deff said:

Natural is a human symbol. It is not some objective state of being, and for that reason, it varies in meaning from person to person. You people are only debating the meaning of 'nature', when it can mean whatever you want.

---

I was trying to get to that but I wanted them to admit it themselves so it would be much more damning. 

bandaid said:

This is an age old question but I havent seen it posted on the shroomery so heres my bit.

Im not trying to suck the life out of ppls sense of nature, but I always found it sort of ironic when ppl say they try and find peace in nature when nature is by nature extremely cruel. You can view it as chaotic or not, and any of those views doesnt necessarily have to be bad, but with all the obvious agony that goes on, on a normal basis, such as poisoning, suffocation, bone crushing ect ect, how do you find yourself at "peace" with it?. Its all devised in nature, such a painfull form of existance, obviously the only one we're aware of but still, makes you think of what could be or could have been, and maybe even will be. As I see humans the only ones correcting all of this chaos, maybe not in the present but give it 1000yrs . Maybe we where put here to make things well given enough time, or maybe not.

So.. how do you find yourself at "peace" with nature?, as I cant seem to grasp that concept very well at the moment.

---

Quote:

Two humans can live lives diametrically opposed - say Hitler compared with Mother Theresa (obvious choices i know). One lifestyle must be unnatural, or both, but they cannot both be natural since that would break the law of non-contradiction. Two opposites cannot both be correct.
 

---

 

This is where I disagree with you. I personally feel that the contradiction we usually see is due to the level at which our verbal language currently exisists. Our human verbal language divides things into opposites, but I feel that is in effect a kind of species wide shortsighted view.

Our words are inherrently not the things they represent, they are signifiers. That's why I esentially agree with Deff on the issue of using the word natural. The nature (he heh) of our language means that to have 'natural' automatically, there must be 'unnatural'. I personally feel though that in life while things may not be black, doesn't mean they have to be white.

And in fact, much like the yin-yang, all things contain their opposite.

I'm sure we all use the metaphor 'unnatural' at times to describe things which are perfectly 'natural'. And for the purpose of describing a situation this may be a useful release for our emotions.

This is our language, not the thing our language points to.

Sure we may as individuals find much behaviour detestable, but it is a part of the learning experience of our species. Opposites are necessary to make the whole. What is a star without a blackhole? What is life without death? Where is the balance? What is the meaning? The universe would simply not be, the energy flow that it is could not be. Without passing through the dark spaces of consciousness, how would we ever know the light? How would we ever figure out where we are going and what we aspire to? 

Zoso_UK said:

So if we are definitely not in balance with nature, why then do you find it inconceivable to think that we could invent something unnatural (out of balance with nature)?

---