The flipside of the previous nature discussion:

In the grand scheme of all worldly things, there are a seemingly infinite number of natural occurrences all happening at random times in random places. Some of these are obviously dependant on another, while others are not so subtle. Whether the occurrence is a geological phenomenon such as an earthquake, or the hatching of a hummingbird egg, all natural events are prompted by some other natural event. If each event is prompted by another, and that one by another, then there is established a chain of events or an interconnecting web of natural occurrences. If all of this can occur naturally at random, than how do we humans, with all of the unnatural processes we induce unto the world, fit in with this natural web?

As just mentioned, all natural events are caused by yet another natural event and so forth. This Aristotelian principle of infinite regression is just the movement of an efficient cause to its effect. With this established, one can infer that all things naturally occurring are, in part, dependent on another. If the existence of all things is dependent on other things and those on others, then it seems logical that without the dependence of other things, some would cease to continue forth with the chain. A plant, for instance, needs ground nutrients to create certain sugars to provide itself with sufficient energy. If, excluding possible adaptation, these vital nutrients were to suddenly vanish, then the plant would cease to survive. Now, presuming that the nutrients provided are from deceased plants and organisms that eat this type of plant, then to cut this supply of plants would devastate an entire ecosystem. It is this utter dependence on other things which bond all things together.

With all of this stated, how is it that humans, as a natural species of this earth, depend on mostly everything else in this world, but in turn, nothing else depends upon us? Before the existence of humans, natural processes occurred flawlessly without our infectious presence. If humans were to suddenly vanish, life would continue for the rest of the world, unscathed by our disappearance. However, if all other things which we are dependent upon suddenly vanish, then we would undoubtedly resort to cannibalism and eventually go mad. Granted, however, there are some species of plants and animals that adapt to and manage to cope with our presence, whereas we do not with the rest of the natural world. These species would only be temporarily affected by our disappearance and would adapt otherwise.

I suppose that the ultimate statement in mind would be this. If we are so totally dependent of our surroundings, and it being totally independent of us, then how can our existence be dependent on its preceding causes, when we are not the cause of any other? It all points to the notion of infinite regress. That if all things are prompted by another cause — that which makes it dependent thereof — how can we continue the vast web of causal relationships if we, in turn, are the efficient cause of nothing but ourselves? All of this seems as if we were bluntly introduced into this world that is totally independent of us, as is an infectious rampant organism into a perfectly healthy human child.

An old pondering on Nature.

In observing those things we deem the term “natural”, it may be drawn that those things we label as natural are things that continue on their path of existence without human aid. Of course, being the moderately egocentric creatures that we are, we devise such terms to explicate those vexing tings that tickle our inquisitive minds. But, it can be quickly seen that our definition only works for us, in that it is man-made. It can be argued that this labeling of natural things is the direct result of man establishing the hierarchy upon which he sits paramount.  If so, then all things exist by the boundaries we establish for them. For example, in all of nature’s processes, if one observes something unusual or out of ordinary, it is thus deemed “supernatural, “preternatural,” or metaphysical. Simply because it cannot be explained means not that it sits askew with our standards of nature, but rather our inability to comprehend existence outside of those natural standards. I have heard of certain Inuit tribes, who, in observation of aurora borealis, manifested belief systems on the notion that what they observed was something beyond natural and worldly. It is known to most societies as scientific fact that aurora borealis is the direct effect of Earth’s magnetic field reflecting cosmic energies, and not some deified being emitting spectra of vibrant colors.

So what is nature? For me, and most others, it can be agreed that nature is quite simply the sum of things occurring independently of extra-local forces and continuing on for eternity as such within the limits of this world. Disagreeably, I must say that as organisms of this expansive web of natural events, that we cannot declare our own definition thereof, for natural things may and do occur outside of human cognition.  Within a Christian frame of mind, we may say that God, the Almighty Creator, of the Heavens and the Earth, allows all things, thus encompassing all events as natural. When I first stumbled upon this thought, I understood it as this: If all of God’s creations are good and natural, why cannot the creations of those be natural as well?  If this be so, then all things within time and space would be natural. With this in mind, one may conclude that even man’s creations are natural and just extensions of natural being. It can be widely agreed that adaptive characteristics are natural for every species on the planet; natural even to the extent of fulfilling our qualifications for nature. An ape makes tools for food foraging, or a bird makes a nest to shelter its offspring. So why must a man’s creation be accepted as unnatural? After all, all things created by man are adaptive in their own way. But then, one may refute art as a non-adaptive creation of man that cannot be defined as natural. It is said that we are the only beings here that create for pure aesthetic or self-expression. For the open mind, this is the chief extension of nature amongst all others. It is the direct manifestation of emotion, soul, and God’s greatest self-residual creation: Creativity. In creating, we are practicing that which with we share most with God. We can only taste a hint at the creative ability bestowed upon us, for we are in the masterpiece of the Great Architect, and for Him to share with us the divine ability to create what is natural within us is the supremely natural gift. So, with all this said, we may continue to see nature as the squirrel in the tree, tree in the earth, clouds in the sky, but it is absolutely imperative that we include ourselves and our selfish actions as parts of the natural process, as the contrary would prove to be downright arrogance.

On my way to work this morning, I was thinking about the perception of color.  Since all brains and all eyes and all optical nerves and all the processes of the psyche are unique to the individual, do we have different perceptions of color from one another? 

Would it be a cultural thing?  Does the Harvard graduate have the same perception of the color red as the bushman in Papua New Guinea? 

Would it be a gender thing?  Do women see the same fuschia as men? Doubtful.

Could it be an age thing?  Does the child see the same brightly hued yellow flower as her grandfather? 

The truth, I think, can never be known, because as with other untangible things, color is defined within the individual. 

My brother is awesome.

globalista:

Abandoned villa #3. View from bedroom

 Yes Please.

From my favorite spot on earth: the Rosengarten, Bern, Switzerland

What I would not give to walk the earth as she was a thousand years ago, yet unspoiled by the filth and consumption of humankind — to experience this world as God intended. It saddens me to know and acknowledge that I never will…

Random thought:

If two twin girls married two twin boys, would all of their children look the same? Doubtful, but interesting to think about.

Be free.