A beautiful introduction…. Quite ecocriticism of you. This introduction mixes the scientific, the theoretical, the far away with the sensorial-right before your eyes. Both seem equally hard to get your head around. My favourite expression from here is the one that reads ‘during this barrage of sensation, in which is seemed to me that every cubic inch of the world was filled to its maximum capacity…’ it goes on to explain how one of the fellow campers is working on a theory requiring many more dimensions. It is astute that the writer should write ‘every cubic inch’- the expression colloquially used is usually ‘every square inch,’ though cubic is of course more accurate. I enjoy how much they must have reflected on the question of dimensions… Interestingly for me, the scientific passages make me think of the richness and denseness of non-human animal life. This is true both of the ‘every cubic inch’ image, as well as of the explanation that ‘fortunately, the extra dimensions are curled up in such tiny circles that they cannot be experienced by macroscopic creatures who are already strained by a mere three.’ The picture of such small scales makes me think of all our insect-sized and eukaryote friends. Louse and bugs and creepy-crawlies tumbling around the same cubic inch of bark and mud and leaves. Mycelium networks spreading across the forests… I wonder what the writer means by ‘maximum capacity.’ I think it acknowledges the wonder, beauty and humility involved in observing proof that the world is not for us. We have a small space in a big order; we simply slot right in. Whose maximum is this? Is it the maximum capacity of space to hold matter? The maximum capacity of a human mind to observe and sense and respond to its surroundings? Does the former mean that air and sky are recognised not as negative space but dense and packed in their own right? Do they differ in our perception of them from solid matter? Is this different from the impressions and thoughts we have when observing the world around us? Are the things that make my impressions and thoughts the same as what makes trees and mountains and woodlouse? Anyway. This introduction does not actually speak of non human life. Instead it speaks of non human time scales. Of ‘the ancient shifting of subterranean faults.’ This begs the question, what does a mountain look like in the fourth dimension? I suppose it would not ‘look’- this is perhaps a three-dimensional term, from the language of Spacelandese. In any case, this brings me back to thoughts of climate communication and denial.