Jeff wrote:
> "What is Nature?" . . .
> Nature is the world as it might exist without the
> addition of human creations from abstract reasoning.
I like this. (Nature is everything minus human thought and its
by-products.) I have often thought that humans may have actually done
themselves a disservice by developing conscious thought and abstract
reasoning. Can you imagine living without the thoughts that usually crowd
our minds? Can you imagine living moment to moment. If humans were to
live in this way, I sure the result would be sustainable (as would many
other ways much less dramatically different). Zen and a few other
disciplines hint at this, but it is interesting to take it far enough to
imagine whole cultures this way.
> Additional arguments say humans have always modified nature
> and therefor pure nature has never existed. OK, we need an
> additional words to describe this state.
Humans haven't always existed, so this idea starts out with a major
handicap. I do accept the idea that we are a part of Nature, but I also
believe that it is our conscious / abstract thinking that takes us away. I
suppose the word "Nature" is desirable only if there is a separation
between human and the rest of the universe, otherwise "universe" would be a
better word. I have trouble with such separation philosophically, but
practically it is part of the way we see the universe "around us" and has
its uses.
> Another way to approach this is to stand in a forest and
> accept it as very close to a natural state. We can't
> describe this particular forest to anyone in detail. . . This is
> nature and the word "nature" will never be enough to
> define it.
Or, another way to look at it, the word "Nature" _is_ the word that
describes it all best. It is when we begin to "clarify" and categorize
that we move away from the incredible complexity we call Nature.
> If something can not be categorized and discussed it bothers
> them. Humbug, there is much to life that is outside our
> perceptions and crude tools of measurement. Our mountains of
> data and philosophical ideas are all attempts to describe a
> universe that is too vast for our best science.
Here again, I think it is our conscious / abstract thinking that gets us in
trouble.
> What we can do is interact and experience nature.
This is probably why many people find themselves drawn to gardening,
farming, animals, hiking, etc. The suburban and especially urban
environments we have created have a serious lack in opportunity for
connecting with, observing and interacting with Nature. I might even go so
far as to say, the less time spent within human constructs the better (TV,
mass media, buildings, cities, etc.)
Eric:
