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."
What about Windows7? Is that nature?
Would humanoids consider Windows7 nature if they have it installed and go through what we experience?
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.
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?"
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?
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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?
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: 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?
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.
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)
I think an engineer would be quite ashamed of himself if he created a machine as flawed as a human is with the purpose of survival in nature.
Yes, we consider ourselves smart, but we are slow, we can swim, but not very well, we can not fly, no fangs, no razor claws, not even a proper tail... Oh, and ears that can not be pointed every which way... The list goes on, really. I think much of the reason for our relative success is that the rest of land-based life is as imperfect as we are, only in different ways.
Quote from: Stevil on April 05, 2012, 09:17:06 PM
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)
Are you suggesting that the "road" to what has become homosapien hasn't done any of these things? Is it not the going idea that we humans and all that is on earth came to be from cosmic dust? If so, I'd say we have done all these things, but have evolved away from these.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 05, 2012, 09:28:24 PM
Quote from: Stevil on April 05, 2012, 09:17:06 PM
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)
Are you suggesting that the "road" to what has become homosapien hasn't done any of these things? Is it not the going idea that we humans and all that is on earth came to be from cosmic dust? If so, I'd say we have done all these things, but have evolved away from these.
All animals are special in their own way.
Humans are just an animal, inferior to other animals in many ways.
Quote from: Stevil on April 05, 2012, 09:47:24 PM
All animals are special in their own way.
Humans are just an animal, inferior to other animals in many ways.
I can accept that, however I'd say that the "inferior" points are likely overcome. i.e. Flying. We may not be able to fly ourselves, but we do make some contraptions that get a whole lot of us from point A to point B a lot faster. :)
Quote from: Scissorlegs on April 05, 2012, 08:59:32 PM
This doesn't necessarily imply 'superior', just different. That's a fair assertion don't you think?
Nope. I'm a firm believer that humanity is no different from any form of life, we have just evolved in a way that has made us a highly successful species, we may be made up of trillions of cells but at a fundamental level act no different than a single celled organism. I don't see how looking at an ants nest is any different than looking at a city, we may be different than the vast majority of life due to many different reasons but that doesn't mean we are separate from it, we are just one of the myriad manifestations that has happened through the long history of life on this planet.
Quote from: Crow on April 05, 2012, 11:16:49 PM
I don't see how looking at an ants nest is any different than looking at a city,...
This ant from a mound on the west coast of the U.S. is communicating with another ant in another mound from across the Atlantic (apparently) within seconds. One difference.
Quote from: Crow on April 05, 2012, 11:16:49 PM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on April 05, 2012, 08:59:32 PM
This doesn't necessarily imply 'superior', just different. That's a fair assertion don't you think?
Nope. I'm a firm believer that humanity is no different from any form of life, we have just evolved in a way that has made us a highly successful species, we may be made up of trillions of cells but at a fundamental level act no different than a single celled organism. I don't see how looking at an ants nest is any different than looking at a city, we may be different than the vast majority of life due to many different reasons but that doesn't mean we are separate from it, we are just one of the myriad manifestations that has happened through the long history of life on this planet.
I agree with you on most counts, but I believe we are entitled to separate ourselves. If we're capable of screwing the whole place up for all creatures, we must take responsibility for our actions aside from all creatures. We're not superior to any creature, we're not of higher value than any other creature, we simply have an ability to manipulate our surroundings more than any other creature... by a long way. That makes us different, and our very different brains allow us the ability to contemplate our difference. And assert it.
Quote from: Stevil on April 05, 2012, 09:17:06 PM
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)
Seriously. Most creatures, mamals and non mamals alike are amazing.
I still think it's so cool that camels can live on so little water.
And the way female vampire bats hunt; so cool! :)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 06, 2012, 03:39:56 AM
Quote from: Stevil on April 05, 2012, 09:17:06 PM
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)
Seriously. Most creatures, mamals and non mamals alike are amazing.
I still think it's so cool that camels can live on so little water.
And the way female vampire bats hunt; so cool! :)
Yes! Living Creatures are just AMAZING in general!! At least we have a large brain/body ratio which allows us to appreciate the immense diversity of life ;D I love seeing videos of deep sea creatures!! They're so strange; almost from another world.
Definitely :)
And jhst think, there are creatures beneath the sea we haven't discovered yet. How can they live in total darkness under such intense pressure??