?uestioning natural

[happyhippyflower]

Who ever determined what is natural and what isn't? Is it documented with an originator or is it something that `just is` because that's what we've been passing down to generation after generation? Something else?
i see those eyes - they are sharp

[I'minmyunderwear]

basically what is natural is not man-made. of course, that isn't an exact definition, but i'm not going to bother with more details after so many beers

[Mr MiGu]

so if an animal makes something, you would consider that natural?
arent we just animals ourselves?

[I'minmyunderwear]

i've never heard of an animal making anything that i wouldn't consider natural, like a beehive or beaver dam. if one were to build a car or something, then i would have no answer to whether it were natural.

yes we are animals, but we are also man. thus, man-made does refer to us, but not to any other animal

[Colours]

anything that isnt processed, manufactured, or programmed

[Hikaru Zero]

anything that isnt processed, manufactured, or programmed

Unless it's by some being that has some kind of property like omnipotence or omniscience.

Not saying one exists!

In which case, 'natural' cooresponds with 'deity-made'.

[Bhaskar]

Animals are not creative the way man is. The bees have been making the same hive of the same design for their entire history, the beavers have been making the same dam. They dont innovate. They may adapt gradually through evolution, but that is not te same thing. What animals make is a result of their instinct, not intellect. When humans create it a result of intellect, not instinct. Therefore the distinction is valid. Especially since the human intellect is unable to see the whole picture, therefore in its limited vision it ends up messing up all things natural.

Another way of looking at it is: That which is natural maintains the harmony of creation, it does not burden the earth. Basically, whenever an action is in correspondence with dharma, then it is natural.

[WayfaringStranger]

its one of those things that you get it or you dont get it. you can try to convince someone that something that is unnatural is natural, but youll only succeed in convincing yourself. someone who gets it, well they are going to belive what they believe. "natural" is just one word in one language, it can really mean anything. but no matter how you interpret the word, you cant change the essence of the concept. something that we would attribute the word unnatural to would be something that wouldnt comeabout in nature without humans. such as gasoline or plastic.
the argument "arent we just animals" is not a good one, because most of us can see the obvious differences between humans and animals, as well as the similarities.

[Bhaskar]

gasoline would be there without humans, just that it would be way down under the ground...

[WayfaringStranger]

i hope youre joking

[nitemarehippygirl]

Animals are not creative the way man is. The bees have been making the same hive of the same design for their entire history, the beavers have been making the same dam. They dont innovate. They may adapt gradually through evolution, but that is not te same thing. What animals make is a result of their instinct, not intellect. When humans create it a result of intellect, not instinct. Therefore the distinction is valid. Especially since the human intellect is unable to see the whole picture, therefore in its limited vision it ends up messing up all things natural.

Another way of looking at it is: That which is natural maintains the harmony of creation, it does not burden the earth. Basically, whenever an action is in correspondence with dharma, then it is natural.
so basically, creation which springs from instinct is natural whereas creation which springs from intellect is unnatural.
is man basically unnatural to the earth, then?
or where is the line drawn between instinct and intellect, exactly- how can we know that much of man's actions now are still based on one or the other?

[Bhaskar]

read the second paragraph

[Hikaru Zero]

OIL would be there even if humans didn't exist ...

gasoline, on the other hand, would not. Therefore, it's unnatural.

[Bhaskar]

Gasoline is oil. It wouldnt be separated form the other fractions of petroleum, but it would exist nonetheless.

[TrippinBTM]

Most people use the word "natural" to mean non-manmade, and "organic" in that it isn't linear or something made for itself. Organic things grow WITH their environment, while many human constructions are made with only that thing in mind, very linear.

But I say, there is no unnatural; it is a false duality, this natural-unnatural. There IS, however, "undesirable." Our cities are the result of natural processes, including the same old physical laws, as well as it being made by humans (who are natural) and with natural materials, or materials made of natural materials (plastics from petroleum products). All this is very new to earth but isn't really unnatural. The results, however, are often undesirable.

[Keepin'on]

The use of the word "natural" isn't precise.It has a general meaning.If you want to parse it all out you won't find an absolute.

A potato is more natural than a box of Ore-ida potato flakes.A potato grown without chemical fertilizers and pesticides is more natural than one that isn't. A Mr Potatohead is less natural than the box of Ore Ida flakes.


If you want to get lawyerly you could try to make Mr Potatohead "natural" because he's made out of atoms that are found in nature,but you'd be missing the point of common usage, and I might not want to eat at your house.

[Bhaskar]

Trippin, from the standpoint you speak of, all dualities, such as natural and unnatural, like and dislike, heat and cold, etc resolve themselves into oneness. This is the level of the absolute, which is me. and you. and everything nautral and unnatural, hot and cold. Unity is bliss.