In this dissertation, I respond to questions that call me before them. I respond, inevitably incompletely, with my limited awareness and sensitivity, and—undoubtedly—with areas of blindness of which I am not aware. I begin with the question: What are the ecological food webs of the Eel River? Faithful, trusting, and lawful response requires me—but never forces me or acts upon me such that I am made to respond—to begin once and again, never anew, but always moving faringly and practically, with trust and faith, along the way these questions open before me.
(Q1) What are the ecological food webs of the Eel River? I respond: Given epistemologically-metaphysically, and, thereof, scientifically-epistemologically, the ecological food webs of the Eel River are actions-reactions, and thus actings-reactings, the activities-reactivities that these actings-reactings comprise, and, thus, interactions, interacting, and interactivities. In epistemological-metaphysical sense and sensibility, the ecological food webs of the Eel River, as actions-reactions, are forces forcing and being forced forcefully.
(Q2) What is the ecological food web of the Eel River? I respond: The ecological food web of the Eel River is the food web of the Eel River. Regardless of one or another of their actions-reactions, and forgivingly of these when they harm, the food web of the Eel River is the meeting-coming-together, safe-keeping, and faring together in this small opening-region of the world of the beings given to exist and, thus, to fare-existingly in and around the Eel River, including the river. The food web of the Eel River is, then, the giving-gathering of those beings, as they come to existing, into the opening revealing of sense, sensibility, and, thereof—for some of them, at least, and in degrees, probably—the commonly sensing understanding to which they are given, that they may learn to existingly-abide together familiarly, among and with one another—with varying degrees of awareness, with various sensitivities and proclivities, perhaps with kindness, perhaps befriendingly, perhaps with love in each and all of its senses—but, regardless, openingly nourishing one another, as they are, and as each of them fares its way existingly through the world together with the others, for the limited time they are given.
Responding to these two questions leads me along a sinuous path of analyzing, thinking, and responding to the research and explanations of several ecologists who have researched the ecological food webs of the Eel River. These ecologists’ research and explanations, as well as the questions that have arisen for me from their research and explanations, lead me into an engagement with several historically foundational works of the science-epistemology of ecology, particular those written during the twentieth century. I pay especial attention to Principles of Animal Ecology (1949) to help me learn what outstandingly scrupulous ecologists understand science, ecology, an ecological community, an ecological food web, and a biological organism to be. From these readings, I respond, perhaps most importantly, to the questions of what action, activity, and practice are.
Finally, when analyzed scientifically-epistemologically, I find a consistency of scientific-epistemological problems in the ecological explanations of the literature I study. This consistency and continuity seem important, and I note them throughout. I do not, however, attempt to resolve these problems or explain why these scientific-epistemological problems are what they are, and continue ubiquitously as I have found them to—if, that is, they are scientific-epistemological problems at all. With attention and thorough analysis, I have judged them to be scientific-epistemological problems. I have so judged after thorough and meticulous attempts to piece together the scientific-epistemological consistency and coherency of what ecologists explain.
