Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The old ways

OK. So, we tend to look down on old wives' tales, right?


The guy in this article--he reminds me of my grandpa. I never met the man, but my mom tells me stories about him. No, he didn't butcher pigs and look at their spleens, nor did he do any other form of augury. However, he could tell weather from different environmental factors. Some my mother told me about; some she didn't.

For example: Heavy fog can make for heavy moisture after 4 to 6 months, as I recall. It's a bit more exact than that, but I really couldn't say for sure, anymore.

The fur on a caterpillar can tell what sort of winter it will be. Heavier for colder winters; less for milder winters.

People laugh at a lot of this. There's no science in it, some say. It's an old wives' tale.

I've seen a lot of this stuff in action. And I've seen it actually work. And it makes sense, to me. Don't we find that we can develop or lose abilities, based on what we know? In fact, it seems to me that it is somewhat related to some evolutionary theories. Survival of the fittest; changing for what is to come.

I don't know if it's all true, but I do have to say--it shouldn't all be laughed at. And I'm going to make sure I have a shovel handy.

But I would do that anyway. After all, experience teaches, as well. And I know what it's like to winter in the midwest, no matter what the caterpillars are saying.

Right now, though, they aren't talking.


Amalia T. said...

I say, if animals know when a Tsunami is coming, why shouldn't they also be aware enough to know that the winter is going to be particularly bad?

I think they are way more sensitive to the world around them than we are, even with all the "advances" that Science offers us.

Just Another Sarah said...

I agree. There are things that are innate. Just because we don't understand doesn't mean that they don't.

Amalia T. said...

Just because we don't understand doesn't mean they don't-- yes, exactly. The problem is we are so dependent on science and rational explanation, I think we're missing the more obvious signals. It's like when you look at a simpler math problem after you learn Calculus, and you try to use Calculus to solve it because that's the tool you've been taught and practiced, but really...all you had to do was factor it. You didn't need the calculus, but you were so programmed to use it that you didn't see the easy way.

Did that make sense?

Just Another Sarah said...

Yes, yes it did.