Mike, I think you may have misread me, or I have misstated my position.
My position is that EVERYTHING humans do is part of nature - is natural. This is as opposed to those who say that humans 'interfere with' nature or do 'unnatural' things. Oh! I just re-read your post and see what you're really pointing out is what you think is the inconsistency in the statements about 'nature' and then 'reality'. I do not consider 'nature' as 'reality'. 'Nature' is itself a mental construct (illusion). I suspect that you want to, as does Edgar, to say that 'reality' includes EVERYTHING including illusions, but I say no. Reality is Reality, or Emptiness is Emptiness. Illusions are Illusions, or Form is Form. That's the way it looks from my side of cyberspace anyway. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Bill!, > > > >but your statement implies that human intervention and management is NOT > >part of nature. > > Yet then you say: > > > >These mental constructs are NOT reality. > > In this big old universe of ours, what can stand apart/outside? > > Mike > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, 13 October 2012, 2:30 > Subject: Re: [Zen] calm down > > > Â > Edgar, > > You're doing it AGAIN! > > You just stated: "...letting nature take care of itself with minimal human > intervention or 'management'. Now at least you said 'minimal', but your > statement implies that human intervention and management is NOT part of > nature. > > I'll give you an extreme, concrete example so there can be no wiggle room for > either of us: Humans create nuclear power and then dispose of radioactive > nuclear waste in a manner that changes the environment. > > Is this human activity natural (part of nature) or not? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > No, you have my views exactly backward. I'm supporting the NON human view > > of the environment, the view of letting nature take care of itself with > > minimal human intervention or 'management'. > > > > Edgar > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2012, at 3:00 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > Action is indeed not inconsistent with zen. > > > > > > What I and I believe KG are trying to point out is most everything you've > > > talked about concerning the environment is based on a human-centric point > > > of view. So when you throw around terms like 'interfering' and telling us > > > to 'grow up', my only response back to you would be 'grow out' - expand > > > your perspective...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > KG, > > > > > > > > Your notion that nothing can be done to save the planet is dangerous > > > > and mistaken. There are many who are working diligently including > > > > myself. To what extent it succeeds remains to be seen. > > > > > > > > Zen is not equivalent to hopelessness, inaction and nihilism as you > > > > imply. That's a serious Western misconception. Action can be done with > > > > Zen quite effectively... Action is NOT inconsistent with Zen. > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2012, at 10:59 PM, Kristopher Grey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never said a wit about OK/not OK. That's your judgement. > > > > > > > > > > I simply find the very premise, as you lay it out, to be formed of > > > > > the same destructive impulse to control. > > > > > > > > > > I might say planetary scale destruction is inevitable, as that > > > > > appears a logical albeit pointless conclusion, but I certainly don't > > > > > claim to know so. Nor do I have reason to be concerned in the way you > > > > > appear to be. Righteous indignation may feel good, but it's not a > > > > > prerequisite for action. It only acts to spins the wheel. > > > > > > > > > > KG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10/10/2012 7:35 PM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Merle, > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Yes, KG seems obsessively attached to this discussion and why > > > > >> destroying the planet is OK... > > > > >> :-) > > > > >> > > > > >> Edgar > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Merle Lester wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> hey hey lads...settle down..calm please!...KG your loosing the > > > > >>> pulse..merle > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Yes, yes. That you hold a great many things to be of high > > > > >>> importance is obvious to all but you. Thus you assume others are > > > > >>> are talking about such things, and assume they are ignorant of > > > > >>> same, when they are only talking about your ignorant attachments to > > > > >>> these forms of divisive thinking. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> KG > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 10/10/2012 11:27 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> KG, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I find it appalling you support the destruction of the planet by > > > > >>>> humans and attack those who argue against it... > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> The lowest of the low... > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Edgar > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On Oct 10, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Kristopher Grey wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Definitive dependency - in other words you frame this in a > > > > >>>>> self-supporting way. The way a child argues when trying to sound > > > > >>>>> all grown up. You might as well just say: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> "You are a stupid baby! Stop being such a stupid baby!" *L* > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> No one is denying 'reality' but you Edgar. You are perverting > > > > >>>>> others words to fit your preconceptions. You frame things as > > > > >>>>> being out of control/needing to be controlled - which is the very > > > > >>>>> divisive attitude that causes all the shit you find so wrong in > > > > >>>>> the world. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Opposition distracts. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> KG > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> On 10/10/2012 6:47 AM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Bill, > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> By your perverted logic it is totally OK for man to be > > > > >>>>>> destroying the planet because that's just a natural process. > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Grow up and get real. Zen is not clever sophisms, it's reality... > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Edgar > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Oct 10, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> Edgar, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> What's REALLY important is that it's been framed wrong. It's > > > > >>>>>>> been framed as humans vs. nature, or as you put it humans > > > > >>>>>>> 'interfering' in nature. As long as humans think they are not > > > > >>>>>>> part of nature and taht all their action are natural there will > > > > >>>>>>> be this problem. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> When a beaver builds a dam is that interfering with nature? > > > > >>>>>>> When a squirrel shits in the woods is that interfering with > > > > >>>>>>> nature? When a human splits an atom is that interfering with > > > > >>>>>>> nature? When a human manipulates DNA is that interfering with > > > > >>>>>>> nature? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> What is the quality that humans have that other animals don't > > > > >>>>>>> have that renders them capable of interference - IYO? (I just > > > > >>>>>>> made that up, IYO = 'in your opinion') > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> ...Bill! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>>> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > Come on Bill. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > In human discourse about Man's impact on nature, that's the > > > > >>>>>>> > way it's defined, and the whole issue is framed, as you well > > > > >>>>>>> > know... > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > Edgar > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > On Oct 9, 2012, at 8:45 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > Edgar, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > This was a VERY SERIOUS response. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > Why is it that you think the things that humans do are > > > > >>>>>>> > > 'unnatural' or against nature but the things that other > > > > >>>>>>> > > life does is 'natural' and okay? A friend of mine very > > > > >>>>>>> > > wisely (IMO)once suggested that all ethics should be > > > > >>>>>>> > > applied to humans and other life forms equally. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > What is the quality that you believe separates humans from > > > > >>>>>>> > > the rest of nature so that human activities and artifacts > > > > >>>>>>> > > can be labeled as 'interference'? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > ...Bill! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> > > > > >>>>>>> > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > Joe, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > Come on, it's a serious issue... > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > Edgar > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > On Oct 9, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Joe wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Edgar, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > And Humans are just the tip of the iceberg, too. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > I don't know why plants and animals insist on > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > interfering with the way Nature works. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > For example, on the early earth there was a nice > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > atmosphere without oxygen. But blasted Cyanobacteria > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > evolved which like to sip the methane and other gases > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > there were back then, and started polluting the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > atmosphere with ...Oxygen! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Then -- wouldn't you know -- other organisms formed > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > which turned CO2 into even MORE Oxygen, with a help > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > from light from the Sun. The nerve! They got away with > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > it, though, because there were no Police. The rug was > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > pulled out from under Nature yet again! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Later, some animals evolved, which USE the oxygen. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Much later, some of these animals of the Mammal variety > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > called "Beavers" began to INSIST that they interfere > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > with the stately FLOW of river tributaries and streams, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > by ...damming them up! Such nerve. You may be sure that > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > this caused inundations upstream, and occasional floods > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > downstream when the dams burst. Havoc. Bye, bye, Nature! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > The nerve of these organisms: Micro-organisms, Plants, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > and Animals. Always interfering with the way Nature > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > works! > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > At least on the Moon there is no such interference, > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > there's just a continual, thin, rain of meteorites > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > pummeling the surface, and no atmosphere to make things > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > rust. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Oops!, some exotic Mammals left some footprints on the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > Moon, and some machinery, during the last fifty years. > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > WHY must there always be such interference? The Moon > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > had been Nature's nice, quiet, haven for rock and dust > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > for so long. Why must things always go downhill? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > --Joe > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > On 10/7/2012 9:26 PM, Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > Why do humans always insist on interfering with the > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > way nature works? > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
