News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

"We are all sacred"

Started by reddevil0126, April 05, 2012, 01:04:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

reddevil0126

Interesting reading.  by Thom Hartman.

http://www.bodhitree.com/lectures/hartmann.html

I liked this part;

Another story that we tell ourselves is that we are here, and divinity is "up there," or in a box we call a church,
synagogue, or temple that we visit periodically, usually with some trepidation. This story serves to disconnect us from our power, and our spirituality. I remember the first time I met somebody who lives inside the older culture story, instead of the one our society believes. I was sitting in a dry riverbed, talking through a translator with Tommy George, a 90-year old Aboriginal king. I was asking about "spirit," and "sacred places," which led to a lengthy exchange between Tommy George and the translator, back and forth and back and forth. Finally I asked, "What's going on?" and the translator replied, "I had to explain your concept. They don't have a word for sacred." "Why?", I asked. "Because there is nothing that isn't sacred," was the reply. "They don't make the distinction."
Another dysfunctional story is that we are "in here" and nature is not only "out there," but it is inferior. Since we are superior, having been given dominion by our creator, we can control and manipulate it. But when I asked Tommy
George a question about nature, he went into another long exchange with the translator. The reason? "They don't have a word for nature, because there isn't any 'not nature.' Everything is, so there is no need for the word. Humans, animals, plants, soil, the sky -- it's all one thing."

Siz

What about Windows7? Is that nature?

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

reddevil0126

Would humanoids consider Windows7 nature if they have it installed and go through what we experience?     

Siz

Quote from: reddevil0126 on April 05, 2012, 01:39:46 PM
Would humanoids consider Windows7 nature if they have it installed and go through what we experience?     
I'm not quite sure what you mean to say by this. Our reaction to something is governed by nature; the thing itself may not necessarily be 'natural'.

Let's start with a definition:

Quote from: Oxford dictionaryNatural
1.existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Note: The above is applicable to the ENGLISH definition only.

My point is that historically the language of the Aboriginals was sufficient to describe the world around them and their experience of existence. I question whether this is sufficient to describe our world today.

When you say 'we are all sacred', that is your judgement. Just like 'The Universal Bill of Human rights' is a contrived document which was set up to try to address fairness. I dont remember 'nature' ever being fair.

'Sacred' is personal, just like morality or rights. My bikes are sacred to me, but I dare say not to you! I dont expect anyone else to consider the same things sacred, only to have respect for anothers opinions of the same. However materialistic you may consider my stance, you cannot take away my own value judgements.


When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Ali

I guess I don't really understand the distinction between natural and not either, when you get right down to it.  Windows7 was created by man, sure, but what about that makes it "not natural?"  All of the materials used to create computers are found here on earth, and all of the knowledge used to create them and to create programs that run on them are an outpouring of man's native talent for innovation, so which part is unnatural?  If a monkey fashions a tool out of his own native intelligence and out of materials that he finds in his environment, would you consider that to be "unnatural?"

Siz

Quote from: Ali on April 05, 2012, 05:17:51 PM
I guess I don't really understand the distinction between natural and not either, when you get right down to it.  Windows7 was created by man, sure, but what about that makes it "not natural?"  All of the materials used to create computers are found here on earth, and all of the knowledge used to create them and to create programs that run on them are an outpouring of man's native talent for innovation, so which part is unnatural?  If a monkey fashions a tool out of his own native intelligence and out of materials that he finds in his environment, would you consider that to be "unnatural?"


The word 'nature' exists to differentiate that which occurs with human input from that which does not. That is according to the Oxford Dictionary. The operative word being 'HUMAN'. By its very definition, anything affected by humans is 'unnatural'. Whether or not you choose to use the word differently, the defined meaning of the word is clear. Otherwise why, indeed, would we need to use it at all?

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Crow

Of course its all one thing, we just view reality from a human perception.

Quote from: Scissorlegs on April 05, 2012, 01:11:44 PM
What about Windows7? Is that nature?

Its human made but possible within the physical laws so it is natural.
Retired member.

Siz

Quote from: Crow on April 05, 2012, 06:05:08 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on April 05, 2012, 01:11:44 PM
What about Windows7? Is that nature?
Its human made but possible within the physical laws so it is natural.

Not according to the dictionary definition of 'natural'.

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Ali

Quote from: Scissorlegs on April 05, 2012, 05:42:37 PM
Quote from: Ali on April 05, 2012, 05:17:51 PM
I guess I don't really understand the distinction between natural and not either, when you get right down to it.  Windows7 was created by man, sure, but what about that makes it "not natural?"  All of the materials used to create computers are found here on earth, and all of the knowledge used to create them and to create programs that run on them are an outpouring of man's native talent for innovation, so which part is unnatural?  If a monkey fashions a tool out of his own native intelligence and out of materials that he finds in his environment, would you consider that to be "unnatural?"


The word 'nature' exists to differentiate that which occurs with human input from that which does not. That is according to the Oxford Dictionary. The operative word being 'HUMAN'. By its very definition, anything affected by humans is 'unnatural'. Whether or not you choose to use the word differently, the defined meaning of the word is clear. Otherwise why, indeed, would we need to use it at all?

I think that's reddevil's point - some other cultures don't use the word because they don't differentiate.

Crow

Quote from: Scissorlegs on April 05, 2012, 06:41:59 PM
Quote from: Crow on April 05, 2012, 06:05:08 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on April 05, 2012, 01:11:44 PM
What about Windows7? Is that nature?
Its human made but possible within the physical laws so it is natural.

Not according to the dictionary definition of 'natural'.

hmm indeed you are correct. Mine states: "Natural - existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". so I looked up nature and this is what I got "Nature - the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations". Now call me stupid but aren't humans animals, this definition seems to be stuck in archaic thinking that humans are superior to other forms of life. I don't think I will be using either word from now on.
Retired member.

Siz

#10
Quote from: Ali on April 05, 2012, 07:17:24 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on April 05, 2012, 05:42:37 PM
Quote from: Ali on April 05, 2012, 05:17:51 PM
I guess I don't really understand the distinction between natural and not either, when you get right down to it.  Windows7 was created by man, sure, but what about that makes it "not natural?"  All of the materials used to create computers are found here on earth, and all of the knowledge used to create them and to create programs that run on them are an outpouring of man's native talent for innovation, so which part is unnatural?  If a monkey fashions a tool out of his own native intelligence and out of materials that he finds in his environment, would you consider that to be "unnatural?"


The word 'nature' exists to differentiate that which occurs with human input from that which does not. That is according to the Oxford Dictionary. The operative word being 'HUMAN'. By its very definition, anything affected by humans is 'unnatural'. Whether or not you choose to use the word differently, the defined meaning of the word is clear. Otherwise why, indeed, would we need to use it at all?

I think that's reddevil's point - some other cultures don't use the word because they don't differentiate.

If it works for them in their at-one-with-nature lifestyles, then great! The inability to differentiate is of little consequence when there is no discernable[edit] material difference between ones own existence and that of the animal kingdom around, and where the impact of your way of life on your environment isn't noticable in a wider context. But I see no reason to consider that a positive in our technicised culture. In the modern age where human influence is (mis-)shaping the planet, I see the inability to differentiate as a failure. We need to be able to put some context to the global (or more local) changes happening around us.

Quote from: Crow
hmm indeed you are correct. Mine states: "Natural - existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind". so I looked up nature and this is what I got "Nature - the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations". Now call me stupid but aren't humans animals, this definition seems to be stuck in archaic thinking that humans are superior to other forms of life. I don't think I will be using either word from now on.

This doesn't necessarily imply 'superior', just different. That's a fair assertion don't you think?


When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Asmodean

If they don't use the word "sacred", is it because "everyhing" is, or "nothing"?

I don't use that word either, you see, but I would not like someone twisting the whys of it into an explanation that invokes the phrase "because everything is sacred".
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on July 25, 2013, 08:18:52 PM
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

AnimatedDirt

Quote from: Crow on April 05, 2012, 07:45:55 PM
Now call me stupid but aren't humans animals, this definition seems to be stuck in archaic thinking that humans are superior to other forms of life.

We're not?  Did another life form on earth travel to and from space by their own means of knowledge, technology and their ability to bulid and reason the need/desire to do so...not to mention communication across the globe via 101 keys to name two?  

Siz

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 05, 2012, 09:09:03 PM
Quote from: Crow on April 05, 2012, 07:45:55 PM
Now call me stupid but aren't humans animals, this definition seems to be stuck in archaic thinking that humans are superior to other forms of life.

We're not?  Did another life form on earth travel to and from space by their own means of knowledge, technology and their ability to bulid and reason the need/desire to do so...not to mention communication across the globe via 101 keys to name two?  

Again, this does not automatically imply superiority, we're just different.

When one sleeps on the floor one need not worry about falling out of bed - Anton LaVey

The universe is a cold, uncaring void. The key to happiness isn't a search for meaning, it's to just keep yourself busy with unimportant nonsense, and eventually you'll be dead!

Stevil

Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 05, 2012, 09:09:03 PM
Quote from: Crow on April 05, 2012, 07:45:55 PM
Now call me stupid but aren't humans animals, this definition seems to be stuck in archaic thinking that humans are superior to other forms of life.

We're not?  Did another life form on earth travel to and from space by their own means of knowledge, technology and their ability to bulid and reason the need/desire to do so...not to mention communication across the globe via 101 keys to name two?  
Have humans ever reqrown a lost limb?
Or morphed from a crawling creature into a flying creature?
Or changed the colour of their skin to blend into the background?
Or hibernate through all the months of winter (some frogs hibernate for years)