A thread on the Teahouse started me thinking again about something that I’ve been working up towards for a long time , it’s probably not the most popular position I’ve ever taken, but I do think it’s accurate.
We seem to define natural as being Earth, our biosphere, by which I mean plants, animals and things arising and related to them, and anything arising there without mans contrivance. Now that’s a slightly vague definition, I readily admit that, but that seems to me to be the closest I can get without spending more time than I’m willing to.
As we’re talking dualities, ‘unnatural’ is, therefore everything that is not covered by the definition of natural. Which I take to be industry, technology and the artifacts and effects associated with them. Again, vague, but the best I can do without being here all day. The supernatural and occult I will, for the sake of completeness, consider as well; leaving aside all judgements as to the existence or not of these things.
So my question is very simple; What if we’re wrong? What if natural/unnatural and supernatural are rather arbitrary definitions, maybe even only held by Western culture? My charge is that we are guilty of not thinking outside the box, the box in this case being Earth.
We know that the first element in the universe was hydrogen, this was enormously abundant and formed the first giant stars. These star were incredibly unstable as they were so big and exploded, showering the cosmos with all the other matter including the matter that makes up the Earth and everything on it That’s right we are starstuff, along with everything else here. That by the way, includes your car, your microwave, the monitor you’re using to read this and everything else we define as “unnatural”.
So how then do we justify this line drawing? It’s seems odd taking matter that was created along with everything else in the cosmos and that, on that scale can certainly be considered to be naturally occurring things and then dividing it out like that.
I think the whole thing seems to be based on superficial form, after all nature as we seem to mean it is something built on top of the basic building blocks of the universe but not intrinsic to them. Or to put it another way, we know something of atoms, but atoms know nothing of us.
December 13th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
If I am understanding you correctly, then I agree.
It’s not that some things are natural and others are un-natural (as everything is made up of the same particles). I think it’s more that some arrangements of particles cause less damage to the environment that others.
When particles are arranged into the atoms and elements that make up a tomato, for example, no damage is done (unless you hate tomatoes). But when particles are arranged into the chemical equation that creates dioxin, damage is done.
I’ve really been enjoying your blog.
December 13th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
One way to go about this is to allow that all “reality” is “nature”–that the two are basically synonymous. But then, of course, the question becomes, What is real? A still greater conundrum, in my view. Thanks for these challenging thoughts!
December 13th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I think we can justify the line-drawing because it serves a useful purpose. Similarly, in Buddhism there are the dualities of self/not-self and relative truth/absolute truth. It’s just easier to use conventional ways to describe things that, on a deeper level, may be indescribable.
December 14th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Kay, I agree, the arrangement of the particles is the killer. I’ve been keeping an eye on the Bali Climate Conference, I hope they can break the deadlock that’s going on at the minute. We need to take prompt action while we still have the chance.
Peter, that’s the direction I’m heading in my own very roundabout meandering way.
Paul, I agree with you, I just think that there’s a very real danger of us getting caught in the dualities and not seeing the wood for the trees. Of course, none of this reduces the usefulness of the line drawing, we just have to keep in mind that it’s nothing more than that.
December 17th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
As with everything else, the idea of ‘dualities’ is just a notion. A mode of thinking.
Natural or un-natural. Physical or non-physical. Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Can a car have a spirit? I think in one way or another, most objects are imbued with an essense which can be termed as ’spirit’.
I feel it is actually very useful to move away from the notion of catagorising things…
December 18th, 2007 at 3:24 am
I prefer to think of it as things made by nature and things that are man-made. If you carve a cup from wood, it is still basically “natural” but also man-made. If you make a cup from plastic, it is no longer natural but a man-made product. The material it is made from does not “naturally” occur, but must be produced first.
January 12th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
As something of a lurker, I hope you don’t mind my 2cents. My take on things are that there is no unnatural. Honey for instance does not appear in nature without the bee to make it. Plastic is made from natural elements, by natural beings for natural reasons.
Too many cars are hard on the environment, but so are too many volcanoes. Too many deer, without enough wolfs can damage the local environment. Nature messes with the environment, and so do we. It’s all natural.
I do not see man made as unnatural. We, people are natural, and what me make and do is natural. That said, naturally we can mess things up personally, locally, and globally.
Hope that made sense.