TIGER [RRL]

How many misconceptions can a breathtaking animal produce nowadays in human imagination? Could a word like “beauty”, a sham assessment, hide the collective awe? What happened along the centuries with a group of human beings to reach eventually such a partial, greedy, and shattered image of an animal that is staring at us? Some centuries ago, someone stated that animals constitute an angelic line actually coming down from God’s insight. It is really rough to stare at an animal in the eyes —one way or the other, something stares back. Let’s then try to concentrate intensely in one remark –one smart aspect of nature (natura naturans) is staring at itself through the eyes of the beholder. Otherwise, who is staring through the tiger’s eyes? Who, through the eyes of the person watching the photo? Would it be fearer to say What is staring through the four eyes?

Let’s stand still and ponder for a minute, trying not to lose some inner balance. When the encounter between a tiger and a human being occurs, it is highly improbable that the second would engage in contemplation of the situation. The tiger would do it, though. In fact, the tiger does not flee from “its interiority” when gazing. Human beings do. Then, which one is the one chosen by intelligence? The tiger? The human being? Neither one? Or else the slant straightening up the four retina rays? Even more the slant being straightened up by the four retinas rays? If one of these two is true, therefore, it would occur that the tiger’s nature becomes an angle of Nature. Would it be the same for human nature? By principle, on top of everything, it would be reasonable to gather that Nature is a self-folding intelligence bearing a vortex of silhouettes. However, it would not explain the apparent lack of human intelligence. Or stated differently, would it be that natural silhouettes are simply “tucks of intelligence?”

Back to the basic issue. What about the so called “human nature?” We are forced to acknowledge that denaturalized human beings exist. Now, if any, denaturalized tigers, would they still be tigers? Would there be a nonsensical contention about the discrepancy in natures —animal and human? An overzealous reader might think it all just a couple of well- adjusted puns. Let’s philology do the talking. The word "intelligence" is a synonym of the word "wisdom." In English, particularly, both words associate etymologically to the idea of “seeing.” Romance languages, instead, take after the Latin “sapientia” (the word for “wisdom”) to end up saying "sapere," which conveniently means both “flavor” and “knowledge.”

Therefore, upon switching tongues, we would be allowed to admit that the tiger tastes itself almost all the time, since it never stops being a tiger. Indeed, the phrase “the tiger knows by tasting” would convey inevitably almost a tautology, since very few animals take tigers for a meal. On the other hand, the old Roman proverb fortold homo homini lupus (a man is a wolf to another man). In fact, that cainism has anything to do with human nature?

At our juncture of what the XIX century conceived as world history, it should not be a surprise that vernaculars are somehow tricky. In a broader family of languages, “sapere” is a synonym of “knowing,” and “knowing” is etymologically related to “being born.” Is it a coincidence that the Ancient Greek words "physiká", and the Latin "natura" generate from the Greek verb "phýo" (“give birth”) and the Latin verb "nascor" (also “give birth”), respectively? More than a century ago, Paul Claudel’s Art poétique engaged in variations by playing with the verbs «naître» («be born») y connaître» («know»). We are not born alone. To “be born” (“naître”), in any case, is to come to know (“co-knowingcon-naître,” as the French etymology allows it). Every birth is awak-ening to knowledge [Joseph T. Shipley. The Origin of English Words: A Discursive Dictionary of Indo-European Words].

Are we, then, obliged to admit that, by pondering the tiger’s experience, it would seem that “being born” would mean “knowing” for him. And as for human beings? Following Claudel’s line of reasoning and for starters, one should count on an untarnished ignorance. Thus, “being alive” would result in “learning how to taste”, which in turn would translate into “learn how to be reborn.” How can someone be born when they are old,? the Anointed Messiah was asked. If THE answer is unknown, one should be asking the tiger.

Back to the beginning. How many misconceptions can a breathtaking animal produce nowadays in human imagination? In the picture, a poignant aspect of Nature (natura naturans) stares to itself through the eyes of the beholder. Otherwise, who is staring through the tiger’s eyes? Who through the eyes of the person watching the photo?