My bar for a place to feel like home is that I don’t have to think every time about where I will eat or do my laundry. So, I’ve had this a number of times in a number of countries in which I had access to a kitchen(ette) and a washing machine.
So far, life is the longest trip I’ve ever taken. The challenge of this question is knowing what counts as a “trip.” I lived in India for over 12 years? Was that a trip? It didn’t feel like it. It felt like my home was in a different country. I think I once spent about two months one Summer in Hungary back in the 90’s? Was that a trip or family time? I’ve spent about a month (just under what would be required to do a “visa run” — more of a fresh stamp run) in Thailand. I suspect the latter is what the question aims at. While I’m pretty far toward the traveler end of the Traveler – Tribesman continuum, 30 days moving about without being someplace that feels home-like is where it starts to wear on me. (Of course, being a traveler, any place can feel homelike if I don’t need to think about where to eat on a daily basis or how to do laundry on a weekly basis.)
Of course, maybe the question is drug related. In which case, I once had psilocybe mushroom tea, and that trip lasted about five hours?
Author Site
Andrea Wulf once again introduces us to a person most of us have no knowledge of, but should. A few years back I read, “The Invention of Nature,” which was about the life and work of Alexander Von Humboldt. This book tells the story of the short life of George Forster, who — like von Humboldt — was a naturalist and explorer. In fact, von Humboldt considered Forster one of his mentors.
The name of this book could not be more apt. It’s not just about a man who went places, that’s a shallow definition of “traveler.” Rather, it is about one who was philosophically a traveler — i.e. one who shed biases and any pretense of superiority of his native culture over those with which he would come into contact so that his mind was ready to learn — always. George Forster traveled on Captain Cook’s second expedition, sailing through the Atlantic, across the Indian Ocean, all around Polynesia, and eventually back to England — perilously almost getting down to Antarctica in the process. George was ostensibly on the ship as assistant and draftsman to his father, Reinhold. However, George impressed more than his father, particularly through his publications after the voyage. In fact, George’s open-mindedness was all the more impressive because he got none of it from his father, who traveled about (like virtually all Westerners of that day) believing in the inherent inferiority of non-European peoples.
One reason why Forster is more obscure than his “mentee,” von Humboldt (besides the fact that von Humboldt lived / worked about twice as long) is the path of Forster’s life through the latter portion of the book. Forester’s belief in equality wasn’t limited to Pacific Islanders, he stayed true to the notion at home. He, therefore, was a supporter of the French Revolution (though he lost some taste for it in the wake of the guillotine-happy regimes that followed but still believed in the overarching goal of casting off the shackles of royalty.) Because of his support for Revolution, he was deemed a traitor by many European thinkers who had held him in the highest esteem when his support for equality was an academic abstraction (though many of them probably secretly thought him daft for believing that Tahitians [and, for that matter, women] were people, too.) At any rate, his renown plummeted, thus contributing to the fact that he’s not a household name today.
In addition to the thrill of his maritime adventures and the peril of his Revolutionary politics, there is a fair amount of family drama throughout the book. Early on said drama centers on Reinhold, but later it is the wife that cuckolds him, Therese, who takes centerstage.
I found this book highly readable. It’s not your run-of-the-mill biography of an 18th century naturalist. It’s engaging and illuminating, and I’d highly recommend it for Travelers.
I’m not big on tabulating the “best” this or that. It feels like it hamstrings experience and puts one in a comparison mode in which one is always living half in the past. If it looks good, eat it, and then move on to the next experience — giving that experience your presence.
It’d be nice if schools taught people how to NOT be docile, unquestioning worker-bees.
One can come through today’s education system with a PhD without emotional intelligence, self-confidence (beyond one’s silo,) a capacity to think soundly about a range of topics outside one’s discipline such that one recognizes potential unintended consequences and counter-intuitive influences, with an intolerance of competing worldviews, and with a lack of humility about what one knows and what humanity as a whole knows.
No. I do not think everything happens for a reason, but I do think it is beneficial to see the positive in challenging life events. Both approaches serve to keep one from feeling victimized by life, but the latter doesn’t require that one believe in some grand architect twiddling the dials on one’s life events — and isn’t a Panglossian rationalization.
The Traveler: One Man’s Quest for Humanity from the South Seas to Revolutionary Paris by Andrea Wulf
