

who go by the small, unnoticed things that Dillard

seeks). The person who has seen the light is met with

ridicule and threats of death. Dillard reveals her

struggle: "But I can't go out and try to see this way,

I'll fail, I'll go mad...The effort is really a

discipline requiring a lifetime of dedicated

struggle"(1149). Plato and Dillard tell us the life of

an enlightened one equals difficulty. She continues to

attempt to see her surroundings in the purest way

possible, to question what she sees, and to learn from

her observations. She tries to take everything in. She

does not want to go back to the darkness, neither does

the escapee of the cave who has seen the light. The

thirst, the desire keeps them searching, looking,

struggling.

Ok, I hope I remembered most of what I said in my

original post. It was a really good one. I'm totally

bummed that it got lost in my disconnection. :( Such

good thoughts, and now they're lost! But I hope this one

gives enough.  ~Melissa~

Message no. 76[Branch from no. 75]
Posted by SELENA EDWARDS RIESS on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:14am
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

Melissa,

What a great comparison to Plato's prisoner leaving the

cave and Dillard's "too late" night at the creek! I

hadn't even thought of her episode that night in that

light.  I felt she had become apprehensive that night,

perhaps a little frightened, since all she was seeing

was given a new meaning in the darkness.  I agree with

each of them "having a thirst" that continues to thrust

each forward in their search for more enlightenment.

Great post!!

Selena :o)

Message no. 83[Branch from no. 76]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:24pm
Subject Re: Wk 3 Questions

Why thank you very much! As I was reading other people's

answers, I realized that her experience at the lake can

also be viewed as another way to perceive things, which

is also a valid point.  ~Melissa~